4 ms·

>censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hyd

>censoring of voices that were skeptical of the narratives Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, H2O2 nebulization etc. This type of speech is already highly regulated, as most people lack the capacity to 'do their own research' regarding a drug's safety or efficacy.

notahacker 5y ago
And of course the promotion of quack cures (including at the highest levels of government and some of the highest profile media personalities) came before some media outlets decided to censor some of them. Nobody honestly believes that everybody would have ignored the likes of the last POTUS or Joe Rogan if Facebook et al had amplified that message rather than deleting or fact checking it
ajvs 5y ago
Highly regulated how? There was no censorship on people recommending alternative health treatments online until COVID-19 came. Additionally ivermectin is not a cure, it instead has proven effectiveness in attenuating the duration and severity of symptoms. That the scientific studies demonstrating this are not allowed to be even discussed on major social media platforms is a red flag.
timr 5y ago
> Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, H2O2 nebulization etc. HCQ, while it has been bourne out that it doesn't work, was a perfect example of miscommunication and "protective censorship" breeding public mistrust: the initial papers that cast doubt on HCQ were based on fabricated data. Based on this initial bit of false data and (a strong helping of the stupidest kind of politics) the media jumped head-first into censorship and ridicule. The clinical trials for HCQ were halted (ugh). And then they were shown to be basing that on fabricated data. It was an utter disaster: https://www.science.org/content/article/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions https://www.science.org/content/article/two-elite-medical-jo... Subsequently, while I don't personally believe that Ivermectin works, we're still waiting for clinical trials to complete. Let's keep a tighter grip on our horses, please.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  I feel like you're discounting the fact that these "prescriptions" didn't just manifest from the aether. Someone started the idea of these particular medications being effective. And not having a clinical trial means neither side has been proven correct. So where are people getting the idea from in the first place? That source is as much mis- or even dis-information as the subsequent attempts at damage control by the authorities. But yet it's given a complete pass in your comment?
  - timr 5y ago
    > Someone started the idea of these particular medications being effective. The original claims of HCQ's effectiveness against Covid came from doctors in China, early in 2020. At least, these were the first reports I was aware of.
- notahacker 5y ago
  People were dying from self-administered HCQ as a supposed prophylactic because politicians seeking to downplay the severity of COVID were contradicting their health officials and insisting that it would work miracles and should be available outside hospitals long before that reprehensible fake "study" came out. And yes, they were ridiculed for it by certain sections of the media, and rightly so. That "study" certainly made things worse, but it was far from the only source of doubt on hydrochloroquine hype, and a study published in May can't be blamed for a pattern which started in March.
  - timr 5y ago
    > People were dying from self-administered HCQ as a supposed prophylactic Yes, "people are dying" is the favored rallying cry for any number of poorly considered, knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate events. It's a big country. People die from lots of things every day, including a staggering number of people who die from overdoses from innocuous medications. A surprising number of these people poison themselves with supplements in the name of "healthy living" (leading to thousands of ED visits a year), but we don't seem to be eager to leap to censorship and ridicule for that problem: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-supplements-can-send-you-to-the-emergency-department-201510158434 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-suppl... We don't change the parameters of science because of a few cherry-picked examples, and we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information because "people are dying".
nokcha 5y ago
>This type of speech is already highly regulated, Commercial speech (e.g., advertising) about drugs is highly regulated, but speech of ordinary citizens (who don't have a financial interest in the drugs being discussed) isn't regulated by the government since it is protected by the First Amendment.

notahacker 5y ago

And of course the promotion of quack cures (including at the highest levels of government and some of the highest profile media personalities) came before some media outlets decided to censor some of them. Nobody honestly believes that everybody would have ignored the likes of the last POTUS or Joe Rogan if Facebook et al had amplified that message rather than deleting or fact checking it

ajvs 5y ago

Highly regulated how? There was no censorship on people recommending alternative health treatments online until COVID-19 came. Additionally ivermectin is not a cure, it instead has proven effectiveness in attenuating the duration and severity of symptoms. That the scientific studies demonstrating this are not allowed to be even discussed on major social media platforms is a red flag.

timr 5y ago

> Much of what you describe as 'censoring' was focused on stopping the promotion of false cures eg Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, H2O2 nebulization etc. HCQ, while it has been bourne out that it doesn't work, was a perfect example of miscommunication and "protective censorship" breeding public mistrust: the initial papers that cast doubt on HCQ were based on fabricated data. Based on this initial bit of false data and (a strong helping of the stupidest kind of politics) the media jumped head-first into censorship and ridicule. The clinical trials for HCQ were halted (ugh). And then they were shown to be basing that on fabricated data. It was an utter disaster: https://www.science.org/content/article/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions https://www.science.org/content/article/two-elite-medical-jo... Subsequently, while I don't personally believe that Ivermectin works, we're still waiting for clinical trials to complete. Let's keep a tighter grip on our horses, please.

jdmichal 5y ago
I feel like you're discounting the fact that these "prescriptions" didn't just manifest from the aether. Someone started the idea of these particular medications being effective. And not having a clinical trial means neither side has been proven correct. So where are people getting the idea from in the first place? That source is as much mis- or even dis-information as the subsequent attempts at damage control by the authorities. But yet it's given a complete pass in your comment?
- timr 5y ago
  > Someone started the idea of these particular medications being effective. The original claims of HCQ's effectiveness against Covid came from doctors in China, early in 2020. At least, these were the first reports I was aware of.
notahacker 5y ago
People were dying from self-administered HCQ as a supposed prophylactic because politicians seeking to downplay the severity of COVID were contradicting their health officials and insisting that it would work miracles and should be available outside hospitals long before that reprehensible fake "study" came out. And yes, they were ridiculed for it by certain sections of the media, and rightly so. That "study" certainly made things worse, but it was far from the only source of doubt on hydrochloroquine hype, and a study published in May can't be blamed for a pattern which started in March.
- timr 5y ago
  > People were dying from self-administered HCQ as a supposed prophylactic Yes, "people are dying" is the favored rallying cry for any number of poorly considered, knee-jerk reactions to unfortunate events. It's a big country. People die from lots of things every day, including a staggering number of people who die from overdoses from innocuous medications. A surprising number of these people poison themselves with supplements in the name of "healthy living" (leading to thousands of ED visits a year), but we don't seem to be eager to leap to censorship and ridicule for that problem: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-supplements-can-send-you-to-the-emergency-department-201510158434 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/harmful-effects-of-suppl... We don't change the parameters of science because of a few cherry-picked examples, and we shouldn't engage in censorship of factual information because "people are dying".

nokcha 5y ago

>This type of speech is already highly regulated, Commercial speech (e.g., advertising) about drugs is highly regulated, but speech of ordinary citizens (who don't have a financial interest in the drugs being discussed) isn't regulated by the government since it is protected by the First Amendment.