7 ms·

Talking about this study on Youtube is forbidden according to their TOS. "Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Treatment misinfo

by 99_00 5y ago

Talking about this study on Youtube is forbidden according to their TOS. "Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following: Treatment misinformation: Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 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

stephc_int13 5y ago
I find this extremely worrying, to be honest. They are legal and widely used drugs in most countries. They might not be miracle drugs to treat COVID-19, but I don't see the point in this ban.
- _Wintermute 5y ago
  Because people are idiots and will try and self-medicate, potentially making themselves really ill.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    You are not their parent, and neither is YouTube. Besides the scads of dubious (or outright dangerous) health-related videos on other topics, YouTube has videos of people flying "wing suits" and engaging in many other risky activities.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      You're not YouTube's parent, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own website.
      - effie 5y ago
        Youtube is the dominant medium, we are stakeholders and should have a say.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    I know that is the “theory” behind the censorship, but I’d suspect the true number of people choosing to do that is a lot smaller than people think. And frankly…if not censoring kills a few idiots and saves many more by allowing the medical professionals to fine tune a treatment, that’s a lot better than killing many to save a few idiots by making potential lifesaving treatment experimentation off limits.
    - _Wintermute 5y ago
      How are youtube videos by people who haven't studied biology since high school going to help medical professionals to fine tune a treatment?
      - kcplate 5y ago
        How are censoring YouTube videos from scientists who do this for a living going to help medical professionals fine tune a treatment? It’s not just the laymen getting censored. It’s everyone. Also, no offense, but how little faith do you put in our medical professionals and scientists that you think they can’t discern the difference between wheat and chaff?
        _Wintermute 5y ago
        I am a scientist, I'm a pharmacologist who's time is now mostly spent on covid research. I'm glad youtube is removing most of the dangerous nonsense, because people like you tend to believe it.
        ds206 5y ago
        So you'd rather not listen to other scientists, doctors, and pharmacologists with real world experience with these drugs for your own research purposes? I mean, if you had YouTube videos explaining your research results, I would watch it.
        _Wintermute 5y ago
  - gustavodemari 5y ago
    Some people in Brazil did this. What happened? They got drug-induced hepatitis by wrong usage of Ivermectin.
    - AndrewBissell 5y ago
      Why are they getting the dose wrong? Are doctors refusing or being prevented from prescribing the drug, leaving them to seek out unsafe alternatives like veterinary formulations?
      - xii23 5y ago
        Doctors are refusing to treat covid with it because it's not proven to work and not recommended internationally, so people are self medicating by getting it illegally.
- arminiusreturns 5y ago
  Good, you should. This is a major problem that short circuited lots of brains because it was easy to follow the msm narrative which character assassinated anybody who didnt conform, then used that narrative to start censoring. Again on the censorship topic many of us had been ringing warning bells (some great if devolved convos during were had here when the big censorship push happened...) When are all you intelligent hacker news readers going to realize the history of the world is a history of conspiracy, and its the coincidence theorists that are the ones actually ignoring the truth(s)? Let me know when you want to have that convo and Ill show up.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > the history of the world is a history of conspiracy ^ 100% This I'll join you on this sinking ship. : ) Thanks for saying it arminiusreturns. I think more people need to argue this. Maybe it'll someday flip the script and people will finally become suspicious of authority. Most people just look at what the majority claims. Maybe if they see enough people arguing for this, they'd flip sides. It's silly, but logic doesn't even seem to matter since logic and evidence is so quickly brushed aside via the ad-hominem of `conspiracy theorist`.
  - dang 5y ago
    Ok, but the "wake up sheeple" approach is guaranteed to (a) not persuade, and (b) take the thread into a predictable rut. So please find a different approach to make your substantive points with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - arminiusreturns 5y ago
