8 ms·

Why Has “Ivermectin” Become a Dirty Word?

39 points by andrenth 5y ago

loceng 5y ago
Related links on Ivermectin: - https://covid19criticalcare.com/ 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/ 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Bret Weinstein is fanning the flames here. What's his clinical expertise? (Your last video has been removed from YouTube as well)
  - mckirk 5y ago
    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.
    - selimthegrim 5y ago
      https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/sp... This is the post of Lowe's that Weinstein et al are claiming is based on "hope" and not scientific facts. You can judge for yourself, but I think Lowe makes a reasonable attempt to engage with evidence in the post and the replies to comments. Shame on them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DoreenMichele 5y ago
This is actually about censorship of science and medical professionals on platforms like YouTube. Which is, I think, something to be concerned about.
- gamacodre 5y ago
  Eh, I'm not sure I agree. YouTube is manifestly the wrong platform for serious discussion of anything. All their incentives are are geared toward engagement volume, not quality. The very best you could possibly expect from them is to include "science our advertisers don't hate" in recommendations.
  - Iverm2837 5y ago
    If your intention is to inform as many people as possible, YouTube is manifestly the only platform for serious discussion of anything.
    - gamacodre 5y ago
      Let me rephrase: It's the wrong platform for the discussion of anything controversial. Their ToS can pretty much be boiled down to "If you make trouble for us, we'll punish you. Or just delete your account." And "trouble" is defined as "threaten our business model in any way," which leads to their delightfully vague policies that try to balance the advertising revenue a loud idiot can generate against potential regulatory actions.
  - eindiran 5y ago
    What is the suggested alternative for hosting serious video content? Vimeo? PeerTube? BitChute? Some other video hosting platform that is either entirely a ghost town or hosting manifestly questionable content?
    - gamacodre 5y ago
      My guess would be that a "platform" for serious video content could not be financially viable on today's internet. It would need be able to alienate advertisers over points of principle, effectively argue those same points with regulators, and field an army of capable moderators. It would probably end up looking more like a public-interest media company than a video-sharing site. Discovering an algorithm to govern on-site activity by the general public that doesn't lift the scum to the top could be a decent start.
version_five 5y ago
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
- helloworld11 5y ago
  This is a very good point, and I have no idea why it would be downvoted except for idiotic HN groupthink
geofft 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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"
  - geofft 5y ago
    That just makes it worse, doesn't it? Why have we let a private corporation that's stuffing ads on everything and has a bizarre view of fair use become the location of record for all video in our society? We have an entire agency - the US Government Publishing Office - whose job is to maintain the Congressional Record and handle all sorts of other printing and preservation requirements for the government. Why isn't congressional testimony there? Like, yes, it's bad for YouTube to delete congressional testimony, but isn't it worse to entrust YouTube with it in the first place?
wmf 5y ago
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.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  People on Twitter keep pointing out low-cost veterinary formulations of ivermectin in the same thread and then harangue the pharma industry.
- proc0 5y ago
  Impossible? That's a stretch. They can do anything they want. This is obviously on purpose. I'm not saying I know why, but the intentionality of it is obvious, in my opinion.
  - wmf 5y ago
    What I meant is that it's hard to come up with a set of generic principles that allow people to promote "good raw science" without also allowing "bad crackpot science". YouTube's current policy isn't an accident or secret: "YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19. ... Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en (The part about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine was added in early April.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Iverm2837 5y ago
This recent tweet from the inventor of mRNA vaccines says it all: > What happens to confidence in public health and USG if ivermectin turns out to be safe and effective for COVID, and the genetic vaccines turn out to have signficant safety issues? This looks like a very plausible scenario from where I sit. https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1403836354098872322 https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1403836354098872322

39 points by andrenth 5y ago

Related links on Ivermectin: - https://covid19criticalcare.com/ 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/ 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

selimthegrim 5y ago
Bret Weinstein is fanning the flames here. What's his clinical expertise? (Your last video has been removed from YouTube as well)
- mckirk 5y ago
  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.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/spike-protein-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/05/04/sp... This is the post of Lowe's that Weinstein et al are claiming is based on "hope" and not scientific facts. You can judge for yourself, but I think Lowe makes a reasonable attempt to engage with evidence in the post and the replies to comments. Shame on them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DoreenMichele 5y ago

This is actually about censorship of science and medical professionals on platforms like YouTube. Which is, I think, something to be concerned about.

gamacodre 5y ago
Eh, I'm not sure I agree. YouTube is manifestly the wrong platform for serious discussion of anything. All their incentives are are geared toward engagement volume, not quality. The very best you could possibly expect from them is to include "science our advertisers don't hate" in recommendations.
- Iverm2837 5y ago
  If your intention is to inform as many people as possible, YouTube is manifestly the only platform for serious discussion of anything.
  - gamacodre 5y ago
    Let me rephrase: It's the wrong platform for the discussion of anything controversial. Their ToS can pretty much be boiled down to "If you make trouble for us, we'll punish you. Or just delete your account." And "trouble" is defined as "threaten our business model in any way," which leads to their delightfully vague policies that try to balance the advertising revenue a loud idiot can generate against potential regulatory actions.
- eindiran 5y ago
  What is the suggested alternative for hosting serious video content? Vimeo? PeerTube? BitChute? Some other video hosting platform that is either entirely a ghost town or hosting manifestly questionable content?
  - gamacodre 5y ago
    My guess would be that a "platform" for serious video content could not be financially viable on today's internet. It would need be able to alienate advertisers over points of principle, effectively argue those same points with regulators, and field an army of capable moderators. It would probably end up looking more like a public-interest media company than a video-sharing site. Discovering an algorithm to govern on-site activity by the general public that doesn't lift the scum to the top could be a decent start.

version_five 5y ago

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

helloworld11 5y ago
This is a very good point, and I have no idea why it would be downvoted except for idiotic HN groupthink

geofft 5y ago

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 5y ago
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"
- geofft 5y ago
  That just makes it worse, doesn't it? Why have we let a private corporation that's stuffing ads on everything and has a bizarre view of fair use become the location of record for all video in our society? We have an entire agency - the US Government Publishing Office - whose job is to maintain the Congressional Record and handle all sorts of other printing and preservation requirements for the government. Why isn't congressional testimony there? Like, yes, it's bad for YouTube to delete congressional testimony, but isn't it worse to entrust YouTube with it in the first place?

wmf 5y ago

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.

selimthegrim 5y ago
People on Twitter keep pointing out low-cost veterinary formulations of ivermectin in the same thread and then harangue the pharma industry.
proc0 5y ago
Impossible? That's a stretch. They can do anything they want. This is obviously on purpose. I'm not saying I know why, but the intentionality of it is obvious, in my opinion.
- wmf 5y ago
  What I meant is that it's hard to come up with a set of generic principles that allow people to promote "good raw science" without also allowing "bad crackpot science". YouTube's current policy isn't an accident or secret: "YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19. ... Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en (The part about Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine was added in early April.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Iverm2837 5y ago

This recent tweet from the inventor of mRNA vaccines says it all: > What happens to confidence in public health and USG if ivermectin turns out to be safe and effective for COVID, and the genetic vaccines turn out to have signficant safety issues? This looks like a very plausible scenario from where I sit. https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1403836354098872322 https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1403836354098872322