Hmmm.... Did YouTube pull it?
Non Political COVID-19 virus thread
- Thread starter Porthos
- Start date
Hmmm.... Did YouTube pull it?
backwoodsman
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 576
- Location
- USA
It says the uploader removed it. I edited the post to point to another copy. Also the Facebook one is still there, and if you search Youtube for 'bakersfield doctors covid briefing', there are a number of other copies, from short clips to the whole thing.
labtech
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 349
- Location
- Greater Boston Area, USA
There is major censorship with what YouTube considers "controversial".
Here is more food for thought with facts from a scientist that was heavily involved in research (it wil likely get pulled as well):
Just did a job for a nurse at a major hospital in Boston MA, where National TV is advertising thousands and thousands of cases: very few people (less than 600 from early March to now) come in for coronavirus alone issues. The majority come in with other severe health issues, and because their immune system is shot from all the vaccines and medication they are on, they also get coronavirus and need to fight harder to get healthy.
P.S. In talking to the nurse in private, the first words before telling me more details were: "I am not supposed to tell you this..." Sounds alarming and suspect?!? These guys are threatened with losing their jobs if they chirp, doctors losing their licenses, etc. We have a major problem [in our heads] with believing with ease what we are presented with on major media channels.
Here is more food for thought with facts from a scientist that was heavily involved in research (it wil likely get pulled as well):
Just did a job for a nurse at a major hospital in Boston MA, where National TV is advertising thousands and thousands of cases: very few people (less than 600 from early March to now) come in for coronavirus alone issues. The majority come in with other severe health issues, and because their immune system is shot from all the vaccines and medication they are on, they also get coronavirus and need to fight harder to get healthy.
P.S. In talking to the nurse in private, the first words before telling me more details were: "I am not supposed to tell you this..." Sounds alarming and suspect?!? These guys are threatened with losing their jobs if they chirp, doctors losing their licenses, etc. We have a major problem [in our heads] with believing with ease what we are presented with on major media channels.
Last edited:
backwoodsman
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 576
- Location
- USA
A little more info from one of the Bakersfield doctors.
(Ignore the sensationalistic title etc. Obviously, that's coming from the interviewer, not the doctor.)
(Ignore the sensationalistic title etc. Obviously, that's coming from the interviewer, not the doctor.)
Last edited:
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,568
- Location
- Arizona
"Dr"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Mikovits
No... she's a crank that's been through legal issues and punted out of the medical field for rampant incompetence. But this is "evidence". Just another moron anti-vaxer, profiting off the stupidity of the people.
And Youtube's CEO coming forward and telling you they're going to pull videos that are "medically unsubstantiated" isn't a problem... Now going forward and saying the WHO specifically is a problem, given the WHO helped China lie about this mess for months.
Now, we have this: https://www.upmc.com/media/news/040...CKt8r-LA9fauYFyO8s5SdIY7zxN_kcGB8J8zfHs7ouF4U
A vaccine for SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and appears to be working for SARS-CoV-2 as well. Development has been in the US, and a consistent effort since SARS-CoV in 2003. It still needs work of course, but this thing is a ton safer than many of the proposed options that haven't been in the cooker for a year yet. And will be certainly light years better than anything Sanofi Pasteur vaccines is going to come up, despite its attachment to Trump. Sanofi of course being one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet, and one of the four companies responsible for enslaving every diabetic on the planet that dares to want to live. So that's big money funding big money at our expense... that's a real thing to be annoyed about. So... there is that...
But can we not post fake news here? We're IT people, we're supposed to be smart enough to not go there. Separating fact from fiction is a core part of our job descriptions.
TLDR, if your "evidence" didn't come from a virologist, or an epidemiologist... GTFO. Science is built on consensus, via reproducible results. I'm not even 2 min in, and this idiot is showing his rampant ignorance. It's click bait, and I'll just add it to the long list of stupid to never expose myself to again.
No... she's a crank that's been through legal issues and punted out of the medical field for rampant incompetence. But this is "evidence". Just another moron anti-vaxer, profiting off the stupidity of the people.
And Youtube's CEO coming forward and telling you they're going to pull videos that are "medically unsubstantiated" isn't a problem... Now going forward and saying the WHO specifically is a problem, given the WHO helped China lie about this mess for months.
