24 ms·

What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. That content got banned from YouTube. Was more or l

by hhw3h 5y ago

What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein. That content got banned from YouTube. Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? In the desire to drive official therapeutics and vaccines was this potentially not surfaced as fast as it could have been? I'm not sure. It's good food for thought though.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
Was it specifically because of this one claim, or because of his claims that hydroxychloroquine works and that COVID vaccines are toxic? I think you're doing a disservice by downplaying his history surrounding COVID.
bhouston 5y ago
I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scientific literature that was mainstream nor did they say they can not try to get your theories proven, rather they were basically saying do can not claim you have the truth if there is nothing solid backing you up. Basically skipping showing your work (e.g. peer review), and just saying you have the answer. I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable journal -- because that is how science works. You do not go and make YouTubes first promoting it as the cure first. Did Steven even have a role in this paper or are these professionals operating completely independently of him? So Steven didn't even bother to make this mainstream? Too much work?
- bananapear 5y ago
  Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses). Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.
  - gzer0 5y ago
    > Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
    - bananapear 5y ago
      I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
      - javagram 5y ago
        There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
- nradov 5y ago
  Hardly anything is ever "proven" in medicine, or biology in general. The best we can do are varying levels of probability. So then it becomes a discussion about how to set the minimum acceptable level of confidence.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  >Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitalizations. The government could have spent the last 18 months encouraging people to lose weight, stop smoking, drinking, and eating fast food. The ONLY tool silicon Valley, the msm, much of acamdeia, the DNC and their loyal sycophants care about is the vaccines and even the slightest discussion of any potential alternative gets promoted as inherently anti-vaxx even if it could be used in conjunction with vaccines
  - aemreunal 5y ago
    > You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. I'm not sure this applies to medicine or vaccines. I don't think any of us are in the position of "making up our own mind" about what works in medicine and what doesn't, which is why we have double-blind clinical studies. We can't even explain why/how placebo works.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      You have to be in the position of being your own medical advocate. I had a condition that was misdiagnosed repeatedly, including in the ER. My condition is not even "rare", just slightly uncommon, and I had a very textbook case of it. Your doctor is not an oracle. They are a car mechanic that works on organics.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        Not to mention that it’s hardly extraordinary for two doctors to have two different opinions on the same case. What does that mean? That there are two conflicting absolute truths?
        loudtieblahblah 5y ago
- Vrondi 5y ago
  Yes, but why should people who are calling for studies to be done get censored? Scientists who are talking about interesting possibilities that _should_be_studied_ should not get their content taken down.
  - bhouston 5y ago
    No one calling for studies should get censored for simply doing that.
omegaworks 5y ago
American history is littered with medical salesmen touting miracle cures to desperate ill people. Would you prefer our modern communication mediums be saturated with their pitches or do we want to wait until there is a reasonable scientific consensus before unleashing re-engagement algorithms?
- silverpepsi 5y ago
  I want to see everyone's true face bright and clear so I don't lose my own ability to filter them accordingly. It's like, do you want the friends you meet at church to be actual Christians? Well good then, stop having a damned society where atheism is so taboo that the church aisles are filled with atheists terrified of the consequences of not showing up on Sunday morning. This is still a real serious issue in the bible belt and Moslem world, etc..
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    Unfortunately the pandemic is a social/collective problem and given the systematic disinvestment in quality public education, your personal ability to filter disinformation is nowhere near universally applicable.
- bsaul 5y ago
  if you want youtube to get rid of any salesmen touting miracles anything you're going to have to get rid of commercials as well.
  - wtallis 5y ago
    There's a big difference between charlatans touting miracle cures and commercials for FDA-approved drugs, but even the latter are considered by many reasonable people to be harmful and worthy of banning.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Banning ads for legal products to adults would require a Constitutional amendment.
Factorium 5y ago
There's an entire suite of cheap drugs with proven positive effects when administered early: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/ Alphabet profits are up 68% because people are forced online. If there is cheap and effective COVID treatment, the world goes back to normal. Its a huge conflict of interest. Same goes for Facebook and the other tech companies. By contrast, look at Apple's muted COVID efforts. They want people out in the real world, mobile, taking photos, comparing expensive hardware and living life.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  This is conspiracy dribble. Do you seriously think that there's a room full of executives at Google sitting in the dark rubbing their hands together and cackling as they draw up policies to block beneficial information from spreading so that the pandemic lasts longer and they bring in more revenue? People don't think like this except in movies. Any effort to do so would be immediately obvious to the people tasked with implementing it. And people don't keep secrets.
  - captaincurrie 5y ago
    I think its naive to believe that they aren't. Obviously big tech has done very well during this pandemic...you think they don't know that. What do you think they talk about? And Google in particular is in a position to actually help maintain the status quo (lockdowns). Why is a business using its economic and political power to further its own interests a conspiracy theory?
  - pitspotter2 5y ago
    The reason these false conspiracy theories spread is because many people distrust the motives of those in charge, now more than ever I think. Motives can't be observed scientifically of course but they're still there. In a better world all rulers and experts would be well-motivated and seen to be well-motivated. In practice some of them do 'get with the program' neither because they are convinced of is correctness nor in a spirit of hand-rubbing glee, but out of mundane fear of losing the esteem of their peers.
- 5y ago
tayo42 5y ago
> Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? I dont think the target audience for youtube videos is other researchers and doctors. Pretty sure nothing of value was lost by it not being on youtube. The only thing this would have done is rile up people.
defaultname 5y ago
"What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein." https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-valley-millionaire-steve-kirsch-covid-vaccine-misinformation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-... To be clear, the researchers kept doing research and progressing. Whether some layman could tout it, mixing their advocacy with a myriad of disproved cures (along with anti-vax disinformation), had positively zero bearing on what they were doing, and if anything is a massive distraction. Talking about something by sharing a Facebook post or posting a YouTube video or even HN comment has a negligible to negative effect on actual efforts.
AnthonBerg 5y ago
Kirsch happened to spoon a lot of, well, BS and absolutely unwarranted conclusions and certainty. This is always harmful, and is probably what was banned.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Months?! I have a box bought "just in case" almost a year ago, and I easn't early. We as a civilization moved pretty slow on Covid.

