UPDATE: One day after this post was published, Twitter reinstated Bostom’s account, admitting he broke no rules. As Bostom noted in response, ““Twitter’s arbitrary COVID-19 Lysenkoism must cease, permanently.”

Bring a gun to a knife fight: Doctor and researcher Andrew Bostom, who was blacklisted by Twitter in June simply because he cited a peer-reviewed research paper that suggested the COVID shots impaired semen production, has now retained the same lawyer who successfully forced Twitter to reinstate Alex Berenson’s account after he had been similarly blackballed.

The banned tweet and Twitter’s account suspension are shown in the screen capture to the right. As Bostom notes at the first link above:

The tweet in question contained data from a recent peer reviewed publication in the journal Andrology, with the eponymous title, “Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors”.

The Journal Andrology is highly respected and published through a joint effort of American and European scientific associations, The study was a straightforward, serial analysis of young male Israeli semen donors evaluating the potential impact of Pfizer’s covid-19 mRNA vaccine on their sperm concentration (count), and related functional measures.

Berenson had been banned by Twitter for a similar tweet that summarized these obvious and now well documented facts about the COVID shots:

“It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission,” he wrote. “Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS.”

After more than a year, Berenson’s Twitter account was finally reinstated, with Twitter admitting that he had said nothing wrong and should not have been banned. The details of the settlement are under seal, so we do not know if Berenson also received monetary damages from Twitter.

The lawyer who represented him is now representing Bostom in an almost identical case. Bostom’s account shouldn’t simply be reinstated. Twitter should suffer some financial penalty for the improper banning, since it acted to limit the public distribution of his work, and likely caused him some financial loss.

Bostom is not only pushing back against Twitter’s blackballing. He has also exposing Brown University’s effort to hide the negative health effects of its COVID shot mandate on its students. According to Bostom’s research:

In March, 2021, two months before enacting its mandatory, aggressive covid-19 vaccination campaign, a healthy 20 year-old male Brown University student was apparently hospitalized for covid-19 vaccine-induced myopericarditis. The University never disclosed this hospitalization, then, till now, ignoring the established ethics of risk/benefit-based informed consent. Brown University, in tandem with the Rhode Island Department of Health, forms a powerful duopoly of denial controlling state policy, and “acceptable” discourse on covid-19 vaccine injury. Frank, open discussion of the Brown student vaccine-injury myopericarditis case, and the larger issue of serious covid-19 vaccine-injury, especially among the vast swath of young, healthy Rhode Islanders, invulnerable to severe covid illness, is verboten. The baleful Brown-RIDOH duopoly enforces that silence.

That a large majority of the nation’s universities are still maintaining COVID shot mandates at this time, considering the amount of research that shows the jab is a serious risk to young adults, is quite horrifying. That Brown University has further compounded this bad policy with a cover-up suggests a legal liability that should put the university out of business. Bostom is right for holding its administration’s feet to the fire.

As for Twitter, the blackballing of both Berenson and Bostom used the same justification it and other big tech companies have used for similar bans. Twitter decided that because the tweet contradicted the edicts put forth by “authoritative sources” (such as WHO, the FDA, and the CDC), it could not be allowed.

In other words, dissent against the government is wrong and must be banned. If this policy doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of censorship, I don’t know what does. From the Cambridge dictionary:

censorship: a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas.

Until the arrival of the Wuhan flu, free-thinking Americans like myself always assumed that all of our fellow Americans opposed such anti-free speech behavior. It violates the essence of the First Amendment.

We now know — after COVID — that large numbers of leftist Americans actually applaud censorship and blackballing, and are quite willing and eager to use it to destroy the lives and careers of anyone who dares say something these storm-troopers don’t like.

That such ugly Americans exist in large numbers is depressing. Recognizing they exist however is enlightening, as it makes it possible to properly fight this battle for freedom. Knowing one’s enemy is the first step to beating them.