6 ms·

FWIW this thread was a good read: https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1405899724117393411 https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/14058997

FWIW this thread was a good read: https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/1405899724117393411 https://mobile.twitter.com/skepticalzebra/status/14058997241... Apparently there are previous studies (pre-covid Era) that found similar changes in the brain associated with loss of smell. Quoting: > What if I told you there was also an illness in which: > "grey matter reduction was observed in the gyrus rectus, orbitofrontal cortex, thalamus, and the insula" > This is taken from a study on Chronic rhinosinusitis with olfactory loss

ganzuul 5y ago
Call me stupid for waiting to get vaccinated... But I'm not stupid enough to base that decision on a Twitter thread. The problem I have is that inclusive discussion is being suppressed, and I can't make a decision based on clearly biased information. ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY
- TaupeRanger 5y ago
  The video you linked is removed.for violating guidelines, which I'm guessing means it had a conspiratorial slant. Discussion does not have to include unsupported or crackpot claims to be "inclusive".
  - username90 5y ago
    I am pro vaccine, but youtube moderators are not subject matter experts, they are unskilled volunteers with very simple guidelines such as (made up rule by me, I don't fully know): "remove any video discouraging people from getting vaccinated". Therefore youtube removing a specific video doesn't say anything about the quality of its content, just that some random guy thought it violated the guidelines he was given. For example, for a long while youtube banned every video talking about covid no matter the stance.
    - takeda 5y ago
      YouTube is removing things for liability reasons, that's it, because if some event that caused people to die or have long lasting health effects, would be linked to them and they would be proven they knew and did nothing they would be open to lawsuits.
  - pepperberg 5y ago
    Instead of looking up the original video (e.g. by using the watch id), you immediately write it off as "crackpot claims" because some unknown authority at YouTube removed it, citing broad community guidelines. Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago: "Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority." Is this really a skeptical, discussion-friendly behaviour or an unconditional trust in some kind of authority?
    - graeme 5y ago
      In my experience on forums, when someone makes a grand contrarian claim (“vaccines are risky”) and then cites a video without explaining why it is relevant or summing it up, the claims indeed have extremely high odds of being crackpot claims.
      - takeda 5y ago
        All those videos are repeating the same thing over and over, with some changes (some that are even contradicting themselves). People who are into it they hear it so many times that it seem so obvious to them, but whenever they try to explain it to someone else themselves they are realizing they have difficulty, because everything is falling apart. They think it's because they aren't the experts so they link to videos instead. They don't realize that they have problem explaining it, because the argument is very weak, and if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
        ganzuul 5y ago
        Not in this case. But the censors don't care.
      - pepperberg 5y ago
        Where do you see the "crackpot claims" in this situation? He/she just stated that "inclusive discussion is being suppressed", showing a recently removed YT video. For anyone who can't take 30s to look it up: It is a discussion between 3 individuals (2 of them already fully vaccinated with Moderna) regarding the pandemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- MAGZine 5y ago
  You should not make your decisions based on social media AT ALL. if you have questions, talk to a physician.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    Umm, no. I wouldn’t expect an honest answer from them unless you know one personally. They have no incentive to give you advice that even they feel is correct or safe. It isn’t their fault, however, as physicians are limited to providing you with the generally accepted standard of care. Anything that deviates from this opens them up to a malpractice lawsuit.
    - MAGZine 5y ago
      You literally contradicted yourself. They are legally AND morally obligated to provide you with the best care society can provide. Not only can they be sued for malpractice, but they could lose their license entirely. Losing their only means of making money sounds like strong incentive, not to mention it would require violating an oath that doctors take VERY seriously. And for what motive? And yes, you should know your personal/family physician well. That's the whole point. They should be able to offer you personalized, cohesive care with continuity. They should be able to advise you on your own specific condition. If you choose to neglect their advice, do not disparage them. If your views do not reflect the best practice of medicine, that's on you. They have no incentive to injure you, and implying otherwise is extremely disingenuous. Note, I'm not saying you can't have these views, don't just attack others baselessly in order to defend those views.
      - oceanplexian 5y ago
        Preventable medical errors are the third greatest cause of death in the United States. Sure, the legal and moral obligation to provide care exists but it did not prevent the opioid epidemic. It turned out that systemic controls and criminal penalties were needed to prevent doctors from overprescribing certain drugs. Doctors are generally great and don’t deserve to be disparaged, but they are humans and as fallible as the rest of us. Choosing not to trust all doctors is not rational, and adopting a “trust, but verify” approach to medical advice is rational.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ganzuul 5y ago

