STU DICKSON AGAINST STUFF

Stu Dickson complained about an article published on Stuff on May 21, 2021 under the headline The scientist and the rabbit hole; How epidemiologist Simon Thornley became an outcast of his profession.

He said the article contained inaccuracies, guilt by association, smear tactics and bias against Dr Thornley, an Auckland University epidemiologist who has been critical of Government’s Covid-19 elimination strategy.

To support the stance taken by Dr Thornley the complaint included references to a selection of overseas publications and papers challenging the efficacy of lockdowns.

Mr Dickson said the comment that Dr Thornley had become a magnet for conspiracy theorists and fringe political figures was a smear tactic. The fact that fringe figures may support him did not make Dr Thornley a fringe figure or make him wrong.

He also contested the comment that Dr Thornley had embraced idiosyncratic theories that were at odds with evidence and basic epidemiology. Mr Dickson said that prior to 2020 it was held that lockdowns of healthy people didn’t work, were not recommended and had not been tried on any large scale before.

Responding to the complaint Stuff said it stood by its story. It added that many of the issues raised by Mr Dickson were already addressed in the story itself. Other issues were Mr Dickson’s opinion and/or suggestions of things he thought Stuff should report on.

This was a lengthy and detailed article on Dr Thornley, a scientist who is clearly at odds with others in his specialty who have influenced the way New Zealand has approached the control of Covid-19.

Given the public health threats posed by Covid-19 and the economic effects of measures taken to control its spread, this is clearly a subject of significant public interest. It is certainly very interesting that an epidemiologist of some standing has views so contrary to others in his scientific speciality and to the policies adopted by the Government.

At heart this is a story about a scientist whose opinions have been rejected by his peers.  The article does not contain any clear errors of fact. While the article contained criticism of Dr Thornley, this was balanced as Dr Thornley was given the opportunity to respond and explain his views.

There are insufficient grounds to proceed.