Besides the scads of dubious (or outright dangerous) health-related videos on other topics, YouTube has videos of people flying "wing suits" and engaging in many other risky activities.
Why are they getting the dose wrong? Are doctors refusing or being prevented from prescribing the drug, leaving them to seek out unsafe alternatives like veterinary formulations?
Doctors are refusing to treat covid with it because it's not proven to work and not recommended internationally, so people are self medicating by getting it illegally.
I know that is the “theory” behind the censorship, but I’d suspect the true number of people choosing to do that is a lot smaller than people think. And frankly…if not censoring kills a few idiots and saves many more by allowing the medical professionals to fine tune a treatment, that’s a lot better than killing many to save a few idiots by making potential lifesaving treatment experimentation off limits.
How are censoring YouTube videos from scientists who do this for a living going to help medical professionals fine tune a treatment?
It’s not just the laymen getting censored. It’s everyone.
Also, no offense, but how little faith do you put in our medical professionals and scientists that you think they can’t discern the difference between wheat and chaff?
I am a scientist, I'm a pharmacologist who's time is now mostly spent on covid research. I'm glad youtube is removing most of the dangerous nonsense, because people like you tend to believe it.
Are ya now? Actually “people like me” don’t believe that random people like you are what you claim to be when posting under an anonymous name on the internet.
So no, we don’t just believe the BS we are being told on the internet.
I'm not going to dox myself, but check my comment history if you want. Unless you think I've spent the last several years posting about pharmacology, pharmaceutical companies and PhDs in some elaborate ruse.
Frankly, I’m not that interested enough to make the effort, and don’t care. Especially considering your go to is to insult people you don’t know just because they slightly disagree with you.
So you'd rather not listen to other scientists, doctors, and pharmacologists with real world experience with these drugs for your own research purposes? I mean, if you had YouTube videos explaining your research results, I would watch it.
I think it's important to distinguish two things, which look similar on the surface but are quite different. One is the ability to listen to the scientific discussion taking place on whether Ivermectin is effective. That is reasonable and is a good thing.
The other things is pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists. And to be clear, "Ivermectin might work and there are good studies in favor of it" is not in that category, but "Ivermectin is the cure" is.
I think the Pierre Kory and Bret Weinstein podcast[1] is on the border between these two (with a bit of motte and bailey). But to get more insight into how it's landing, check the comments to that video. Lots of people finding ways to procure it, conspiracies, and a strong overlap with antivax.
> pushing narratives that directly contradict our scientific understanding to an audience of nonscientists.
How do you know the audience are nonscientists? Why would that be so bad,are nonscientists to be kept dark until 100% agreement among scientists is reached?
Science advances on many fronts, not just in peer reviewed papers.
I do listen to my colleagues, typically in pre-prints, journals and conferences. Youtube is pretty far down the list of places you would go for credible scientific information.