      True enough, which is why I tend to steer away from that conversation here, for the most part, but some of the more recent things are so blatant and have deep impact on the tech community that I thinks its time to start talking about the subject, even if from a tech perspective. Point taken dang, Ill try to make less meta and more substantive points in the future on this divisive topic.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  The issue isn't the drug. It's the claim. The drug could be legal for use in the US, and there would still be an issue (unless there were studies good enough to pass FDA scrutiny that demonstrated the drugs effectiveness). In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid. Now, the other questions are whether Youtube should be considered "in the US", and whether Youtube should be an enforcement arm of the FDA. That's the worrying part.
  - ds206 5y ago
    The drug IS legal in the U.S. lol You just need a prescription
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Honest question. Why do they need to ban this claim? Because U.S. doctors follow YouTube video suggestions when they prescribe drugs? > In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid. Is this a law or just your opinion? Are we expecting Bret Weinstein to be arrest in coming days?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Well... it's the law, and yet the lines aren't quite where we expect them to be. Have you ever seen an informercial or something talking about a drug to fix something, and then it says something like "this drug has not been proven effective for this use"? That's pushing the line but not crossing it. Those people don't get arrested. But if you said "Ivermectin is safe and effective for treating Covid", then you've probably crossed it. If you're making money from it, then you may have worse problems than Youtube banning your videos. I don't know what Bret Weinstein says. If he says "this looks like it may work", he's probably OK. If he says "it's been shown to work", I would be surprised that the FDA hasn't done something. [Edit: If he says "it's been shown to work" and he's selling it, that's where the FDA will almost certainly step in. If he says it but isn't himself selling it... I don't know how they respond to that.] Disclaimer: IANAL.
  - Ivdg3 5y ago
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  Unproven medical treatments are a kind of speech that the US government has aggressively suppressed with the approval of the courts for many years. That situation was abused to suppress the works of Wilhelm Reich (~70 years ago) but I don't see that kind of abuse here. Youtube isn't subject to the first amendment 'cause it's not the government BUT also the first amendment hasn't protected this kind of expression for a long time. Just sayin'. Edit: and as other said, that the drug is legal is irrelevant and disingenuous. We're talking a new treatment system.
guscost 5y ago
Yikes. If this doesn’t wake you up, maybe just sleep through the next few years.
epicureanideal 5y ago
This is an interesting link. I wasn’t aware they specifically discouraged talking about specific medications. I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted heavily as if you said something offensive..
peytn 5y ago
> Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will alter a person’s genetic makeup Wow, that’s insane. Time to report some talks on somatic hypermutation…
giarc 5y ago
It's likely a CYA situation. There were people that took aquarium chloroquine after Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID.
- kcplate 5y ago
  There were two people, a husband and wife. It was also reported after that police were investigating her for homicide because she was actually very much anti-Trump and had a history of brutalizing her husband publicly. Appears that she gave him a large dose that killed him and took a tiny one herself likely to create some sort of weird alibi.
  - giarc 5y ago
    >But people certainly listened to his words as officials from the Maryland Emergency Management Agency sent out an alert one day after receiving more than 100 calls about ingesting disinfectants as a possible treatment for COVID-19, according to the Governor’s office, and reported by ABC News. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-to-poison-centers-spike--after-the-presidents-comments-about-using-disinfectants-to-treat-coronavirus/?sh=633811bb1157 https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-... I'm sure some can be chalked up to simply people increasing their cleaning during a pandemic, but 100 in a day for a single state... come on.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      According to the Maryland tweet it was “several”. The others referenced “exposure”. I suspect the media worried and reported the outrage about this far more than people took it seriously enough to do it. Gonna sound harsh, but if you are dumb enough to ingest a poison on the say so of an obnoxious real estate developer, the world is better off without you. I’m ok with those folks removing themselves from the gene pool.

