191–200 of 329 posts
Youtube Alternatives : Centralized : Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, Vidlii Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
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…
Except that the doses involved are way lower than what's being speculated about (on flimsy evidence) as a possible COVID-19 treatment. And this drug has severe side effects at such higher doses. There's no way in hell that this stuff is ever going to be safer than mRNA vaccines, let alone more effective.
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…
> > 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. They are called protocols and not algorithms for a reason. > 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. Sure, sometime…
Let's agree that "the field" is not exclusive to US medicine with all the associated malpractice litigation risks. That might be an explanation for faces turning sour in your personal sample of acquaintances.
> They are called protocols and not algorithms for a reason.
> Every patient is different and the doctor has incomplete knowledge, and the protocols are in the end just that: Guidelines.
> we are talking here about deviating from the guidelines without good evidence or without a procedure to gain knowledge from it in a structured manner
I think you are taking a very elastic view on what protocols are. They either demand adherence or they are mere guidelines. Either evidence is required before straying out of protocol or doctors are expected to operate under incomplete knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Then why administer the vaccines? (With potential side effects due to the short period of clinical trials compared to the use of Ivermectin.) The way to control the epidemic is to make enough people immune to drive it to extinction. It would be preferable to use all available means to attain that. This way you protect all people (not only the people who got the treatment), including the vulnerable ones.
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…
Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims.
YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the scientific process is one of the most ridiculous things about this conversation.
When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. If you can't build up a decent threshold of support within circles of expertise first, it's likely your counterclaim won't have real value for a mass market. Or worse.
And if you want access to a mass market anyway without having to face those challenges first, it's possible that what you're about is more personal privilege than substantial contribution to the marketplace of ideas.
And given how ridiculously diverse and incredibly free the online marketplace for ideas is right now, considering how it has never been easier to get mass distribution of even pretty questionable ideas, it's a pretty weird time to take the posture that we're actually suffering under an oppressively censored discourse regime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on how you define standard.
Sure, you can define standard however you want and then the conversation is meaningless. But according to the standard definition of standard, which makes it synonymous with "average" or "norm", then my point very much stands.
Well, in that case I disagree with your assertion that scientists who put out publications of average-in-that-field’s quality are “worse than useless”.
Not how science works!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The subject of discussion is the video that was taken down but almost half the replies are about Eric Weinstein's credibility as if that's relevant somehow.
Eric and Bret are partners.
Does that make Eric's credibility relevant to the video in question though some sort of credibility transitivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> YouTube is just one of many services available. With around 75% market share. Yes, competitor Vimeo exists. Without the aid of the Internet, name a second alternative.
Peertube
This doesn’t look like it’s a solid competitor to YouTube 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…
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... !).
It's funny how everyone agreeing with YouTube hasn't watched the video in question. Y'all are very opinionated on the 2nd or 3rd level information instead of the primary source. Par for the course these days...
The purpose of a site like HN is exactly to give quality 2nd or 3rd hand accounts, so I don't need to watch an hour long video to form an opinion on it. There are many, many orders of magnitude too much 1st hand knowledge in the world for anyone to comb through. If you want to be informed on a broad range of topics, the only chance is to go by reporting that you trust, and for a great many people, that includes comme…
The video itself appears (to me) to be between qualified people talking about medical information is a careful way like adults.
Maybe you should watch it? Just the first 15 mins?