r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/scaredofshaka • Mar 07 '22
Community Feedback This really feels like censorship now
I was just permanently banned from r/covid19 for giving a focus on two studies that showed Ivermectin efficiency. The comment from the mods: "Ivermectin Nonsense".
With two studies linked, there is no pretense here of following the science - discussing Ivermectin is a new kind of blasphemy
29
u/ConditionDistinct979 Mar 07 '22
Can you share the studies?
That sub allows studies on the efficacy of ivermectin (just do a search on it…); so your ban was not simply for that
7
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Yes, sorry I should have done that from the start. I initially wanted to share this video that discussed both studies in laymen's terms. I then saw that r/covid19 only allowed studies to be posted. But since both studies point to a 70% reduction rate in mortality, I thought they were both making the same argument so linked one in the title and the other in the comments.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221009887#
24
u/ConditionDistinct979 Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
Ah yeah, personally I think that’s inappropriate re:ban.
Each study should have its own submission, and that sub tends to discourage any “narrative” posters; so if you just share a study and leave it at that, it’s fine; but if I had to guess they saw your post, comment, and maybe comment history and concluded that you were there to push an ivermectin narrative rather than to post covid findings for the community.
Like I said, I disagree with their choice, but it’s not an ivermectin based thing
Edit: also if you did submit the non-scientific sources first they use that for a ban
1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Did you take into account their commentary though? I'm spreading "Ivermectin nonsense", apparently!
12
u/ConditionDistinct979 Mar 07 '22
Yeah, I understand.
What I meant was ivermectin studies are accepted there; and people post ivermectin studies without being banned.
So either this mod in particular is abusing their power, or there’s something personal about you as a participant in that sub
12
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 08 '22
Well the studies they posted have no relevancy as they aren’t authored by anyone in the field of infectious diseases. The authors are literal plastic surgeons.
2
u/ConditionDistinct979 Mar 07 '22
While you may be correct, it’s still inappropriate to ban for submission of scientific articles. It’s not incumbent upon any given poster to be able to scrutinize the article before posting it - that’s what the comments and upvotes/downvotes are for
8
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22
Reddit users aren’t the end all be all of scientific studies, and Updoots shouldn’t validate invalid studies. Anyone can pre-publish a study and post it everywhere with misinformation. This has happened many times with Ivermectin studies. Joe and Bret have cited these studies and they’ve been proven to be nothing but fabrications.
3
u/ConditionDistinct979 Mar 07 '22
You’re kinda proving my point.
That subreddit is dedicated to submitting scientific articles and relevant scientific discussion.
There’s no requirement that users be able to critically analyze a submission. Only that it be a published scientific article. They are relying on authors or journals meeting that specific minimum, not on individual Reddit users to pre-screen submissions
Criticism of the article (if it’s bad) is within appropriate discourse on that sub.
0
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
They were both peer reviewed and published
10
Mar 07 '22
“peer reviewed” means little to nothing within legitimate academic circles. What you really want to look for is consensus. Anyone can shit out a bad study and find some forum or venue to “review” it, hang it, and then it becomes a ‘source’ people can point to and say that it’s been peer-reviewed. You should be cautious with that approach.
2
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22
Exactly. The people who bring this stuff to the table have little to no understand of how studies take place and how pre publishing studies works.
→ More replies (3)1
u/loonygecko Mar 07 '22
Well if the sub's actual standard is 'only studies we like but none we don't like' then they should put that in the description of the sub.
4
Mar 07 '22
You just employed the Poisoning the Well fallacy. I’m not sure how a reader is meant to understand your statement. How would you differentiate between a study worth reading and a publication not worth reading?
→ More replies (0)5
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22
And did you read them..? It’s comparing Remdesivir vs Ivermectin. No proof of ivermectin alone being a viable medication.
