6 ms·

YouTube removes two videos from a U.S. Senate committee

61 points by RestlessMind 6y ago

curmudgeon22 6y ago
You can access the full article here: https://www.dailyechoed.com/opinion-youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate/ https://www.dailyechoed.com/opinion-youtube-cancels-the-u-s-...
vfclists 6y ago
I guess they believe the doctors that contributed to the article below don't know what they going on about. Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432... FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
- blacktriangle 6y ago
  So Trump was right about Ivermectin and Hydroxy...huh.
  - underseacables 6y ago
    I don’t think it’s about whether or not Trump is right or wrong about anything, but I think we are starting to see that when career politicians, Wall Street, and corporations disagree with someone, perhaps that is someone the citizenry should listen to and consider.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Hadrianus 6y ago
Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reasoning. As I’m sure the author, a lawyer and politician, knows the art of persuasive rhetoric well, his oversight seems intentional.
- randcraw 6y ago
  [I just edited this post for accuracy, correcting my error describing ivermectin is a steroid. It is in fact an anti-parasitic. The gist of my post remains largely intact, however.] The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses. However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson). Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
  - bargl 6y ago
    So YouTube is canceling a video about a Dr. who is an expert in the field, attempting to get more of a spotlight on a potential treatment of COVID that is not being used and widely shared. You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals. So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug. He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug that is widely accepted. Now, I'm no freaking scientist, but it is FAIR to say that if this guy did his homework, found evidence of this in peer reviewed studies and is trying to present it to congress for further investigation, that is a good thing. I'm not saying he's correct, but if there is a reasonable about of evidence that it's been overlooked and it would significantly help, then that's something we should at least do more (very urgent) research on. If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong. But taking a video down, of a scientist posing a credible, alternative solution to waiting for a vaccine is clearly a shit thing to do. The best solution would be to allow experts to link to and from each others videos doing a "this is wrong and here's why" style conversation. Taking information away is never a good thing imo. https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid-19-coronavirus-3535912/ https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid... EDIT: This does not mean you should go self medicate, that's always an awful idea. Do not give yourself ay drugs that are not over the counter without consulting with a doctor. Seriously, that I have to say that is ridiculous, and I would totally understand if YouTube put something up on the video saying that too. EDIT 2: >Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now. https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/ https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/ This guy has said some stuff I think is overly political, but for this disease it's worth investigating if it might help prevent infection, even if we just gave it to our front line workers.
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/765fU https://archive.is/765fU
ceilingcorner 6y ago
Good. I hope they continue to cancel cancel government and corporate channels for petty and highly biased reasons. Perhaps then we will see some real movement toward decentralization, or at least toward antitrust legal action. The way out is through.
Animats 6y ago
Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.
- undefined1 6y ago
  they should only remove illegal content. that's it. act as a common carrier.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    /r/jailbait wasn't illegal content. Would you want Reddit to restore it? I don't. Downvotes without explanation?
  - d1zzy 6y ago
    So no business should be allowed to refuse whom they can do business with? (other than illegal deals)
    - undefined1 6y ago
      i'm just saying that's what platforms that are the defacto town square should do. act as a neutral platform, not a publisher. the town square should not be governed by a few publishing giants.
- erentz 6y ago
  Was this video just raw testimony without being wrapped in opinion? Was it located on an official US Congress channel? If so then I do agree. If not then I don’t necessarily agree, and it’s not necessarily so cut and dry. This opinion piece doesn’t give any hard information in that regard.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0]. What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be actually, not really sure what the goal of most of FAANG is supposed to be, other than print maximal amounts of money. I think people might be a little less angry at them if they actually some stated mission to evaluate against. [0] - https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covid-19 https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covi...
adamredwoods 6y ago
How thoroughly are 'opinion' articles vetted? Not at all? Why are they considered substantial then. > Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/
- gltchkrft 6y ago
  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... Last Updated: August 27, 2020 The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).
  - m-p-3 6y ago
    https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-... Last Updated: January 14, 2021 > The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. And I agree, we need more data before moving forward.
    - gltchkrft 6y ago
      Yes. That was after the senate testimony session, that youtube removed. At the time of that senate testimony, this was the recommendation.
nradov 6y ago
For those interested in the clinical details the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has extensive information about ivermectin including links to the the latest research. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ It's bizarre and horrifying that YouTube is censoring legitimate scientific debate. Sure it's their platform and they can do what they want, but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk. COVID-19 care practices are evolving rapidly so what was true last month might be false next month. There's a lot we don't know, and some of what we think we know will eventually turn out to be wrong.
- m-p-3 6y ago
  > but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk Are there many MDs keeping themselves up-to-date on COVID-19 latest recommendations through YouTube though?
underseacables 6y ago
I don’t agree with this at all. Now YouTube is not only removing questionable content, it’s stepping into the public square, our very government, to decide which debate views you hear. Not a good sign and a terrible precedent. Congressional committees are by their very makeup, a farce intended to create sound bites for the media, but if we can’t have a space for open, unobstructed or uncensored debate in a government hearing, we must question if YouTube is doing more harm than good.
bargl 6y ago
OK So I cannot find the videos in question I have no clue if they were or were not flagged by algorithm and that mistake was fixed or if they were flagged on purpose. I also believe this article is click bait as heck. I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm. Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in trials) rate of infection from COVID down to nearly zero. To that end he believes that this should be investigated as urgently or more urgently than vaccines. His reasoning is that this is a off the shelf drug that has not been disproven in any peer review so far. To support that the NIH has changed their recommendation from "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)." to "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." Which can be considered a great indicator that ivermectin is gaining steam. So, to treat the discussion of ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous. We've thrown billions of dollars towards finding a vaccine, which is arguably a better long term solution. Dr. Kory's point is that we should be researching this treatment as quickly as possible to save lives today and let the vaccine save lives in the future. He's been saying this since well before the vaccines were a sure thing. I'm not saying ivermectin is going to work. I'm saying it if it does work that we moved too slow in identifying it and we had evidence that it may have worked very early on.
- vfclists 6y ago
  Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are recommended in a paper published in the American Journal of Medicine. Funny how my comment mentioning that has dropped to the bottom of page. -- Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432... FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
- 6y ago
JohnTHaller 6y ago
This is an opinion piece with a purposely over-the-top headline in the Wall Street Journal (sibling company of Fox News) by Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Johnson has previously made Covid-19-related news pushing hydrochloriquine as a treatment. He has pushed the baseless conspiracy theory that doctors are pushing to deny access to hcq because it is cheaper than other treatments. If there is a legitimate news article on the removal of these two video, we should link to that instead.

