2025 has gotten off to a really good start. Now before we go further, I think it’s important to note that there are major issues in the world continuing, particularly with the fires in Los Angeles, which are tragic. And certainly, in parts of the world, hostages are still being held in Gaza, and the war continues in Ukraine. So, for all of those people, it’s not been a great start. But Mark Zuckerberg has rediscovered the concept of free speech and wants to walk away from censorship. And that is a very, very positive start to 2025.
Now, I’d like to quote a little bit from an article here by Margie—I assume that’s the correct pronunciation. It could be Margie, so I apologize if I got it wrong—Conklin, who’s written in The Free Press. She was formerly an editor for the Sunday paper at The New York Post, and you can find this on The Free Press. For those of you who don’t subscribe, it’s an excellent, excellent publication.
China expert Steven Mosher pitched to me a theory about how the coronavirus started. Back then, it was believed that it came from a wet market. But Steven was unconvinced. He said it was much more likely that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had been experimenting with coronaviruses for years. You know, you might think that’s relevant. This was before lockdowns and before COVID had spread.
And again, I’m going to quote now: I was happy to publish Steven’s piece because I figured the world would want to hear an alternative idea at an important moment from a social scientist who had lived in China and had written books about the country.
You’d think that was actually quite important, and maybe the world would be a different place if stories like that—and I’m sure it wasn’t the only one—had gone through. Again, I’ll quote: I was right about the story. In fact, the lab leak is now seen as the most likely explanation. But I was wrong and naive to think anyone in power would want to hear it.
So, the story was published on February 22, 2020. It went viral for a few hours as readers liked and shared it over and over. And she has a data tracker, so she can look at what’s happening with the article. Views, likes, and shares were climbing—and then, suddenly, for no reason, the green line dropped like a stone. No one was reading or sharing the piece. It was as though it had never existed.
How does this happen? Later, the Post digital editor gave her the answer. Facebook’s fact-checking team had flagged the piece as false information. Now, that does show something. This was five years ago, so maybe because of X and other platforms, Facebook’s power is not as great as it was. But I think it remains the biggest source of information for a lot of people, as much as they use it to click on stories or articles of interest.
She was shocked and embarrassed: Never in my life had a story I worked on been deemed false information.
It’s a very, very good article. And of course, it caused her to second-guess and look into how this had come about. What happened next was even more chilling. She found out that an “expert” who advised Facebook to censor the piece had a major conflict of interest. And I’m going to quote this word for word: Professor Danielle E. Anderson—and I have no knowledge of this person—had regularly worked with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and had even done her own experiments at the Institute. She told Facebook’s fact-checkers that the lab had “strict control and containment measures.”
Well, of course, she did. It’s an old adage: Who guards the guards? It’s a valid point, and we need to have some confidence that the guards are doing the right thing. In fact, as societies, we need to have confidence that those who hold the levers of power will do the right thing by the citizens on whose behalf they hold that power. That includes governments, police forces, educational bodies, and the health system.
And I think, in the last few years, faith in many of these organizations has been diminished. A study I’ve quoted before showed that trust in the American health system has fallen from about 70-something percent to around 40%. And again, Vinay Prasad, who has a Substack that’s certainly worth following, said he’s surprised it’s even that high.
And it’s not because of misinformation or disinformation. It’s not because of Elon Musk. It’s all their own work.
Stories like this underline how, unfortunately, people who present themselves as “experts”—and they may have some credentials behind them—often have significant conflicts of interest. I think it would have been very, very relevant for people to know that the person who dismissed the lab leak story had worked at or been involved with that very lab. Just maybe a little bit relevant. Maybe it’s useful to know. And maybe she was still correct. Maybe. But maybe she wasn’t.
The point is, she was not a neutral bystander.
There are a lot of conflicts of interest in health, and we’ve talked about them before. We will talk about them again in subsequent podcasts this year. The best solution is not to scream “disinformation” or “misinformation,” or to censor or stop people from speaking. The best solution is exposure—shedding light on what people are saying.
Brendan O’Neill, a British writer—and an excellent person to follow—says: The best antidote for any form of false, hateful, or misleading speech is more speech. And Michael Shellenberger from Public, who has been a very, very strong advocate for free speech, has also made that point very strongly. When people don’t get alternative views, they can’t make informed decisions. The problem is that elites don’t trust the public to make decisions.
And you know what? People can get it wrong. I can make a mistake. Anybody can make a mistake. And if I do, I need to live with the consequences. The idea that elites in ivory towers can second-guess decisions for every citizen in every circumstance is fundamentally flawed. And the idea that they cannot be questioned is also fundamentally flawed.
Unheard—another very, very good publication—is looking at the success of Community Notes on X as a counter to points of view or information that people might disagree with. Over the past year, they’ve found that it has been very effective—not in calling out “misinformation” or “disinformation,” which are meaningless terms—but in actually providing a counterview.
So, to get back to where we started: getting rid of fact-checkers—at least, it’s starting in America. We know in Australia that there was a fact-checking unit from RMIT, and I think the ABC—well, say no more—is also no longer being used by Facebook. That is a very, very positive step.
Now, people might say that Zuckerberg is jumping on the bandwagon. Well, better late than never. Elon Musk was a trailblazer. He went out and supported the rights of citizens to have a say before it was popular. He blazed a trail, and I think the whole planet owes him a debt of gratitude for that. Zuckerberg is following down that trail.
And interestingly, he’s moving Facebook’s content moderation division from California to Texas. That tells us quite a lot.
The world is changing. If we look at history, nobody predicted in advance when the Berlin Wall would fall. Nobody predicted when World War II would start. Nobody predicted the end of the Roman Empire. But all of those turning points in history happened because citizens rose up.
The best way forward for the world is a contest of ideas. And that can only happen if multiple opinions are available for people to consider.
As we move into 2025, the pushback against censorship is gaining momentum. Platforms like X’s Community Notes are emerging as a model for transparent fact-checking, while journalists continue to challenge mainstream narratives, as seen in cases like Facebook’s fact-checkers shutting down COVID lab leak discussions. This growing resistance to digital suppression is a promising start to the year, and let’s hope it continues.
Thank you for tuning into Doctor Joe Unplugged. If you enjoyed this podcast, please like, share, and consider subscribing.
If there are topics you’d like us to cover, reach out via chat or email at info@doctorjoe.net.au. We’ll be uploading new content every Monday, and soon, our videos will be available on X. You can follow me there at Doctor Joe’s DIY Health.
Dr Joe Kosterich – Doctor, Health Industry Consultant and Author
Doctor, speaker, author, and health industry consultant, Joe is WA State Medical Director for IPN, Clinical editor of Medical Forum Magazine, Medical Advisor to Medicinal Cannabis company Little Green Pharma and Course Chair, and writer for Health Cert. He is often called to give opinions in medico-legal cases, has taught students at UWA and Curtin Medical schools and been involved in post graduate education for over 20 years.
A regular on radio and TV, Joe has a podcast – Dr Joe Unplugged, has self- published two books and maintains a website with health information. He has extensive experience in helping businesses maintain a healthy workforce.
Past Chairman of Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, current Vice President of Arthritis and Osteoporosis WA, Joe previously held senior positions in the Australian Medical Association and has sat on numerous boards.
