ABSTRACT
This chapter explores how dissenting scientific views were treated during the pandemic, using the controversy over the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) as a focal point. The authors introduce the concept of scientific heresy – views that challenge orthodoxy not just in content but in the authority structure of science itself. They contrast the treatment of the flawed IHME model, which was tolerated within the mainstream, with the far harsher response to the GBD, which questioned the prevailing lockdown-based strategy. The chapter examines how orthodoxy reasserted itself through public rebuttals, reputational attacks, and control of discourse, drawing parallels to historical cases of heresy such as John Wycliffe’s challenge to the medieval church. It closes by considering whether the GBD was right on the merits, but its central concern is the pattern of suppression and the implications for open scientific exchange during emergencies.