Call me stupid for waiting to get vaccinated... But I'm not stupid enough to base that decision on a Twitter thread. The problem I have is that inclusive discussion is being suppressed, and I can't make a decision based on clearly biased information. ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_NNTVJzqtY

TaupeRanger 5y ago
The video you linked is removed.for violating guidelines, which I'm guessing means it had a conspiratorial slant. Discussion does not have to include unsupported or crackpot claims to be "inclusive".
- username90 5y ago
  I am pro vaccine, but youtube moderators are not subject matter experts, they are unskilled volunteers with very simple guidelines such as (made up rule by me, I don't fully know): "remove any video discouraging people from getting vaccinated". Therefore youtube removing a specific video doesn't say anything about the quality of its content, just that some random guy thought it violated the guidelines he was given. For example, for a long while youtube banned every video talking about covid no matter the stance.
  - takeda 5y ago
    YouTube is removing things for liability reasons, that's it, because if some event that caused people to die or have long lasting health effects, would be linked to them and they would be proven they knew and did nothing they would be open to lawsuits.
- pepperberg 5y ago
  Instead of looking up the original video (e.g. by using the watch id), you immediately write it off as "crackpot claims" because some unknown authority at YouTube removed it, citing broad community guidelines. Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago: "Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority." Is this really a skeptical, discussion-friendly behaviour or an unconditional trust in some kind of authority?
  - graeme 5y ago
    In my experience on forums, when someone makes a grand contrarian claim (“vaccines are risky”) and then cites a video without explaining why it is relevant or summing it up, the claims indeed have extremely high odds of being crackpot claims.
    - takeda 5y ago
      All those videos are repeating the same thing over and over, with some changes (some that are even contradicting themselves). People who are into it they hear it so many times that it seem so obvious to them, but whenever they try to explain it to someone else themselves they are realizing they have difficulty, because everything is falling apart. They think it's because they aren't the experts so they link to videos instead. They don't realize that they have problem explaining it, because the argument is very weak, and if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
      - ganzuul 5y ago
        Not in this case. But the censors don't care.
    - pepperberg 5y ago
      Where do you see the "crackpot claims" in this situation? He/she just stated that "inclusive discussion is being suppressed", showing a recently removed YT video. For anyone who can't take 30s to look it up: It is a discussion between 3 individuals (2 of them already fully vaccinated with Moderna) regarding the pandemic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XkRq4PaHqo
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
MAGZine 5y ago
You should not make your decisions based on social media AT ALL. if you have questions, talk to a physician.
- bequanna 5y ago
  Umm, no. I wouldn’t expect an honest answer from them unless you know one personally. They have no incentive to give you advice that even they feel is correct or safe. It isn’t their fault, however, as physicians are limited to providing you with the generally accepted standard of care. Anything that deviates from this opens them up to a malpractice lawsuit.
  - MAGZine 5y ago
    You literally contradicted yourself. They are legally AND morally obligated to provide you with the best care society can provide. Not only can they be sued for malpractice, but they could lose their license entirely. Losing their only means of making money sounds like strong incentive, not to mention it would require violating an oath that doctors take VERY seriously. And for what motive? And yes, you should know your personal/family physician well. That's the whole point. They should be able to offer you personalized, cohesive care with continuity. They should be able to advise you on your own specific condition. If you choose to neglect their advice, do not disparage them. If your views do not reflect the best practice of medicine, that's on you. They have no incentive to injure you, and implying otherwise is extremely disingenuous. Note, I'm not saying you can't have these views, don't just attack others baselessly in order to defend those views.
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      Preventable medical errors are the third greatest cause of death in the United States. Sure, the legal and moral obligation to provide care exists but it did not prevent the opioid epidemic. It turned out that systemic controls and criminal penalties were needed to prevent doctors from overprescribing certain drugs. Doctors are generally great and don’t deserve to be disparaged, but they are humans and as fallible as the rest of us. Choosing not to trust all doctors is not rational, and adopting a “trust, but verify” approach to medical advice is rational.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]