61 points by RestlessMind 6y ago

You can access the full article here: https://www.dailyechoed.com/opinion-youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate/ https://www.dailyechoed.com/opinion-youtube-cancels-the-u-s-...

vfclists 6y ago

I guess they believe the doctors that contributed to the article below don't know what they going on about. Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432... FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.

blacktriangle 6y ago
So Trump was right about Ivermectin and Hydroxy...huh.
- underseacables 6y ago
  I don’t think it’s about whether or not Trump is right or wrong about anything, but I think we are starting to see that when career politicians, Wall Street, and corporations disagree with someone, perhaps that is someone the citizenry should listen to and consider.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Hadrianus 6y ago

Unfortunately this article doesn’t really give YouTube’s reasoning for the removal. Did the Drs advance debunked conspiracy theories in addition to the comments regarding ivermectin? If so, it is a bit of bait-and-switch to defend the portion of the presentation that wasn’t grounds for the removal. Seeing as this is a persuasive argument I would be more persuaded had the author been transparent about YouTube’s reasoning. As I’m sure the author, a lawyer and politician, knows the art of persuasive rhetoric well, his oversight seems intentional.

randcraw 6y ago
[I just edited this post for accuracy, correcting my error describing ivermectin is a steroid. It is in fact an anti-parasitic. The gist of my post remains largely intact, however.] The op-ed is from a US senator who has partnered with Dr Kory to actively promote ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, as a treatment for COVID. The NIH is assessing the drug clinically. The FDA has not recommended it for COVID, though a January 19, 2021 article in The Lancet indicated that it may offer some value if introduced early in the infection in high doses. However, for the past year, Dr Kory has promoted the use of ivermectin with minimal clinical evidence. It's the overstatement of efficacy in treating COVID, as promoted by Dr Kory, which Google is suppressing as irresponsible. The Lancet article does not endorse the use of ivermectin to the degree that Dr Kory does (or Sen. Johnson). Thus Sen Johnson's claim that Google has "canceled the US Senate" is thus unwarranted, overwrought, and misleading.
- bargl 6y ago
  So YouTube is canceling a video about a Dr. who is an expert in the field, attempting to get more of a spotlight on a potential treatment of COVID that is not being used and widely shared. You actually got part of your summary wrong, he's saying it can prevent the disease from infecting individuals. So it's a preventative drug not an early treatment drug. He was also saying it's not popular because it's a COTS drug that is widely accepted. Now, I'm no freaking scientist, but it is FAIR to say that if this guy did his homework, found evidence of this in peer reviewed studies and is trying to present it to congress for further investigation, that is a good thing. I'm not saying he's correct, but if there is a reasonable about of evidence that it's been overlooked and it would significantly help, then that's something we should at least do more (very urgent) research on. If instead he's completely bunk, I'd love to see an analysis of further research proving him wrong. But taking a video down, of a scientist posing a credible, alternative solution to waiting for a vaccine is clearly a shit thing to do. The best solution would be to allow experts to link to and from each others videos doing a "this is wrong and here's why" style conversation. Taking information away is never a good thing imo. https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid-19-coronavirus-3535912/ https://www.drugs.com/medical-answers/ivermectin-treat-covid... EDIT: This does not mean you should go self medicate, that's always an awful idea. Do not give yourself ay drugs that are not over the counter without consulting with a doctor. Seriously, that I have to say that is ridiculous, and I would totally understand if YouTube put something up on the video saying that too. EDIT 2: >Our manuscript needs to be reviewed by the NIH, and they need to formulate treatment recommendations, now. https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/ https://dryburgh.com/ivermectin-pierre-kory/ This guy has said some stuff I think is overly political, but for this disease it's worth investigating if it might help prevent infection, even if we just gave it to our front line workers.

