YouTube Censors Nobel Prize Winner Professor Satoshi Omura | Hacker News Reader

YouTube Censors Nobel Prize Winner Professor Satoshi Omura

twitter.com

54 pointsshaicoleman42 comments

So I wonder when all the people asking for censoring misinformation will finally realise that the “free speech extremists” were right, these censorship tools will inevitably be used by those in power for bad ends.

For me the Wall Street bets shutdown (discord) was a big alarm bell, that censorship was a absolutely about power and not “misinformation” or hate speech.

And now we have Nobel prize winning scientists silenced.

This is absolutely terrible.

Preventing the spread of more ivermectin bullshit is not a 'bad end' and having a Nobel Prize does not make you infallible (c.f. James Watson.) If you don't like the policies on one site you are free to find another, it is not like anyone owes you or anyone else a platform. Your 'free speech' rights end at the point where your hand dips into someone else's wallet to pay for the platform.

So you would prefer YouTube be the arbiter of truth in the case of scientific debate, and have the power to overrule the speech of a Nobel winning scientist? How does that results in a good situation for science in the long run?

Even if ivermectin works or doesn’t, is YouTube’s community standards team the right people to decide on controversial scientific issues?

A Nobel laureate does not need Youtube to get a message out, unless they are peddling conspiracy-grade bullshit. Youtube gets to be the arbiter of what content gets shared over Youtube. Don't like that? Too bad.

I've got no dog in this fight either way, but it sounds like you're celebrating the fact that Omura can't share his opinions on this drug, meanwhile you're sharing your opinions on the same drug here on HN.

Feels a little bit hypocritical.

I am not celebrating, but I do not think it is some grand conspiracy or worthy of much note. Given the amount of 'this is the magic bullet, I am sure of it this time' bullshit that we have all had to put up with for over a year from anti-lockdown idiots I am simply sick and tired of it. We did this a year ago with hyroxychloroquine from the same group of people. Maybe we can let the actual experts do the research. There are a bunch of garbage surveillance studies out there, a few biased sample studies, but no real data. We are now starting the real studies so maybe we can wait a bit before deciding that this is some magic treatment and that anyone claiming otherwise or trying to slow the spread of these mis-informed stores is somehow participating in some censorship conspiracy.

Fair enough.

It's sad to see everything online turned political and used as ammunition against the other side. I think the reality is that (mostly) everyone wants truth to be discovered and for everyone to be healthy.

Omura can't share his opinions on HN? Why not?

We can certainly express our disapproval of Alphabet’s stance on free expression on a discussion forum frequented by current and potential Alphabet employees.

> Preventing the spread of more ivermectin bullshit

Educate yourself. Ivermectin has been thoroughly tested and works in profylaxis and early treatment [1].

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/

There are also meta-analysis that show invermectin to be ineffective and even deadly. Perhaps you should educate yourself regarding the different meta-analysis available and how they differ (in particular, the one you cite is noted for its high bias.) Feel free to try [1] or [2] and assess the differences in outcome of the analysis when obviously garbage studies are removed or weighted less. Thankfully, we have several _real_ studies happening that are being conducted by people who know what they are doing and are not just surveillance studies but are directly looking at the efficacy of invermectin as a treatment option.

[1] https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1 [2] https://cadth.ca/sites/default/files/covid-19/RC1336%20-%20I...

From link 1 (Jan/2021):

"In six randomized trials of moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality (Relative Risk=0.25 [95%CI 0.12-0.52]; p=0.0002); 14/650 (2.1%) deaths on ivermectin; 57/597 (9.5%) deaths in controls) with favorable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalization."

From link 2 (Feb/2021):

"The RCT reported no serious drug-related adverse events in all patients."

"The overall pooled odds ratio was 0.53 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96); P = 0.04. It was estimated that ivermectin was associated with 54 fewer deaths per 1,000 (95% CI, 3 fewer to 85 fewer)"

Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs in the world, with no adverse events when taking 10x the approved dose.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12362927/

Both links are out of date, and there's been plenty of studies since.

Sorry, I assumed you might actually read the study and not skim the overview. The main takeaway from the first is that the quality of available studies is extremely poor, there are significant confounding variables in almost all of the surveillance studies, and you can significantly change the outcome of the analysis by how you weight a few studies that have some of the highest bias but claim the largest effects. The second study shows that there are few downsides but almost no clinical effect.

There have been no quality studies since then, simply more meta-analysis and arguing over the weighting of the available garbage data. There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that invermectin will have no real impact on case mortality.

If you want a meta-analysis that concludes invermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...

> If you want a meta-analysis that concludes ivermectin is worthless, based upon a different weighting of the same studies, here you go:

There's a critique of the above meta-analysis here, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be retracted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ivermectin/comments/od6he6/another_...

That meta-analysis also includes the flawed López-Medina RCT:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564574

> There are now two large-scale studies being conducted by real research groups. Happy to bet money that ivermectin will have no real impact on case mortality.

