4 ms·

> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. YouTube has alr

> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. YouTube has already done exactly this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061 https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...

robbrown451 5y ago
In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick." Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened. So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not. These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that. So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
jollybean 5y ago
If YouTube did take down such information, then I would be inclined to agree they made a mistake. But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm. If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.

robbrown451 5y ago

In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick." Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened. So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not. These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that. So I support YouTube's decision on that one.

jollybean 5y ago

If YouTube did take down such information, then I would be inclined to agree they made a mistake. But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm. If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.