3 ms·

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird r

I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is misleading. You write that he isn't being banned, neglecting that his videos are being removed, his channel getting strikes, and his channel getting demonetized. YouTube is clearly censoring and suppressing his content and he is clearly on track to get banned. You say that some people have been made very sick ODing on Ivermectin, which is true, but only when they take massive amounts and is also true of the vast majority of drugs. Taking massive overdoses of anything is ill-advised. You write, again without explaining, that Ivermectin is a "very poor candidate as a treatment" - which is an odd claim to make given that Ivermectin is cheap, safe, and has at least some experimental data suggesting it may have uses. And, also, Ivermectin is being used in Latin America and India as a treatment currently. To sum that up as "a very poor candidate" strikes me as disingenuous. Hope this help clarifies why at least one person is downvoting you.

perl4ever 5y ago
>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD. Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose. https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        >Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        Just random but that's a very interesting link, thanks!
        ALittleLight 5y ago
        Ivermectin is not simply one of an innumerable number of things without evidence of efficacy against covid. There is evidence, including a number of published studies which have already been linked in this thread. The evidence is disputed in that some studies find smaller or no beneficial effects - but it is not correct to say that the use of Ivermectin is without supporting evidence. Describing the function of Ivermectin as a prophylactic as working in some "niche way" is also incorrect. A prophylactic is the opposite of a niche - it would be broadly useful to pretty much everyone. Describing Ivermectin in this way continues a pattern in your comments of being misleading and unfair towards the claims which you are discussing. This unfair pattern is continued when you suggest the use of Ivermectin is being "laughed at". Some researchers don't think Ivermectin is promising, but nobody who is actually reading the research thinks the claims are laughable. As I mentioned before, throughout large parts of the world Ivermectin is in use and there are a number of scholarly articles supporting its use.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Thanks for replying. I don't think we'll "agree" but I appreciate being heard out at least. The most glaring example of his circular logic starts around 29min mark in the podcast I linked to (#83). He is discussing lab leak hypothesis and the logic is this: * if we assume there was a lab leak, then that's good news: the means novel viruses in nature are much rarer than expected. * based on that we should stop gain of function research because natural gain of function is much rarer than lab leaks from man made gain of function research * since we now agree lab leaks are much more likely than natural novel viruses, it makes no sense to believe covid 19 was anything other than a lab leak. He jumps from "IF it was a lab leak" to "the rot in our science society is so bad" in 1 sentence. His wife takes over and repeats the assumption that all science is totally corrupt (where did that come from?) and that we should believe its a lab leak because then we can just close all the labs and never have another zoonotic virus. Wtf, where did that come from? See the problem? I felt sorry for him over the Evergreen stuff. He was right to object. I don't think anyone should be banned from YouTube short of calls for violence (or CP). I also think YT have a terrible approach to the censorship they do (it's arbitrary, it's often wrong, it's unappealable etc). Im just saying this isn't a hill worth dying on. He is not making much sense as far as I can see. Fyi, I also replied on the other thread.
- tacitusarc 5y ago
  Two thoughts: First, and most importantly, it seems that sometime over the past decade we transitioned from the belief that free and open discussion is more important than winning the argument. We now appear to rely on an entirely unnuanced framing where all discussions have maximum certainty, all harms are equal, and therefore silencing disagreement is always a valid and righteous (and even preferred) tactic. Second, I listened to the first 10 minutes past the recommended point in the podcast, and heard the first two points made, but not the circular logic of the third point. It’s possible that occurs later, and I just haven’t listened far enough. As they have moved on to the “rot” portion, it seems that I should’ve heard the third point, but perhaps I’m just interpreting what they say more literally.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  We can apparently agree that he should not be banned from YouTube. I personally am not very interested in Ivermectin or Brett Weinstein. I am most interested in reasonable views being suppressed by big tech companies who think they know best. I believe that is deeply pernicious, will continue to get worse, and given the extent to which these companies are entrenched in our lives - will be increasingly difficult to remove. Maybe Ivermectin is useful, maybe not. We should be allowed to discuss the evidence without Google silencing us. That is the issue I'm most concerned with. My focus on Weinstein and the supporting evidence for Ivermectin is to argue that these are not mad delusions getting censored. It's not a person selling snake oil. I wouldn't care if definite scams were suppressed. I think Weinstein is using real evidence and making a good faith argument and that kind of thing shouldn't be censored. I don't understand what you mean by "this isn't a hill worth dying on". I'm not proposing that anyone kill themselves over this. There is no dying involved. I do think it is a bad practice on Google's part which is worth complaining about. I also think people should explore alternatives - I have been impressed by https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/ for example. I also think it is important to acknowledge Google is suppressing free speech in a meaningful way. Censoring covid discussion is one example, Google's suppression of the Uyghur genocide is another.

