5 ms·

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
        I do listen to my colleagues, typically in pre-prints, journals and conferences. Youtube is pretty far down the list of places you would go for credible scientific information.
        raphlinus 5y ago
        I think it's important to distinguish two things, which look similar on the surface but are quite different. One is the ability to listen to the scientific discussion taking place on whether Ivermectin is effective. That is reasonable and is a good thing. The other things is pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. And to be clear, "Ivermectin might work and there are good studies in favor of it" is not in that category, but "Ivermectin is the cure" is. I think the Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein podcast[1] is on the border between these two (with a bit of motte and bailey). But to get more insight into how it's landing, check the comments to that video. Lots of people finding ways to procure it, conspiracies, and a strong overlap with antivax. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs
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.

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
        I do listen to my colleagues, typically in pre-prints, journals and conferences. Youtube is pretty far down the list of places you would go for credible scientific information.
      - raphlinus 5y ago
        I think it's important to distinguish two things, which look similar on the surface but are quite different. One is the ability to listen to the scientific discussion taking place on whether Ivermectin is effective. That is reasonable and is a good thing. The other things is pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. And to be clear, "Ivermectin might work and there are good studies in favor of it" is not in that category, but "Ivermectin is the cure" is. I think the Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein podcast[1] is on the border between these two (with a bit of motte and bailey). But to get more insight into how it's landing, check the comments to that video. Lots of people finding ways to procure it, conspiracies, and a strong overlap with antivax. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs

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.