This article was originally published by Ethan Huff at Natural News under the title: Science papers now subject to extreme censorship if they question the “official” narrative on anything: COVID, AIDS, vaccines, climate, virology, and more.
The “moderators” at Cornell University‘s arXiv server, an open-access archive and free distribution service for scientific material, have been censoring scientific studies that they claim to contain “inflammatory content and unprofessional language.”
A “preprint server” for preliminary versions of scientific studies that are moderated but not yet peer-reviewed or published, arXiv is supposed to be neutral when it comes to what gets published. The reality, however, is that arXiv is selectively censoring studies and even banning scientists for publishing work with “controversial” viewpoints.
In one instance, researchers tried to publish a study presenting an opposing viewpoint to another study about room temperature superconductivity. Those researchers aligned with the opposing point of view study are reportedly now “in hot water” on arXiv for daring to buck the “consensus.”
The server also proceeded to ban University of California San Diego (UCSD) theoretical physicist Jorge Hirsch from posting anything on the platform for six months as punishment for his conflicting viewpoints.
“Hirsch was the author of a number of the papers that sought to represent a different point of view on a particular topic – from a paper published in October 2020 in Nature, authored by a team led by University of Rochester physicist Ranga Dias,” reported Reclaim the Net.
“As scientists do, Hirsch was skeptical of the results of the study and asked for raw data from Dias, some of which was, after many rejections, eventually provided by a co-author. The relationship between the scientists soured, and it became evident in their subsequent papers.”
Hirsch would go on to produce two papers of his own based on the data, only to have both of them blocked by arXiv administrators, who also removed another one by Dias. Many studies have also been retracted due to fake peer reviews.
“The explanation for the latter was ‘inflammatory content’ and bad language – but Hirsch says both he and Dias should not be prevented from publishing papers, since that means preventing scientists from working,” Reclaim the Net added.
“Hirsch thinks the bans and removals are ‘very unfair’ and has called on arXiv not to put its ‘arbitrary self-righteous decorum standards’ above scientists’ right to conduct unstifled debate and have their arguments ‘judged on their merits.’”
How much published “science” is actually real science?
In its defense, arXiv, which hosts over two million preprints, and its 200 moderators say that censorship is necessary to ensure that only papers with the “correct” conclusions get published.
“If we allow this stuff, what is the difference between arXiv and Twitter?” asked University of Oxford physicist Paul Fendley, who sits on arXiv’s advisory committee.
Concerning fraudulent peer reviews and other problematic elements of modern “science,” Dr. Marcia Angell, M.D., gave a lecture unpacking how special interests tamper with “science” to ensure that only certain narratives go public.
Angell attended Harvard Medical School and is a retired editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). She has been blowing the whistle on this subject for many years, even when it was unpopular and “conspiratorial” to do so.
“Science these days is more about the art of lying than about verifiable truth and facts,” wrote someone at Natural News.
“So much for the belief in peer review and the honesty and integrity of journals,” expressed another.
As for arXiv, that repository is following in the footsteps of Big Tech by flat-out censoring “controversial” science while apparently propping up status quo pseudoscience.
The moral of the story: be careful what you accept as “science” because it might not be what it seems.