Current Events > Do you agree with this 2 minute argument about science and censorship?

(+) Yeah! (+)

DarkRoast posted...

I am being censored he says on a public forum

I've had topics deleted on this forum, topics about lab leak where I was literally citing NPR and making the same arguments they were sharing on "All Things Considered".

Yes, the times I'm not being censored, I'm not being censored. What an amazing insight.

What's sad is that I'll be the first to say that gamefaqs is largely better than FB/Twitter about these kinds of things, even though they still get it wrong.

Also it is simply bad faith to act like the censorship doesn't exist. I can link you to facebook's explicit policy saying which types pf discussions aren't allowed. Facebook itself acknowledges it.

---

joe40001 posted...

I've had topics deleted on this forum, topics about lab leak where I was literally citing NPR and making the same arguments they were sharing on "All Things Considered".

Yes, the times I'm not being censored, I'm not being censored. What an amazing insight.

What's sad is that I'll be the first to say that gamefaqs is largely better than FB/Twitter about these kinds of things, even though they still get it wrong.

Also it is simply bad faith to act like the censorship doesn't exist. I can link you to facebook's explicit policy saying which types pf discussions aren't allowed. Facebook itself acknowledges it.

You have no business accusing any of us of bad faith

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You want to argue the merits of public discourse in comparison to funding, perfectly worthwhile debate. Absolutely. It is a different claim than what you were making before.

Also, the public doesn't GAF about the efficacy of Ivermectin because the vaccines are effective and relatively safe. It has nothing to do with any sort of active censorship of the data and more to do with a total disinterest.

Not many people are arguing about the more subtle points of how one vaccine works in comparison to another unless the side effects are marketedly different. The public does not care. And if the public doesn't care it doesn't get traction online. That isn't about censorship, it is about capitalism.

Ivermectin is in youtubes terms of service about "medical misinformation"

This 100% is a censorship issue.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en

YouTube doesn't allow content about COVID-19 that poses a serious risk of egregious harm.
...

Dont post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
Treatment misinformation:
Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19

And here is the peer reviewed meta analysis across 24 RCTs that concludes:

Conclusions
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.

Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease.

The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Even if you think it has 0 benefit, ivermectin is on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines, to say talking about its use poses a "a serious risk of egregious harm." is straight up gaslighting and 100% censorship.

I know you can be sus about siding with me JAKAS, but this one is pretty cut and dry.

1. World Health Ogranization calls it an essential medicine (aka it's safe af)
2. Peer reviewed meta analysis concludes "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin."
3. Youtube rules says discussion of it constitutes "a serious risk of egregious harm." and can take remove any video they like on it and strike or ban channels that post it.

---

You still havent responded to the critiques of that in your other thread

---

1. World Health Ogranization calls it an essential medicine (aka it's safe af)

Thats not what that means at all. Chloramphenicol is on their essential medicine list, and we literally dont even use it in the United States because the side effect profile is so high. Not to mention that its on their essential medicine list as an anti-parasitic, not a COVID-19 treatment.

Also, the fact that you are still citing that blatantly flawed and dubious meta-analysis says a lot.

You need to grow the hell up.

---

DarkRoast posted...

1. World Health Ogranization calls it an essential medicine (aka it's safe af)
Thats not what that means at all. Chloramphenicol is on their essential medicine list, and we literally dont even use it in the United States because the side effect profile is so high. Not to mention that its on their essential medicine list as an anti-parasitic, not a COVID-19 treatment.

Also, the fact that you are still citing that blatantly flawed and dubious meta-analysis says a lot.

Fair enough, but the WHO and everybody else largely does treat it as insanely safe.

But there, for those who say I don't acknowledge my mistakes. I was mistaken there to generalize and say all essential medicines are thought of as extremely safe.

DezDroppedFreak posted...

You still havent responded to the critiques of that in your other thread

I'm working on reading the articles, it takes time and every 2 seconds there are people posting quick jabs I feel obligated to respond to :P.

I will say I'm pleasantly surprised that some people are actually kind of taking it seriously in that topic. People seldom do that in my experience on CE.

---

People seldom do that in my experience on CE.