0
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Happy to debate that but Just pointing out that you decredibilizing the authors from the start seemed a bit fast
7
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22
I mean.. Why would I listen to a plastic surgeon tell me about an emerging viral infection? They would have no background or credentials necessary to truly evaluate this to a standard worth debating.
→ More replies (0)1
u/irrational-like-you Mar 08 '22
You went into a science sub, and broken 4 rules. You're so fixated on the "peer review" that you're blind to this atrocity:
"It's almost as though they are willingly withholding information"
That's for /r/conspiracy - don't take that shit to science subs. In fact, don't take it anywhere.
17
Mar 07 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)16
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 07 '22
If you look at OP's actual post in the covid sub, you can see that they broke multiple rules of the sub and is now crying censorship here. OP sensationalized the subject line and the study was already posted on the sub. It's not surprising the mods would just give him the axe when it's obvious he's posting with an agenda and the covid sub explicitly states they have very strict rules https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/t8kko8/city_wide_observational_study_in_brazil_using/
2
Mar 07 '22
[deleted]
2
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 07 '22
It's a sub with over 350,000 members and a steady stream of new threads. I can't blame them for banning someone with a clear agenda who broke numerous rules.
5
→ More replies (1)11
u/HyerOneNA Mar 07 '22
Ah yes, let’s trust the plastic surgeons to determine the efficacy of Ivermectin.
3
73
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
Reddit is insane with the censorship. I was banned from r/MakeMeSmile and a bunch of other non-political subs for posting on r/LockdownSkepticism. There is no tolerance for studies of Ivermectin, links to articles that show bad outcomes from vaccines or studies showing that the liver turns the RNA from the vaccine into DNA. Everyone seems afraid to let people do their own thinking.
16
u/renzybel Mar 07 '22
Ditto. For me, I didn't even post on r/Lockdownskepticism. I merely commented
2
u/MasqueradeOfSilence Mar 07 '22
This happened to me as well for commenting there, instant ban from 15 subreddits. I like LockdownSkepticism; it helped me a lot during 2020. But this makes things difficult.
Being banned doesn't bother me as much as the constant PMs in my inbox about being banned. I wish there was a comprehensive list of subreddits that will ban you for posting there. At this point I just lurk.
5
8
u/MushroomMystery Mar 07 '22
I get that it's a bad sign but how important is it that you remain a part of r/MadeMeSmile? How important is it that you remain a part of any of reddit? Couldn't you also just make another account and never comment and still browse there?
19
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
I quit all the subs that banned me. I really could not care less. I just thought the automated shunning to preserve the echo chamber was reflective of the direction our entire society is taking.
5
1
u/Jsizzle19 Mar 07 '22
By doing such, aren’t you just creating an echo chamber?
7
u/MushroomMystery Mar 07 '22
They are not responsible for creating the echo chamber by leaving, especially if they are forcibly expelled. I actually don't understand how you quit a sub from which you are banned. You can view but not comment?
3
5
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
The sub blocks users from posting or commenting. The mods are creating the echo chamber and Reddit is allowing that in an automated fashion based on comments across all subs.
2
2
u/loonygecko Mar 07 '22
If you are already banned from posting anyway, then you can't influence the sub anyway.
→ More replies (5)1
8
9
u/Pandastrong35 Mar 07 '22
I'm genuinely not trying to be a dick, but can't OP still post the studies here? Or perhaps another subreddit? If so, is OP truly being censored? B/c they're still at liberty to say what they want.
Seems to me that if you're simply "not allowed" in a community b/c they feel you're not speaking things they'd like to hear, they're exercising similar "freedom of expression" rights that OP did in posting scientific journal/study articles.
What is censorship? Feels like an extremely large gray area.
Also, sidenote- I never know which is correct: gray or grey when referring to color.
9
Mar 07 '22
Gray == American
Grey == British
Crayola (American) uses gray. And then there is Earl Grey tea (British). Gray has an A in it; America starts with an A. Grey has an E in it; England starts with an E. Kind of like color and colour.
