Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephc_int13 | Hacker News Reader

I find this extremely worrying, to be honest.

They are legal and widely used drugs in most countries.

They might not be miracle drugs to treat COVID-19, but I don't see the point in this ban.

The issue isn't the drug. It's the claim. The drug could be legal for use in the US, and there would still be an issue (unless there were studies good enough to pass FDA scrutiny that demonstrated the drugs effectiveness). In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid.

Now, the other questions are whether Youtube should be considered "in the US", and whether Youtube should be an enforcement arm of the FDA. That's the worrying part.

The drug IS legal in the U.S. lol

You just need a prescription

Honest question. Why do they need to ban this claim? Because U.S. doctors follow YouTube video suggestions when they prescribe drugs?

> In the US, you don't get to make medical claims that you can't prove are valid.

Is this a law or just your opinion? Are we expecting Bret Weinstein to be arrest in coming days?

Well... it's the law, and yet the lines aren't quite where we expect them to be.

Have you ever seen an informercial or something talking about a drug to fix something, and then it says something like "this drug has not been proven effective for this use"? That's pushing the line but not crossing it. Those people don't get arrested.

But if you said "Ivermectin is safe and effective for treating Covid", then you've probably crossed it. If you're making money from it, then you may have worse problems than Youtube banning your videos.

I don't know what Bret Weinstein says. If he says "this looks like it may work", he's probably OK. If he says "it's been shown to work", I would be surprised that the FDA hasn't done something.

[Edit: If he says "it's been shown to work" and he's selling it, that's where the FDA will almost certainly step in. If he says it but isn't himself selling it... I don't know how they respond to that.]

Disclaimer: IANAL.

Unproven medical treatments are a kind of speech that the US government has aggressively suppressed with the approval of the courts for many years. That situation was abused to suppress the works of Wilhelm Reich (~70 years ago) but I don't see that kind of abuse here. Youtube isn't subject to the first amendment 'cause it's not the government BUT also the first amendment hasn't protected this kind of expression for a long time. Just sayin'.

Edit: and as other said, that the drug is legal is irrelevant and disingenuous. We're talking a new treatment system.

Because people are idiots and will try and self-medicate, potentially making themselves really ill.

You are not their parent, and neither is YouTube.

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.

You're not YouTube's parent, to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own website.

Youtube is the dominant medium, we are stakeholders and should have a say.

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 youtube videos by people who haven't studied biology since high school going to help medical professionals to fine tune a treatment?

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.

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 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.

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.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSWjl-JOIqs

> 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.

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.

Some people in Brazil did this. What happened? They got drug-induced hepatitis by wrong usage of Ivermectin.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com