Current Events > One thing I won't forgive the left for is censoring science of vax alternatives

(+) Yeah! (+)

I'm not anti-vax, but I think it's insane to say something developed in the last year is definitely safe in the long term. Unlike normal vaccines, we don't have long term data. We hope it is, but we don't know for sure.

Sure would be nice if there was something that was known about, data is suggesting it is helpful, and has a long history of being super safe.

Enter ivermectin, a drug that is known as super safe and has many studies showing promising efficacy.

Here's youtube's current "COVID Misinformation" policy:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

If you're posting content

Dont post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
Treatment misinformation:

Content that encourages the use of home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital

Content that claims that theres a guaranteed cure for COVID-19

Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19

Claims that Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine are effective treatments for COVID-19

Other content that discourages people from consulting a medical professional or seeking medical advice

There's literal peer reviewed data that shows ivermectin can be a near 0 risk treatment/profilactic for COVID. And you aren't even allowed to discuss it without being in violation of "misinformation" policies.

That's the shit I hate about the left, the right is full of racists and idiots and rich fucks making money off them, but the left has tons of people who will try to redefine the truth on you. Ironically also often in service of businesses.

Literal congressional testimony from a super respected Dr about the efficacy of ivermectin was taken down because it was "misinformation" even though there is 0 evidence that anything that was said was a lie or false.

So, do you acknowledge that there's a significant chance that it could be a safe alternative/additional treatment for COVID and that scientific discussion of it shouldn't be against youtube's rules?

---

I voted the last option

---

Eh youll find plenty of folks sympathetic to your concerns on the left, its just the left that has no power within the left (greens, for example)

mRNA vaccines have been tested and used for the past 3 decades.

---

what the fuck are you talking about dude

a treatment is not a substitute for a vaccine

---

The Johnson and Johnson uses a method that was developed in 1951. No reason not to use that one if new is the problem.

Also YouTube isn't left.

Did you experience any adverse effects or death due to taking the covid vaccine in 2021?

Too bad! Big-pharma has immunity! You'd only get a pittance anyway.

averagejoel posted...

a treatment is not a substitute for a vaccine

that. also to note: ivermectin is goddamn flea repellant medicine for a dog or cat.
it doesn't fix covid :( or stop covid.

also: cow dung is not a covid repellant.
---

joe40001 posted...

I voted the last option

What has happened to you.

You've been watching way too many quack alt-lite videos/forums it seems.

Save yourself.
---

Where's the option for I don't really know what I'm talking about so I'll listen to medical experts rather than some dude on gamefaqs.

---

This is one of those topics I feel like having strong opinion on this without knowing nothing about it.

---

ButteryMales posted...

The Johnson and Johnson uses a method that was developed in 1951. No reason not to use that one if new is the problem.

Isn't that the one blood-clotting chicks on their periods aging 18-40?

---

averagejoel posted...

what the fuck are you talking about dude

a treatment is not a substitute for a vaccine

From my reading the YouTube policies do explicitly say it is misinformation to refer to them as treatments, says nothing about saying they are substitutions for vaccines.

kingdrake2 posted...

that. also to note: ivermectin is goddamn flea repellant medicine for a dog or cat.
it doesn't fix covid :( or stop covid.

thank you. I had never heard of ivermectin before this topic. I assumed that joe was just talking out his ass again, but this confirms it

---

DDirtyDastard posted...

Isn't that the one blood-clotting chicks on their periods aging 18-40?

yes. 3x more common in women compared to men.

men had 2 clots
women had 6.
---

Best to just lock this topic.

---

This topic is hilariously stupid. Love it

---

Only the right tries to censor science. For religious reasons

DDirtyDastard posted...

Isn't that the one blood-clotting chicks on their periods aging 18-40?

the AstraZeneca vaccine is the one that has like a percent of a percent chance of causing a blood clot. and less chance among older people.

the issue you are referring to, I believe, has to do with birth control pills also having a chance of causing a blood clot (in fact a higher chance than the vaccine).

---

Lokison posted...

This topic is hilariously stupid. Love it

Welcome to joenumbers's wild ride

---

David1988 posted...

This is one of those topics I feel like having strong opinion on this without knowing nothing about it.

Just like TC!

---

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

The funny thing is all the anti-Hydroxychloroquine that came out when Trump said it's a miracle cure for COVID.

People mocked Hydroxychloroquine but they didn't seem to know it's used to treat malaria which is pretty important.

Nah. Shut the fuck up.

---

Sounds like you've been listening to some Bret Weinstein.

I actually kinda say that in jest. Bret has been a quite conspiratorial regarding covid, but I don't know enough about all this to have a strong opinion
---

DDirtyDastard posted...

Isn't that the one blood-clotting chicks on their periods aging 18-40?

Very rarely. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html
This adverse event is rare, occurring at a rate of about 7 per 1 million vaccinated women between 18 and 49 years old. For women 50 years and older and men of all ages, this adverse event is even more rare.

https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1395262056933191681?s=19
---

I'm going to assume this topic was made with good intentions, but you don't even have your info straight, so you shouldn't be looking to call out other misinfo just yet.

