4 ms·

The question is when Youtube, Facebook, et al are going to stop banning anyone who suggests Ivermectin is a viable treatment option for COVID (see Bret Weinstei

The question is when Youtube, Facebook, et al are going to stop banning anyone who suggests Ivermectin is a viable treatment option for COVID (see Bret Weinstein's recent podcast that got removed, for example). One of the most egregious examples of this that I've seen is Youtube taking down videos of the weekly commission meetings for a nearby county in my state. Not because the commissioners themselves are pushing any kind of medical misinformation (actual or alleged) about COVID, but because random members of the public are doing so every week during the public commentary segment of the meetings. The meetings are weekly, and you can see a huge gap in April as well as one missing in May. Friends who work there told me they were removed due to comments made during the public commentary time about COVID that someone decided to report to Youtube. Apparently the same people were coming week after week to comment on it, and some other member of the public who took issue with them/it reported the entire meeting recording to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbWJtt7g8Zs56rD-etaMLLw/vid... Even if the things these people were saying was absolutely false/batshit crazy conspiracy nonsense (and I can't tell since the videos are removed) Youtube is making tons of unrelated content unavailable in their attempts to censor any non-mainstream views on COVID.

jstgord 5y ago
I'm hoping that the current Oxford 'principle' trial will in time, lend enough social-proof to the existing weight of data showing Ivermectin efficacy in preventing spread and preventing death of Covid19. We need this treatment in addition to the vaccines.
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that study is designed to fail. It's recruiting patients up to 14 days after first symptoms. There's no viral replication by that time. The highest viral load is 2-3 days after first symptoms. Also they are only using Ivermectin for 3 days, when the recommended protocol is for 5 days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s
- shaicoleman 5y ago
  Update: The FLCCC and BIRD group released an open letter regarding the issues with that trial: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...
jfengel 5y ago
I think it may be a side effect of the overwhelming size of the problem YouTube is dealing with. To me this sounds like fairly ordinary crankery, overstating the case for Ivermectin but not causing immediate harm. But there's a lot of stuff that is causing immediate harm, at a time when other conspiracy theories have led to violence. They're trying to crack down on it, and discovering that there's just way, way, way too much. So they banned something, and stepped in it. Except that they really don't care, because they're too big to care. It's spun as being a conspiracy, but I suspect it's more a Hanlon's Razor case. COVID is a genuine crisis and they've got a sincere interest in not being a primary source of lies about it. They're really sensitive about that after having put up with a prominent conspiracy theorist for far, far longer than they would have had he not held high political office. At this point I'm not really sure what their percentage is in keeping this banned. It may be that they just don't care. That's almost certainly the case with your community meeting. It tripped some poorly-programmed sensor, and it matters way more to you than it does to them.

jstgord 5y ago

I'm hoping that the current Oxford 'principle' trial will in time, lend enough social-proof to the existing weight of data showing Ivermectin efficacy in preventing spread and preventing death of Covid19. We need this treatment in addition to the vaccines.

shaicoleman 5y ago
Unfortunately, that study is designed to fail. It's recruiting patients up to 14 days after first symptoms. There's no viral replication by that time. The highest viral load is 2-3 days after first symptoms. Also they are only using Ivermectin for 3 days, when the recommended protocol is for 5 days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4gkLn-z4II&t=4509s
shaicoleman 5y ago
Update: The FLCCC and BIRD group released an open letter regarding the issues with that trial: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GIlG9Vx/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...

jfengel 5y ago

I think it may be a side effect of the overwhelming size of the problem YouTube is dealing with. To me this sounds like fairly ordinary crankery, overstating the case for Ivermectin but not causing immediate harm. But there's a lot of stuff that is causing immediate harm, at a time when other conspiracy theories have led to violence. They're trying to crack down on it, and discovering that there's just way, way, way too much. So they banned something, and stepped in it. Except that they really don't care, because they're too big to care. It's spun as being a conspiracy, but I suspect it's more a Hanlon's Razor case. COVID is a genuine crisis and they've got a sincere interest in not being a primary source of lies about it. They're really sensitive about that after having put up with a prominent conspiracy theorist for far, far longer than they would have had he not held high political office. At this point I'm not really sure what their percentage is in keeping this banned. It may be that they just don't care. That's almost certainly the case with your community meeting. It tripped some poorly-programmed sensor, and it matters way more to you than it does to them.