3 ms·

I'd like to hear from critics of Bret that have actually watched his content, in particular the episode with Dr. Pierre Kory. Do you support YouTube's decision?

I'd like to hear from critics of Bret that have actually watched his content, in particular the episode with Dr. Pierre Kory. Do you support YouTube's decision? What about YouTube taking down Dr. Kory's Senate testimony?

doesnotexist 5y ago
One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience just isn't the standard for medical evidence. If any of these people really wanted to change medical practice, they are aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary. Taking to youtube and twitter to claim it's a conspiracy but making no effort to actually do the work to prove your hypothesis, brings into question their motives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan
- lambdaba 5y ago
  Did you watch the episode with Dr. Kory and, if so, what are your objections on what was being said? Note that as far as I can tell and remember, YouTube policy at that time was that content not in line with health authorities was not allowed, but since then Ivermectin was explicitly added (I might be wrong, that's just what I remember when I looked it up).
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  You obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar with Bret and Heather's rigorous scientific approach regarding this topic.
  - doesnotexist 5y ago
    Call me old fashioned but I don't source my medical evidence from two creators on youtube.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      I, too, only trust people in labcoats.
      - doesnotexist 5y ago
        Ahem, I prefer beanie propeller hats.
    - Jimmc414 5y ago
      As I already stated, Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. You are misrepresenting the content.
      - zepto 5y ago
        I’m curious about their motive for misrepresenting the content - I agree that they are, but it’s not obvious what the angle is for a commenter here.
        rayiner 5y ago
        They have committed to the new religion of “trust the experts” and are reacting to heresy.
  - rektide 5y ago
    > You obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar... If you are going to be rude to someone like that, you should provide your own evidence. Provide us links to specific points in the talk that you feel makes this episode substantial. Or show some manners.
    - Jimmc414 5y ago
      How was I rude? The assertion, "One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience" is absolutely false and not at all representative of their channel content. I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. Also my comment was also after this topic was flagged and taken down. I find that extremely rude and intellectually dishonest.
      - rektide 5y ago
        > I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. In an open democratic society everyone is responsible for surfacing the truth as they see it. Then we all decide indepedently what is a true or false assertion based off the evidence given. Your job here is much easier: cite anything. Their job is much harder: they have to make an assertion about the entire episode. You should try to provide something substantial. Instead, you've come off as a bully & rude, dismissed the reply out of hand & done nothing to say why. You refuse to be helpful because you've asserted that you're right & they're wrong and that's all there is to it. It should be easy for you to make a real claim, beyond 'you're wrong'.
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        There is seemingly a lot of evidence for Ivermectin. I agree with you that people making a claim should provide evidence for it - but people asking for evidence shouldn't just assume there is none. It's like if I said I don't trust the vaccines because I don't trust one guy's anecdote about using the vaccines and not getting sick. That's not what vaccine-advocates are basing their argument on. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  > One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience How about 31 randomized control trials? https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ A nice meta analysis page: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Ivermectin is not the only substance studied: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/
  - doesnotexist 5y ago
    Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions: "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics." https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-therapy https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... "The Kory et al. preprint ignores the basics – there are no criteria for inclusion, studies have different mixes of treatment and control and different standards for describing treatments compared with ivermectin and mixes of treatments including ivermectin. These factors alone make the value of their meta-analysis doubtful. However, their evidence base is my major concern as it has been widely reported on social media without the wider (and more technical) context of how meta-analysis ought to be performed" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/publication/351359435_Ivermectin_COVID-19_Miracle_Cure_or_Cruel_Hoax/links/6093dbd392851c490fbc851f/Ivermectin-COVID-19-Miracle-Cure-or-Cruel-Hoax.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/public...
    - deweller 5y ago
      But they at least make the case that a larger study is warranted.
    - 0-_-0 5y ago
      A random blog just isn't the standard for medical evidence. Aren't you aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary? You need multiple peer-reviewed randomized control trials, at least 30.
mikedilger 5y ago
NOT HAPPY WITH YOUTUBE SPLITTING UP SOCIETY: I'm not happy that YouTube (having a strong network-effect monopoly on online video content) has decided to close the Overton window so much. People interested in the information will get it elsewhere. These kinds of policies have caused people who follow edgy content to find that content elsewhere, and those "elsewheres" can be very nasty and radicalizing places (such as BitChute). I wish YouTube kept people from getting radicalized, but they seem to push people away and into those radical corners... SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses. As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts. I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs. All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.

doesnotexist 5y ago

One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience just isn't the standard for medical evidence. If any of these people really wanted to change medical practice, they are aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary. Taking to youtube and twitter to claim it's a conspiracy but making no effort to actually do the work to prove your hypothesis, brings into question their motives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan

lambdaba 5y ago
Did you watch the episode with Dr. Kory and, if so, what are your objections on what was being said? Note that as far as I can tell and remember, YouTube policy at that time was that content not in line with health authorities was not allowed, but since then Ivermectin was explicitly added (I might be wrong, that's just what I remember when I looked it up).
Jimmc414 5y ago
You obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar with Bret and Heather's rigorous scientific approach regarding this topic.
- doesnotexist 5y ago
  Call me old fashioned but I don't source my medical evidence from two creators on youtube.
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    I, too, only trust people in labcoats.
    - doesnotexist 5y ago
      Ahem, I prefer beanie propeller hats.
  - Jimmc414 5y ago
    As I already stated, Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. You are misrepresenting the content.
    - zepto 5y ago
      I’m curious about their motive for misrepresenting the content - I agree that they are, but it’s not obvious what the angle is for a commenter here.
      - rayiner 5y ago
        They have committed to the new religion of “trust the experts” and are reacting to heresy.
- rektide 5y ago
  > You obviously haven't watched the episode nor are you familiar... If you are going to be rude to someone like that, you should provide your own evidence. Provide us links to specific points in the talk that you feel makes this episode substantial. Or show some manners.
  - Jimmc414 5y ago
    How was I rude? The assertion, "One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience" is absolutely false and not at all representative of their channel content. I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. Also my comment was also after this topic was flagged and taken down. I find that extremely rude and intellectually dishonest.
    - rektide 5y ago
      > I think the burden of proof lies on the one making the false assertion. In an open democratic society everyone is responsible for surfacing the truth as they see it. Then we all decide indepedently what is a true or false assertion based off the evidence given. Your job here is much easier: cite anything. Their job is much harder: they have to make an assertion about the entire episode. You should try to provide something substantial. Instead, you've come off as a bully & rude, dismissed the reply out of hand & done nothing to say why. You refuse to be helpful because you've asserted that you're right & they're wrong and that's all there is to it. It should be easy for you to make a real claim, beyond 'you're wrong'.
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        There is seemingly a lot of evidence for Ivermectin. I agree with you that people making a claim should provide evidence for it - but people asking for evidence shouldn't just assume there is none. It's like if I said I don't trust the vaccines because I don't trust one guy's anecdote about using the vaccines and not getting sick. That's not what vaccine-advocates are basing their argument on. https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/
0-_-0 5y ago
> One person claiming that a drug has effectiveness based on their anecdotal experience How about 31 randomized control trials? https://c19ivermectin.com/ https://c19ivermectin.com/ A nice meta analysis page: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/ Ivermectin is not the only substance studied: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/
- doesnotexist 5y ago
  Those are nicely displayed, but it's not clear to me that they meet the standard of evidence required. Many others have looked at these studies and come to more ambiguous conclusions: "My current opinion is pretty much exactly that of the WHO guidance: I do not think that the current evidence is strong enough to say that ivermectin is a useful therapy for coronavirus patients. I know that there are quite a few studies out there in the literature, but they suffer from various combinations of small sample size, poor trial design, not enough data reported, and (in many cases) inconclusive statistics." https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/ivermectin-as-a-covid-19-therapy https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/06/07/iv... "The Kory et al. preprint ignores the basics – there are no criteria for inclusion, studies have different mixes of treatment and control and different standards for describing treatments compared with ivermectin and mixes of treatments including ivermectin. These factors alone make the value of their meta-analysis doubtful. However, their evidence base is my major concern as it has been widely reported on social media without the wider (and more technical) context of how meta-analysis ought to be performed" https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/publication/351359435_Ivermectin_COVID-19_Miracle_Cure_or_Cruel_Hoax/links/6093dbd392851c490fbc851f/Ivermectin-COVID-19-Miracle-Cure-or-Cruel-Hoax.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Machanick/public...
  - deweller 5y ago
    But they at least make the case that a larger study is warranted.
  - 0-_-0 5y ago
    A random blog just isn't the standard for medical evidence. Aren't you aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary? You need multiple peer-reviewed randomized control trials, at least 30.

mikedilger 5y ago

NOT HAPPY WITH YOUTUBE SPLITTING UP SOCIETY: I'm not happy that YouTube (having a strong network-effect monopoly on online video content) has decided to close the Overton window so much. People interested in the information will get it elsewhere. These kinds of policies have caused people who follow edgy content to find that content elsewhere, and those "elsewheres" can be very nasty and radicalizing places (such as BitChute). I wish YouTube kept people from getting radicalized, but they seem to push people away and into those radical corners... SCIENTISTS ARE NOT BEST ADJUDICATORS, BETTER HYPOTHESIZERS: Bret and Heather are scientists and as such are not necessarily of the best mental positioning to adjudicate facts. How so? Scientists should form hypotheses and argue for them. Scientists must as a group take on and argue for multiple hypotheses, vigorously. The data will decide who wins. It is quite appropriate that Bret and Heather have taken up hypotheses in regards to Ivermectin and in regard to possible damage from the vaccines. That doesn't make these views "the final word" or even "stated as factual". I think Bret and Heather would agree and I think they try to make clear that their opinions are hypotheses. As an example, Bret had a guest on who argued that the number of deaths associated with vaccinations was off the charts. Bret didn't agree but didn't counter-argue. The information was highly misleading. Last episode (on Odysee) they brought up a paper studying Israel where via vaccinations for every 3 people saved, 2 are lost. They weren't at all critical of the author's credentials, nor did they even seem to have read the paper yet, which was quite flawed. Mallen Baker's latest video goes into that a little bit. Mallen Baker is IMHO a very good adjudicator of facts. I have a lot of respect for Bret and Heather and I think what they are doing is important. But it is also easy to be confused by them and to "follow" their beliefs as if they were clearly correct, when they are actually quite speculative beliefs. All that being said, everyone communicates on social media now and scientists need to communicate just like the rest of us. If YouTube doesn't want to be the conduit for open communications, some other platform will be.