If Internet algorithms can't tell the difference between criticism and advocacy, what's safe to report? Why one filmmaker believes "YouTube is unfit for the purpose for hosting journalism."
I have long covid. My dr. rx'd ivermectin in December and it was a gamechanger for me. Took me from so debilitated and ill I was about to hire help, to being ok to manage on my own. Not a cure, but a huge shift in the right direction. The fact that this drug has been politicized and propagandized makes me want to give up on this damn country.
"it tends to have the impact of further convincing people that they’re being lied to by mainstream news and partners in Silicon Valley, which in turn might lead to urging people in the opposite direction of the content moderators’ intent"
I can attest this is absolutely true. Pretty much EVERYTHING I read and hear in mainstream media sources relating to any issue of substance, I almost automatically regard as misleading (at best). I consider ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and FOX first and foremost as sources of misinformation and propaganda.
If anybody is interested, Merck is developing Molnupiravir (MK-4482)as a therapeutic to treat COVID-19 infections. It is in Phase 3. Merck received a base award amount of $1.2 bil on 6/7/21 from the federal government representing 1.7 mil doses; do the math. Link to comparison of Molnupiravir v. Ivermectin: https://austinpublishinggroup.com/pharmacology-therapeutics/fulltext/ajpt-v9-id1149.pdf
Not surprisingly, the two are similar. With neither showing any serious adverse side effects. "Molnupiravir is a pro-drug of the novel active antiviral nucleoside analogue ... It's a broad spectrum antiviral agent. ... Ivermectin is a broad-spectrum, anti-parasitic, antibiotic and which has demonstrated broad-spectrum antiviral activity" ... Merck had the patent on Ivermectin until 1996. So it is not a coincidence that they have developed this very expensive drug, Molnupiravir, funded by the US taxpayer and which is similar. It follows, then, why there is so much disparagement of Ivermectin. If widely accepted, it could rain on Merck's parade and greatly embarrass BARDA. What I cannot grasp is that for the 10 months when the vaccines were being developed, certain caring, critical care physicians sought out existing drugs and developed protocols. These have been changed multiple times and are currently undergoing more changes to address the variants issue. The FLCCC Alliance recommends the use Ivermectin as part of more expansive protocols which they have developed for the prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 at all stages by both the vaxxed and the un-vaxxed. These physicians should be lauded, not abused.
The most important issue in this piece is not whether ivermectin is an efficacious treatment for Covid. The biggest issue is whether we, as free people with freedom of speech and thought, are to be allowed to hear all sides and judge for ourselves. That's an issue that transcends YouTube. One of the most exceptional things about America is that the founders really trusted that the great mass of people could actually govern themselves, and that they could be trusted to speak and think freely. That concept flies in the face of most of human history, wherein those in power tend to hold tightly the reins of information, in the belief that people aren't to be trusted with "dangerous" ideas.
As Matt rightly notes, any attempt to censor simply leads people to believe that someone is hiding something. We should demand free and open debate on EVERYTHING to do with Covid, even theories that some might find absurd. Trust the people.. the truth will rise to the surface. You'll convert many skeptics if they feel that there is total transparency. To think otherwise is to adopt the thinking of tyrants and dictators.
1633 you tube suspends Galileo for his ridiculous, heretical misinformation that the earth circles the sun.
If iv*rmectin was so ineffective, they wouldn't be so against it. Nobody cares about cranks who talk about how the earth is flat or if the moon landing wasn't real, or who advocate taking horse painkillers like ketamine to treat mental health issues - yet they're very concerned with shutting this topic down. Why?
If we could stop using the term "misinformation" for stuff we disagree with and is to be deconstructed by argument, that would be a win.
If everyone is so dumb that we think argument is ineffective, well, that sounds like a justification for totalitarianism, for which I can only have contempt. That leads nowhere good.
Where were the FDA, YouTube, Facebook and all of our overlords as the the opiate crisis has swept the country? Silent. But a simple drug that the Sacklers and other greedy pharmaceutical companies can't make a fortune on?! Attacked, vilified and censored.
Censorship? Editing? Protecting? What is YouTube doing? Basically they are “protecting” their viewers from seeing anything they disagree with. They are not doctors or researchers, but they feel entitled to choose what viewers can see. We need platforms for videos that are not censored, and the public needs to muster up the courage to be exposed to things that are outrageous, abrasive, or outright wrong. Free speech requires open minds, courage, and lots of counterarguments. Protection is not part of it.
Here's the biggest problem, and it doesn't just involve Youtube.
It involves Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, and Joe Rogan, and Jen Psaki, and Elon Musk, and Nancy Pelosi, and Mark Zuckerberg, and Tony Fauci, and Andrew Cuomo, and Ron Desantis, and Xi Jianping, and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus... the list can go on forever
Not one of these people or organizations is willing to say, "I don't know." Ever. Especially when they really don't know.