Because most people dont take clowns seriously.

As for insanely safe its not any safer than a vaccine.

---

DarkRoast posted...

People seldom do that in my experience on CE.

Because most people dont take clowns seriously.

As for insanely safe its not any safer than a vaccine.

It has a much longer history (30?+ years), and IIRC there is no connection to myocarditis.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/myocarditis.html

I believe the COVID vaccines (from all evidence we can see) are likely quite reasonably safe (I did get vaccinated), but to say they are as safe as ivermectin is likely an overstatement.

It's much more likely that they are considerably more effective than ivermectin than that they are safer than ivermectin.

---

Im going to say this bluntly. People like you do literally nothing to forward the progress of medical science, but do a great deal of damage to the trust of medical science practitioners for seemingly no other reason than your hubris.

---

You can't be pro science and pro censorship. Science is about being able to come up with a hypothesis and test that hypothesis. It's also about being able to independently reproduce the results someone else obtained under the same conditions.

If you're pro censorship, you're anti science. It's as simple as that.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Im going to say this bluntly. People like you do literally nothing to forward the progress of medical science, but do a great deal of damage to the trust of medical science practitioners for seemingly no other reason than your hubris.

I'm going to say this bluntly.

Based on my interaction with you, I don't respect your critical thinking ability or scientific interest.

You seem quick to judge and slow to acknoweldge things your are wrong on, you respond to my posts to medical journals with blog posts largely about twitter, and you go against things that even people you tend to hold up (and people who are credentialed higher than you) acknowledge to be at the least plausible.

Somehow at some point, things that go counter narrative became some sort of emotional trigger for you that clouds your judgement. You try to use your credentials as a bludgeon, and you seem disinterested in critical thinking.

Even so I am going to continue to read your link and see if there is something substantive there. In the interim I think our discussion would be more productive if we stuck to discussing the scientific reality of the situation and moved away from making this from being personal.

---

Ok Joe

---

IvoryHecker posted...

If you're pro censorship, you're anti science. It's as simple as that.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

---

A right to free speech =/= a right to be heard or taken seriously

---

DarkRoast posted...

A right to free speech =/= a right to be heard or taken seriously

It kinda does mean a right to be able to be heard tho...

---

joe40001 posted...

But I do struggle to think

Yes, I'm tracking in this.

---

joe40001 posted...

IIRC there is no connection to myocarditis

Neither is there for the mRNA vaccine, last I checked.

---

COVxy posted...

Neither is there for the mRNA vaccine, last I checked.

Um did even you read the link from the CDC I posted in my response?

It's literally the next thing after the sentence you are quoting.

---

joe40001 posted...

Um did even you read the link from the CDC I posted in my response?

You can't conclude anything from observational data.

---

COVxy posted...

You can't conclude anything from observational data.

From the CDC: (The same link you apparently aren't reading)
The known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. Also, most patients with myocarditis and pericarditis who received care responded well to treatment and rest and quickly felt better.

What Myocarditis/Pericarditis Symptoms Should I Be on the Lookout for after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination?
Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms:

• Chest pain
• Shortness of breath
• Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart

Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.

---

Just because you don't understand a point, doesn't mean it's there.

You cannot conclude anything about the causal relationship between the vaccine and these conditions on the basis of observational data (such as VAERS in this case).

"But the CDC said it might be a risk"
Yes, public health agencies have had a very low bar for investigating risk during the pandemic, elevating things that are likely just sampling noise into the spotlight. Which is exactly what you want a public health watchdog to do if they have the resources to track then down.

The issue is that this means people like you can amplify these things more than is appropriate and scare the crap out of people.

---

joe40001 posted...

From the CDC: (The same link you apparently aren't reading)
The known and potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the known and potential risks, including the possible risk of myocarditis or pericarditis. Also, most patients with myocarditis and pericarditis who received care responded well to treatment and rest and quickly felt better.

What Myocarditis/Pericarditis Symptoms Should I Be on the Lookout for after mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination?
Be on the lookout for any of the following symptoms:
* Chest pain
* Shortness of breath
* Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart
Seek medical care if you think you or your child have any of these symptoms within a week after COVID-19 vaccination.