It's highly likely that the Oxford PRINCIPLE trial will fail, because it's designed to fail.

* Recruiting people up to 14 days after symptoms, when highest viral load is 2-3 days afterwards, and Ivermectin is most effective when treated on first symptoms.

* No exclusion of vaccinated and those who already had the disease beforehand.

* Treatment only for 3 days.

* Lower than ideal dosage.

Just because it's a large RCT, doesn't automatically make it a high quality study.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t4aotN326r4mPB9LDs46HI0e4GI...

No, I will be surprised if the critique is retracted. The pro-invermectin tribe have gone all-in on this particular lie and no amount of science is going to change their minds. You are wrong. The invermectin-pushers are wrong. In a few months we will have you continuing to try to work the refs when study after study shows it has no significant effect, and by this time next year it will join hydroxychlroquine in the list of failed treatments pushed by politically-motivated actors.

Roman et al. has serious errors cf.

https://twitter.com/BIRDGroupUK/status/1409899999308259332

A group of politically-motivated actors who have an interest in the other side of the argument think they have found serious errors? Color me shocked. Sorry, but I don't believe anyone in the BIRD group. Guess we will wait for the real data to emerge and I can save my 'I told you so' for then.

You are making my argument for me.

Both of these show data that weakly support ivermectin use rather than being against it. The conclusions hide this by focusing on the deficiencies of the available data, rather than focusing on their informational value. As usual, in case of controversial subject, do not trust the authors to make the correct conclusions, read the paper and the evidence presented.

These documents lack data after Jan 2021, so they are outdated. Also they do not seem to be peer-reviewed articles.

The Bryant/Lawrie study I linked to is half year newer and peer-reviewed. Much more respectable source and also consistent with FLCCC reports who have first-hand experience with taking care of real patients.

>Preventing the spread of more ivermectin bullshit is not a 'bad end' and having a Nobel Prize does not make you infallible

Wow, what an extremely deluded point of view. And I am, for one, a person who is extremely picky with fallacies and constantly point out appeals to authority (among other things) here on the site, you can check my comment history.

Still, this is the guy that discovered the family of compounds that Ivermectin is part of, he is a scientist with no known issues of dishonesty of wrongdoing and he is extremely familiar with the compound and its effects.

What is the problem with him giving its opinion on this medication, under the current light of the pandemic we are experiencing? What problem would anyone have with that? Geez.

The problem is that he has no qualifications or data to indicate that it is effective for this specific use. Invermectin was developed as an anti-parasite treatment as a variant of something discovered by the microbiologist in question. Let's be perfectly clear about this: Satoshi Omura is not a doctor, he is a microbiologist. He has no specific expertise when it comes to in vivo application of invermectin and absolutely no expertise regarding covid-19.

I have no problem with him providing his opinion, but I also don't care if an airline ignores my car mechanic when it comes to maintenance of the latest Airbus.

Here's a problem I'm having with these discussions: first of all, none of the people involved - like you - are qualified to make a judgement one way or another.

What we're left with is just straight up following the rules of scientific inquiry.

So, just going at it from that perspective: you're clearly in the wrong. Anyone who might have information that helps solve a problem should be able to come forward. Anyone who wants to stop that is a problem.

As for your skepticism - disparaging credentialed scientists as conspiracy theorists - you also have that ass-backwards. In any scientific discussion, it's the people who have vested interests (financial, institutional, personal) who you most need to be skeptical of. Satoshi Omura has nothing to gain from this, but the pharmaceutical companies definitely do.

So what are you trying to do here?

>The problem is that he has no qualifications or data to indicate that it is effective for this specific use.

Whew.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_%C5%8Cmura

1958, Science teacher at Tokyo Metropolitan Sumida Tech High School.

1960, Enrolled in the Tokyo University of Science (TUS) and studied sciences.

~1968, M.S. degree from TUS and his Ph.D. in Pharmaceutical Sciences (literally!) from the University of Tokyo.

1970, Ph.D. in Chemistry at TUS

1973, He became a director of the antibiotic laboratory at Kitasato University.

"Since the 1970s, Ōmura has discovered more than 480 new compounds, of which 25 kinds of drugs and reagents are in use."

2015, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with William C. Campbell and Tu Youyou for discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites.

Let me get this straight, so now you and your deluded mind are, somehow, suggesting that this person is not qualified to talk about Ivermectin?

Just stop it, really, you're making a fool of yourself.

What do you think of Linus Pauling's views on vitamin C curing cancer, the common cold, angina pectoris, etc?

"the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling

Or, Isaac Newton's treatment for the plague:

"the best is a toad suspended by the legs in a chimney for three days, which at last vomited up earth with various insects in it, on to a dish of yellow wax, and shortly after died. Combining powdered toad with the excretions and serum made into lozenges and worn about the affected area drove away the contagion and drew out the poison"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

These are some of the best scientists of all time. OF ALL TIME! How could you doubt them?

Also, are you under the impression that covid-19 is a "parasitic infection"?