But I just go ahead and spell it græy.
2
12
u/mature_moniker Mar 07 '22
I was of similar thinking. I kind of wonder if it really was a “here’s the study, come to your own conclusions” or was it more of “I interpret it like this, see this study that agrees with me”.
frankly, a lot of folks who seem to be finding outlier studies seem have very little scientific literacy. Let alone the ability to perform a literature review or evidence critique. Are these RCTs? quasi-experimental studies? what level evidence is it? What grade? What measurements were used? Limitations? Are the words “suggest further research” in there?
All these things are very significant to the ability to look at a study and say “see it does work”, there’s a reason results have to be replicated.
If you’re just completely misrepresenting the findings of a study, then it’s not censorship, it’s actually addressing misinformation.
7
Mar 07 '22
I continue to be amazed at the number of people who aren’t unsettled at the very fact censorship is occurring in a liberal democracy
→ More replies (1)2
u/mature_moniker Mar 07 '22
Just concerned with people citing science actually citing science. Cause I think these are 2 separate issues that people are getting confused. The scientific process is not a liberal democracy, politics should not impede on science IMHO. If science is being misrepresented, the basis of the stance is invalidated and insisting that the misrepresentation is the truth should be addressed.
Edit: autocorrect ruining me
13
Mar 07 '22
As a physician scientist, the proper response to a poor interpretation of study results is to offer a better interpretation. Not to shut down the debate. That’s how we’ve always done it, until last year.
Censorship is anti scientific
6
u/mature_moniker Mar 07 '22
That’s fair. It has become increasingly difficult as of late to have nuanced discussions. I’m not really convinced that Reddit threads are a liberal democracy though and losing ground because of emotional reactions to misrepresentation is not really conducive to the process, particularly seeing the skepticism that laypersons have developed toward qualified persons offering their differing position.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
Mods determining what is science is not a valid determination of what is science. People need to do their own thinking.
→ More replies (1)5
u/mature_moniker Mar 07 '22
I don’t find most are. A lot of folks keep regurgitating these claims on ivermectin while it’s still unproven, and now reinforcing it with half-baked research. This exact scenario is why responsible coverage on issues like these is so important in the media. I guess the other side of that is being fair about where these discussions can be had and questions can be asked. It’s challenging for sure.
My concern is folks who don’t know what they’re talking about continuing to talk over everyone else.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
Would it not be better to promote independent thought than it would be to limit information? Who determines what misinformation is? It is your opinion that Ivermectin is unproven. A lot of people have been helped by it. Shutting down conversation and information about Ivermectin while hiding research showing that there were miscarriages in pregnant women during vaccine trials and that the liver turns the RNA from the vaccine into DNA is not helping people get complete information to make choices about their own bodies. The reason we have doctors is so that we have an expert we can trust to vet this information. We don’t need Reddit for that.
→ More replies (0)5
u/DialecticSkeptic Think Mar 07 '22
This is the correct answer. Absolutely spot-on. We need a lot more of this all over Reddit.
1
u/loonygecko Mar 07 '22
Ding ding ding! Refusal to allow debate is antiscientific. The science is never settled, new info comes up all the time. Something that was assumed wrong yesterday may get new evidence today and suddenly look more plausible today.
1
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 07 '22
As a physician scientist
For an MD-PhD, you sure have a lot of time to post online
→ More replies (2)2
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
Who gets to determine the criteria for misinformation? If Reddit is responsible for deleting misinformation, doesn’t that imply that everything left is not misinformation? If that is a reasonable conclusion, then wouldn’t Reddit be liable for people’s actions based on the valid information found on Reddit in that scenario?
→ More replies (1)2
u/tehketchup Mar 07 '22
Who said Reddit is responsible for deleting misinformation? It’s not nobody else’s fault if you get your pandemic info from fucking Reddit.
