YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee(wsj.com)
wsj.com
YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061
47 comments
[I just edited this post for accuracy, correcting my error describing ivermectin is a steroid. It is in fact an anti-parasitic. The gist of my post remains largely intact, however.]
The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
It's hard to believe that someone advocating for the censorship of opposing arguments has any interest in a serious discussion either.
So YouTube is canceling a video about a Dr. who is an expert in the field, attempting to get more of a spotlight on a potential treatment of COVID that is not being used and widely shared.
You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals. So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug.
He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug that is widely accepted.
Now, I'm no freaking scientist, but it is FAIR to say that if this guy did his homework, found evidence of this in peer reviewed studies and is trying to present it to congress for further investigation, that is a good thing.
I'm not saying he's correct, but if there is a reasonable about of evidence that it's been overlooked and it would significantly help, then that's something we should at least do more (very urgent) research on.
If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong.
But taking a video down, of a scientist posing a credible, alternative solution to waiting for a vaccine is clearly a shit thing to do.
The best solution would be to allow experts to link to and from each others videos doing a "this is wrong and here's why" style conversation. Taking information away is never a good thing imo.
https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid...
EDIT: This does not mean you should go self medicate, that's always an awful idea. Do not give yourself ay drugs that are not over the counter without consulting with a doctor. Seriously, that I have to say that is ridiculous, and I would totally understand if YouTube put something up on the video saying that too.
EDIT 2: >Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now.
https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/
This guy has said some stuff I think is overly political, but for this disease it's worth investigating if it might help prevent infection, even if we just gave it to our front line workers.
You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals. So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug.
He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug that is widely accepted.
Now, I'm no freaking scientist, but it is FAIR to say that if this guy did his homework, found evidence of this in peer reviewed studies and is trying to present it to congress for further investigation, that is a good thing.
I'm not saying he's correct, but if there is a reasonable about of evidence that it's been overlooked and it would significantly help, then that's something we should at least do more (very urgent) research on.
If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong.
But taking a video down, of a scientist posing a credible, alternative solution to waiting for a vaccine is clearly a shit thing to do.
The best solution would be to allow experts to link to and from each others videos doing a "this is wrong and here's why" style conversation. Taking information away is never a good thing imo.
https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid...
EDIT: This does not mean you should go self medicate, that's always an awful idea. Do not give yourself ay drugs that are not over the counter without consulting with a doctor. Seriously, that I have to say that is ridiculous, and I would totally understand if YouTube put something up on the video saying that too.
EDIT 2: >Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now.
https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/
This guy has said some stuff I think is overly political, but for this disease it's worth investigating if it might help prevent infection, even if we just gave it to our front line workers.
If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong.
That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on him:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
That's from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on him:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.
That's from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
I believe he's already met the burden of proof, there have been multiple minor studies that are peer reviewed and show a lot of promise.
At this point, there is a reason to believe he's correct. In the state of emergency we are in that's enough to throw a few million dollars at research to clear this up.
Also, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation from "Don't use ivermectin outside of clinical trials" to "there's insufficient data." which I translate to, we now need to peer review this.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the...
EDIT: I may have gone too soft on the way that I say things w/r to scientific studies. They are never settled until. They can and should always be considered disprovable. The fact that I believe Dr. Kory has enough evidence to clearly suggest we need to dig deeper into ivermectin quickly, doesn't mean I believe that research will prove him right or wrong. I do however believe it is completely worth the money it would take to potentially save lives if ivermectin does prevent COVID.
At this point, there is a reason to believe he's correct. In the state of emergency we are in that's enough to throw a few million dollars at research to clear this up.
Also, the NIH has upgraded their recommendation from "Don't use ivermectin outside of clinical trials" to "there's insufficient data." which I translate to, we now need to peer review this.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the...
EDIT: I may have gone too soft on the way that I say things w/r to scientific studies. They are never settled until. They can and should always be considered disprovable. The fact that I believe Dr. Kory has enough evidence to clearly suggest we need to dig deeper into ivermectin quickly, doesn't mean I believe that research will prove him right or wrong. I do however believe it is completely worth the money it would take to potentially save lives if ivermectin does prevent COVID.
YouTube moderators are obviously the highest experts in the field of medicine and usually every field. They should be deciding what get seen, promoted, or blocked because they have done the hard research and I have no doubt they have read at least one Snopes article on a subject written by someone who is also clearly an expert in the medicine, not a journalist that may or may not have visited the CDC website for guidance.
How could Senator Johnson be "transparent" about YouTube's reasoning? YouTube keeps their reasons secret. That's the problem.
Fortunately the video and testimony is available directly from the Senate so everyone can make up their own mind.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/early-outpatient-treatment-an-e...
Fortunately the video and testimony is available directly from the Senate so everyone can make up their own mind.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/early-outpatient-treatment-an-e...
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are recommended in a paper published in the American Journal of Medicine. Funny how my comment mentioning that has dropped to the bottom of page.
--
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
--
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as overstated and irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thuis Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as overstated and irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thuis Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as overstated and irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as overstated and irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson).
Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
"debunked conspiracy theories". Debunked by whom? Sadly the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is now just code for "facts I don't like". Given the scientific facts on the ground and the last year of data, we now know that all recommendations from the experts from masks to distancing have been failures, because the COVID infection rate is higher than ever since their introduction. So they are now "debunked conspiracy theories"
I don’t particularly care what their reasoning is. A private corporation censoring elected officials should not be acceptable or encouraged. It is extremely anti-democratic and for them to quibble over a highly specific issue like this just shows YouTube’s bias.
But it’s Google making this determination. A software company that is all-knowing and looking out for your interests. Their filtering process is healthy for society, because society is full of imbeciles that are incapable of processing information properly. Also, it’s a private company so they are allowed to do whatever they want to do so take your complaints to another platform.
I’d rather trust the imbeciles than a bunch of unelected technocrats in Mountain View.
Fully agree. I was being sarcastic.
Only a government can censor. A company is free to host whatever they like. You can host it elsewhere if you want. Sometimes elected officials say incredibly dangerous stuff. You remember Trump in start of COVID-19 crisis?
That is not consistent with definitions or popular understandings of the verb "censor".
In US, true. Rest of world it varies.
I don’t agree with this at all. Now YouTube is not only removing questionable content, it’s stepping into the public square, our very government, to decide which debate views you hear. Not a good sign and a terrible precedent. Congressional committees are by their very makeup, a farce intended to create sound bites for the media, but if we can’t have a space for open, unobstructed or uncensored debate in a government hearing, we must question if YouTube is doing more harm than good.
For those interested in the clinical details the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has extensive information about ivermectin including links to the the latest research.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/
It's bizarre and horrifying that YouTube is censoring legitimate scientific debate. Sure it's their platform and they can do what they want, but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk. COVID-19 care practices are evolving rapidly so what was true last month might be false next month. There's a lot we don't know, and some of what we think we know will eventually turn out to be wrong.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/
It's bizarre and horrifying that YouTube is censoring legitimate scientific debate. Sure it's their platform and they can do what they want, but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk. COVID-19 care practices are evolving rapidly so what was true last month might be false next month. There's a lot we don't know, and some of what we think we know will eventually turn out to be wrong.
> but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk
Are there many MDs keeping themselves up-to-date on COVID-19 latest recommendations through YouTube though?
Are there many MDs keeping themselves up-to-date on COVID-19 latest recommendations through YouTube though?
Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.
Was this video just raw testimony without being wrapped in opinion? Was it located on an official US Congress channel? If so then I do agree. If not then I don’t necessarily agree, and it’s not necessarily so cut and dry. This opinion piece doesn’t give any hard information in that regard.
they should only remove illegal content. that's it.
act as a common carrier.
act as a common carrier.
So no business should be allowed to refuse whom they can do business with? (other than illegal deals)
i'm just saying that's what platforms that are the defacto town square should do. act as a neutral platform, not a publisher. the town square should not be governed by a few publishing giants.
/r/jailbait wasn't illegal content. Would you want Reddit to restore it? I don't.
Downvotes without explanation?
Downvotes without explanation?
Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0].
What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be actually, not really sure what the goal of most of FAANG is supposed to be, other than print maximal amounts of money. I think people might be a little less angry at them if they actually some stated mission to evaluate against.
[0] - https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covi...
What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be actually, not really sure what the goal of most of FAANG is supposed to be, other than print maximal amounts of money. I think people might be a little less angry at them if they actually some stated mission to evaluate against.
[0] - https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covi...
> ...YouTube should not be removing...
> Youtube can remove...
You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.
> Youtube can remove...
You're arguing against a strawman. "can" and "should" are different things.
I replaced "can" with "should", and the rest of my post didn't change at all. It doesn't change the point at all. It's a meaningless semantic objection.
I am not convinced whatsoever that YouTube "should" be mandated to carry congressional testimony, presidential communication, or anything else they don't want to carry. Removing it is not deplatforming it because as stated, Congress already has a platform. It's easily accessible. It's free.
I am not convinced whatsoever that YouTube "should" be mandated to carry congressional testimony, presidential communication, or anything else they don't want to carry. Removing it is not deplatforming it because as stated, Congress already has a platform. It's easily accessible. It's free.
> Social networking websites have become such an important source of information that even sex offenders should not be barred from social media, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday.[0]
> social networking sites have become a major part of "the marketplace of ideas," in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words. "Increasingly, this is the way people get ... all information," Justice Elena Kagan said. "This is the way people structure their civic community life."
> During oral argument, only Justice Samuel Alito mounted much of a defense of the law, suggesting that it could be limited to core social networking sites rather than The New York Times or Betty Crocker. "There are still alternative channels," he said. But David Goldberg of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who represented Packingham, said Twitter hosts about 500 million tweets a day, and Snapchat hosts 10 billion videos — statistics that are not replicable elsewhere.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supr...
SCOTUS can see clearly that having a platform is insufficient if that platform has <1% of the reach of the platforms that everyone else uses.
