This is upside down. First - there is tons of examples of 'misinformation' in the PDF. It goes into excessive detail. It's an amazing and thorough bit of resea

This is upside down. First - there is tons of examples of 'misinformation' in the PDF. It goes into excessive detail. It's an amazing and thorough bit of research actually. If you want a link here it is [1] 1) The situation is fluid, facts change which requires change in posture by public health officials - which will give the impression of 'bad information' but really it's not at all for anyone paying close attention. 2) People are not censored, they're just told to not talk about things we don't yet understand on massive public forums until there's data. We definitely want YouTube and FB to get rid of bogus information related to life and death issues. It's understandable that people in the commons don't understand this, but it's not acceptable that intelligent rational people can't grasp the nuance in the situation: 1) facts and situations change and 2) there are a lot of liars. Those are different forms of noise. A good example of this is the recent Brett Weinstein / Ivermectin situation. Brett Weinstein went in an 'emergency Joe Rogan' to make a bunch of BS claims about Ivermectin, and 10's of millions of people ate it up. But it turns out Brett Weinsten was promulgating a Giant Lie. The foundational study turned out to be fraud. Ergo his claims are total BS, he has no basis for them. [2] So Brett Weinstein - a generally well meaning and smart guy is not 'helping' - he's 'hurting' by knowingly amplifying early, suspect and net yet validated results. 'The Government Is Censoring Me' is the Hustler's Lie. If the government is forcibly stopping scientists form releasing data, or forcibly stopping people from speaking publicly - that's a problem. If if YouTube and FB are dropping your videos because you're making unverified claims about important medical information - well that's literally the kind of censorship we want. We don't want Quack Medical advice telling people to drink lighter fluid, because people will do it. Brett Weinstein's new public identity (i.e. his source of income) is playing a kind of 'educated conspiracy theorist' - having enough knowledge to parse the situation and yet still misrepresent the facts. It turns out Ivermectin is most likely bogus, while the 'real' trials going on at Oxford may possibly show some value, as of today, we don't have any supporting data for Brett's claims - making he, Rogan and even Lex guilty of garbage misinformation tabloid populism. It doesn't matter what the 'end result' of the trials are, the fact is the information is very grey (and not looking good) and it's too early to be presented as a cure. If they were responsible agents of truth, they'd have spent most of the time in the introduction talking about: 'How They Are Not Medical Experts And Have Zero Medical Qualifications', how 'The Trials Were Limited', that 'There Are Suspicions', and 'We Still Know Very Little', and because of that - 'We Can't Conclude Much At This Point'. That is the responsible scientific and newsworthy take. As such, frankly, it doesn't constitute the need for a 'podcast' because there's nothing to say. Will Joe Rogan, Lex or Weinstein issue an apology/correction for the misleading hyperbole? Probably not. But they're not 'journalists' you say, they're under no obligation? Well then they don't have any credibility to speak on these important issues. (FYI I actually like all three of those guys, but they've crossed a line here) The mask mandate is yet another good example: Dr. Fauci and his peers around the world, had the ignoble task of getting an arrogant and cantankerous global public to change some behaviours. The 'mask' issue was managed responsibly: masks were needed for the medical community. If 300M Americans made a 'mad dash' for masks, the demand would have swamped the ability of Healthcare to get PPE. While mask are at best marginally useful for the public, they are essential in Healthcare. Once production ramped up - the marginal effectiveness of masks make them useful as long as public consumption doesn't interfere with Healthcare supply. So then the public communication becomes: Wear Masks. From early CNN posts last Spring, you can see that the 'You Don't Need Masks' signals are always accompanied with: "Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, an infectious disease epidemiologist with the WHO, also said at Monday's briefing that it is important "we prioritize the use of masks for those who need it most," which would be frontline health care workers." [3] They are telling us there is short supply and that we need masks for Healthcare, which is very rational. We just went through the biggest economic, public health and global emergency of the century, there will be chaos. Public Health officials use basic Public Communications tactics to get people to do very basic things which create better outcomes for everyone. Shutting down liars and telling people to not broadcast unsubstantiated information to their 300 Million followers (or at very least do it in a very responsible way) is what we have to do. [1] https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen https://www.counterhate.com/disinformationdozen [2] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... [3] https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-r...