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

161–170 of 329 posts

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

#161

Post by dehrmann »

micouay wrote: post #116
yokaze wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Ivermectin is not a newly-discovered drug. There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide (it even got a Nobel prize). It has been used for decades. [1] The only unknown right now is the long term effect of ivermectin in patients with covid. It seems to me that it's the same unknown as with the vaccines. You don't have a clinical trial for effects of the vaccines after 5 years, do you? Why don't…

> mRNA vaccines, which have not been around for decades and only got the emergency authorization

This is mostly true, but mRNA vaccines have gone through human trials before covid.

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

#162

Post by TeeMassive »

pumaontheprowl wrote: post #69

If McDonald's mistreats me, I can go to Wendy's or Burger King and get a similar meal for a similar price. When Youtube mistreats me, where am I supposed to go? BitChute? Vimeo? Neither of those have even half the creators as Youtube. And if creators want to migrate off Youtube, how are they supposed to do that when they'll get less than 10% of the audience on the other sites? Youtube's moat way is too deep to be thr…

> Neither of those have even half the creators as Youtube.

> Youtube is a monopoly and needs to be regulated as such.

I don't think this is the right argument against big tech in general. "They are more popular" when it comes to entertainment and when there are other ways to share content that people willingly refuse to use just doesn't demonstrate a clear abuse in my opinion.

The most convincing I have seen is when public officials are using them to communicate directly with their constituents (have you seen a government ad on BitChute, Parler, Minds or Gab?) and when they coordinate to ban competitors, collude directly with government officials (wink wink Fauci wink wink Zuckerberg) and when they suppress information and people that are not in line with the main institutional narratives.

And personally billionaires with a messianic complex just creeps me out.

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

#163

Post by zozbot234 »

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…

I think arguing that supportive care is grossly suboptimal is going to be a pretty difficult take to sustain, given that a huge majority of the infected manage a full recovery from SARS-CoV-2 with no treatment at all. This complicates the cost-benefit outlook for any early treatment; it would be entirely wasted on those patients, while the potential for severe side effects (as seen also, e.g. from HCQ) would remain.

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

#165

Post by opheliate »

jb775 wrote: post #77
callesgg wrote: post #13

While ridiculous, Eric Weinstein is a bit over the top with his accusations from time to time. For example Blaming the physics community for not looking in to his personal “unity” theories more.

Sounds like the physics community wrote him off without actually considering his ideas because he didn't fit the charlatan-leftist mold of your typical physicist academic. Per Wikipedia[1]: The paper qualifies that the author "is not a physicist" but an "entertainer", and it has received strong criticism from the scientific community [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weinstein#

Maybe it "sounds like" that to you, but as far as I can see, the physics community considered Weinstein's theory, and disagreed because they thought it was wrong: See [1].

Does everything have to be seen through this left-right lens? I'm highly sceptical that an important discovery in physics would be written off by any academic because its author didn't appear left-wing enough.

1: https://timothynguyen.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/geometric_...

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

#166

Post by lupire »

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…

What did Bret say about ivermectin?

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

#167

Post by [deleted] »

takeda wrote: post #109
pumaontheprowl wrote: post #69

If McDonald's mistreats me, I can go to Wendy's or Burger King and get a similar meal for a similar price. When Youtube mistreats me, where am I supposed to go? BitChute? Vimeo? Neither of those have even half the creators as Youtube. And if creators want to migrate off Youtube, how are they supposed to do that when they'll get less than 10% of the audience on the other sites? Youtube's moat way is too deep to be thr…

This is silly. You have alternatives, but you still are dismissing them. You could similarly say that if "McDonald mistreats me, where I'm going to go? Wendy? or Burger King? no one is going there" Also your argument with electric company doesn't make sense, in this you could maybe compare it to an ISP, which I agree should be treated as an utility. YouTube is just one of many services available. Your only argument a…

[deleted]

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

#168

Post by derefr »

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…

Re: a now-deleted comment about how doctors elsewhere in the world suffer strict consequences for their actions, rather than getting "turned a blind eye":

That still happens in the US regulatory environment as well! Implicit to "we'll turn a blind eye" is the context "as long as you do the due diligence of creating an alternative above-board explanation for what you were doing, so that there's no official record of your heterodox practice."

The most serious and flagrant example of this effect occurs in assisted suicides. It is malfeasance to knowingly kill a patient, and even if no criminal charges occur, you'll have your license to practice permanently revoked if it can be proven that that was your intent.

So no doctor who sets out to assist a patient in suicide ever has the words "assisted suicide" come out of their mouths in a provable way. Instead, they talk about "optimizing quality of life" and "mitigating suffering", through the mechanisms of large doses of drugs that can coincidentally, potentially cause death.

As long as the death can be justified with the above-board explanation ("the patient's pain was so great that they needed this amount of narcotics to rest; and then this dose of narcotics ended up stopping their breathing during the night, and by the time a nurse responded, they were already gone") then the medical establishment — who 100% knows what the doctor was really doing — lets it go.

But if the doctor doesn't bother to hide their approach behind a justification like this? Then they get the book thrown at them.

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

#169

Post by zoomgyal »

jonathankoren wrote: post #132
0x6A75616E wrote: post #4

In China, censorship is state-run. In America, it's been privatized.

Only someone that doesn’t understand what censorship is would say this. You’re arguing for government compelled speech.

What do you think censorship actually means? Private and Public organizations engage in censorship all the time. Youtube doesn't have to host these videos but it is still censorship. The word is morally neutral.

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

#170

Post by zephyr1 »

IshKebab wrote: post #145
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. Gues…

If it's a crank conspiracy theory it should be easy to disprove.

If it's more complicated then that, then you shouldn't be so confident you're the smart guy in the room.

Post reply on HN