>These are some of the best scientists of all time. OF ALL TIME! How could you doubt them?

It's not about that. Forget about the Nobel Prize, the guy still has 50+(!) or so years doing pharma research, plus he discovered Ivermectin, wouldn't you want to hear what he thinks about it?

Arguments from authority are wrong, I know, but experts DO exist in any given field and you can't just dismiss what they're saying.

> experts DO exist in any given field and you can't just dismiss what they're saying

Yes, ok, so isn't "parasitic infections" arguably a different field than coronaviruses?

That's why I saw a parallel with Pauling and Newton.

What am I missing?

The fact is, I have no idea about the science. Right now I dismiss it because it seems like mobs of people pop up in recurring threads to promote this thing, as if orchestrated.

Every few days or weeks it seems like there is a new thing that "they" (mainstream media or big tech) are trying to suppress. If it was being suppressed, I wouldn't feel like there was a firehose of it directed at me.

And if the interest in it was organic and evidence based, then the discussions in one thread ought to cause the next thread to be different. But it seems like groundhog day - either people don't evolve their views, or there's an influx of new people.

I’d believe they were right if the free speech extremists actually showed up to defend groups they hate when their voices are attacked. What I observe is a desire to provide just enough rights to defend established groups but not enough to defend agitators seeking transformative change around topics like racial justice.

To defend what exactly? Literally every big corporation had rainbows everywhere in the last month, almost all denounced racism and embraced BLM last year. Not much was done against BLM protests/riots.

So what exactly is the free speech issue around these issues?

Protestors were gassed and shot with bean bags. Woke capitalism does not mean that the state won’t violently crush actual revolutionary activism and I don’t expect right wing free speech absolutists to actually come defend me from my jail cell.

Protesters also destroyed property and committed a lot of violent acts against uninvolved people.

"Some people committed property crime so we need to show up with tanks and shoot these other people with gas and bean bags" is a much much much more serious threat to free speech than videos being removed from youtube.

Just because you block them all doesn't mean they aren't talking.

Previously YouTube incompetently censored discussion of lab leak theory, allowing misinformation to fester on the platform. [1]

YouTube's Trust and Safety team are actively malicious at this point. This was no error. They regularly censor correct information based on the current thinking among the orthodoxy, which I highly suspect is operating in a cartel manner to censor like-minded topics (hence why FB also sloppily censored the same topic).

Don't worry though, YouTube has been awarded a Free Expression Award from an organization sponsored by... YouTube. [2]

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-07/facebo...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDcvPf78g1k

I mean is there any doubt at this point that youtube would censor heliocentrism as misinformation if this was a certain year in the past? Not just censor but censor heliocentrism in the name of "science".

From what I can tell, a person very high up at Youtube, probably Susan, decided that the policy will be: shut down people who say things that youtube hasn't defined as completely 100% correct about COVID.

This is a mistake, and the moment you shut down the person who discovered a molecule that is a widely used drug for saying something which isn't completely unreasonable, will ultimately tar Youtube's reputation (worse than it already is) as anti-science.

Hasn’t this already happened though? Repeatedly? With no real consequences?

* Original tweet: https://twitter.com/KatsuNakajima/status/1408989016339349504

* Archived tweet: https://archive.is/m8C13

* YouTube link (now defunct): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbfNKW4BzjE

i can't watch the video so i can't be sure, but i somehow doubt the professor has violated any of the commmunity guideline policies set out here. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en&ref_... if it turns out youtube is suppressing information about a cheap, effective, safe treatment they should be sued.

And if it turns out that people are using youtube to convince others to take a treatment that is ineffective and leads to death and injury (including through replacement of known-good treatment with an ineffctive placebo) then those people who spread the misinformation should also be sued. I like where this is going, a real 'put your money where your mouth is' situation.

We do not know for sure what is the actual effect of this drug. There are many under powered studies that indicate that the effect might be positive.

Good news is that Bill and Melinda Gates Fund supported study is trying to find this out https://trialsitenews.com/bill-and-melinda-gates-fund-global...

There are some bad studies that suggest it might be effective and some equally questionable studies that indicate it raises the risk of death. Right now there are two meta-analysis that come to different conclusions based on how they weight the studies. Like the hydroxychloroquine BS from last year, there are question to be answered and several real studies have started (including one being done by Oxford in the UK) so hopefully we will learn answers. OTOH, baseless claims of this being a cheap cure help no one -- if invermectin's efficacy was as obvious as claimed it would show up quickly and be easy to demonstrate, but the fact that we need to go into meta-analysis based on a bunch of questionable surveillance studies is a strong signal that the effect, if any, is small.

> if it turns out that people are using youtube to convince others to take a treatment that is ineffective and leads to death and injury

Straw man, nobody is proposing/defending that.

Youtube/Google and other big companies sociopathy is unraveling. By suppressing important information on COVID treatments, they are likely causing prolonged pandemic, increased harm to health of people and deaths.

Employees of Google, do you really want to be part of this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com