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

“YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 329 posts

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#141

Post by ufo »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #39
pininja wrote: post #11

This is a controversial issue surrounding the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin, a prescription drug, as an COVID-19 treatment. Edit: the issue surrounds efficacy too.

This is not an issue around the safety of Ivermectin, as it is an incredibly well-known drug that is now off patent. This is a discussion around efficacy. It is similar to the MD asks around using a Zpak for Covid.

Here in Brazil there have been numerous reports of people getting sick from ivermectin overdose, including people needing liver transplants.

When ivermectin is used for it's original purpose, the treatment is usually a one-time dose. However for covid people have been taking higher doses and for a prolonged period of time, in the misguided belief that it protects against covid.

https://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/ao-menos-quatro-pacientes...

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#142

Post by vintagemodel »

jwilber wrote: post #25

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…

Albert Einstein was a Physicist and an Entertainer...

edit: Richard Feynman wrote a book called "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!": Adventures of a Curious Character (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surely_You%27re_Joking,_Mr._Fe...!).

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#143

Post by bookofsand »

Pyramus wrote: post #107
ZephyrBlu wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about the economics of drugs, but I've seen this type of statement a few times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27496008

I don't get it, why would Merck leave money on the table. Merck has and will develop many more Covid drugs. It does not make sense to bet everything on one horse where there is a lot of uncertainty and risk that any drug will see the light of day. I get that it makes sense as a narrative device to discredit Merck ("big pharma has acted against our interest in the past, so they are acting against our interest here"),…

> In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalization_(marketing)

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#144

Post by briefcomment »

yokaze wrote: post #29
micouay wrote: post #7

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…

We also have decades of experience with Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, and other repurposed drugs out of patent. Ivermectin in particular looks like it's working quite well in practice. Isn't it funny that we will hold those to ridiculously high standards, and devote resources to get much newer interventions like Remdesivir, the upcoming Molnupiravir [2] and others, that are still under patent, through requirements? Especially when every second counts, and when people are actively dying?

[1] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/05/india-just-became-la... [2] https://news.yahoo.com/merck-says-u-govt-buy-110024197.html

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#145

Post by IshKebab »

zephyr1 wrote: post #51

Thanks YouTube for liberating us from having opinions. Imagine how dangerous that could be!

Sorry, what exactly do you think is wrong with shutting down cranks and conspiracy theorists?

You may hope we live in a happy world where everyone can evaluate information fairly and detect nonsense perfectly but I'm afraid we don't. Go and have a conversation with my aunt who thinks that the government (there's only one I guess) created Covid in order to kill all the old people and save money on state pensions. Guess where she learned that.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#146

Post by pochamago »

lph wrote: post #111

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.

There's a very common misconception that libertarians believe that what should be legal and what is beneficial are the same thing. It's not difficult to believe that YouTube should have the ability to remove these people from their platform, but also that they're wrong to do so. The libertarian preference for decentralization actively presumes that many actors will make poor choices, but that because it's not enforced top down it will be easier to persuade them to change those policies. New competitors are one way that you can create that pressure, but it's not the only one, simple dialogue is another viable avenue and the purpose of critiques like this one.

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#147

Post by [deleted] »

derefr wrote: post #112
acituan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Protocols have been developed to ensure that we actually gain knowledge, and not at the expense of the patients. If medicine could be reduced to protocols, we wouldn't need the doctors. You can rest assured right now many MDs are prescribing off-label meds, diagnostics tests, making non-protocol judgement calls etc all around the world. And I am glad they are doing that, because front-line medicine is more engineer…

> You can rest assured right now many MDs are prescribing off-label meds, diagnostics tests, making non-protocol judgement calls etc all around the world. And I am glad they are doing that, because front-line medicine is more engineering than science and their job is ultimately to heal, not being protocol-only automatons. Well, yeah. One important point about health policy is that it's designed with the knowledge — t…

[deleted]

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#148

Post by IshKebab »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #97
yashap wrote: post #5

Based on YouTube’s reply, seems they took his video down for promoting dangerous medical misinformation. If that’s what happened, I don’t see an issue.

"Puberty blockers are fully reversible and their long-term effects are safe and well-understood" is dangerous medical misinformation too, but YouTube doesn't take those videos down.

I'm sure they would if it were national news that they weren't. Just because they haven't taken it down doesn't mean that they approve of it. You're just resorting to whataboutism.

"You didn't catch my mate Dave when he murdered that guy so I don't see why you should care about this little stabbing here..."

Re: “YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

#149

Post by briefcomment »

Pyramus wrote: post #128
eruleman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Merck can't benefit from both ivermectin & their new emergency-use-authorized drug. Emergency use authorization requires "no adequate, approved, and available alternatives." [1] It's against their financial incentive to have ivermectin, an out-of-patent drug, be authorized for treatment of covid. See https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1402647948371005441... [1] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vacci…

I don't get it. So are you saying somebody else should go for EUA for ivermectin for Covid, and then Merck couldn't go for EUA for their new drug? Or are you saying Merck couldn't go for several EUAs for Covid at the same time?

Merck can't get an EUA for their new drug if there's an existing treatment that works. If Ivermectin works, then their other drug becomes worthless.

Same thing for the mRNA vaccines. They're all under EUA. It would've been impossible to get them an EUA if we had found out Ivermectin worked.

Post reply on HN