4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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
- effie 5y ago> pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. How do you know the audience are nonscientists? Why would that be so bad,are nonscientists to be kept dark until 100% agreement among scientists is reached? Science advances on many fronts, not just in peer reviewed papers.