4 ms·

Is someone testing for HN censors? This wouldn't make it far on Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube.

by ctrlp 5y ago

walterbell 5y ago
It was initially flagged and then it was un-flagged. It's a historical scientific paper describing work that lead to a Nobel prize. > Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi Ōmura, of Tokyo’s prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. Any controversy related to 2021 is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and can be set aside to celebrate a historical accomplishment of modern medicine.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  My point is that in 2021 merely mentioning the name of Ivermectin is enough to set the political censors in motion. Try to post this same piece on Twitter or Facebook. I'm curious if they'd leave it up. A few weeks ago I'm certain it would have been flagged and removed by a know-nothing "fact-checker". Today, the narrative is maybe beginning to shift enough to allow unrelated historical mentions touting the potential of this drug. Still not something you're allowed to argue about in respect to Covid19 therapies. I suspect this is because of the pushback of clinician testimony against the Church of Scientism, and the appearance of a sanctioned RCT study out of Oxford is enough to confuse the censors in their arguments from authority: "The completely authoritative NIH or WHO or CDC sources say X, so that's just facts. But wait, the WHO actually says Y, but they're not technically a US political agency, so we'll go with X. But Oxford is a pretty big deal in Big Academia, and Big Academia is always right because Science, so now we're not sure what to do. Well, maybe we'll hold off on this for now until we get some marching orders from our the Public/Private partnership that controls the discourse." NH isn't important enough to have a direct partnership with government agencies so it's interesting to send up these trial balloons and see what happens. Does the discourse imperative flow downstream from the major media monopolies? Or upstream from the self-appointed Citizen Censors flagging anything that doesn't agree with the official narrative?

Is someone testing for HN censors? This wouldn't make it far on Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube.

by ctrlp 5y ago

Is someone testing for HN censors? This wouldn't make it far on Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube.

It was initially flagged and then it was un-flagged. It's a historical scientific paper describing work that lead to a Nobel prize. > Work on ivermectin has seen its discoverer, Satoshi Ōmura, of Tokyo’s prestigious Kitasato Institute, receive the 2014 Gairdner Global Health Award and the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which he shared with a collaborating partner in the discovery and development of the drug, William Campbell of Merck & Co. Incorporated. Any controversy related to 2021 is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and can be set aside to celebrate a historical accomplishment of modern medicine.

ctrlp 5y ago
My point is that in 2021 merely mentioning the name of Ivermectin is enough to set the political censors in motion. Try to post this same piece on Twitter or Facebook. I'm curious if they'd leave it up. A few weeks ago I'm certain it would have been flagged and removed by a know-nothing "fact-checker". Today, the narrative is maybe beginning to shift enough to allow unrelated historical mentions touting the potential of this drug. Still not something you're allowed to argue about in respect to Covid19 therapies. I suspect this is because of the pushback of clinician testimony against the Church of Scientism, and the appearance of a sanctioned RCT study out of Oxford is enough to confuse the censors in their arguments from authority: "The completely authoritative NIH or WHO or CDC sources say X, so that's just facts. But wait, the WHO actually says Y, but they're not technically a US political agency, so we'll go with X. But Oxford is a pretty big deal in Big Academia, and Big Academia is always right because Science, so now we're not sure what to do. Well, maybe we'll hold off on this for now until we get some marching orders from our the Public/Private partnership that controls the discourse." NH isn't important enough to have a direct partnership with government agencies so it's interesting to send up these trial balloons and see what happens. Does the discourse imperative flow downstream from the major media monopolies? Or upstream from the self-appointed Citizen Censors flagging anything that doesn't agree with the official narrative?