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

YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#41

Post by 0-_-0 »

doesnotexist wrote: post #32
0-_-0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience How about 31 randomized control trials? https://c19ivermectin.com/ A nice meta analysis page: https://ivmmeta.com/ Ivermectin is not the only substance studied: https://c19early.com/

Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions: "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studie…

A random blog just isn't the standard for medical evidence. Aren't you aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary? You need multiple peer-reviewed randomized control trials, at least 30.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#42

Post by readflaggedcomm »

threatofrain wrote: post #24
Jimmc414 wrote: post #20

This should not be flagged. Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. This is science not politics.

Scientific conversation happens between people who are actually practicing in the field. Scientists on social media are just engaged in promotion. When Neil Degrasse Tyson talks on YT, I consider that a combination of promotion and pedagogy. But that's not science. He's not engaging in scientific conversation with fellow colleagues. This is not an indictment on Dr. Tyson's expertise, but it is a criticism on confusin…

They engage in promotion of their findings, even if only review or survey of other studies. Communicating findings enables replication.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#43

Post by CodeGlitch »

nwienert wrote: post #35
ve55 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is common for political content (often that leans in any direction) due to user flagging.

How is this political?

Possibly to do with Bret Weinstein's time at Evergreen State College? The woke mob ousted him.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#45

Post by pwinnski »

Jimmc414 wrote: post #40
pwinnski wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This statement, "You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens," is anti-scientific. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's description in _The Demon-Haunted World_ of people who make profoundly unscientific statements using the words of science, because they want the authority and respect accorded those words, not realizing that the authority and respect comes from the methods of science, not just the wo…

You decide for me when you censor hypotheses and flag scientific discussion as political. That is happening en mass in the name of science.

Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals.

Again, this is not a decision I've made, but the actual definition of the things. I can't call a lollipop a frog and then get mad when it doesn't jump, or someone licks it. It is what it is.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#46

Post by the_third_wave »

lambdaba wrote: post #8

Strange how this was suddenly removed from the frontpage. Is this done manually?

That is why it is better to access sites like HN through the RSS feed [1] and ignore the front page. The feed shows which articles are posted in order of appearance, without manipulation. It also enables you to choose which articles to read without being influenced by the placement on the front page or the number of upvotes it got.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/rss

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#47

Post by [deleted] »

pwinnski wrote: post #45
Jimmc414 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You decide for me when you censor hypotheses and flag scientific discussion as political. That is happening en mass in the name of science.

Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. Again, this is not a decision I've made, but the actual definition of the things. I can't call a lollipop a frog and then get mad when it doesn't jump, or someone licks it. It is what it is.

[deleted]

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#49

Post by coolgeek »

0-_-0 wrote: post #41
doesnotexist wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions: "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studie…

A random blog just isn't the standard for medical evidence. Aren't you aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary? You need multiple peer-reviewed randomized control trials, at least 30.

> random blog

Let's put it this way - more people on this site know who Derek Lowe is (and respect his opinions) than every person combined that was involved in those 31 studies.

Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel

#50

Post by COGlory »

pwinnski wrote: post #45
Jimmc414 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You decide for me when you censor hypotheses and flag scientific discussion as political. That is happening en mass in the name of science.

Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. Again, this is not a decision I've made, but the actual definition of the things. I can't call a lollipop a frog and then get mad when it doesn't jump, or someone licks it. It is what it is.

>Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals.

As a scientist, I can definitively say this is false. Both these things happen over beers quite frequently.

To further

If science only happened in labs and journals, how did we ever get to the point where those things existed?

Edit: to pre-empt the likely rebuttal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Research_Conferences

Post reply on HN