by hhw3h 5y ago

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

Was it specifically because of this one claim, or because of his claims that hydroxychloroquine works and that COVID vaccines are toxic? I think you're doing a disservice by downplaying his history surrounding COVID.

bhouston 5y ago

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scientific literature that was mainstream nor did they say they can not try to get your theories proven, rather they were basically saying do can not claim you have the truth if there is nothing solid backing you up. Basically skipping showing your work (e.g. peer review), and just saying you have the answer. I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable journal -- because that is how science works. You do not go and make YouTubes first promoting it as the cure first. Did Steven even have a role in this paper or are these professionals operating completely independently of him? So Steven didn't even bother to make this mainstream? Too much work?

bananapear 5y ago
Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). YouTube's policy specifically bans mention of Ivermectin as a possible treatment. Combined with the safety profile and cost of Ivermectin, I'd have thought that it'd at least be worth a try in an emergency - the worst possible case being that it doesn't work (unless you have idiots taking horse-size doses). Compared with the quality of data surrounding remdesivir, molnupiravir etc, there seems to be a significant bias towards novelty (and therefore $$$). Similarly, it's been known for decades that vitamin D deficiency increases susceptibility to respiratory diseases, and most people in Europe/North America are deficient in winter. Why not hand it out? Worst case, it doesn't work.
- gzer0 5y ago
  > Aren't there many (>60) published studies showing varying positive effects of early treatment with Ivermectin though? (Despite a couple having been retracted for obvious fraud). No, this is false. Use of animal ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in humans is dangerous [1]. [1] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
  - bananapear 5y ago
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that humans should take the animal version.
    - javagram 5y ago
      There are plenty of Facebook and YouTube guides about taking animal ivermectin as a replacement for human-rated medicine. That said hopefully here on HN we can agree that is a dumb idea.
      - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
        If the government were stupid and tyrranical enough to ban Human Azithromycin, and you came down with bacterial bronchitis, would you just die or would you go to the local feed store and buy some animal grade azithromycin?
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Ivermectin hasn't been banned in humans, though. The situation is more akin to a few doctors deciding to prescribe azithromycin to schizophrenia patients without much evidence of efficacy, for which they'd be rightly at risk of trouble with their medical licenses.
        cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
Hardly anything is ever "proven" in medicine, or biology in general. The best we can do are varying levels of probability. So then it becomes a discussion about how to set the minimum acceptable level of confidence.
loudtieblahblah 5y ago
>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitalizations. The government could have spent the last 18 months encouraging people to lose weight, stop smoking, drinking, and eating fast food. The ONLY tool silicon Valley, the msm, much of acamdeia, the DNC and their loyal sycophants care about is the vaccines and even the slightest discussion of any potential alternative gets promoted as inherently anti-vaxx even if it could be used in conjunction with vaccines
- aemreunal 5y ago
  > You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. I'm not sure this applies to medicine or vaccines. I don't think any of us are in the position of "making up our own mind" about what works in medicine and what doesn't, which is why we have double-blind clinical studies. We can't even explain why/how placebo works.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    You have to be in the position of being your own medical advocate. I had a condition that was misdiagnosed repeatedly, including in the ER. My condition is not even "rare", just slightly uncommon, and I had a very textbook case of it. Your doctor is not an oracle. They are a car mechanic that works on organics.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Not to mention that it’s hardly extraordinary for two doctors to have two different opinions on the same case. What does that mean? That there are two conflicting absolute truths?
      - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
Vrondi 5y ago
Yes, but why should people who are calling for studies to be done get censored? Scientists who are talking about interesting possibilities that _should_be_studied_ should not get their content taken down.
- bhouston 5y ago
  No one calling for studies should get censored for simply doing that.

