The World Health Organization recently released a statement saying it appears asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is “very rare.” But facing a fierce backlash, the WHO walked back its statement saying the dynamics of asymptomatic spread remain unclear.

“The majority of transmission that we know about is that people who have symptoms transmit the virus to other people through infectious droplets,” WHO COVID-19 technical lead Maria Van Kerkhove said. “But there is a subset of people who don’t develop symptoms, and to truly understand how many people don’t have symptoms, we don’t actually have that answer yet.”

Despite what some people would have you believe, asymptomatic spread is not an established fact. In fact, at least one Chinese study calls asymptomatic spread into question. So why do government officials continue to mandate policies as if asymptomatic spread is an undeniable thing? Shouldn’t individuals be left to evaluate the information on their own and make their own decisions?

Not in a world where government dictates policy and simultaneously controls information.

My intent here isn’t to debate the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission by asymptomatic people. But the WHO announcement and subsequent backtracking raises an interesting question: does science drive policy or does policy drive science?

Why did the WHO walk back its initial statement? Because there was a massive hue and cry.

It makes sense when you think about it. An awful lot of people have an awful lot staked on “official” narratives. They based draconian policies on certain assumptions about COVID-19. If these assumptions ultimately turn out to be bogus, a lot of politicians and government scientists will find themselves with egg on their faces. As a result, they have a vested interest in publicizing and promoting science that supports their conclusions and marginalizing or burying conclusions that don’t.

This reveals a broader problem – the centralization and control of information by government agencies.

I’m convinced that in a free society, we would have much better information at our fingertips to guide our decision-making. Information would have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Good ideas would spread on their own merit. Bad ideas would wither on the vine.

But government operates as a monopoly institution with the power to pick winners and losers. It magnifies information that supports its agenda and marginalizes information that doesn’t.

While in the U.S., the government rarely engages in outright censorship, it has a tremendous influence on the perceived credibility of information. It also serves as the primary conduit for much of the information we see in the news media.

I worked in TV news for over five years. Virtually all of the reporting on government matters, including crime, accidents, natural disasters, health issues, and the impacts of government policy, came through “official sources,” including press releases, official statements, interviews with government agents and background information gleaned from government websites. Because the news organization depended on access to this information, there was extreme pressure not to question the official narrative – even when there were obvious discrepancies. Reporters questioning an official storyline risked alienating the powers that be and could even find themselves cut off from these vital information sources. As a result, the news our community consumed primarily consisted of government narrative and fluff.

I have no reason to believe the dynamics in national newsrooms operate much differently. After all, monopoly has its privilege.

In effect, government owns a giant bullhorn it can use to promote the information it wants to be presented to the citizenry and to drown out information it doesn’t.

And make no mistake, government pressure influences those who produce information the government uses to justify its policies.

Never forget – incentives matter.

If you want to continue to get the funding and prestige that goes along with having your work touted by the government, you’d better toe the line.

If you doubt the power of government influence, ask yourself if you trust “climate change” science coming out of Exxon Mobil? Or Greenpeace? Given that government drives research in virtually every area that involves public policy, skepticism might prove wise.

Centralization of power centralizes information and that further enables centralization of power in a vicious cycle.

We need a free exchange of ideas in order to make good decisions. That is virtually impossible when government institutions control the flow of information. Government is always the enemy of freedom.