4 ms·

You do realize that the whole reason we're discussing this retraction is because the scientific community did discuss its validity? So far I've seen a lot of s

by knzhou 6y ago

You do realize that the whole reason we're discussing this retraction is because the scientific community did discuss its validity? So far I've seen a lot of self-correction done by the scientific and medical communities themselves. There hasn't been a single example of a nontrivial story broken by a guy delivering spittle-flecked rants on Youtube. The ranters, however, are very good at taking credit for what actual scientists did.

emtel 6y ago
Self-correction in this case is not much cause for celebration. You have to ask yourself how the hell this ever got into The Lancet in the first place. But that's not really the point. Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you might be barred from posting a valid critique of a bogus study?
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Can you give us an example of a valid critique that was barred from YouTube?
  - nostromo 6y ago
    This video was removed, before being reinstated later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-_SV-y11Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-_SV-y11Y
nostromo 6y ago
> spittle-flecked rants This added color detracts from your comment's point. It's the kind of thing that would be included in, well, a spittle-flecked YouTube rant.
creddit 6y ago
YouTube: censors any conversation about topic. HN Commenter: claims no one YouTube did anything to help change conversation about topic. Uses this to validate YouTube censorship. That’s some Catch-22 type stuff.
koolba 6y ago
> You do realize that the whole reason we're discussing this retraction is because the scientific community did discuss its validity? This is the type of “Only the experts can decide for us... attitude that people are fed up with. A cabal of experts should not get to decide which theories I want to read about by simply labeling them as wrong or crack pot conspiracies.
- knzhou 6y ago
  You could have read the paper yourself 10 days ago to find the flaws. You could have read the public discussions where scientists questioned the paper. You could have read the published "Expression of Concern" in the Lancet yesterday. You can read the retraction notice today. What exactly are you missing?
  - koolba 6y ago
    > What exactly are you missing? Why should I be limited to the source material? Why can’t I watch a video of someone discussing the topic and providing their own analysis?
    - knzhou 6y ago
      Of course you can. For example, Dr. John Campbell has a popular Youtube channel where he dissects new studies. And if you just want an opposing political spin, you know Fox News and co. have Youtube channels, right? What gets taken down is spittle-flecked rants about how COVID-19 was created by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, but can be cured by drinking bleach, but simultaneously it doesn't even exist.
      - koolba 6y ago
        At the end of the day it boils down to whether you think you get to decide what others get to watch and hear. The content itself isn’t relevant because once you go down that road, then it’s just a matter of squeezing or shifting the acceptable window.
matthewmarkus 6y ago
Yes, but many of those researchers rely upon tools supplied by the oligopoly to communicate. Plandemic is probably a stupid movie. I haven't seen it, so I cannot judge. Regardless, it has been scrubbed from Google Drive accounts by the powers that be! Misinformation about coronavirus finds new avenues on unexpected sites (WaPo) http://archive.today/wKfVi http://archive.today/wKfVi What kind of automated or intentional interference might researchers face in the future when Google or Facebook has already decided on the facts? P.S. The crazy thing about the Plandemic take down is that it is driven by someone trying to license their content removal patent to the oligopoly. The WaPo reporter never even bothered to research that, or if she did, she didn't disclose that fact in her article! Another hidden business interest. https://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-youtube-brand-safety-crisis/308435 https://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-y...

by knzhou 6y ago

emtel 6y ago

Self-correction in this case is not much cause for celebration. You have to ask yourself how the hell this ever got into The Lancet in the first place. But that's not really the point. Doesn't it bother you even a little bit that you might be barred from posting a valid critique of a bogus study?

snowwrestler 6y ago
Can you give us an example of a valid critique that was barred from YouTube?
- nostromo 6y ago
  This video was removed, before being reinstated later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-_SV-y11Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB-_SV-y11Y

nostromo 6y ago

> spittle-flecked rants This added color detracts from your comment's point. It's the kind of thing that would be included in, well, a spittle-flecked YouTube rant.

creddit 6y ago

YouTube: censors any conversation about topic. HN Commenter: claims no one YouTube did anything to help change conversation about topic. Uses this to validate YouTube censorship. That’s some Catch-22 type stuff.

koolba 6y ago

> You do realize that the whole reason we're discussing this retraction is because the scientific community did discuss its validity? This is the type of “Only the experts can decide for us... attitude that people are fed up with. A cabal of experts should not get to decide which theories I want to read about by simply labeling them as wrong or crack pot conspiracies.

knzhou 6y ago
You could have read the paper yourself 10 days ago to find the flaws. You could have read the public discussions where scientists questioned the paper. You could have read the published "Expression of Concern" in the Lancet yesterday. You can read the retraction notice today. What exactly are you missing?
- koolba 6y ago
  > What exactly are you missing? Why should I be limited to the source material? Why can’t I watch a video of someone discussing the topic and providing their own analysis?
  - knzhou 6y ago
    Of course you can. For example, Dr. John Campbell has a popular Youtube channel where he dissects new studies. And if you just want an opposing political spin, you know Fox News and co. have Youtube channels, right? What gets taken down is spittle-flecked rants about how COVID-19 was created by Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci to bring about the Biblical apocalypse, but can be cured by drinking bleach, but simultaneously it doesn't even exist.
    - koolba 6y ago
      At the end of the day it boils down to whether you think you get to decide what others get to watch and hear. The content itself isn’t relevant because once you go down that road, then it’s just a matter of squeezing or shifting the acceptable window.

matthewmarkus 6y ago

Yes, but many of those researchers rely upon tools supplied by the oligopoly to communicate. Plandemic is probably a stupid movie. I haven't seen it, so I cannot judge. Regardless, it has been scrubbed from Google Drive accounts by the powers that be! Misinformation about coronavirus finds new avenues on unexpected sites (WaPo) http://archive.today/wKfVi http://archive.today/wKfVi What kind of automated or intentional interference might researchers face in the future when Google or Facebook has already decided on the facts? P.S. The crazy thing about the Plandemic take down is that it is driven by someone trying to license their content removal patent to the oligopoly. The WaPo reporter never even bothered to research that, or if she did, she didn't disclose that fact in her article! Another hidden business interest. https://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-youtube-brand-safety-crisis/308435 https://adage.com/article/digital/eric-feinberg-man-google-y...