“YouTube is shutting down dissenting Biology PhDs and MDs”

Post by loceng » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:17 PM UTC

neuronexmachina wrote: post #140

ALittleLight wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 term Weinstein prefers for himself is "entertainer": https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric... > 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 permi…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #192

micouay wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There were hundereds of millions of courses administered world wide 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.

Post by nradov » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

micouay wrote: post #189

zozbot234 wrote: post #163

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.

Post by philwelch » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

wwweston wrote: post #195

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 else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? 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…

Post by seoaeu » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

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#