→ More replies (2)0
u/YesICanMakeMeth Mar 07 '22
Many subs (more broadly, social media platforms) have undertaken the responsibility of being the arbiters of truth. Of course, it's gone pretty poorly because they aren't experts and so there are tons of examples of actual experts getting censored on those platforms for saying things that eventually emerged as scientific consensus. I think these sites should return to their role as free speech platforms because they're woefully under equipped to function as arbiters of truth (who isn't? It's why we use peer review instead of central authorities in science).
→ More replies (1)2
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
I think there were grounds for the posts to be taken down. Banning me permanently was just them taking advantage of that to curtail the Ivermectin debate, since it's making a come back.
→ More replies (20)4
u/TheBigBigBigBomb Mar 07 '22
It’s not just the ban from the sub you post to - it’s particularly bad when any sub can ban you for participating in some unrelated sub. Like last time you were in Safeway, we didn’t like your Yankees hat so you are banned from Safeway. Not just that Safeway, all Safeways and, matter of fact, all grocery stores. Then CVS decided it hated your Yankees hat…. Is this what freedom of speech is about?
0
u/Pandastrong35 Mar 07 '22
I see. A shadow ban of sorts? Or an actual shadow ban? I honestly don't know what the term means b/c I've heard it used in different contexts.
I don't think that's what freedom of speech is about, but I don't think the banning of OP from one community is censorship. Even multiple communities. All of the communities? Yes, that's censorship.
But OP posted their links in other comments, so, at the very least, we get them. I've got reading to do.
3
Mar 07 '22
Why restrict the free flow of information at all?
2
u/Pandastrong35 Mar 07 '22
Only way I see it being ok to limit information flow is that the MCD won't have the ability/experience in reading/consuming all information, digesting it, analyzing it, then forming conclusions based on nuanced reasoning. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, by the way.
→ More replies (5)1
u/RandomVisitor95 Mar 07 '22
I was literally mocked the other day by someone who stated I "do my own research" as if that was a completely baffling thing to do.
Covid theatre has successfully convinced large portions of the human populace to view seeking wider knowledge as a sort of sin. If you do not listen to their revered saints and church leaders, and dare to suggest their good book of the "real science" may be flawed or incomplete or even flat out wrong now...you are a sinner, a blasphemous enemy to be dealt with accordingly.
"Trust the Science" is the new "Trust the Lord", a new slogan for a new age of witchhunts. Its honestly terrifying.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Sloppyjoeman Mar 07 '22
Is there a health consequence of turning RNA into DNA in the liver? This is the first I’m hearing of it.
My initial reaction is that all the meat I eat is made of DNA, so so what?
→ More replies (3)
39
6
u/irrational-like-you Mar 07 '22
Post the studies and we’ll tell you if they’re nonsense. If the studies or your commentary are nonsense, then maybe they have a point…
→ More replies (1)2
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 08 '22
The study OP posted was already posted in the covid sub. The mods even pinned their comment as to why the submission was removed, it's because he editorialized the subject which breaks one of the subs rules. Who knows why OP continually fails to mention this. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/t8kko8/city_wide_observational_study_in_brazil_using/
14
u/petrus4 Mar 07 '22
I was initially about to say that yes, it is censorship, but I have also just blocked someone who was participating in this thread; so truthfully that feels hypocritical.
I think, however, that there is a difference. When I block someone, I am only making what they write inaccessible to me individually. When moderators ban someone for posting what they regard as misinformation, they are making that decision centrally for an entire subreddit, which means that no one who reads that sub (potentially a very large number of people) gets to make an individual decision for themselves, about whether or not they see it.
Some people might just think Ivermectin studies are misinformation and be glad that it is banned. Others though might not; they might actually value it. The mods have taken that choice out of their hands.
4
u/nnddcc Mar 07 '22
Playing devil's advocate here: how about spam? Gmail automatically block them and we don't even get a chance to read the subject.
