 Carl Hennigan and Sinettra Gupta, who were the most influential opponents of lockdowns last winter, even having a meeting with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak about it in September. They were completely wrong. It was very damaging. Their advice probably cost lives. Anyway, they were back on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph calling for all restrictions to be removed in June. I'm sure you've got the website version of it. It was on the front page of the Telegraph. Now, again, some of this is reasonable. They're saying that vaccine passports won't be necessary given the vaccines are effective. Probably true. But the whole thing here and the fact this makes its way so easily to the front of the Telegraph, I do find pretty problematic. One, because they're just there to sort of rush. Everything's a rush, rush, rush, rush. And I think actually the approach the government is taking in this situation, which is slow and steady. Let's get there. But we don't have to say everything goes back to normal on the 21st of June. We can slowly get back to normal while we're looking at the data. They're saying, no, don't bother doing that. There's no risk anymore. The risk is completely gone. Let's just drop everything back to normal 21st of June. Again, that would be nice to believe. Might even be true. Might even be possible. I don't think that's beyond the realms of plausibility that we could drop everything on the 21st of June. And we wouldn't have a catastrophe afterwards. But these are the last people in the world I would believe when they say this. Probably actually Piers Morgan and Lawrence Fox would be slightly higher. But these are fairly close. Sinetra Gupta is an Oxford epidemiologist, theoretical epidemiologist. She has been wrong so many times in this pandemic. It's unreal. It's why it's so unreal that she got invited to Downing Street in September. This is an article from May 2020. It's May 2020 after the first wave. Sinetra Gupta, COVID-19 is on the way out. This is Freddie Sayers writing up an interview with her. You can watch the whole interview on YouTube. It says the author of the Oxford model defends her view that the virus has passed through the UK's population. Now, the Oxford model there, sort of the unholy opposite of the Oxford vaccine, was her view put out in May that potentially already two-thirds of the people had had COVID-19. This was in May in 2020. And so, therefore, we'd got to herd immunity. By that point, 35,000 people have died. We now are 150,000 people. So that was as wrong as you can be. Carl Hennigan also has a history of being as wrong as you can be on this. This is from September 2020, just before our catastrophic second wave. Boris Johnson must have been the rule of six and stopped panicking. The Prime Minister has made one cautious catastrophic error after another. So he's saying, the problem with Boris Johnson is he's just been too cautious, which is probably why you have Boris Johnson in those meetings saying, I'd prefer to see bodies pile up than have another lockdown because he's got these academics with big titles under their names telling him you don't need to do it. Still, they have a direct line to the telegraph and can appear on the front page. I find that personally pretty worrying. I mean, I do think that if you've made this many catastrophic errors, you shouldn't be able to get put on the front page of a newspaper any time you make a statement. Ash, am I being overly harsh? Everyone makes mistakes. Is that what's happened here? Maybe they've got this one right, even if they got everything wrong a year ago or four months ago? No. I mean, and this is kind of the thing about journalism and politics is that it looks at academia in very, very reductive ways. So the academics you like, people who you agree with, people who serve particular political purposes are elevated almost into being spokespeople for their entire discipline. So even though Sinatra Gupta and Carl Hennigan are minority voices within their field, and a lot of their work has been robustly criticized and some of it has been discredited and debunked, is that these are people who by virtue of being helpful for a political narrative are able to enjoy really close relationships to those in powerful positions in politics and in journalism. And this is something that you see all the time, which is people who maybe haven't done so well in their field of academia, who many of their work has been criticized by their peers using this in the humanities all the time, are sort of adopted by various politicians and various papers as a kind of, you know, prof washing is what I'd call it, you know, so you sprinkle in your, you know, PhDs and your professorships and it legitimizes and launders dodgy opinions, shall we say. And that's kind of the role that you see Sinatra Gupta and Carl Hennigan playing in terms of the public conversation. Now, they might be completely sincere in a lot of the things that they're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that it's a minority view in terms of where the data shows effect of action being taken. It's not where you see lockdown skeptic policies being implemented. It's ones where you have, you know, quick action really early on, and then slow unlocking, which is responsive to what the data and what the testing is telling you it's the opposite of what they're saying. And so I agree with you, I think that it's dangerous. I think it's wrongheaded to platform these people in this kind of way. But it's happening because it serves a political purpose. And it's one which gets people into the offices as quickly as possible, returns to an economic status quo where people are, you know, exploitable when they're worried about their job, when they're, you know, in really precarious positions. And things go back to the very worst of how it used to be. Not just the fun stuff of getting back in the club, which we all want. Yeah, no, I agree. And I mean, we should clarify, I'm sure when you say we shouldn't platform, you don't mean we should know platform, Carl Hennigan, it's more that you shouldn't put on your headline, scientists believe all restrictions should be dropped on the 21st of June without putting in the second paragraph. By the way, all of these scientists were wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong over and over again for the past 12 months. I'm absolutely not talking about no platforming. I'm talking about the contextualizing is really important. So what kind of platform do you give somebody? When you have had, you know, Synaetra Gupta, for instance, on Radio 4, it was, I think, a very light touch, soft interview, which was deference to the academic title. And so that's what I mean by platform, one which takes the title of professor at face value and doesn't do any deeper digging.