Comment by throwaway4666
6 years ago
Okay but what does this have to do with the thread? Scott isn't being silenced, he's shutting down his blog out of concern that his relationship with his patients may be jeopardized if they could look him up on the NYT. (Whether he's justified I'm not qualified to say as I'm not a psychiatrist.) What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
Scott's coronavirus articles were reliably ahead of the media. He was early with insights such as the insufficiencies of the flattening the curve model, the efficacy of masks, and warning it could become a pandemic.
These opinions are now mainstream. He gave them a platform earlier than the media did, because he was more open to being wrong and to exploring heterodox ideas, but also applied research and rigour when writing about them.
I don't get your point. People are going to roast Scott because he got things right about covid? What does this have to do with his relationship with his patients?
You asked which "hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight [is] at stake". I gave some examples of what Scott got right to illustrate what's at stake if he's forced off the internet.
Can you explain a bit more about what you're asking for?
6 replies →
The point I was trying to make is tangential, but related to the post.
Scott has created one of the most thoughtful, level-headed, and interesting places on the internet. And yet he's shutting it down because it has led to a huge downside risk for his personal and professional life:
> I also worry that my clinic would decide I am more of a liability than an asset and let me go, which would leave hundreds of patients in a dangerous situation as we tried to transition their care.
What does this mean for others who want to start similar blogs or engage in these sorts of discussions? They're going to see this sort of thing happening and think: "Why bother? It's not worth the trouble."
But this is not about his opinions or that they are not accepted. This is about maintaining pseudonym and importance of it for practising MD.
I don't understand how his blog could impact his practice. He doesn't blog about his patients. Unless, of course, his practice is worried about the opinions Scott posts on his blog...
2 replies →
If you had bothered to read the article, you would see that Scott lists two reasons why he is shutting down the blog. The reason that you mentioned is one. The other reason is:
> The second reason is more prosaic: some people want to kill me or ruin my life, and I would prefer not to make it too easy. I’ve received various death threats. I had someone on an anti-psychiatry subreddit put out a bounty for any information that could take me down (the mods deleted the post quickly, which I am grateful for).
You write:
> What's the hidden truth, controversial opinion or super secret insight at stake here?
There is no one opinion at stake here. What is at stake is the ability to hold any dissenting opinion. Or not even hold it, but merely discuss it openly.
In the case of the anti-psychiatry lobby it's not even a dissenting opinion! It's basically the opinion that psychiatry ought to exist. There is just a small community of dissidents who disagree and want to get Scott fired (or worse). They now have a lot more leverage, because we've collectively decided that we should foster a culture where it's totally normal to try and get someone fired for things that are totally unrelated to work.
Just as the members of an anti-psychiatry subreddit should have a right to freedom of speech and association without the fear that their posts will get them fired (or worse), so should Scott.
This is pretty easy. Scott does have controversial opinions at times. He uses a pseudonym to make them public without fear of that impinging on his life and work.
So yes. He's being silenced because he cannot enjoy speaking publicly without fear of retribution.
What do these controversial opinions have to do with the NYT writing a piece about Scott's early warnings about covid, and Scott's assessment that it would damage his relationship with his patients? Are you arguing that warning everyone ahead about the virus was controversial?
Not in this case, now, no. But he's said plenty of things that some proportion of people find controversial enough to bother harassing his job to get him fired. If his name and website get more widespread acknowledgement, he expects the level of harassment to increase proportionally, which he fears could get him fired.
You are being obtuse. The NYT propose linking his real identity to everything in his blog.
I think GP and many people ITT project their current political concerns on OP's post. It doesn't seem apparent to me that Scott is deleting his blog due to any recent political changes.
His name is...