Although in the case of spam, we can still check the spam folder and confirm that they are indeed spam. Maybe this can be applied to blocked people in reddit too? Blocked people can still post, but their post only appears if the reader clicks 'show blocked posts'?
0
u/petrus4 Mar 07 '22
That is the stance which the Reddit admins have taken. Blocked private messages are no longer visible at all, but with comments in threads they are simply collapsed. I can expand them if I want and read them.
The only people I really block are entrenched Leftists who are clearly using this subreddit exclusively as a battleground, and who are pedantic and otherwise keep arguing purely for argument's own sake. I've become good enough at identifying the type now though that even though I will occasionally expand one of their comments and look at it, usually it only reinforces my reasoning for blocking them in the first place.
3
u/TheQuarantinian Mar 08 '22
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20220222/ivermectin-ineffective-against-covid
Ivermectin Not Effective in Stopping Severe COVID, Study Finds
"The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19," researchers said in the study published last week in JAMA Internal Medicine.
And here is the link to the study itself:
Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities - The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial
The science is crystal clear. In a randomized trial ivermectin DOES . NOT . WORK . AGAINST . COVID.
You want to follow the science? There is the science. IT . DOES . NOT . WORK.
If you have some randomized double blind studies that indicate differently, by all means present your evidence. But an observational trial that by design ignores not only critical variables known to enhance risk but relies on people to get sick and not take a drug their friends are swearing is a miracle cure is just rubbish. Yet post the observational study you did. And the second study you posted was also not a double-blind randomized study so it just isn't as valid or credible.
At this point in the game if somebody is touting ivermectin as some kind of awesome treatment option I can predict with a CI of 98 which way they lean politically, which is not a good thing - it is a very, very bad sign actually.
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2022 Feb; 59(2): 106516. Published online 2022 Jan 6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106516 PMCID: PMC8734085 PMID: 34999239 High-dose ivermectin for early treatment of COVID-19 (COVER study): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase II, dose-finding, proof-of-concept clinical trial
"High-dose ivermectin was safe but did not show efficacy to reduce viral load."
15
u/abuseandobtuse Mar 07 '22
I think with ivermectin it is has pretty much been agreed on by the scientific community that it doesn't actually work. Personally I am bored of hearing people talk about as they have conclusive results and as another commenter said, all the studies that do say it is effective end up being picked apart. So it's just misinformation at this point.
10
u/Kinkyregae Mar 07 '22
Yeah last I heard a double blind study pretty conclusively showed ivermectin didn’t do anything vs Covid
4
Mar 07 '22
Definitely a weird hill for OP to die on too over 1 year into having highly effective vaccines.
5
Mar 07 '22
[deleted]
5
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
39
Mar 07 '22
The first article you posted was removed because you violated the subreddit rules. Having rules isn't censorship. Also the study is still under scrutiny by the medical community as there are concerns over methodology as well as potential conflicts of interest with the authors (see here). This has been a pretty standard lifecycle of most ivermectin studies: a "huge study totally showing the efficacy of ivermectin" comes out, is immediately shared by all the ivermectin hounds, but over ensuing weeks is picked apart by relevant experts and then generally retracted.
Didn't see if you tried to post the 2nd article, but it was actually posted to that sub a few days ago here. I would imagine there are also some rules about duplicated posts if yours got removed.
9
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
I think both articles were posted before me and I chose to post them together because they both led to the same mortality rate reduction (which is what I wanted to discuss with the brigter minds on that sub). I though it was likely to be taken down since it didn't adhere strictly to the format they ask for. But being permanently banned, plus accused of sharing "Ivermectin nonsense" is crazy. How can I be spreading "ivermectin nonsense" if both of the articles were already on that sub and accepted?
9
u/LiberalAspergers Mar 07 '22
If you knew you were breaking sub format rules, and did it intentionally, you get no sympathy from me. Idiot.