omegaworks 5y ago

American history is littered with medical salesmen touting miracle cures to desperate ill people. Would you prefer our modern communication mediums be saturated with their pitches or do we want to wait until there is a reasonable scientific consensus before unleashing re-engagement algorithms?

silverpepsi 5y ago
I want to see everyone's true face bright and clear so I don't lose my own ability to filter them accordingly. It's like, do you want the friends you meet at church to be actual Christians? Well good then, stop having a damned society where atheism is so taboo that the church aisles are filled with atheists terrified of the consequences of not showing up on Sunday morning. This is still a real serious issue in the bible belt and Moslem world, etc..
- omegaworks 5y ago
  Unfortunately the pandemic is a social/collective problem and given the systematic disinvestment in quality public education, your personal ability to filter disinformation is nowhere near universally applicable.
bsaul 5y ago
if you want youtube to get rid of any salesmen touting miracles anything you're going to have to get rid of commercials as well.
- wtallis 5y ago
  There's a big difference between charlatans touting miracle cures and commercials for FDA-approved drugs, but even the latter are considered by many reasonable people to be harmful and worthy of banning.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Banning ads for legal products to adults would require a Constitutional amendment.

Factorium 5y ago

There's an entire suite of cheap drugs with proven positive effects when administered early: https://c19early.com/ https://c19early.com/ Alphabet profits are up 68% because people are forced online. If there is cheap and effective COVID treatment, the world goes back to normal. Its a huge conflict of interest. Same goes for Facebook and the other tech companies. By contrast, look at Apple's muted COVID efforts. They want people out in the real world, mobile, taking photos, comparing expensive hardware and living life.

caymanjim 5y ago
This is conspiracy dribble. Do you seriously think that there's a room full of executives at Google sitting in the dark rubbing their hands together and cackling as they draw up policies to block beneficial information from spreading so that the pandemic lasts longer and they bring in more revenue? People don't think like this except in movies. Any effort to do so would be immediately obvious to the people tasked with implementing it. And people don't keep secrets.
- captaincurrie 5y ago
  I think its naive to believe that they aren't. Obviously big tech has done very well during this pandemic...you think they don't know that. What do you think they talk about? And Google in particular is in a position to actually help maintain the status quo (lockdowns). Why is a business using its economic and political power to further its own interests a conspiracy theory?
- pitspotter2 5y ago
  The reason these false conspiracy theories spread is because many people distrust the motives of those in charge, now more than ever I think. Motives can't be observed scientifically of course but they're still there. In a better world all rulers and experts would be well-motivated and seen to be well-motivated. In practice some of them do 'get with the program' neither because they are convinced of is correctness nor in a spirit of hand-rubbing glee, but out of mundane fear of losing the esteem of their peers.
5y ago

tayo42 5y ago

> Was more or less harm done by stifling this information? I dont think the target audience for youtube videos is other researchers and doctors. Pretty sure nothing of value was lost by it not being on youtube. The only thing this would have done is rile up people.

defaultname 5y ago

"What's interesting is Steve Kirsch was touting this months ago alongside Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein." https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-valley-millionaire-steve-kirsch-covid-vaccine-misinformation/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-... To be clear, the researchers kept doing research and progressing. Whether some layman could tout it, mixing their advocacy with a myriad of disproved cures (along with anti-vax disinformation), had positively zero bearing on what they were doing, and if anything is a massive distraction. Talking about something by sharing a Facebook post or posting a YouTube video or even HN comment has a negligible to negative effect on actual efforts.

AnthonBerg 5y ago

Kirsch happened to spoon a lot of, well, BS and absolutely unwarranted conclusions and certainty. This is always harmful, and is probably what was banned.

radu_floricica 5y ago

Months?! I have a box bought "just in case" almost a year ago, and I easn't early. We as a civilization moved pretty slow on Covid.