YouTube deletes rapper's 'Let's Go Brandon' song claiming medical misinformation

Nope. It's not that it's ought to be believed. The thing, in general, is that you always make a choice with your beliefs and decisions. When you make a decision (vaccinate or not to vaccinate, wear a mask, don't wear a mask) then you choose between two options and in the end who you believe.

A lot of people like to formulate this for themselves as being open and not accepting some kind of "dogma". Which sounds good, you stay open, what do you have to lose? (BTW, accepting the scientific consensus doesn't mean that you can't change your mind when new information comes in, but that's a tangent.)

But the thing is that when you have to make a decision then you have to accept some claims as being true (for at least the duration of making the decision). And that's when you have to ask yourself (as a layperson): who is more likely to be right? Which model is going to be more close to the reality? Science, the majority of scientists or some random dude? (Including maybe those few seemingly legit scientists who "speak up" in social media stating that all other scientists have gone completely wrong, including virologists and epidemiologists. But that one bloke is right.) And can that solo dude be right in theory? Yes, of course. Is he likely to be right? Well, looking back at the history of science it's rare, it doesn't last too long (until others realize and change their opinion) and it's getting more rare (as the scientific method evolves).

So yeah, no burden of proof on anyone, just a meaningful strategy for those outside of the field (any given field). Those doing research should always prove they are right. But, to get back to the original topic, that's not done in social media. That's done in scientific publications through peer reviewed papers. And, of course, the scientific consensus itself is supported by those so talking about shifting the burden of proof makes no sense at all. The proof is there for the consensus. That's the point.

It's not about censoring the opinions in general. Again, it's about censoring fake news on social media. Nobody wants to censor research (I know it's more complicated, because of what gets funded and what not) or publishing in peer reviewed papers. Heck, as a result of the pandemic, peer reviews got even quicker and a lot of research gets publicity when they get on pre-print servers (i.e. pre-review)! That doesn't sound like claiming monopoly on the truth to me.

You could argue that social media is an important outlet for new scientific ideas, results and discoveries but then you'd have to prove that not censoring there and letting the fakes run wild adds more value than the harm caused by the fakes. And the we know that the latter effect exists. I'd say that even if there is added value here (TBH, I don't see it at all), it's overwhelmed by the harm. Any scientifically valuable contribution that is only spread through the social media will be lost in the noise of nonsense.

Fact check your fact check:

> "Not all vaccines prevent infection. Some, known as leaky vaccines, prolong host survival or reduce disease symptoms without preventing viral replication and transmission. Although leaky vaccines provide anti-disease benefits to vaccinated individuals, new research by CIDD’s Andrew Read, David Kennedy and colleagues at the Avian Oncogenic Virus Group in the United Kingdom, and The University of New England in Australia, has demonstrated that leaky vaccines can make the situation for unvaccinated individuals worse. Leaky vaccines work by enhancing host immunity to a particular pathogen, without necessarily blocking or slowing viral replication. The result is that infected but vaccinated individuals have extended survival, allowing highly virulent pathogen that would normally reach an evolutionary dead-end in a dead host, can transmit. The evolutionary consequences of high virulence are thus reduced and these pathogens can be selectively favored as a result of leaky vaccination." [1]

> "Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts." [2]

> "Over the past fifty years, Marek’s disease—an illness of fowl—has become fouler. Marek’s is caused by a highly contagious virus, related to those that cause herpes in humans. It spreads through the dust of contaminated chicken coops, and caused both paralysis and cancer. In the 1970s, new vaccines brought the disease the under control. But Marek’s didn’t go gently into that good night. Within ten years, it started evolving into more virulent strains, which now trigger more severe cancers and afflict chickens at earlier ages. Andrew Read from Pennsylvania State University thinks that the vaccines were responsible. The Marek’s vaccine is “imperfect” or “leaky.” That is, it protects chickens from developing disease, but doesn’t stop them from becoming infected or from spreading the virus. Inadvertently, this made it easier for the most virulent strains to survive. Such strains would normally kill their hosts so quickly that they’d die out. But in an immunised flock, they can persist because their lethal nature has been neutered. That’s not a problem for vaccinated individuals. But unvaccinated birds are now in serious trouble. This problem, where vaccination fosters the evolution of more virulent disease, does not apply to most human vaccines. Those against mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox are “perfect:” They protect against disease and stop people from transmitting the respective viruses. “You don’t get onward evolution,” says Read. “These vaccines are very successful, highly effective, and very safe. They have been a tremendous success story and will continue to be so.”" [3]

> "Vaccination elicits immune responses capable of potently neutralizing SARS-CoV-2. However, ongoing sur- veillance has revealed the emergence of variants harboring mutations in spike, the main target of neutralizing antibodies. To understand the impact of these variants, we evaluated the neutralization potency of 99 indi- viduals that received one or two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines against pseudoviruses representing 10 globally circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2. Five of the 10 pseudoviruses, harboring receptor- binding domain mutations, including K417N/T, E484K, and N501Y, were highly resistant to neutralization. Cross-neutralization of B.1.351 variants was comparable to SARS-CoV and bat-derived WIV1-CoV, suggest- ing that a relatively small number of mutations can mediate potent escape from vaccine responses. While the clinical impact of neutralization resistance remains uncertain, these results highlight the potential for variants to escape from neutralizing humoral immunity and emphasize the need to develop broadly protective inter- ventions against the evolving pandemic." [4]

> "HIV patient had COVID for over 7 months, infection mutated over 30 times....It is noted that patients who have HIV are not more susceptible to contracting a coronavirus infection than those without, nor does it worsen the medical implications of the infection. Additionally, the fact that the disease stays present within the body of immunosuppressed patients for longer periods of time compared to healthier individuals could mean that HIV patients could be an incessant source of transmission and mutations of the coronavirus - almost like a factory of variants." [5]

If you have high viral transmission against a less effective variant, of course you will have natural selection of a virus for greater transmissibility within that specific environment. If the environment is now a conventional spike antibody human environment, this will promote changes to the spike, and, changes to the overall virus.

Furthermore, when you have a leaky vaccine distributed to a large population where viral spread is still occuring, you promote genetic transfer between viruses that are mutually infecting patients, as well

This is science 101, unless you disbelieve in adaptation?

[1] http://epidemics.psu.edu/articles/view/leaky-vaccines-promot...

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/

[3] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vac...

[4] https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2821%2900...

[5] https://www.jpost.com/health-science/hiv-patient-had-covid-f...