[HN Gopher] Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?
___________________________________________________________________
Why Has "Ivermectin" Become a Dirty Word?
Author : andrenth
Score : 19 points
Date : 2021-06-18 22:01 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (taibbi.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (taibbi.substack.com)
| loceng wrote:
| Related links on Ivermectin:
|
| - https://covid19criticalcare.com/ for Ivermectin protocols +
| research gathered
|
| - bird-group.org - UK group
|
| - discussion blocked from YouTube but hosted on Bitchute between
| Bret Weinstein and Pierre Kory (of the article):
| https://www.bitchute.com/video/rULiNFdlyFM1/ (full video linked
| in description)
|
| - discussion with Bret Weinstein and two others, including the
| inventor of mRNA technology trying to sound the alarms on what's
| going on with this mRNA vaccine and Ivermectin:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Bret Weinstein is fanning the flames here. What's his clinical
| expertise? (Your last video has been removed from YouTube as
| well)
| mckirk wrote:
| I suspect he is doing that on purpose, to highlight how
| dangerous this kind of scientific censorship is. He also has
| been a proponent of discussing the possibility of a lab leak
| for a long time, and has faced a lot of backlash for it, so
| this isn't exactly new to him and he's had a lot of time to
| get pissed off about being told what he can and can't
| discuss.
| wmf wrote:
| I suspect it's impossible for social media to come up with a
| policy that allows discussion of Ivermectin, Remdesivir, and
| Hydroxychloroquine but doesn't also open the door to homeopathy,
| bleach, and anti-vax content. COVID is a life or death situation
| for some people and they deserve better than social media.
| [deleted]
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| This is actually about censorship of science and medical
| professionals on platforms like YouTube. Which is, I think,
| something to be concerned about.
| version_five wrote:
| I think more important than whether or not Ivermectin is actually
| helpful (it seems to have a following, but there appears also to
| be contradictory evidence and it's weirdly entangled with people
| advocating against using covid vaccines) is the whole censorship
| issue raised in the article. I definitely don't want YouTube or
| whoever deciding what I'm smart enough to think about and accept
| or reject on my own. They (tech elites generally) went down a
| dangerous but self-constrained road when they started censoring
| during the election, but extending this to scientists etc, and by
| extension somehow pronouncing on what scientific opinions are
| valid and which are not, moves into a whole different realm of
| inappropriateness
| geofft wrote:
| This feels like a really silly question, but why are these sorts
| of scientific discussions happening on Facebook and YouTube
| instead of, like, a journal or conference or mailing list or
| something?
|
| Like, independent of the particular thing they're blocking,
| YouTube is not a scientific repository and their financial
| incentives are not aligned with supporting science. Why are we
| relying on them? Do we want to watch a Grammarly ad interrupt a
| scientific presentation every few minutes? What do you do if
| you're a scientist who got banned from YouTube because of
| copyright strikes or something?
|
| It seems _possible_ that the Substack crowd can push back against
| this particular culture-war issue with enough public shaming (and
| friendly legislators), but it seems like very much the wrong
| path. If you want a scientific presentation to be watchable by
| other scientists, why isn 't a university or an academic press
| hosting the video? It is, I hear, possible to run a video hosting
| site of your own. YouTube isn't the internet.
| version_five wrote:
| Two things: look up machine learning stuff on YouTube and
| you'll find millions probably of sciency videos. Like it or
| not, its definitely a place where scientific content is
| present.
|
| Secondly, the article talks about things like testimony before
| Congress. It's not just that people use YouTube to upload
| conference presentations (they do) but it's also a general
| platform for excerpts from tv, other proceedings, etc. So I
| think it doesnt lead anywhere to just dismiss is as "why are
| they posting on YouTube anyway"
| EdTsft wrote:
| YouTube is very convenient for hosting and sharing recordings
| of talks. You can't put a video recording in a mailing list or
| a paper journal, and journal/conference websites are generally
| not in the business of hosting video recordings.
|
| Often it's much easier to understand another's research in the
| form of a presentation than a paper (papers give you the
| details but not necessarily the high level story), so, like it
| or not, YouTube is a significant scientific repository.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-18 23:02 UTC)