Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 596 posts

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#111

Post by root_axis »

mfer wrote: post #107
gameswithgo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube isn't in charge of what is credible or not. Youtube is in charge of what shows up on youtube or not. There are many categories of things that can't be on youtube, not just things youtube thinks are incorrect. Should youtube overstep its bounds, that makes it easier for competitors to enter the video streaming market. It seems like libertarian leaning people forget half of their philosophy on this issue.

This gets a bit into monopolies. YouTube is Google and Google prioritizes its own properties. Google is the most widely used search engine and works hard to keep it that way. Is there a way to easily have popular interviews online outside of YouTube?

Their monopoly is meaningless in the context of all the knowledge freely available within the entirety of the internet, not to mention all the knowledge freely available outside the internet in the form of books which still happen to be the definitive medium to learn about anything with any type of serious rigor.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#112

Post by Consultant32452 »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #53
DiffEq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google is a private company I suppose…

What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)

I welcome Youtube to ban every member of the press and Congress who publicly supported our various wars, which are government policies leading to "unnecessary deaths." Cherry picking a nobody with no power who is into crystals is bs.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#113

Post by Rebelgecko »

modzu wrote: post #92
kerkeslager wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't watch the piece, but I've read enough of what Sakora has written to conclude that Sakora is a consistent liar. Even if a liar tells the truth, he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not. > and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel. If nobody knows what's true with corona, then shouldn't claim to know w…

ive never heard the name sakora before. genuine question -- just curious how/why you've come across their writing, when it seems the claim is that they are some kind of quack?

When the Libyan government was trying to get the Lockerbie bomber out of jail, they paid Sikora off to say that the bomber was going to keel over in a few weeks from cancer. He admitted that the Libyans let him know what prognosis would be most helpful when they hired him. Lo and behold that's the prognosis that he came up with (which also ended up being completely wrong)

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#114

Post by squarefoot »

gruglife wrote: post #102
kerkeslager wrote: post #40

There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizati…

> calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Then why is Bill Gates the de facto lead on curing covid?

Because actually he doesn't cure anything: he has money and that's what he gives.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#115

Post by kerkeslager »

gruglife wrote: post #102
kerkeslager wrote: post #40

There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizati…

> calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Then why is Bill Gates the de facto lead on curing covid?

In a "determining what's true about Covid" sense, he isn't the leader on Covid. He pays experts to take that leadership.

It's my general impression that if Gates says something about Covid, he's just repeating what experts said.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#116

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

kerkeslager wrote: post #79
modzu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

did you watch the piece? what exactly was "insane" about it? and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel . so what's important is having a guide to truth. and that guide is scientific thinking -- the scientific method. experts are dead wrong all the time . but they dont stay wrong.

I didn't watch the piece, but I've read enough of what Sakora has written to conclude that Sakora is a consistent liar. Even if a liar tells the truth, he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not. > and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel. If nobody knows what's true with corona, then shouldn't claim to know w…

> he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not

How do I know what anyone says is true? Why should I trust what you're saying about Sikora?

I should be able to watch a video on youtube and decide for myself because censorship is inimical to free thought.

You should take a moment to consider that most of the examples throughout history of censorship were carried out by decidedly bad people. Truth can stand on its own!

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#117

Post by robocat »

modzu wrote: post #92
kerkeslager wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't watch the piece, but I've read enough of what Sakora has written to conclude that Sakora is a consistent liar. Even if a liar tells the truth, he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not. > and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel. If nobody knows what's true with corona, then shouldn't claim to know w…

ive never heard the name sakora before. genuine question -- just curious how/why you've come across their writing, when it seems the claim is that they are some kind of quack?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora is mentioned in another comment.

The Wikipedia article looks very unbalanced to me, but there is definitely some smoke there too.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#118

Post by stevehawk »

downerending wrote: post #87

Instead of pussyfooting around, it'd be nice if YouTube would just tell us explicitly what we're supposed to think.

What I love about comments like this is that "we" (the citizens) are demanding that websites filter out X, Y, and Z, and then at same time come back yelling at them when they do. Censorship and lack of censorship come at a cost and you have to be willing to pay one of them.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#119

Post by dlp211 »

downerending wrote: post #87

Instead of pussyfooting around, it'd be nice if YouTube would just tell us explicitly what we're supposed to think.

You act like information isn't constantly being curated in all forms of knowledge delivery. The same way we don't tolerate students attempting to derail professors in class with unfounded hypothesis or flawed logical arguments, Youtube doesn't have to tolerate the same on its platform.

Disclaimer: Work at Google, thoughts are my own.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#120

Post by aianus »

joshuamorton wrote: post #62
aianus wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-directive-on-w...

Two questions: did the Canadian government actively recommend against mask wearing? Do you live in Canada? Note the difference between "we can't condone masks because there is limited evidence that they are helpful" and "we recommend against masks because they are harmful" and "the lockdown is a government consipracy to subjugate us".

I live in Canada and they actively recommended against cloth mask wearing for the general public on the grounds that it leads to a "false sense of security" and "increases touching of one's face" and that asymptomatic persons do not spread COVID-19. "Putting a mask on an asymptomatic person is not beneficial".

You can listen to Theresa Tam's (Canada's version of Dr. Fauci) exact words here: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/watch/tam-on-why-canadians-d...

I think any reasonable person who defers to authority would have listened to this and come to the conclusion that there is no reason to wear a mask if they're asymptomatic and had no connection to a sick individual. They could even reasonably conclude that it would be dangerous as they would be touching their face and virus particles would accumulate on the outside of the mask.

And they would have been wrong.

Post reply on HN