Four years ago, the U.S. government implemented strict “social-distancing” policies, requiring Americans to stay six feet apart from others in all public spaces. However, former National Institute of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins has now confessed that these policies were not based on any scientific evidence. This revelation highlights the dangers of the government’s crackdown on what it deems to be “disinformation.”
A memo obtained by National Review from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic reveals Collins’ admission during closed-door testimony earlier this year. He stated that there was no evidence to support the six-foot social distancing rule when it was initially implemented by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on March 22, 2020.
Collins acknowledged that he had not seen any scientific evidence supporting the six-foot distancing requirement and that he had not come across any such evidence since then. This admission suggests that the government’s imposition of these restrictions on Americans was not grounded in sound scientific reasoning.
The government’s collaboration with Big Tech to suppress dissenting views on COVID-19 further exacerbated the situation. By labeling any contradictory information as “misinformation” or “disinformation,” federal officials effectively monopolized information dissemination, spreading false narratives about the necessity of social distancing to save lives.
Numerous public figures, including Dr. Peter Hotez, Anthony Scaramucci, Mark Zuckerberg, and California Governor Gavin Newsom, echoed the government’s talking points on the importance of social distancing. However, they were unaware or chose not to disclose that the government’s directives were not based on solid scientific evidence but rather served as a means to curb free speech.
Big Tech platforms like Facebook censored dissenting voices, such as the creators of The Great Barrington Declaration and podcast host Joe Rogan. Even former President Donald Trump faced censorship for his views on reopening schools. The Biden administration continued this trend by pressuring social media companies to remove posts questioning COVID-19 vaccines.
The government justified its censorship efforts as crucial for public health and saving lives during the pandemic. However, as seen in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, the government’s suppression of dissenting opinions only served to promote its own misinformation and limit public discourse.
In conclusion, the government’s war on “disinformation” is often a guise for controlling the narrative and silencing opposing viewpoints. The admission by Collins that the six-foot social distancing rule lacked scientific basis underscores the need for transparency and accountability in government actions.