by 99_00 5y ago

stephc_int13 5y ago

I find this extremely worrying, to be honest. They are legal and widely used drugs in most countries. They might not be miracle drugs to treat COVID-19, but I don't see the point in this ban.

_Wintermute 5y ago
Because people are idiots and will try and self-medicate, potentially making themselves really ill.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  You are not their parent, and neither is YouTube. Besides the scads of dubious (or outright dangerous) health-related videos on other topics, YouTube has videos of people flying "wing suits" and engaging in many other risky activities.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    You're not YouTube's parent, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own website.
    - effie 5y ago
      Youtube is the dominant medium, we are stakeholders and should have a say.
- kcplate 5y ago
  I know that is the “theory” behind the censorship, but I’d suspect the true number of people choosing to do that is a lot smaller than people think. And frankly…if not censoring kills a few idiots and saves many more by allowing the medical professionals to fine tune a treatment, that’s a lot better than killing many to save a few idiots by making potential lifesaving treatment experimentation off limits.
  - _Wintermute 5y ago
    How are youtube videos by people who haven't studied biology since high school going to help medical professionals to fine tune a treatment?
    - kcplate 5y ago
      How are censoring YouTube videos from scientists who do this for a living going to help medical professionals fine tune a treatment? It’s not just the laymen getting censored. It’s everyone. Also, no offense, but how little faith do you put in our medical professionals and scientists that you think they can’t discern the difference between wheat and chaff?
      - _Wintermute 5y ago
        I am a scientist, I'm a pharmacologist who's time is now mostly spent on covid research. I'm glad youtube is removing most of the dangerous nonsense, because people like you tend to believe it.
        ds206 5y ago
        So you'd rather not listen to other scientists, doctors, and pharmacologists with real world experience with these drugs for your own research purposes? I mean, if you had YouTube videos explaining your research results, I would watch it.
        _Wintermute 5y ago
- gustavodemari 5y ago
  Some people in Brazil did this. What happened? They got drug-induced hepatitis by wrong usage of Ivermectin.
  - AndrewBissell 5y ago
    Why are they getting the dose wrong? Are doctors refusing or being prevented from prescribing the drug, leaving them to seek out unsafe alternatives like veterinary formulations?
    - xii23 5y ago
      Doctors are refusing to treat covid with it because it's not proven to work and not recommended internationally, so people are self medicating by getting it illegally.
arminiusreturns 5y ago
Good, you should. This is a major problem that short circuited lots of brains because it was easy to follow the msm narrative which character assassinated anybody who didnt conform, then used that narrative to start censoring. Again on the censorship topic many of us had been ringing warning bells (some great if devolved convos during were had here when the big censorship push happened...) When are all you intelligent hacker news readers going to realize the history of the world is a history of conspiracy, and its the coincidence theorists that are the ones actually ignoring the truth(s)? Let me know when you want to have that convo and Ill show up.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > the history of the world is a history of conspiracy ^ 100% This I'll join you on this sinking ship. : ) Thanks for saying it arminiusreturns. I think more people need to argue this. Maybe it'll someday flip the script and people will finally become suspicious of authority. Most people just look at what the majority claims. Maybe if they see enough people arguing for this, they'd flip sides. It's silly, but logic doesn't even seem to matter since logic and evidence is so quickly brushed aside via the ad-hominem of `conspiracy theorist`.
- dang 5y ago
  Ok, but the "wake up sheeple" approach is guaranteed to (a) not persuade, and (b) take the thread into a predictable rut. So please find a different approach to make your substantive points with. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - arminiusreturns 5y ago
    True enough, which is why I tend to steer away from that conversation here, for the most part, but some of the more recent things are so blatant and have deep impact on the tech community that I thinks its time to start talking about the subject, even if from a tech perspective. Point taken dang, Ill try to make less meta and more substantive points in the future on this divisive topic.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
The issue isn't the drug. It's the claim. The drug could be legal for use in the US, and there would still be an issue (unless there were studies good enough to pass FDA scrutiny that demonstrated the drugs effectiveness). In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid. Now, the other questions are whether Youtube should be considered "in the US", and whether Youtube should be an enforcement arm of the FDA. That's the worrying part.
- ds206 5y ago
  The drug IS legal in the U.S. lol You just need a prescription
- temp8964 5y ago
  Honest question. Why do they need to ban this claim? Because U.S. doctors follow YouTube video suggestions when they prescribe drugs? > In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid. Is this a law or just your opinion? Are we expecting Bret Weinstein to be arrest in coming days?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Well... it's the law, and yet the lines aren't quite where we expect them to be. Have you ever seen an informercial or something talking about a drug to fix something, and then it says something like "this drug has not been proven effective for this use"? That's pushing the line but not crossing it. Those people don't get arrested. But if you said "Ivermectin is safe and effective for treating Covid", then you've probably crossed it. If you're making money from it, then you may have worse problems than Youtube banning your videos. I don't know what Bret Weinstein says. If he says "this looks like it may work", he's probably OK. If he says "it's been shown to work", I would be surprised that the FDA hasn't done something. [Edit: If he says "it's been shown to work" and he's selling it, that's where the FDA will almost certainly step in. If he says it but isn't himself selling it... I don't know how they respond to that.] Disclaimer: IANAL.
- Ivdg3 5y ago
joe_the_user 5y ago
Unproven medical treatments are a kind of speech that the US government has aggressively suppressed with the approval of the courts for many years. That situation was abused to suppress the works of Wilhelm Reich (~70 years ago) but I don't see that kind of abuse here. Youtube isn't subject to the first amendment 'cause it's not the government BUT also the first amendment hasn't protected this kind of expression for a long time. Just sayin'. Edit: and as other said, that the drug is legal is irrelevant and disingenuous. We're talking a new treatment system.

guscost 5y ago

Yikes. If this doesn’t wake you up, maybe just sleep through the next few years.

epicureanideal 5y ago

This is an interesting link. I wasn’t aware they specifically discouraged talking about specific medications. I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted heavily as if you said something offensive..

peytn 5y ago

> Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will alter a person’s genetic makeup Wow, that’s insane. Time to report some talks on somatic hypermutation…

giarc 5y ago

It's likely a CYA situation. There were people that took aquarium chloroquine after Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID.

kcplate 5y ago
There were two people, a husband and wife. It was also reported after that police were investigating her for homicide because she was actually very much anti-Trump and had a history of brutalizing her husband publicly. Appears that she gave him a large dose that killed him and took a tiny one herself likely to create some sort of weird alibi.
- giarc 5y ago
  >But people certainly listened to his words as officials from the Maryland Emergency Management Agency sent out an alert one day after receiving more than 100 calls about ingesting disinfectants as a possible treatment for COVID-19, according to the Governor’s office, and reported by ABC News. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-to-poison-centers-spike--after-the-presidents-comments-about-using-disinfectants-to-treat-coronavirus/?sh=633811bb1157 https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/04/25/calls-... I'm sure some can be chalked up to simply people increasing their cleaning during a pandemic, but 100 in a day for a single state... come on.
  - kcplate 5y ago
    According to the Maryland tweet it was “several”. The others referenced “exposure”. I suspect the media worried and reported the outrage about this far more than people took it seriously enough to do it. Gonna sound harsh, but if you are dumb enough to ingest a poison on the say so of an obnoxious real estate developer, the world is better off without you. I’m ok with those folks removing themselves from the gene pool.