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/765fU https://archive.is/765fU

ceilingcorner 6y ago

Good. I hope they continue to cancel cancel government and corporate channels for petty and highly biased reasons. Perhaps then we will see some real movement toward decentralization, or at least toward antitrust legal action. The way out is through.

Animats 6y ago

Agree or disagree, YouTube should not be removing testimony before the United States Congress.

undefined1 6y ago
they should only remove illegal content. that's it. act as a common carrier.
- belltaco 6y ago
  /r/jailbait wasn't illegal content. Would you want Reddit to restore it? I don't. Downvotes without explanation?
- d1zzy 6y ago
  So no business should be allowed to refuse whom they can do business with? (other than illegal deals)
  - undefined1 6y ago
    i'm just saying that's what platforms that are the defacto town square should do. act as a neutral platform, not a publisher. the town square should not be governed by a few publishing giants.
erentz 6y ago
Was this video just raw testimony without being wrapped in opinion? Was it located on an official US Congress channel? If so then I do agree. If not then I don’t necessarily agree, and it’s not necessarily so cut and dry. This opinion piece doesn’t give any hard information in that regard.
polka_haunts_us 6y ago
Youtube should remove whatever they want because they're a private company and it's not like they're the sole archiver of these videos. I've attached the committee hearing in question below [0]. What removing the video does do is make me not want to use YouTube for any serious kind of deep dive research, which frankly is not what I use it for anyways. I'm not really sure what the goal of YouTube is supposed to be actually, not really sure what the goal of most of FAANG is supposed to be, other than print maximal amounts of money. I think people might be a little less angry at them if they actually some stated mission to evaluate against. [0] - https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covid-19 https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covi...

adamredwoods 6y ago

How thoroughly are 'opinion' articles vetted? Not at all? Why are they considered substantial then. > Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7521351/

gltchkrft 6y ago
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... Last Updated: August 27, 2020 The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII).
- m-p-3 6y ago
  https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/statement-on-... Last Updated: January 14, 2021 > The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. And I agree, we need more data before moving forward.
  - gltchkrft 6y ago
    Yes. That was after the senate testimony session, that youtube removed. At the time of that senate testimony, this was the recommendation.

nradov 6y ago

For those interested in the clinical details the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has extensive information about ivermectin including links to the the latest research. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ It's bizarre and horrifying that YouTube is censoring legitimate scientific debate. Sure it's their platform and they can do what they want, but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk. COVID-19 care practices are evolving rapidly so what was true last month might be false next month. There's a lot we don't know, and some of what we think we know will eventually turn out to be wrong.

m-p-3 6y ago
> but in this case YouTube is putting public health at risk Are there many MDs keeping themselves up-to-date on COVID-19 latest recommendations through YouTube though?

underseacables 6y ago

I don’t agree with this at all. Now YouTube is not only removing questionable content, it’s stepping into the public square, our very government, to decide which debate views you hear. Not a good sign and a terrible precedent. Congressional committees are by their very makeup, a farce intended to create sound bites for the media, but if we can’t have a space for open, unobstructed or uncensored debate in a government hearing, we must question if YouTube is doing more harm than good.

bargl 6y ago

OK So I cannot find the videos in question I have no clue if they were or were not flagged by algorithm and that mistake was fixed or if they were flagged on purpose. I also believe this article is click bait as heck. I want to discuss what I've found out about ivermectin and why videos about it should not be flagged by an algorithm. Ivermectin is being proposed by Dr. Kory as a preventative drug which reduces (in trials) rate of infection from COVID down to nearly zero. To that end he believes that this should be investigated as urgently or more urgently than vaccines. His reasoning is that this is a off the shelf drug that has not been disproven in any peer review so far. To support that the NIH has changed their recommendation from "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial (AIII)." to "The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) has determined that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19." Which can be considered a great indicator that ivermectin is gaining steam. So, to treat the discussion of ivermectin as if it were some fringe group's conspiracy science, is ridiculous. We've thrown billions of dollars towards finding a vaccine, which is arguably a better long term solution. Dr. Kory's point is that we should be researching this treatment as quickly as possible to save lives today and let the vaccine save lives in the future. He's been saying this since well before the vaccines were a sure thing. I'm not saying ivermectin is going to work. I'm saying it if it does work that we moved too slow in identifying it and we had evidence that it may have worked very early on.

vfclists 6y ago
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are recommended in a paper published in the American Journal of Medicine. Funny how my comment mentioning that has dropped to the bottom of page. -- Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934320306732 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000293432... FWIW both Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are included in their recommendations.
6y ago

JohnTHaller 6y ago

This is an opinion piece with a purposely over-the-top headline in the Wall Street Journal (sibling company of Fox News) by Republican Senator Ron Johnson. Johnson has previously made Covid-19-related news pushing hydrochloriquine as a treatment. He has pushed the baseless conspiracy theory that doctors are pushing to deny access to hcq because it is cheaper than other treatments. If there is a legitimate news article on the removal of these two video, we should link to that instead.