> 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.
YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
11–20 of 48 posts
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#12Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.
act as a common carrier.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#13Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? 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 reason…
[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 Januar…
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.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#14Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? 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 reason…
[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 Januar…
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#15Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#16https://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.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#17Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? 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 reason…
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.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#18Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? 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 reason…
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.
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#19How 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…
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).
Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee
#20Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.
they should only remove illegal content. that's it. act as a common carrier.
Downvotes without explanation?