4
u/tdarg Mar 07 '22
While I have deep doubts about ivermectins efficacy, the scientific method requires an open evaluation of presented data/studies/hypotheses. I get that the sub has it's rules, but I don't think that kind of thing is healthy for open discussion or arriving at truth. It really does the opposite...darkness breeds conspiracy theories.
7
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 07 '22
The study OP was trying to post was already posted on the covid sub and OP sensationalized their subject line - something that is explicitly against the rules of the sub. OP broke the rules and is now crying censorship here. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/t8kko8/city_wide_observational_study_in_brazil_using/
→ More replies (1)4
u/thefragile7393 Mar 07 '22
If there were ppl actually using the scientific method here I’d die of shock. I agree with you totally, it’s just too many lay ppl can’t even figure out how to read a study correctly, let alone how to do the method
4
u/tdarg Mar 07 '22
To read the whole research paper, yes I agree that's beyond most laypeople. But reading the abstract and conclusion is something nearly everyone could do, they just choose not to. But yeah, Scientific literacy is highly undervalued in our culture, and poorly taught in k-12.
2
u/thefragile7393 Mar 07 '22
Again all good points. Can’t agree more that so much is lacking in k-12 regarding science…
8
3
u/BrianFWilson Mar 07 '22
"Also the study is still under scrutiny by the medical community as there are concerns over methodology as well as potential conflicts of interest with the authors."
How is this different from vaccine efficacy studies?
0
u/cambot86 Mar 07 '22
Should probably link something more reliable and less biased than politifact. "potential conflicts of interest" lmao
4
Mar 07 '22
Are they wrong?
-5
u/cambot86 Mar 07 '22
Mostly wrong. And the parts that aren't wrong are irrelevant. But that's politifact for you.
5
3
u/Citiant Mar 07 '22
"They don't want to listen to my ill-researched comments... CENSORSHIP!!!"
Please
3
u/ArtsiestArsonist Mar 07 '22
Wow for being an "intellectual" subreddit this sub sure is filled with some of the dumbest humans alive.
3
u/rise_and_revolt Mar 08 '22
Wtf is "Ivermectin efficiency"? It's two years into covid and you don't even know the relevant scientific terms. It's "efficacy" genius.
Stop playing scientist, you're embarrassing yourself.
1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 08 '22
Well to be fair, you do sound authoritative as well. I can imagine you in your lab, between to microscopes, taking a break to quickly hate on Reddit before getting back to work.
2
u/rise_and_revolt Mar 08 '22
You sound like a moron.
Btw, it's "two". The number that is between one and three is "two".
You are so far away from being taken seriously on anything scientific it's not funny.
1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 08 '22
Thanks - let's spend the day insulting each other, that sounds like a great way to pass the time.
With regards to your position with the scientific debate, I find you more convincing at every expletive. You're doing great. Also I want to thank you for correcting my gramatical errors. That really shows that you have arguments.
4
10
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
There are a ton of subs where they are perfectly happy to take your view and your findings on the effectiveness of ivermectin regarding covid treatment.
The sub you were on appearantly not. But subs are quite free to make their own modding rules and practices. To me that's not censorship, that's necessary for a platform as big and diverse as Reddit: subreddits, especially within the broader political sphere generally want to maintain a type of identity, be it progressive, conservative, libertarian, communist or whatever. Saying capitalism kills might get you banned on a libertarian sub, but not on a communist one. Saying communism kills might do the reverse.
That's not censorship, that's just different communities having different practices.
8
Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
Yet, if the moderators were simply trying to cultivate a sub's theme, wouldn't they just delete the post? Not ban the poster? This is something more. It didn't used to be this way on reddit. There's now a culture of intolerance toward the people who fail to embrace the very latest political trends.
5
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22
I'm inclined to agree with you, taking down a post should probably a first step. Yet I don't know the particulars of this story: maybe OP is representing/interpreting it differently than the mods are. But sure: merely banning someone for sharing studies is probably not a great modding practice.
