Let me get this straight. Its not OK to censure a video skeptical of IVM, but perfectly all right to censure one that presents published evidence of its efficacy? You need to do some journalism work and not simply parrot the MSM. Read the evidence, talk to people on both sides, try to learn some science. Otherwise you are no different than Maddow. Izzy would be ashamed.
Let me get this straight. Its not OK to censure a video skeptical of IVM, but perfectly all right to censure one that presents published evidence of its efficacy? You need to do some journalism work and not simply parrot the MSM. Read the evidence, talk to people on both sides, try to learn some science. Otherwise you are no different than Maddow. Izzy would be ashamed.
Hi Mitch, I am new to Twitter and hope that this doesn't turn into a Twitter fight. Matt did 'cover it". but only in the sense that he essentially took no position and repeated many Big Pharma talking points. He seems afraid to engage in the central issue "Does IVM work?". He seems to uncomfortable confronting this scientific question while he is fearless in confronting Big Business, Silicon Valley, etc. I understand that this is true for many people, but while some science is difficult to understand, clinical trials are relatively easy: two groups, one treated and one not. Sure there is some statistical analysis that my be intimidating to the laymen, but if he engaged serious scientists they could easily walk him through this. Even statistical information using the highly flawed Fisher p test would do the job for most people. There are subtle decisions in these studies, but if he would just read many of them he could get a first order approximation of whether they are evidence for or against the use of IVM. I am not asking him or anyone to conclude that IVM works, but simply that it may work, and therefore since in has an incredible safety profile, it should get a recommendation for use by the NIH--much like remdesivir, which doesn't work, and like their newly approved Alzheimer's drug which their own panel thought was worthless.
I think your comment is well taken, but I expect more from him.
I think you misunderstand what Matt is doing with this reporting. He is not reporting on the efficacy of Ivermectin or any other COVID treatment; he is revealing the daily assaults on open discussion of this and other issues by algorithm and partisan censorship on social and other media platforms. Whether Ivermectin has shown to be effective in this or that trial, or whether it has shown to be worthless, is not the subject of this article or the others he has written (at least three or four) that touch on the topic.
It is not his job to present both sides of the Ivermectin controversy; he's not actually covering it. He's covering the censorship controversy.
Mitch, I appreciate your position which is perfectly valid. Perhaps I should have been more precise. My view is that the most important question of our time is whether practical interventions that can ameliorate the horrific death toll exist. This may have blinded me to these issues of censorship which I still find secondary. Matt has the ability through advocacy to save lives, but perhaps his obsessions are different. But frankly, I think it is hard to argue that his current fascination with social issues, BLM, MeToo,, etc. is more important than doing the work that can change the course of this massive death train. I know that his sounds too preachy and judgemental--but there you have it. Best wishes. R
FWIW - COVID-19 is a tea party with crumpets and cream compared what could happen. A piece on biodefense for context. Good read. Covers things pretty well.
Bioterrorism and Biodefense for AmericaтАЩs Public Spaces and Cities
There is a long list of serious lab leaks of biologically dangerous material both here and in the Soviet Union. But as a molecular biologist I never imagined that an engineered coronavirus could or would cause such havoc. By the way, the Chinese have abandoned the story that it was a zootic transfer and they now blame Fort Detrick.
Yes, he has. Possibly too many times. I love TK, but this piece feels like filler material...gotta feed the beast, and media aggravation is always a good bet.
Let me get this straight. Its not OK to censure a video skeptical of IVM, but perfectly all right to censure one that presents published evidence of its efficacy? You need to do some journalism work and not simply parrot the MSM. Read the evidence, talk to people on both sides, try to learn some science. Otherwise you are no different than Maddow. Izzy would be ashamed.
Lighten up, Francis. Matt has already covered the Weinstein side of this: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein
Hi Mitch, I am new to Twitter and hope that this doesn't turn into a Twitter fight. Matt did 'cover it". but only in the sense that he essentially took no position and repeated many Big Pharma talking points. He seems afraid to engage in the central issue "Does IVM work?". He seems to uncomfortable confronting this scientific question while he is fearless in confronting Big Business, Silicon Valley, etc. I understand that this is true for many people, but while some science is difficult to understand, clinical trials are relatively easy: two groups, one treated and one not. Sure there is some statistical analysis that my be intimidating to the laymen, but if he engaged serious scientists they could easily walk him through this. Even statistical information using the highly flawed Fisher p test would do the job for most people. There are subtle decisions in these studies, but if he would just read many of them he could get a first order approximation of whether they are evidence for or against the use of IVM. I am not asking him or anyone to conclude that IVM works, but simply that it may work, and therefore since in has an incredible safety profile, it should get a recommendation for use by the NIH--much like remdesivir, which doesn't work, and like their newly approved Alzheimer's drug which their own panel thought was worthless.
I think your comment is well taken, but I expect more from him.
I think you misunderstand what Matt is doing with this reporting. He is not reporting on the efficacy of Ivermectin or any other COVID treatment; he is revealing the daily assaults on open discussion of this and other issues by algorithm and partisan censorship on social and other media platforms. Whether Ivermectin has shown to be effective in this or that trial, or whether it has shown to be worthless, is not the subject of this article or the others he has written (at least three or four) that touch on the topic.
It is not his job to present both sides of the Ivermectin controversy; he's not actually covering it. He's covering the censorship controversy.
Mitch, I appreciate your position which is perfectly valid. Perhaps I should have been more precise. My view is that the most important question of our time is whether practical interventions that can ameliorate the horrific death toll exist. This may have blinded me to these issues of censorship which I still find secondary. Matt has the ability through advocacy to save lives, but perhaps his obsessions are different. But frankly, I think it is hard to argue that his current fascination with social issues, BLM, MeToo,, etc. is more important than doing the work that can change the course of this massive death train. I know that his sounds too preachy and judgemental--but there you have it. Best wishes. R
FWIW - COVID-19 is a tea party with crumpets and cream compared what could happen. A piece on biodefense for context. Good read. Covers things pretty well.
Bioterrorism and Biodefense for AmericaтАЩs Public Spaces and Cities
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200112458_Bioterrorism_and_Biodefense_for_America%27s_Public_Spaces_and_Cities
Hi Brian, A friend was the second in command at the Soviet Biowarfare site, Vector. So I am very aware of what has been done, both publically and in the classified world. Those interested in the subject should read a book by his direct boss:https://www.amazon.com/Biohazard-Chilling-Largest-Biological-World-Told/dp/0385334966
There is a long list of serious lab leaks of biologically dangerous material both here and in the Soviet Union. But as a molecular biologist I never imagined that an engineered coronavirus could or would cause such havoc. By the way, the Chinese have abandoned the story that it was a zootic transfer and they now blame Fort Detrick.
Hell, they might be right. Detrick was closed about that time; I wonder why?
agreed!
That is not in Matt's wheelhouse and I hope he keeps it that way!
Yes, he has. Possibly too many times. I love TK, but this piece feels like filler material...gotta feed the beast, and media aggravation is always a good bet.
Whoosh.