It is very disappointing that a discussion regarding YT censorship of good science can be taken down this easily on HN.
YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
31–40 of 82 posts
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience just isn't the standard for medical evidence. If any of these people really wanted to change medical practice, they are aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary. Taking to youtube and twitter to claim it's a conspiracy but making no effort to actually do the work to prove your hy…
> 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 studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics."
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv...
"The Kory et al. preprint ignores the basics – there are no criteria for inclusion, studies have different mixes of treatment and control and different standards for describing treatments compared with ivermectin and mixes of treatments including ivermectin. These factors alone make the value of their meta-analysis doubtful. However, their evidence base is my major concern as it has been widely reported on social media without the wider (and more technical) context of how meta-analysis ought to be performed"
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/public...
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#33I heard his name over the Evergreen thing but forgot it.
I listened to the episode "Doing science in an emergency" [0]. It's terrible. Lots of circular logic and self congratulation. It reminded me of reddit's "IAmVerySmart" sub.
I don't think anyone should be banned (he hasn't been), but this isn't a hill for anyone to die on. He seems to have fallen into a weird rabbit-hole where he fails to admit any possibility of error on his own part.
Ivermectin does seem to be a very poor candidate as a treatment for C19 [1]. People have been made very sick ODing on it. So maybe stop pushing it?
[0] https://podyssey.fm/podcast/itunes1471581521-Bret-Weinstein-...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_rese...
Edit: the irony of being down voted by his supporters without anyone engaging is not lost on me.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#34This 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…
You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#35Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#36Earlier 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…
But they at least make the case that a larger study is warranted.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
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 words.
You don't "decide" "where" science happens. It's not a question of rights. It demonstrably does not happen at your will or on the basis of your decision. It happens the way science happens, because that's what science is.
A scientist eating a sandwich is not doing science. A scientist talking on YouTube is not doing science. A scientist doing science is doing science. That's not my decision, it's the definition of science.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
> You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
I mean, okay.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar... If you are going to be rude to someone like that, you should provide your own evidence. Provide us links to specific points in the talk that you feel makes this episode substantial. Or show some manners.
How was I rude? The assertion, "One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience" is absolutely false and not at all representative of their channel content. I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. Also my comment was also after this topic was flagged and taken down. I find that extremely rude and intellectually dishonest.
> I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion.
In an open democratic society everyone is responsible for surfacing the truth as they see it. Then we all decide indepedently what is a true or false assertion based off the evidence given.
Your job here is much easier: cite anything. Their job is much harder: they have to make an assertion about the entire episode. You should try to provide something substantial. Instead, you've come off as a bully & rude, dismissed the reply out of hand & done nothing to say why. You refuse to be helpful because you've asserted that you're right & they're wrong and that's all there is to it. It should be easy for you to make a real claim, beyond 'you're wrong'.
Re: YT demonetizes Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying channel
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens.
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.