Dude.

Removing the bad observational data yields no evidence for effectiveness.


---

COVxy posted...

Just because you don't understand a point, doesn't mean it's there.

You cannot conclude anything about the causal relationship between the vaccine and these conditions on the basis of observational data (such as VAERS in this case).

"But the CDC said it might be a risk"
Yes, public health agencies have had a very low bar for investigating risk during the pandemic, elevating things that are likely just sampling noise into the spotlight. Which is exactly what you want a public health watchdog to do if they have the resources to track then down.

The issue is that this means people like you can amplify these things more than is appropriate and scare the crap out of people.

I'm not "scaring the crap out of people". I'm just saying the truth. Which to say it is plausible to think that there might be a link between the two, just like the CDC says.

Notice they don't tell you to worry about shitting yourself to death or a host of other things. They talk specifically about this heart issue, because there is some evidence that we are monitoring that shows some plausible link.

Their bar for paying attention to something might be low, but it's not 0. And considering the EUA, the responsible thing for the CDC and the public to do is to pay attention to things like this.

---

joe40001 posted...

They talk specifically about this heart issue, because there is some evidence that we are monitoring that shows some plausible link.

The evidence alone is pretty close to non-evidence.

---

joe40001 posted...

What do you think I'm doing with my big topics where I post my claims and arguments? A big part is that I'm looking for somebody to provide me any evidence I'm wrong.

Those topics almost always involve people using ad-hominins or appeals to authority, so we don't get anywhere, but I hunger for people to legit be like "no, joe, this is where you are wrong, this is the data."

Nobody ever does.

I'm not even clear on what things (if any) you (or others like you) think I've been wrong about. It just seems like some of you generally just don't like me or something and you don't have anything specifically you think I've been wrong about.

I keep getting told I'm incredibly stupid, but nobody can point to a concrete argument about anything I'm wrong about.

If you were actually interested in science like you claim, you'd be looking for those answers on your own. You wouldn't be making a topic on CE just to waste everyone else's time.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

If you were actually interested in science like you claim, you'd be looking for those answers on your own. You wouldn't be making a topic on CE just to waste everyone else's time.

I do, but I generally don't find much. I've found some. So part of posting topics on CE about scientific reality as best as it's understood is to check against my own blindspots.

They function perfectly fine as topics where I make claims and provide evidence, but it is a perk that in theory people could help me become more informed.

I don't make topics where it's just my first hairbrained idea though, I do research first before I make claims. And I try to provide links/sources.

---

joe40001 posted...

I do, but I generally don't find much. I've found some. So part of posting topics on CE about scientific reality as best as it's understood is to check against my own blindspots.

They function perfectly fine as topics where I make claims and provide evidence, but it is a perk that in theory people could help me become more informed.

I don't make topics where it's just my first hairbrained idea though, I do research first before I make claims. And I try to provide links/sources.

Then you aren't making an honest effort to look for the information.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Then you aren't making an honest effort to look for the information.

How do you figure?

Alternatively, what do you think I'm wrong about that I would discover I was wrong about if I did more research?

---

COVxy posted...

The evidence alone is pretty close to non-evidence.

The issue is that you don't really have the training to parse between what constitutes good evidence from bad evidence. Or a willing desire to not do so.

---

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

---

ssk9716757 posted...

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

Wrong topic

---

COVxy posted...

The issue is that you don't really have the training to parse between what constitutes good evidence from bad evidence. Or a willing desire to not do so.

Most people do have that ability though, maybe not at the highest level of accuracy, but at the level of "is this bullshit or are the people calling it bullshit full of shit"?

Because when the people who are critical are saying things that are factually wrong from their own sources you can be like "ok that is sus". And when the other critical people are like "ok it's valid science but not as rigorous as we want" then you can take that in too.

And you can always look at the numbers. And be like "yep, in this RCT days to viral clearance went down.".

You don't have to be Mr Doctor expert to do that, don't fall the gatekeeping, trust me appeals to authority does make a person right.