---

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

The funny thing is all the anti-Hydroxychloroquine that came out when Trump said it's a miracle cure for COVID.

People mocked Hydroxychloroquine but they didn't seem to know it's used to treat malaria which is pretty important.

Hydroxychloroquine is quite effective...for malaria and lupus. COVID is neither.

---

I wish I wasn't cynical, but the fact that there hasn't been much research on it, and the research has largely been disinsentivized by large companies, when those same companies are profiting off of the vaccine. It's sus, particularly when you are aware that ivermectin because of it's low cost isn't something companies can profit off of like they can with the modern vaccines.

I know the kind of reductive assumptions people are going to make about me and the drug, and I'm largely letting people make them because from what I've seen so far it seems like there is plausible evidence to support it as being potentially safer and in the ballpark of efficacy of the regular vaccines.

If I'm honest, I don't actually expect regular vaccines to be unsafe in a major way, the blood clot thing is a non-story, the only dicey thing has been that the spike protein itself might be dangerous. Anything this new has inherent risks, even by my estimation not huge ones, but still, not good reason to not allow discussion of alternative ideas too, when they can help.

emblem boy posted...

Sounds like you've been listening to some Bret Weinstein.

I actually kinda say that in jest. Bret has been a quite conspiratorial regarding covid, but I don't know enough about all this to have a strong opinion

Bret was the first one who made me aware. I think he has several takes that quite off, but looking into it further and other sources that seem trustworthy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19DPijOoVKE
Seem to support that there is a "there" there.

Remember when they advised against masks? Or said that there was 0 chance it came from a lab leak? This feels like those things. Things that in a few months people will pretend that they never doubted "yeah Ivermectin is helpful, particularly in the developing world, but nobody ever was against it."

That's why it'll be nice to have this topic saved. So all the people so sure that something that has scientific evidence is some crackpot thing just because politics will have to finally maybe come to terms that you shouldn't come to scientific conclusions based on politics.

I'm so sick of people being bullheadedly wrong about things just based on politics and then never acknowledging it.

Where we are now: We have a drug that has effectively 0 risk and is very low cost, and it's chance that it is effective at mitigating the symptoms and spread of COVID is considerably non-zero. Why would you want to censor that? All the stubborn republicans who refuse to get vaxed likely would take this, so wouldn't it be great if it actually made a difference? We'd get to heard immunity faster! Less people would die. Why be against the discussion of that possibility in a scientific way?

Anybody who has politics such that they'd rather lose lives to COVID than allow heterodox discussion has messed up priorities.

---

Guide posted...

I'm going to assume this topic was made with good intentions, but you don't even have your info straight, so you shouldn't be looking to call out other misinfo just yet.

It was hastily articulated, but the question is pretty clear, and the question and people's responses to it are the main thing that matters.

---

There might be a simple reason why "alternative" treatments are not considered; for vaccines to maintain emergency authorized status no other officially sanctioned alternatives can exist, hence no "alternatives" are designated to be taken seriously. Its for the best imo, vaccines are tried and true.

---

David1988 posted...

There might be a simple reason why "alternative" treatments are not considered; for vaccines to maintain emergency authorized status no other officially sanctioned alternatives can exist, hence no "alternatives" are designated to be taken seriously.

And I think this, while maybe spawning from good intentions, has perverted the incentives when it comes to researching and accurately documenting the alternatives.

I'd be for considering alternatives while not changing the implications of the emergency authorization. Fixing a problem in 1 way should not prohibit us from investigating other solutions.

Its for the best imo, vaccines are tried and true.

Vaccines overall are tried and true, but new vaccines by definition aren't.

Basically everything about the vaccine that is the same as previously well tested safe vaccines very very likely is quite safe too. But that isn't everything. Again my intuition is that they are quite likely safe. But what bothers me is we are removing valid topics of discussion purely for political reasons. And that could cost lives.

---

joe40001 posted...

but new vaccines by definition aren't.

The "new" vaccines are based on 30 year old tech and are more effective and safer than the traditional ones. This is a fact.

---

joe40001 posted...

I'm not anti-vax, but

---

I'm not

---

SothaSil posted...

The "new" vaccines are based on 30 year old tech and are more effective and safer than the traditional ones. This is a fact.

In the short term. But both are quite safe in the short term. The tech isn't new, but the spike protein part is.

---

metallica846 posted...

Joe are you going to get the vaccine?

Is a person being vaccinated the only way to prove they aren't anti-vax?

---

I'm not a doctor, but after reading a couple articles, I feel I have acquired the expertise to challenge the concensus of actual doctors.



---

joe40001 posted...

Is a person being vaccinated the only way to prove they aren't anti-vax?

You might as well believe they cause autism if you're not going to take one.

This is like saying eating healthy is an alternative to the vaccine.

We have science that proves eating healthy is good for you. Doesn't mean it's relevant to the topic at hand.

---

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

---

joe40001 posted...

science of vax alternatives

---

joe40001 posted...

Is a person being vaccinated the only way to prove they aren't anti-vax?

No, but not getting one because you fear vaccines are harmful is very definition of anti-vax.


---

lol

---