3 ms·
>If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of p
by spadez 5y ago
>If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame?
But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, which in all probability is happening right now, and has been going on for many months, if not for the censorship of W.H.O, Youtube and media?
- void_mint 5y ago> But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, Entirely irrelevant when discussing YouTube, which we're doing now. YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information.
- ds206 5y agoBut drug commercials on TV are? I mean, why can't a doctor talk about the benefits of a certain drug with a "but talk to your own doctor first"? How is that any different?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- unparagoned 5y agoDrug commercials are bad, and banned in pretty much every developed country. Anyway those drugs have been proven to work, this drug hasn't been proven to work.
- rbanffy 5y agoThis is something that really shocks and annoys me when I visit the US. Ad-sponsored TV is unusable.
- pstuart 5y agoI disagree. It's merely a platform for content and needs to be evaluated independently per presentation.
- spadez 5y ago> YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information. It is not a source, and never was a legitimate source of anything, but a media of communication. I am not sure why people mix the two up. If doctors in one part of their world can share their observations with doctors all over the world, it has tremendous value. Now it seems that doctors can only share their observations with W.H.O and any inference should come from the top, which they could delay citing sorry "no research" for an arbitrarly long time..