And most of the time, like most human beings on earth, they really don't know what they are talking about. They make shit up. And when they are wrong, they refuse to admit that they are wrong, because "it shows weakness" or some bullshit like that.
Even Albert Einstein didn't claim to have an answer to every question, and he was infinitely smarter than all of the people above, combined.
The mark of an intelligent person is the ability to say, honestly, "I don't know the answer." when that is indeed the case. The certainty with which today's media-politico denizens speak is almost certainly inversely proportionate to the truth.
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.
Ivermectin is only the tip of the iceberg. Medical bureaucrats are no different from other bureaucrats. Once in place, their priority becomes building a massive wall of proof that they are right. Not actually being right, simply proving diligence instead of achieving it. That has not changed in more than half a century.
What changed was the elites' sense of entitlement to rule over the rest of us. Trump committed the ultimate two sins: fighting back, and interrupting Clinton's coronation. The partisan elites already had big tech, public employee unions and legacy media on their side; all that was left to destroy Satan Incarnate was a pretext. COVID19 was a gift from the gods. Add medical bureaucrats to the mix and your coup is guaranteed to succeed.
But first, censorship. Fuller is one casualty; there are millions more. As soon as I learned in early January that a new respiratory virus had broken out in Wuhan and that Taiwan had closed its borders, conclusions were easy to reach. The last two dangerous respiratory disease outbreaks were both from corona viruses and originated in China. Both China and WHO were lying about human-human transmission. And the Wuhan lab had been China's center for biowarfare for decades.
I wrote about all of that, was condemned for spreading misinformation, and WHO fronted for China's lies. When social distancing guides came out, they were based on German research into bacteria in the late 1800s. We didn't have the technology then to detect virus particles in aerosols then. When we developed the technology we learned that the distance is eight meters. More writing, more condemnation and banning. Loss of long-held friendships because I was a fraud.
I did med school in Germany, practiced psychiatry there in the 1980s for a short while before returning to the US and leaving medicine. I'm not a research scientist nor bureaucrat, so I have no credibility. Except that we knew more than a hundred years ago how to deal with respiratory viruses: put all protective measures in place for the most vulnerable, probably the elderly and obese, put all infected patients outdoors or in extra-ventilated rooms, and ignore everyone else until we have more info. Suspensions and bans.
You Tube is fine for animal videos and DIY stuff (my favorites) or other entertainment. It's not very hospitable as a journalism platform and becomes less so by the hour. I am so thankful for Substack and the movement over to Rumble and Odysee. Hopefully they won't be gobbled up by the evil one.
America is due for a good deworming. IVM for everyone!
I for one, welcome our new Ministry of Truth.
Long live Lysenko!
it is clear from reading across the MSM that there is a very strong agenda that has nothing to do with critical thinking or any deep analysis on many aspects of the pandemic and the coronavirus. There are very good clinical studies (available through google scholar) that do discuss the antiviral aspects of invermectin.
I don't particularly think it is usable as a front link treatment for covid for the reasons that many of the journal articles make clear. Nevertheless, it makes no sense to demonize people for talking about it or using it. Nor does it make sense to continually, as Fuller notes, refer to it as a horse dewormer, it does have other actions as most drugs do. it is also FDA approved for use in people as far as i know which the vaccines until recently were not, though of course there was an emergency use permit for them to be used.
Most people do not realize the tremendous conflicts that are ongoing in the medical community about a great many conditions. Chronic fatigue syndrome (now called ME/CFS) is still being dismissed by some physicians despite decades of research showing the reality of it. Chronic Lyme is as well continually said to be non-existent despite scores of thousands of people suffering from it (as they do with long covid) and a great many journal papers revealing the rationale for its existence. As Ed Yong in the Atlantic made clear, gaslighting is rampant in the medical profession about a large number of medical conditions that people suffer from, often for decades.
The thing i have appreciated about Taibbi and Greenwald is their commitment to open discussion. A number of vaccine specialists made the point, strongly, early on that hiding or downplaying the potential risk of side effects from the vaccines (which they were clear would exist) would hurt badly in the long run; it would simply make people more suspicious of experts. using the term "vaccine" was itself problematical. What we have is what is known as a leaky vaccine, this is quite different than something like the smallpox vaccine for instance which does in fact confer immunity. Leaky vaccines do not. The use of the term "breakthrough infection" is as well inaccurate. Leaky vaccines do not stop infections, they just alter severity and death rates; the organisms continue to modulate their structure to work around them over time.
Both sides of the issue are distorting the truth for their own ends; neither is very rational. in other words both are wrong about a great many things. the levels of dehumanizing vitriol make plain that other issues are involved. it is not just about the science.
anyway, thank you Matt for your work; there are far too few people who are willing to reason on these complex issues.