Dr. Harriet Hall recently reviewed Abigail Shrier’s book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters,” for Science-Based Medicine, a site purporting to be about “exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine.” Well, Shrier’s book, being critical of the push to encourage young women to transition, would certainly qualify as controversial.
This is a very welcome, honest and brave review by Harriet Hall at @ScienceBasedMed on @AbigailShrier ‘s book Irreversible Damage. I am quite sure a lot of her colleagues on this site will not be happy. https://t.co/eCvtDopTpC
— Le Canard Noir (@lecanardnoir) June 15, 2021
Indeed. I thought that. It did not sit well with the next sentences describing it s as hypothesis forming. This is exactly what science should be doing. The rabid gender cultists want to stop any such study so new ideas cannot be formed.
— Le Canard Noir (@lecanardnoir) June 15, 2021
Evidently Hall’s colleagues on the site were in fact not happy and not interested in entertaining ideas that go against the grain of wokeness:
Dr. Harriet Hall wrote a favorable review of my book, IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, at @ScienceBasedMed. She knew there might be backlash.
Now, her book review is gone. https://t.co/6BtXOXX4tr pic.twitter.com/R73Dt56bKA
— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) June 17, 2021
Flushed down the memory hold by Science-Based Medicine:
“This article has been retracted.”
The book review of @AbigailShrier's book at @ScienceBasedMed has been retracted: "portraying this retraction as censorship are also false. This has nothing to do with silencing opinions or perspectives, but rather is entirely a matter of quality control."https://t.co/npN3I9TtEI https://t.co/st4khsL8kK pic.twitter.com/wQD6swe1Ko
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) June 18, 2021
It appears Harriet Hall has been writing for @ScienceBasedMed since 2008 at least, writing dozens and dozens of articles which are still available. SBM says there were "too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science" to correct…https://t.co/OIws5HLyrd pic.twitter.com/goR5BZWNAB
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) June 18, 2021
Uh-huh.
Here's how @ScienceBasedMed works:
1) Publish positive book review of a controversial book, written by a well-published physician
2) Editors deluged w emails from angry activists
3) Editors panic & delete review
4) Editors assert that they will "never cave to outside pressure." pic.twitter.com/Akm16rMO5t— Abigail Shrier (@AbigailShrier) June 18, 2021
We might actually wonder if “concerns expressed over its scientific accuracy and completeness” means not a fit with the activists’ evergreen authoritarianism. As @DrDebraSoh writes: “Activist science, no matter how passionate or well-intentioned, is not science.” So there it is.
— Donovan Cleckley (@DonovanCleckley) June 17, 2021
There it is.
It was absolutely censorship, and anyone saying otherwise is delusional or gaslighting. https://t.co/QE9naA5M4s
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) June 18, 2021
It’s pathetic.
Note: If you’re interested, you can read the archived article here (via @mikeemesser).
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member