Or at the very least if that is the game we are playing then I get to tell you whatever I want as factual truth in the areas I have more expertise than you and even if it sounds batshit you have to agree to it because that's what you think is good critical thinking. And I'm guessing you wouldn't like that.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

If you were actually interested in science like you claim, you'd be looking for those answers on your own. You wouldn't be making a topic on CE just to waste everyone else's time.

If he were actually interested in science he'd go to school instead of Google

---

COVxy posted...

The issue is that you don't really have the training to parse between what constitutes good evidence from bad evidence. Or a willing desire to not do so.

This.

A lack of a solid formal education in these things robs one of their ability to adequately discern what is quality, scientifically-sound evidence and what is junk posing as it.


---

DarkRoast posted...

If he were actually interested in science he'd go to school instead of Google

You aren't even reading any of the sources including your own.

I don't know how you got through school with your apparent disinterest in reading data/sources, but I got through my school just fine.

I just have the sense to know that you win arguments data, sound logic, and critical thinking, not with appeals to authority, bad faith, and misrepresentations..

PS: Does it bug you that the people you cite don't even agree with your claims?

---

DarkRoast posted...

This.

A lack of a solid formal education in these things robs one of their ability to adequately discern what is quality, scientifically-sound evidence and what is junk posing as it.

I'd say a lack of willingness to read at all does that moreso...

---

Pro-tip: People thinking you're crazy isn't the same thing as being censored.

ThanksUglyGod posted...

Pro-tip: People thinking you're crazy isn't the same thing as being censored.

???

We are talking about yt/twitter/facebook/etc removing content.

---

Facts TC will never change and will pretend he never opposed years from now: the covid 19 vaccines are safe and effective

---

ThyCorndog posted...

Facts TC will never change and will pretend he never opposed years from now: the covid 19 vaccines are safe and effective

I didn't say they weren't likely largely safe or effective.

They have risks but most medicines do.

But as far as people who change their tune, I'm not the kind that does. I've already begun to be largely vindicated on lab leak being very plausible. I was clearly vindicated with Reuters. By all means take note of who claims what and see what shakes out in 6 months, just be sure to call it fair and I'll be very excited for that.

---

---

https://twitter.com/wuooods/status/1252051656344317953

---

https://youtu.be/AfjrpjqdQxI
---

DarkRoast posted...

If he were actually interested in science he'd go to school instead of Google

Cost of school just for an interest isn't always financially feasible.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Cost of school just for an interest isn't always financially feasible.

Sure, but then you just shouldn't pretend like you're in a place to one up experts who have had years of training.

---

COVxy posted...

Sure, but then you just shouldn't pretend like you're in a place to one up experts who have had years of training.

Agreed, but I don't believe that doing your own research into topics that interest you should be viewed negatively. Granted I know that is not what Joe numbers does and I'm not defending his bs in anyway.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Agreed, but I don't believe that doing your own research into topics that interest you should be viewed negatively. Granted I know that is not what Joe numbers does and I'm not defending his bs in anyway.

It is what I do. You just wouldn't know it from how some people respond.

In my other topic, for evidence between me and the "expert" DR, one of linked to a blog post from an oncologist, an outspoken skeptic, and a critic of alternative medicine. And one of us linked to multiple peer reviewed journal articles. I'll let you guess which is which

Now, I don't believe in appeals to authority, so I think you should look at the substance of the arguments, but even then my side comes out on top. The blog post DR linked to is largely about the nature of the narrative around the people who tend to support alternative treatments and incredibly low on scientific content.

There are various levels of good faith response, I'd say of the people even trying to engage DR has shown themself to be the least rigours, as they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong about anything, and still denies that the virus could have in any way been altered in a lab to be tinfoil hat conspiracy. Apparently going against even the Biden admin.

COVxy and ssk9716757 seem to be a bit better in allowing for possibilities where they don't think they have the answers and not strawmanning or speaking it bad faith.

Then mostly it's people who just pass through, admittedly have no idea what's going on and then post some offhand comment about nothing and leave.

I do think if you do your own research and look into the science and analysis you'll come to a similar position as me and the post in the OP. Science is not frozen, if we ban discussion of ideas not yet accepted into the mainstream we will prevent good science from playing out. We are many months behind on lab leak investigations due to this very politics over science thinking.

---