When COVID experts stay silent

Are those who stay silent on critical subjects. Going to hell?

I have a long list of famous doctors who are currently all refusing to engage in discussion. The most important and sought after fact in medical science is the mechanism of harm by the immune response. All the doctors, refuse to discuss it ……All. ….so far. And they have been , all along.

**The Moral, Ethical, and Legal Failings of Intellectuals Who Avoid Public Scientific Debate**

In an era defined by rapid information dissemination and urgent global challenges, the moral and ethical obligations of intellectuals and experts carry profound societal implications. This responsibility is heightened when they have a substantial audience and platform. When intellectuals and experts refuse to engage in public scientific debate or fail to communicate effectively about critical issues like the COVID-19 pandemic, the consequences can be catastrophic. Their silence, driven by arrogance, fear of critique, or unwillingness to address opposing views, not only undermines public trust but also contributes to societal harm, including preventable deaths. This article explores the moral, ethical, legal, and even spiritual failings of such individuals and the broader implications for society.

---

### **Moral and Ethical Failings**

#### **1. The Duty to Inform and Educate**

At the heart of intellectual and scientific expertise lies a moral obligation to educate the public and policymakers. Experts, by virtue of their knowledge, hold the power to influence decisions that impact millions. Failing to engage in meaningful debate or educate the public denies society the benefits of informed decision-making. This is particularly egregious during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, where misinformation thrives in the absence of clear, honest, and accessible communication from credible voices.

When experts refuse to publicly debate or consider opposing views, they create an echo chamber, reinforcing existing biases rather than advancing scientific understanding. Instead of fostering critical thinking and transparency, this behavior alienates the public, who perceive the scientific community as elitist and unapproachable. Ethical leadership demands humility and accountability—traits often abandoned when experts prioritize personal reputation over public service.

#### **2. Neglecting Responsibility in Times of Crisis**

During emergencies, the urgency of effective communication becomes paramount. Silence or refusal to engage in open discourse on contentious issues, such as lockdowns, vaccine policies, or treatment protocols, not only breeds confusion but actively undermines public trust in science. The refusal to address challenges to one’s position often stems from an unwillingness to admit potential errors, leading to a defensive rather than a constructive posture.

This lack of openness has disastrous consequences, as it leaves the public vulnerable to misinformation and fosters division. When intellectuals focus solely on preaching to their like-minded peers rather than engaging with dissenting voices, they abdicate their responsibility to lead by example, depriving society of the critical dialogue necessary for progress.

---

### **Legal Accountability for Negligence**

#### **1. Professional Negligence and Malpractice**

Experts who hold authority in fields such as medicine, public health, and policy-making can, under certain circumstances, be held legally accountable for neglecting their duty of care. If their refusal to engage in public scientific debate or to correct falsehoods directly contributes to harm, such as preventable deaths during a pandemic, they may face allegations of negligence. For instance, withholding critical insights or failing to address valid critiques might be construed as dereliction of duty.

In many jurisdictions, professionals are bound by ethical codes and legal standards that demand transparency, honesty, and an effort to communicate effectively with the public. Ignoring these standards could expose them to lawsuits or professional sanctions. Public health crises are not exempt from such scrutiny, and legal systems increasingly recognize the need to hold influential individuals accountable for actions—or inactions—that exacerbate harm.

#### **2. Suppression of Debate as a Violation of Free Speech**

The refusal of experts to engage in public dialogue can also raise questions about free speech and the democratic process. Scientific progress depends on the robust exchange of ideas. When intellectuals avoid public debate, they stifle this exchange, contributing to a culture of censorship and polarization. In extreme cases, such behavior might even infringe on laws guaranteeing freedom of expression, particularly when dissenting voices are actively silenced rather than constructively challenged.

---

### **Religious and Spiritual Perspectives**

From a religious standpoint, many traditions emphasize the moral imperative to speak out against injustice and to act in the service of the greater good. Silence in the face of suffering is often regarded as complicity. For example:

- **Christianity** teaches that to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48). Intellectuals entrusted with knowledge and influence bear a divine obligation to use their gifts to uplift others. Refusing to engage with opposing views or educate the public on urgent matters could be seen as a betrayal of this mandate.

- **Islam** stresses the importance of speaking truth to power and seeking knowledge for the betterment of humanity. Failing to address societal challenges despite having the capacity to do so is viewed as a moral failing punishable in the afterlife.

- **Buddhism** emphasizes compassion and the alleviation of suffering. By neglecting their duty to educate and debate, intellectuals may be seen as perpetuating ignorance and suffering, contrary to spiritual principles.

In these frameworks, intellectuals who fail to use their influence responsibly risk not only earthly condemnation but also eternal consequences.

---

### **The Failure of Influencers During the Pandemic**

A glaring example of intellectual and ethical failure is the behavior of many influencers and self-proclaimed experts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of fostering open scientific discussions, many of these individuals chose to insulate themselves within networks of like-minded peers. They rarely invited dissenting experts onto their platforms, thus failing to engage in the rigorous debate necessary to refine public understanding of complex issues.

This lack of open dialogue has contributed to widespread misinformation, public confusion, and diminished trust in science. It also stymied scientific progress, as alternative hypotheses and critiques were dismissed rather than tested. The resulting fallout—from mismanaged policies to preventable deaths—underscores the high stakes of intellectual irresponsibility.

---

### **Societal Justice and Moving Forward**

Holding intellectuals accountable for their failures requires a multifaceted approach:

1. **Legal Mechanisms**: Strengthen legal frameworks to ensure experts and influencers cannot evade responsibility for the harm caused by negligence or suppression of debate.

2. **Public Accountability**: Encourage transparency and independent oversight to prevent echo chambers and ensure diverse voices are heard.

3. **Cultural Change**: Foster a culture that values humility, open-mindedness, and collaboration in the scientific community.

Ultimately, intellectuals and experts must recognize that their responsibility extends beyond their immediate peer group. Their refusal to engage in public debate or to communicate with urgency about critical issues is not merely a failure of personal ethics—it is a betrayal of society, with consequences that will be judged by history, the law, and perhaps, divine justice.

Will Thomson. +Lucy GPT