perl4ever 5y ago

>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD. Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose. https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/ Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Isn't this exactly the point? There are millions of substances that haven't been disproven to work in some niche way against some disease. No one should recommend them or claim there is a conspiracy against them when they recommend them and get laughed at, demonitised etc. Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure Is that just random, or are you specifically alluding to laetrile? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        Just random but that's a very interesting link, thanks!
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        Ivermectin is not simply one of an innumerable number of things without evidence of efficacy against covid. There is evidence, including a number of published studies which have already been linked in this thread. The evidence is disputed in that some studies find smaller or no beneficial effects - but it is not correct to say that the use of Ivermectin is without supporting evidence. Describing the function of Ivermectin as a prophylactic as working in some "niche way" is also incorrect. A prophylactic is the opposite of a niche - it would be broadly useful to pretty much everyone. Describing Ivermectin in this way continues a pattern in your comments of being misleading and unfair towards the claims which you are discussing. This unfair pattern is continued when you suggest the use of Ivermectin is being "laughed at". Some researchers don't think Ivermectin is promising, but nobody who is actually reading the research thinks the claims are laughable. As I mentioned before, throughout large parts of the world Ivermectin is in use and there are a number of scholarly articles supporting its use.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Thanks for replying. I don't think we'll "agree" but I appreciate being heard out at least. The most glaring example of his circular logic starts around 29min mark in the podcast I linked to (#83). He is discussing lab leak hypothesis and the logic is this: * if we assume there was a lab leak, then that's good news: the means novel viruses in nature are much rarer than expected. * based on that we should stop gain of function research because natural gain of function is much rarer than lab leaks from man made gain of function research * since we now agree lab leaks are much more likely than natural novel viruses, it makes no sense to believe covid 19 was anything other than a lab leak. He jumps from "IF it was a lab leak" to "the rot in our science society is so bad" in 1 sentence. His wife takes over and repeats the assumption that all science is totally corrupt (where did that come from?) and that we should believe its a lab leak because then we can just close all the labs and never have another zoonotic virus. Wtf, where did that come from? See the problem? I felt sorry for him over the Evergreen stuff. He was right to object. I don't think anyone should be banned from YouTube short of calls for violence (or CP). I also think YT have a terrible approach to the censorship they do (it's arbitrary, it's often wrong, it's unappealable etc). Im just saying this isn't a hill worth dying on. He is not making much sense as far as I can see. Fyi, I also replied on the other thread.

tacitusarc 5y ago
Two thoughts: First, and most importantly, it seems that sometime over the past decade we transitioned from the belief that free and open discussion is more important than winning the argument. We now appear to rely on an entirely unnuanced framing where all discussions have maximum certainty, all harms are equal, and therefore silencing disagreement is always a valid and righteous (and even preferred) tactic. Second, I listened to the first 10 minutes past the recommended point in the podcast, and heard the first two points made, but not the circular logic of the third point. It’s possible that occurs later, and I just haven’t listened far enough. As they have moved on to the “rot” portion, it seems that I should’ve heard the third point, but perhaps I’m just interpreting what they say more literally.
ALittleLight 5y ago
We can apparently agree that he should not be banned from YouTube. I personally am not very interested in Ivermectin or Brett Weinstein. I am most interested in reasonable views being suppressed by big tech companies who think they know best. I believe that is deeply pernicious, will continue to get worse, and given the extent to which these companies are entrenched in our lives - will be increasingly difficult to remove. Maybe Ivermectin is useful, maybe not. We should be allowed to discuss the evidence without Google silencing us. That is the issue I'm most concerned with. My focus on Weinstein and the supporting evidence for Ivermectin is to argue that these are not mad delusions getting censored. It's not a person selling snake oil. I wouldn't care if definite scams were suppressed. I think Weinstein is using real evidence and making a good faith argument and that kind of thing shouldn't be censored. I don't understand what you mean by "this isn't a hill worth dying on". I'm not proposing that anyone kill themselves over this. There is no dying involved. I do think it is a bad practice on Google's part which is worth complaining about. I also think people should explore alternatives - I have been impressed by https://odysee.com/ https://odysee.com/ for example. I also think it is important to acknowledge Google is suppressing free speech in a meaningful way. Censoring covid discussion is one example, Google's suppression of the Uyghur genocide is another.