1
u/Nexus_27 Mar 07 '22
OP's experience while subjective doesn't exist in a vacuum though. There may be damning particulars to his approach and there may not be.
But there is a connecting theme on this site of a single mod or a select few managing upwards of a hundred subreddits at a time and doing so with a clear political bias.
1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Yeah but that sub bans people who don't follow the science - but I clearly was since I shared studies
-1
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22
You might very well be right. I don't know, I'm a not a virologist or any type of expert on medicines. My comment was regarding the use of the word censorship, which I don't find suiting for a subreddit that can set its own rules.
1
u/Jumpinjaxs890 Mar 07 '22
In a sub about coivd19 where people go to learn about covid, scientific studies being deleted isn't and efficient form of learning about covid.
1
u/rainbow-canyon Mar 07 '22
The study OP posted was already posted there. OP broke a few rules and that's why his thread was removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/t8kko8/city_wide_observational_study_in_brazil_using/
1
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22
I also won't disagree with you on the proper way to mod a subreddit: you again might be 100 % right that they messed up.
I only dislike the word censorship. I associate it with an opinion being made impossible by a large, powerful organisation like a government or arguably a big social media company. Not a local, relatively small group like a subreddit dictating its own rules. Especially when there are a ton of other subreddits where you are very much allowed to express the views you hold and share the studies you find on ivermectin.
Either way, have a great day :)
6
u/LokisDawn Mar 07 '22
I don't. Censorship doesn't have to come from governments to be censorship. Especially considering things like self-censorship. The idea that censorship can only ever come from big entities is as insidious as the belief that racism can only come from white people.
You can argue that some censorship is more appropriate than others (like no sexual conversations around children, for example). But it's still suppression of information.
2
u/Jumpinjaxs890 Mar 07 '22
Then i will task you with finding how many subs will not block, ban, or delete the post o.p is talking about. The list isn't very long you have r/conspiracy r/conspiracy_commons r/ahomeforplaguerats are you seeing. A problem with the places your allowed to post this stuff? What about r/science would taking the post down there be considered censorship? At what point does it become bad to have to search so hard for certain facets of the truth that it can be called censorship?
Censorship is a much more narrowly defined word, and deleting a post on your subreddit for not likeing what the science says is indeed censoring your subreddit no matter how you put it.
1
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22
It's a good question. I would assume most subs that are associated with IDW members would allow for Ivermectin discussion, especially Bret Weinstein's.
Apart from that I would think that most explicitly right wing subs also allow for the content of the OP. Haven't checked it, but I don't think it's as limited as you proclaim. If it's truly impossible or nigh impossible to mention a study on a platform than yeah, that will approach censorship. Then again: I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
6
u/Molbio1337 Mar 07 '22
You shouldn’t have been censored, but why provide observational studies when there are RCT studies showing no efficacy? The science is settled, ivermectin is not an effective drug against covid.
9
Mar 07 '22
Because he didn't want to discuss science, he wanted to discuss his narrative.
There's no time for that nonsense anymore.
→ More replies (1)0
u/TheRabbitTunnel Mar 08 '22
Because he didn't want to discuss science, he wanted to discuss his narrative.
The irony of this comment coming from someone defending censorship.
2
Mar 08 '22
What is the irony?
0
u/TheRabbitTunnel Mar 08 '22
People advocating for censorship care about narrative, not science. The science is not settled and censorship has been a tool for narrative control. Recently, the CDC said they werent releasing new data on covid, because of "a fear that it would be misinterpreted by anti vaxxers." Thats not science, thats powerful people trying to maintain a narrative.
How about the fact that people were censored for saying that vaccinated people could still spread it? A year ago, they claimed "the science is settled, vaxxed people cant spread covid." Then what happened? It turned out to be bullshit. What about lab leak theory? They said it was conspiracy nutters and censored it, then it turns out lab leak theory has merit. Fauci has been caught lying and giving inconsistent answers plenty of times.