Now, we have this: https://www.upmc.com/media/news/040...CKt8r-LA9fauYFyO8s5SdIY7zxN_kcGB8J8zfHs7ouF4U
A vaccine for SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and appears to be working for SARS-CoV-2 as well. Development has been in the US, and a consistent effort since SARS-CoV in 2003. It still needs work of course, but this thing is a ton safer than many of the proposed options that haven't been in the cooker for a year yet. And will be certainly light years better than anything Sanofi Pasteur vaccines is going to come up, despite its attachment to Trump. Sanofi of course being one of the largest pharmaceutical companies on the planet, and one of the four companies responsible for enslaving every diabetic on the planet that dares to want to live. So that's big money funding big money at our expense... that's a real thing to be annoyed about. So... there is that...
But can we not post fake news here? We're IT people, we're supposed to be smart enough to not go there. Separating fact from fiction is a core part of our job descriptions.
TLDR, if your "evidence" didn't come from a virologist, or an epidemiologist... GTFO. Science is built on consensus, via reproducible results. I'm not even 2 min in, and this idiot is showing his rampant ignorance. It's click bait, and I'll just add it to the long list of stupid to never expose myself to again.
Last edited:
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
It circles back to critical thinking skills, which far too many very sadly lack.
Consider the source (and part of this is their background and expertise in the field under discussion) is the first and most primary critical thinking skill.
Knowing that science is self-correcting, and that there will be incorrect hypotheses that get eliminated (and for something like what's going on now, relatively quickly) is part and parcel of the process. Science is, ideally, the very opposite of ideological. But ideologies built on what's been incontrovertibly shown to be pretty much the only true thing (e.g., the theory of evolution) make perfect sense. I will never say proven (other than proven false) since there is always the tiniest chance that some evidence could come to light to upset some very long standing scientific opinions. But for a great deal of what we do know that's so unlikely as to have very near zero probability.
Last edited:
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,568
- Location
- Arizona
@britechguy Science is self correcting... until it isn't. A great case and point is the Stanford "study" referenced by the idiots in these videos.
It's getting very hard to get papers pulled, because BS is easier to create than real science. If real scientists disputed every bad paper, they'd literally do nothing else. The peer review process is frustrated at best right now.
And if you want to disprove them? The proof you need is often locked behind a paywall... It's no wonder misinformation proliferates in these conditions.
It's getting very hard to get papers pulled, because BS is easier to create than real science. If real scientists disputed every bad paper, they'd literally do nothing else. The peer review process is frustrated at best right now.
And if you want to disprove them? The proof you need is often locked behind a paywall... It's no wonder misinformation proliferates in these conditions.
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
@Sky-Knight,
I agree about the proliferation of misinformation, and garbage research, but even that comes down to lack of critical thinking on the part of those who believe it. When you get these odd, outlier results that have not been replicated, one does not presume they are correct unless they can be replicated. Skepticism is a central part of the scientific method.
So, I still stick by my statement that science is self-correcting. Charlatans are not practicing science, but a false facsimile thereof. Sophistry has been with us for a very, very long time.
I still lay many of the issues we have with willingness to believe with a complete lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking, and a deep desire to have the world match preconceived notions rather than changing one's notions based on information that comes in that contradict current ones. (And that's not easy, even for me, but it's essential.)
I agree about the proliferation of misinformation, and garbage research, but even that comes down to lack of critical thinking on the part of those who believe it. When you get these odd, outlier results that have not been replicated, one does not presume they are correct unless they can be replicated. Skepticism is a central part of the scientific method.
So, I still stick by my statement that science is self-correcting. Charlatans are not practicing science, but a false facsimile thereof. Sophistry has been with us for a very, very long time.
I still lay many of the issues we have with willingness to believe with a complete lack of willingness to engage in critical thinking, and a deep desire to have the world match preconceived notions rather than changing one's notions based on information that comes in that contradict current ones. (And that's not easy, even for me, but it's essential.)
sapphirescales
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,314
- Location
- At My Computer
I object to censoring anyone's speech online. YouTube shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose what content it wants to allow so long as it isn't illegal.
