YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#31

Post by bargl » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#32

Post by bargl » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

mshook wrote: post #30

bargl wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Hi…

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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#33

Post by d1zzy » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

undefined1 wrote: post #12

Animats wrote: post #10

Agree 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.

So no business should be allowed to refuse whom they can do business with? (other than illegal deals)

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#34

Post by edbob » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:42 PM UTC

polka_haunts_us wrote: post #28

sxp wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...YouTube should not be removing... > 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 easil…

> 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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#35

Post by vfclists » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

bargl wrote: post #31

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 tr…

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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#36

Post by vfclists » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

Hadrianus wrote: post #5

Unfortunately 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…

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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#37

Post by undefined1 » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

d1zzy wrote: post #33

undefined1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they should only remove illegal content. that's it. 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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#38

Post by readflaggedcomm » Tue, Feb 02, 2021, 11:38 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #27

ceilingcorner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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".

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#39

Post by JohnTHaller » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 4:50 AM UTC

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.

Re: YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

#40

Post by m-p-3 » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 5:59 AM UTC

gltchkrft wrote: post #19

adamredwoods wrote: post #11

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…

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).

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.