My Podcast Interview with Alison Morrow

This interview was removed by YouTube yesterday, and the podcaster's account suspended for a week, for reasons that YouTube has not explained.

Here’s my recent interview with podcaster and former television reporter Alison Morrow. We discussed my case challenging UC’s policy, vaccine mandates more generally, and the decline of journalistic standards during Covid:

The interview is still available on other sites. As Alison noted on Twitter:

Alison Morrow @AlisonMorrowTV

If you think there aren't doctors fighting vaccine mandates, maybe it's because you're not allowed to hear their stories. @TeamYouTube removed my interview with @akheriaty regarding his lawsuit against @UofCalifornia, citing his natural immunity post-Covid. #followthesilence

Alison Morrow @AlisonMorrowTV

Thankful for tech companies like Rokfin, Locals, Odysee and others that allow informed consent in a world of curated messages that have long-lasting medical and civil liberties consequences. If you're not on one of these platforms, you're not getting the full story.

In addition to removing my interview, YouTube also suspended Alison’s account: she is locked out of her YouTube channel for a week. Why did YouTube remove the video and subject her to this penalty? Here is the only thing we know at this point:

The one question I would pose to YouTube is this: which sentence(s) specifically did I utter that were false? The slippery notion of “misinformation” allows them to dodge the question of truth and falsity. Even granting their own definition of "contradicting expert consensus,” it is not at all clear which of my statement(s) in the interview did this. The CDC, after all, does not recommend mandates. It recommends vaccines. Other institutions choose to initiate and enforce coercive mandates, even if these refer to CDC recommendations. This is an important distinction, which is apparently lost on YouTube.

Of course, the “expert consensus”—which is really a consensus of a few experts who have been empowered by government—may be untrue, or inaccurate, or misguided. But how would we establish this—how would we identify errors, how would the experts refine or revise their consensus—if any and all voices that challenge them are systematically censored and silenced?