5 ms·

Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. But that's a fine point in that case. And most people who talk about these studies will violate the p

Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. But that's a fine point in that case. And most people who talk about these studies will violate the policy by a wide margin, rather than doing a well rounded analysis. You can't deliberately encourage people to take Ivermectin. But JUST citing a study wouldn't do that. Especially not with all the debunking of the other stuff.

roenxi 5y ago
> Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. "I have reviewed these studies, they seem sound and there are no real downsides to taking Ivermectin. I can't think of any reason not to take it. I don't recommend taking it, maybe I haven't thought of something" is a position a reasonable person could come to after browsing through the available evidence. Are you absolutely sure a video like that would be kosher on YouTube? It sounds extremely disingenuous to me, just typing it out.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  But most of them aren't sound. Those that aren't are still weak evidence and not really block-buster. Also, "there are no real downsides" is misinformation. If you let on that you are an expert when you aren't, and say "I reviewed them" then that's misinformation. Some is in the gray area, but even the gray area actually causes the kind of harm these policies try to prevent. I can't speak for Youtube, but that's my take.
  - kragen 5y ago
    There really are no real downsides to taking ivermectin at its usual therapeutic doses. I'm not an expert, but ivermectin is well enough understood that I don't need to be an expert to know that. That's why there are regularly ivermectin programs that dose literally every single person in a town with ivermectin for a month or so as a parasite extermination campaign. (I have somewhat less confidence in my second opinion about ivermectin, which is that precisely because it's so safe, it's vanishingly unlikely to have antiviral effects at those doses. That's something I could easily be wrong about because I'm not an expert.)
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Unfortunately at the 'usual therapeutic doses' there is no effect at all, you're looking at a substantial increase. The biggest direct proof for anti-viral effect was an in vitro study at substantially elevated levels.
      - kragen 5y ago
        I agree.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
I assume you haven't been enough on YouTube to see how many videos keep getting removed that contradict MSM.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

roenxi 5y ago

> Nope, it's not against the medical misinformation policy. "I have reviewed these studies, they seem sound and there are no real downsides to taking Ivermectin. I can't think of any reason not to take it. I don't recommend taking it, maybe I haven't thought of something" is a position a reasonable person could come to after browsing through the available evidence. Are you absolutely sure a video like that would be kosher on YouTube? It sounds extremely disingenuous to me, just typing it out.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
But most of them aren't sound. Those that aren't are still weak evidence and not really block-buster. Also, "there are no real downsides" is misinformation. If you let on that you are an expert when you aren't, and say "I reviewed them" then that's misinformation. Some is in the gray area, but even the gray area actually causes the kind of harm these policies try to prevent. I can't speak for Youtube, but that's my take.
- kragen 5y ago
  There really are no real downsides to taking ivermectin at its usual therapeutic doses. I'm not an expert, but ivermectin is well enough understood that I don't need to be an expert to know that. That's why there are regularly ivermectin programs that dose literally every single person in a town with ivermectin for a month or so as a parasite extermination campaign. (I have somewhat less confidence in my second opinion about ivermectin, which is that precisely because it's so safe, it's vanishingly unlikely to have antiviral effects at those doses. That's something I could easily be wrong about because I'm not an expert.)
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Unfortunately at the 'usual therapeutic doses' there is no effect at all, you're looking at a substantial increase. The biggest direct proof for anti-viral effect was an in vitro study at substantially elevated levels.
    - kragen 5y ago
      I agree.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

I assume you haven't been enough on YouTube to see how many videos keep getting removed that contradict MSM.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]