> social networking sites have become a major part of "the marketplace of ideas," in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words. "Increasingly, this is the way people get ... all information," Justice Elena Kagan said. "This is the way people structure their civic community life."
> During oral argument, only Justice Samuel Alito mounted much of a defense of the law, suggesting that it could be limited to core social networking sites rather than The New York Times or Betty Crocker. "There are still alternative channels," he said. But David Goldberg of Stanford Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who represented Packingham, said Twitter hosts about 500 million tweets a day, and Snapchat hosts 10 billion videos — statistics that are not replicable elsewhere.
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/19/supr...
SCOTUS can see clearly that having a platform is insufficient if that platform has <1% of the reach of the platforms that everyone else uses.
You can access the full article here:
https://www.dailyechoed.com/opinion-youtube-cancels-the-u-s-...
How thoroughly are 'opinion' articles vetted? Not at all? Why are they considered substantial then.
> Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/
> Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the...
Last Updated: August 27, 2020
The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).
Last Updated: August 27, 2020
The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-...
Last Updated: January 14, 2021
> The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
And I agree, we need more data before moving forward.
Last Updated: January 14, 2021
> The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
And I agree, we need more data before moving forward.
Yes. That was after the senate testimony session, that youtube removed. At the time of that senate testimony, this was the recommendation.
This is an opinion piece with a purposely over-the-top headline in the Wall Street Journal (sibling company of Fox News) by Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Johnson has previously made Covid-19-related news pushing hydrochloriquine as a treatment. He has pushed the baseless conspiracy theory that doctors are pushing to deny access to hcq because it is cheaper than other treatments.
If there is a legitimate news article on the removal of these two video, we should link to that instead.
If there is a legitimate news article on the removal of these two video, we should link to that instead.
OK So I cannot find the videos in question I have no clue if they were or were not flagged by algorithm and that mistake was fixed or if they were flagged on purpose. I also believe this article is click bait as heck.
I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm.
Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in trials) rate of infection from COVID down to nearly zero. To that end he believes that this should be investigated as urgently or more urgently than vaccines. His reasoning is that this is a off the shelf drug that has not been disproven in any peer review so far.
To support that the NIH has changed their recommendation from
"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)."
to "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."
Which can be considered a great indicator that ivermectin is gaining steam.
So, to treat the discussion of ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous. We've thrown billions of dollars towards finding a vaccine, which is arguably a better long term solution. Dr. Kory's point is that we should be researching this treatment as quickly as possible to save lives today and let the vaccine save lives in the future. He's been saying this since well before the vaccines were a sure thing.
I'm not saying ivermectin is going to work. I'm saying it if it does work that we moved too slow in identifying it and we had evidence that it may have worked very early on.
I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm.
Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in trials) rate of infection from COVID down to nearly zero. To that end he believes that this should be investigated as urgently or more urgently than vaccines. His reasoning is that this is a off the shelf drug that has not been disproven in any peer review so far.
To support that the NIH has changed their recommendation from
"The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)."
to "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19."
Which can be considered a great indicator that ivermectin is gaining steam.
So, to treat the discussion of ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous. We've thrown billions of dollars towards finding a vaccine, which is arguably a better long term solution. Dr. Kory's point is that we should be researching this treatment as quickly as possible to save lives today and let the vaccine save lives in the future. He's been saying this since well before the vaccines were a sure thing.
I'm not saying ivermectin is going to work. I'm saying it if it does work that we moved too slow in identifying it and we had evidence that it may have worked very early on.
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are recommended in a paper published in the American Journal of Medicine. Funny how my comment mentioning that has dropped to the bottom of page.
--
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
--
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
> So, to treat the discussion of Ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous.
To be honest, I've been following some discussions and there is so much disinformation out there, that at first I though someone was just spewing bullshit about it.
Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that there are people out there working on some treatments to save lives until everyone is vaccinated (which is another fight..), but with the amount of people shouting their own uneducated opinion as fact out there, it's hard to pick up the real info from the noise.
To be honest, I've been following some discussions and there is so much disinformation out there, that at first I though someone was just spewing bullshit about it.
Don't get me wrong, it's awesome that there are people out there working on some treatments to save lives until everyone is vaccinated (which is another fight..), but with the amount of people shouting their own uneducated opinion as fact out there, it's hard to pick up the real info from the noise.
[deleted]
Good. I hope they continue to cancel cancel government and corporate channels for petty and highly biased reasons. Perhaps then we will see some real movement toward decentralization, or at least toward antitrust legal action.
The way out is through.
The way out is through.
I guess they believe the doctors that contributed to the article below don't know what they going on about.
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432...
FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
So Trump was right about Ivermectin and Hydroxy...huh.
I don’t think it’s about whether or not Trump is right or wrong about anything, but I think we are starting to see that when career politicians, Wall Street, and corporations disagree with someone, perhaps that is someone the citizenry should listen to and consider.
If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reasoning. As I’m sure the author, a lawyer and politician, knows the art of persuasive rhetoric well, his oversight seems intentional.