I entered this conversation thinking that I already knew the story, in a way. Dr Wodarg had succeeded in preventing the WHO from creating a fake pandemic in 2009. He thought the world wasn't silly enough to be fooled twice, but he'd been wrong. 1/9

He'd previously had ready access to mainstream media and found this suddenly cut off when he opened his mouth to voice his concern about the hysterical mania of Covid. The comically corrupt whom he'd vanquished all those years ago had been waiting for him. 2/9

All sorts of web entries about his courageous and humane career in public health and politics had morphed into caricatures that painted him as a freak; a "denier", as the post-modern parlance goes, with no means of redress. 3/9

This much I knew before I even started asking questions. What I hadn't expected was to find political correspondence with him, & we found that all of a sudden towards the end of the interview. He calls himself a socialist, I call myself scale dependent, & stop there. But ... 4/9

... it turned out we'd kindled the same central concept—subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a principle in social organisation holding that functions which are performed effectively by local organisations belong more properly to them than to a dominant central one. 5/9

Here is another very enjoyable conversation, with @Pandata19’s scientific advisory board member, Dr Jay Bhattacharya. Key ideas in this thread.

We are making world-changing decisions on the basis of evidence that is not very good. Vast scientific evidence tells us that infection fatality rates are much lower than originally expected. A small fraction of people get severe illness. 2/10

The scientific community has been resistant to evidence not supporting the majoritarian view, preferring instead to gin up panic, focusing on the worst case for everything the virus does & the best case for everything lockdowns do, and ignoring the range of uncertainty. 3/10

Academe is a strange place now, with debate stifled. But there's a sense some are opening up to considering opposing views. This is key, since suppression of views stops knowledge from progressing—the end of science. Public health norms of unified messaging complicate this. 4/10

Why did we, from the start, assume we knew nothing about this virus, instead of assuming a reasonable prior? Low susceptibility was evident early on. Assuming any virus is new is hard to square with our deep-time co-evolution with viruses, & their slow evolution. 5/10