The speaker describes their initial reaction to the pandemic, which included fear and attention to the unfolding situation.

• The speaker initially shared the public's fear and closely followed the pandemic developments.
• Early events like the Diamond Princess cruise ship outbreak contributed to their understanding.

The speaker's fear began to diminish individually but remained for society and vulnerable populations.

• As more information became available, the speaker's personal fear lessened, but concerns for others persisted.
• Worries about the NHS collapsing and the impact on society continued through the summer.

During summer 2020, the speaker began to question the pandemic data, leading to their own research.

• The speaker noticed a continuous trickle of cases and deaths and wondered if they were due to testing errors.
• After the children returned to school, the speaker used their expertise to analyze the data and patterns.

The speaker observed changes in data patterns that suggested overdiagnosis, prompting them to share their findings.

• Data analysis revealed that the demographic patterns of COVID-19 cases had changed since spring, hinting at overdiagnosis.
• The speaker felt it was essential to prove their theory and share the findings with the public.

The speaker decided to publicize their concerns through a blog, expecting a constructive response.

• They sought advice from Carl Heneghan, a director at the Center of Evidence-Based Medicine, who advised writing a blog.
• The speaker anticipated a response of either correction or interest, but instead faced personal attacks.

Rather than scientific discourse, the speaker encountered personal attacks and learned of similar experiences from other experts.

• Instead of engaging in scientific debate, the speaker faced personal attacks upon sharing their views.
• The speaker connected with other experts who had similar experiences when voicing concerns.

The speaker remarks on the cultural change in scientific discussion, where personal attacks replace empirical debate.

• The speaker notes a massive cultural shift where scientific debate has been supplanted by personal attacks.
• There's an indication that some attackers may be funded by outside sources, undermining open discussion.

The speaker emphasizes the necessity of open and fact-based discussion for the advancement of science and society.

• Open discussion is crucial for civil society, scientific progress, and politics.
• Personal attacks are seen as a sign of lacking substantial arguments, contrasting with the sharing of truths.

Upon sharing their views, the speaker faced not only professional criticism but also serious personal threats.

• The response to the speaker's concerns included serious physical threats and attempts to discredit them.
• The concerted effort against open discussion raised questions about the motives behind the attacks.

The speaker reflects on the nature of truth and misinformation in the context of their experience.

• The speaker differentiates between truths and lies, including misinterpretations and mistakes.
• When the speaker made mistakes, they were widely shared, but inconvenient truths led to personal attacks.

The speaker concludes with the necessity of fact-based discussions and the challenges faced when presenting inconvenient truths.

• The speaker highlights the importance of fact-based discussions and debates for scientific and societal progress.
• The lack of a constructive response to inconvenient truths underscores the cultural change in public discourse.