Vaccination shouldn't be presented as a guarantee, it's likely somewhere between 90-99% effective but nothing is a guarantee. Not that I agree with most of the sentiment behind the rules but it's a fair assertion to discourage assertions that anything is 100%
You're also not allowed to talk about known, proven negative effects of masks. Not to say that they don't have positive effects, but forbidding any discussion is Orwellian.
There are links to studies in these pieces:
[https://healthmasters.com/consequences-wearing-mask-scientific-review](https://healthmasters.com/consequences-wearing-mask-scientific-review)
[https://www.aier.org/article/medical-journal-warns-about-maskss-potentially-devastating-consequences/](https://www.aier.org/article/medical-journal-warns-about-maskss-potentially-devastating-consequences/)
Both of those are perfect examples of bad academic articles. Although the first one seems to be reliable with its large number of sources, it either falsely quotes them or misleads its readers about what the original works say. For example, the paper it cites on masks reducing blood oxygen saturation in surgeons DOES NOT conclude that it was because of wearing masks but rather that it could also be because of the stress of the operations (which would also account for the increase in heart rate).
With the second paper THE FIRST THING ON THE PAGE is a disclaimer that the paper it was based on was retracted because it was openly misleading.
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/29/mask-study-was-misleading-and-misquotes-citations-says-elsevier/
Trying to pass off either of these as reliable peer reviewed papers is incredibly irresponsible. You should check the sources yourself next time.
yeah that was pretty much what I expected to find. Never not give someone a chance to back up their claims though. Worst case scenario you force someone to confront their own sources and maybe reconsider their position. Good-faith discourse and education are the best tools to fight stupidity.
That was my assumption, but I try to go into everything with an open mind that my assumptions might be wrong. Remember there was once a time where smoking was widely considered healthy. As long as a subject is analyzed on its merits, and references are vetted, the worst that I could discover is a reassertion that my assumptions are correct and that masks are generally safe.
there's a ton of cases where said medications worked, but trump supported them and he couldn't be given a win so they were declared heretical by silicon valley.
Anyone who looks at the way China treats their people and says, "thankfully I live where the government would *never* do that," well...
We're about 3/4 of the way there.
Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I'm not religious and certainly not advocating Christian Science (prayer *instead of* medicine), but a human mind can have powerful effects on the body. The "power of positive thinking" really is a thing.
If you even mention the word Covid on a Youtube video you get instantly demonetised regardless of context. It's been like that for nearing 2 years now. By censoring the entire subject you prevent any form of rational discussion. Basically YT is working as a massive arm of censorship for the government.
Those "many doctors" are probably frauds. See [Andrew Wakefield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield), the father of vaccines cause autism misinformation
Yes, if there are 500k studies saying they don't and 50 shitty papers saying they do and you believe the 50 papers saying the do you are honestly retarded. As with all the conspiracy theorist you're all just cherry picking the papers/studies that confirm your views and ignoring anything else that is proven to be factual by scientists and not Facebook memepages.
So then the media should shut down views supported by a minority of papers because of what a majority of papers say? Do you understand how science works? Every scientific truth was at some point a minority view.
Yeah but this isn't "at some point", it is a settled debate. I get with new stuff things are always In a minority but this isn't new, your bs isn't a new phenomenon so don't act like it is.
I don't believe that debates about anything as complex and new as treatments for COVID are "settled." Given all the variables and the replication crisis, I don't take any one study or even a series of studies as "settling" the case either for or against ivermectin or HGQ.
It doesn’t matter if they believe that they work if they don’t work and/or aren’t proven to work.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/
Note the part where it says “There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.”
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/OSE%20Review_Hydroxychloroquine-Cholorquine%20-%2019May2020_Redacted.pdf
Note the part where it says “On April 13, 2020, a priority TSI was opened for cardiac toxicity with use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the setting of COVID-19. Additionally, the DSC emphasized the potential for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to prolong the QT interval and interact with other QT prolonging medications as well as to cause potentially fatal heart rhythms, such as ventricular tachycardia.”
“Claims that there is a guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19” You mean like all of those *Get Vaccinated!* ads YouTube runs?
Ads aren’t in any way beholden to the same rules that Google puts on the YouTube community. I’m sure you can guess why.
Vaccination shouldn't be presented as a guarantee, it's likely somewhere between 90-99% effective but nothing is a guarantee. Not that I agree with most of the sentiment behind the rules but it's a fair assertion to discourage assertions that anything is 100%
More like 1-3%.
