 One of the tweets that we've pulled here was you weighing in on this question of children and vaccines on Twitter before it was transformed into X. This was in March, 2021. You said you're replying to somebody who's saying that younger people should get vaccinated and you say no. Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people and their caretakers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it, nor children. You've got a little notification under there. This tweet is misleading. Learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people and nobody was allowed to share or like that. Talk a little bit about, reflect a little bit about that period of time, the old version of Twitter and what it was like trying to communicate under that kind of regime. Well, first of all, I think what I said there is true. So I don't think it was misleading, I think, and I think it has been confirmed to be true. But it's shocking to me that I'm a scientist and I'm saying simple basic public health facts and that that's being censored because it contradicts something that the government thought which actually turned out to be wrong. So if you had told me four years ago that I would be censored, I would have thought you were crazy. That could never happen. I would censor scientists. And of course, this is true information that the Twitter censored. And in this particular case, we know it was the behest of the government because the government funded this entity at Stanford called the Variety Project. So they funded them to go after certain things on social media that the government didn't like. And it was the Variety Project who contacted the Twitter and said, please do something about this tweet. So we know there was a clear link from the federal government to pressure the social media companies to remove what in this case was true information. Now, I think that the First Amendment right is important whether the information is true or false. So if you want to claim that the earth is flat, you should be allowed to do that. Nobody should censor you for saying that. But in this case, the social media company censored accurate information at the behest of the federal government. And to me, that's kind of shocking. And it wasn't just Twitter. It's also our censor by YouTube, which is owned by Google. I was censored by LinkedIn, which is owned by Microsoft. And I was censored by Facebook. So I've actually got that. I've got that clip of you being of the YouTube's takedown as well. This is where you appeared in March of 2021 with Governor Florida Governor Ron DeSantis doing a roundtable discussion with some other epidemiologists that Jay Bottetaria was there. Let's roll that clip because that's another one worth reflecting on now in the rear view mirror of 2024. Let's see, like, how bad was what you were saying in this roundtable? Ian, could you roll that clip? These lockdowns and contact tracing and masks that were not able to prevent the resurgence of the disease during the winter. And the problem is that the belief that the pandemic could be suppressed through these lockdowns meant that in a lot of places in the world, people did not use focused protections of the old. They thought that the lockdowns would protect the old, but they didn't. So they didn't put in the standard public health message to actually properly protect the older, higher risk people. And I think that's very tragic. And it has led to many unnecessary death among our older citizens for all people have to be very careful because this is more dangerous than the annual influenza. But for children, this is less dangerous than the annual influenza. So we should have utilized that feature of the of it to protect the old with focused protection while letting younger people live normal life to avoid all the collateral public health damage from the lockdown, which are enormous. Dr. Gupta mentioned about, you know, not putting masks on kids. That's not effective, not necessary. Martin, Boulder, do you agree in school? There's no need for them to be wearing face masks? Children should not wear face masks, no. They don't need it for their own protection. And they don't need it for protecting other people either. I believe that was that last comment that angered the YouTube moderators spreading misinformation about children and masks, you know, reflecting on all that now, is there anything you would change or say differently? Or do you pretty much stand by all that? I stand by it. And I think this issue with masks is actually very problematic, because we know from from randomized trials from one from Denmark and one that was done in Bangladesh, that the protection for masks is either zero or minuscule. The Danish study find no benefit. And the study found a benefit between reducing it by between zero and 18%, which is almost nothing or nothing. So actually, the fact that people were told that the mask will protect them is actually very dangerous to do. It's a very bad public health messaging, because you don't have people like older people, let's say the 75 year old man that Liz was talking about. He may be, oh, okay, I like to go to this crowded restaurant. But I'll put on the mask and everybody's wearing masks will be safe. Well, that's not the case. During the height of the pandemic is 74, five year old man should not be in a crowded restaurant. So it's dangerous. But then you told people, well, we're a mask can be safe. That's not very dangerous. They give sort of a false sense of protection. And then so I think people actually died because they were falsely told that the mask will protect them. So when they didn't. So that's very dangerous public health measures thing to do. So they shouldn't have done that. What did you what was your reaction when you heard that that round table with the sitting governor of the third largest state in the US was taken down off YouTube? Yeah, I think that was again shocking because you even censor a governor elected governor of the state. But that's also related to LinkedIn, for example, I retweeted or I reposted something I didn't add anything on myself. Yes, we posted something that was said by the state acknowledges of Iceland, which is sort of the equivalent of the CDC director for Iceland. And that was censors, they even censored the official views by a foreign government official. So it's clear that they were willing to censor anybody who said anything against official narrative. And I think the reason they did it is that they didn't have any arguments. If they had had good arguments, they would use those in a debate and explain things. Since they didn't, they had to do either censoring or slandering. And they did both of those things. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our show, Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here. And please subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel and the Just Asking Questions podcast feed for notifications when we post new episodes every Thursday.