The only exception should be bots. The content bots post shouldn't necessarily be blocked, but the bots themselves shouldn't be allowed to post.
This should apply to ALL "general content" websites. Exceptions should be made for websites with a specific theme (for example, Technibble shouldn't be forced to allow posts unrelated to computer repair). But if Technibble were a general forum, EVERYONE should be allowed to post so long as they're not posting anything illegal.
Don't want your users exposed to nasty fart fetish topics on your general forum? Implement a filter. Many websites do this so users don't have to see content they don't want to.
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
Well, that's your right. It's an opinion I do not share.
The internet is a publishing medium, and as such those who own the cyber equivalent of "the presses" and/or "the TV station" have every right to exercise whatever editorial oversight they see fit.
Suppression of expression by the government is censorship.
Suppression of expression by a publisher or broadcaster over what it disseminates is editorial oversight.
Suppression of expression of the wrong thing by oneself is discretion, restraint, and good manners.
Suppression of expression of children by their parents is necessary socialization and good parenting.
~ Brian Vogel
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,568
- Location
- Arizona
Youtube is not a government entity, it's private property. Private property let out based on conditions they determine. Any control over what they can do on their property constitutes a violation of property rights. If you don't like those policies, your choice is to not use the service. Which is why so many of the gun channels swapped over to PornHub.
But the long and short of it, as long as I want the power to determine who can say what inside my home, I must also defend others such that they can do the same.
But the long and short of it, as long as I want the power to determine who can say what inside my home, I must also defend others such that they can do the same.
Sky-Knight
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 5,568
- Location
- Arizona
Sanity might just be starting to prevail... maybe:
sapphirescales
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,314
- Location
- At My Computer
You either support and uphold the constitution and the bill of rights or you don't. There are no grey areas. Free speech is unrestricted in this country. "Hate speech" is just another non-existent term that liberals invented because they're constantly butt-hurt over every little thing because they have no lives and need something to complain about. Try living in the real world and get back to me.
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
You really are a fool if you believe either one of those two statements.
Libel and slander are still both legally actionable. You cannot legally yell, "Fire!," in a crowded theater. And the list goes on and on.
sapphirescales
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,314
- Location
- At My Computer
I'm talking specifically about "hate speech" and all the other bullsh*t that's being thrown around nowadays. Free speech should not result in harm to another person. But people should be able to say anything they want about any subject. I should be able to call someone any nasty name I want. So long as I'm not combining it with direct threats or physical violence, my speech is protected.
There's a fine line there when it comes to bullying because it can result in someone committing suicide in extreme cases, however I still believe that the speech should be protected. If it results in that person committing suicide over it, then and only then should it be punishable.
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
Your inability to be logically consistent is simply breathtaking.
Your understanding of hate speech laws is very, very sadly lacking.
Your understanding of hate speech laws is very, very sadly lacking.
sapphirescales
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 3,314
- Location
- At My Computer
There's no such thing as "hate speech laws" in America.
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States#Supreme_Court_case_law
God help us all if the crazy a$$ liberals ever get their way. You wanna see what totalitarianism is? It starts with bullsh*t like this.
britechguy
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 4,750
- Location
- Staunton, VA
OK, I'll grant that the US does not have hate speech laws, I was thinking of hate crimes laws, so I'll own being wrong in exactly what I said. But I don't know how you determine that something is a hate crime without speech (or the written equivalent) being part of the determination. It's how the bias part of a hate crime is most commonly (and I'd say almost exclusively) determined.
Hate Crime Laws - United States Department of Justice
Laws and Policies | HATECRIMES | Department of Justice
Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia
Hate crime - Wikipedia
And the Wikipedia page makes clear the mistake I made, and openly admit to have made, "Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."
I'll take my error over your inability to be logically consistent any day. And I admit that I made said error.
Hate Crime Laws - United States Department of Justice
Laws and Policies | HATECRIMES | Department of Justice
Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia
Hate crime - Wikipedia
And the Wikipedia page makes clear the mistake I made, and openly admit to have made, "Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech."
I'll take my error over your inability to be logically consistent any day. And I admit that I made said error.
Similar threads