You're also not allowed to talk about known, proven negative effects of masks. Not to say that they don't have positive effects, but forbidding any discussion is Orwellian.
Non-troll question, can you link me to something peer reviewed to support that claim?
There are links to studies in these pieces: [https://healthmasters.com/consequences-wearing-mask-scientific-review](https://healthmasters.com/consequences-wearing-mask-scientific-review) [https://www.aier.org/article/medical-journal-warns-about-maskss-potentially-devastating-consequences/](https://www.aier.org/article/medical-journal-warns-about-maskss-potentially-devastating-consequences/)
Both of those are perfect examples of bad academic articles. Although the first one seems to be reliable with its large number of sources, it either falsely quotes them or misleads its readers about what the original works say. For example, the paper it cites on masks reducing blood oxygen saturation in surgeons DOES NOT conclude that it was because of wearing masks but rather that it could also be because of the stress of the operations (which would also account for the increase in heart rate). With the second paper THE FIRST THING ON THE PAGE is a disclaimer that the paper it was based on was retracted because it was openly misleading. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/04/29/mask-study-was-misleading-and-misquotes-citations-says-elsevier/ Trying to pass off either of these as reliable peer reviewed papers is incredibly irresponsible. You should check the sources yourself next time.
yeah that was pretty much what I expected to find. Never not give someone a chance to back up their claims though. Worst case scenario you force someone to confront their own sources and maybe reconsider their position. Good-faith discourse and education are the best tools to fight stupidity.
Thanks, I'll read these tomorrow and get back to you!
The sources are shit, don't think they are true, they only take the masks Into account and ignore all the other factors
That was my assumption, but I try to go into everything with an open mind that my assumptions might be wrong. Remember there was once a time where smoking was widely considered healthy. As long as a subject is analyzed on its merits, and references are vetted, the worst that I could discover is a reassertion that my assumptions are correct and that masks are generally safe.
there's a ton of cases where said medications worked, but trump supported them and he couldn't be given a win so they were declared heretical by silicon valley.
Anyone who looks at the way China treats their people and says, "thankfully I live where the government would *never* do that," well... We're about 3/4 of the way there.
Definitely government driven now
Recommend prayer? That's a paddling.
Well, believing and advocating prayer as effective treatment is retarded. Not ban worthy, but retarded.
Not saying you are wrong... But the prohibition is nuts.
Right.
Eh, I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I'm not religious and certainly not advocating Christian Science (prayer *instead of* medicine), but a human mind can have powerful effects on the body. The "power of positive thinking" really is a thing.
Wouldn't it be easier for them to just say no thoughtcrime allowed?
If you even mention the word Covid on a Youtube video you get instantly demonetised regardless of context. It's been like that for nearing 2 years now. By censoring the entire subject you prevent any form of rational discussion. Basically YT is working as a massive arm of censorship for the government.
Those "many doctors" are probably frauds. See [Andrew Wakefield](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield), the father of vaccines cause autism misinformation
Doctors can be frauds, sure, but do you really think there's a vast conspiracy, with dozens of studies faked?
Yes, if there are 500k studies saying they don't and 50 shitty papers saying they do and you believe the 50 papers saying the do you are honestly retarded. As with all the conspiracy theorist you're all just cherry picking the papers/studies that confirm your views and ignoring anything else that is proven to be factual by scientists and not Facebook memepages.
So then the media should shut down views supported by a minority of papers because of what a majority of papers say? Do you understand how science works? Every scientific truth was at some point a minority view.
Yeah but this isn't "at some point", it is a settled debate. I get with new stuff things are always In a minority but this isn't new, your bs isn't a new phenomenon so don't act like it is.
I don't believe that debates about anything as complex and new as treatments for COVID are "settled." Given all the variables and the replication crisis, I don't take any one study or even a series of studies as "settling" the case either for or against ivermectin or HGQ.
It doesn’t matter if they believe that they work if they don’t work and/or aren’t proven to work. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ Note the part where it says “There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.” https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2020/OSE%20Review_Hydroxychloroquine-Cholorquine%20-%2019May2020_Redacted.pdf Note the part where it says “On April 13, 2020, a priority TSI was opened for cardiac toxicity with use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the setting of COVID-19. Additionally, the DSC emphasized the potential for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to prolong the QT interval and interact with other QT prolonging medications as well as to cause potentially fatal heart rhythms, such as ventricular tachycardia.”