131–140 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who did they demonetize? Alex Jones?
Firearms related channels was a big one. Even education based firearms channels such as forgotten weapons had problems.
In China, censorship is state-run. In America, it's been privatized.
You’re arguing for government compelled speech.
You could see this coming from a million miles away. No one should be shocked, especially those that egged it on (not finger-pointing at Eric or his brother here).
YouTube's position is that this is medical misinformation about Ivermectin. One of the comments on this Twitter thread argues the video "isn’t just advocating for more complete Ivermectin trials, he’s recommending its use based on a collection of low quality studies. That’s dangerous, and I don’t see how you can blame YouTube for deferring to the advice of the major health bodies on this matter." Personally I'd never…
Disturbing to me is constant claims that treatment X is being failed not failing. Yes that's happened in practice. But people making that claim need to put up[1].
[1] First doctors that came up with an effective chemotherapy for leukemia faced a backlash when other doctors it didn't work. They had to show that the other doctors were making changes to the drug protocol.
It's hilarious to see libertarians whining about being oppressed by corporations. Like, dude, isn't your whole philosophy that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want without regard for anybody else? Go start your own YouTube. It's what Galt would have done.
What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was taken down by YT. One of the things they talked was the recommendations of WHO and other organisations to focus on supportive care only (supporting the patient while their organism fights the disease by itself). They insist on not using other treatments outside…
> They insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials. The argument that running experiments would cost lives doesn't seem coherent. Clinical trials are structured experiments which follow a certain protocol, ethical review, etc... > It's not like we have this 100+ yrs practice of dealing with SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with well established protocols We do have 100+ years of practice in dealing with various d…
It's hilarious to see libertarians whining about being oppressed by corporations. Like, dude, isn't your whole philosophy that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want without regard for anybody else? Go start your own YouTube. It's what Galt would have done.
I mean I'm pretty selfish, but I'm not so naive to think that total capitalism is good. Your lord becomes someone you can't elect or petition because they own everything. Eventually your money flows to them so you can't fight back at all.
On the’censored’ man’s attempted foray into a different field, physics: “ The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer", and it has received strong criticism from the scientific community, including having "no visible impact" and having "gaps both mathematical and physical in origin that jeopardize Geometric Unity as a well-defined theory, much less one that is a candidate for a theory…
Eric Weinstein is a clown, like, literally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#Physics
This seems to say his proposed "Theory of everything" is lacking in several regards and not a good candidate for scientific or academic research. I don't see how that makes him a clown. He's interested in physics, educated in it, and made some effort to contribute that doesn't seem to have panned out. That strikes me as laudable behavior and not like a "clown". Perhaps you'll say he is a clown because he really belie…
> The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast. This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author.