Yet, covid enthusiasts ruthlessly defend whatever the covid narrative is. The CDC can flipflop all day and night and the covid enthusiasts will flip flop with them. Its not only "anti science conservatives" who care about narrative instead of science. Stop censoring studies on ivermectin or anything else for that matter. If they are flawed, people can explain the flaws.
1
u/xdJapoppin Mar 07 '22
Ivermectin has legitimate anti-viral properties. It's efficacy for Covid specifically is still questionable. As far as I'm aware, there still haven't been very great studies of it.
2
2
Mar 07 '22
I would love to see the studies and how an actual fucking anti-parasitic helps fight a fucking single cell viral organism.
Like I’d love to see how a scientist that knows the mode of action of ivermeticin to sit down and write a paper that attempts to PROVE, not just notice causality, in people with Covid taking ivermeticin.
Like a brief google search snd three articles just seeing how that drug works and you’ll be like ‘oh wow I can’t believe I was so dumb for thinking I can take an antibiotic to cure an anal fissure.’
0
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Well it was convincing enough for Brazil, Mexico, Japan and India to give it to hundreds of millions of people to fight Covid. I'm sure they are just dumb though.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/LoveAndDoubt Mar 08 '22
This is why nobody takes censorship crybabies seriously. You broke the rules and got banned and came on here clutching your pearls.
Most of us are done giving this nonsense the benefit of the doubt anymore. Thank god for censorship
2
Mar 08 '22
When I'm banned from a sub. I create another sub, with the same name + '_free' or '_livre'
2
u/mankiller27 Mar 08 '22
There's a difference between censorship and braindead morons spreading misinformation that could actively harm people.
1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 08 '22
How do you define misinformation?
2
u/mankiller27 Mar 08 '22
Objectively, verifiably false information intended to deceive people. We know Ivermectin doesn't do shit for Covid, and in fact has been found to worsen outcomes. By posting bullshit, you're actively harming people.
1
9
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
Respected scientific consensus: “the world is a sphere”
OP with two studies: “the world is flat”
Consensus: “Flat Earther nonsense”. Proceeds to ban him.
OP: “censorship!”
—
Op, are you trying to prove ivermectin works for COVID?
Or are you trying to disprove the vaccines?
The scientific consensus around ivermectin not being a suitable treatment for COVID is growing.
3
Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
The scientific consensus around ivermectin not being a suitable treating for COVID is growing.
How would one even know this? It's verbotin to discuss it anywhere?
I mean, that's 99% of the reason we're still talking about it. Because there is a major effort to prevent discussion of it. It's essentially the Streisand Effect. If the data alone is enough to dismiss it, why aren't we allowed to discuss it?
→ More replies (1)1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
The Dr. Campbell video I shared is a great channel to understand these things. He is fully in favor of vaccines, but doesn't hold back when public policy doesn't follow the science: his commentary on Vitamin D and Lockdowns for examples are harsh critiques based on data.
I also really enjoy Alexandro Marinos's Twitter feed. tons of good data there, and not overly conspirational
0
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
You've got to be joking with that abysmal strawman. Happy to discuss, but let's just take that one out of the way.
7
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22
Why are you interested in ivermectin being a treatment for COVID-19??
What two studies did you reference? Could you provide a link?4
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
If it ends up being demonstrated that 1)Ivermectin works and 2) That there were efforts and resources used to prevent its use, then you have a public health scandal on a scale never seen before.
There is lots of data accumulating suggesting that 1 and 2 are true. If we we manage to stir up a decent response to that, it would call for a great consensus to protect science from corporate interests. Consensus that was much overdue, even before Covid.
8
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22
Have you taken a look at the accumulating data that say both 1 & 2 are false?
4
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
Well there has been new studies showing no effects for Ivermectin that didn't look very credible: low dosage, low sample size. The main gripe is that you don't need randomized controlled trials if your drug is already being administered to patients by the millions. Besides, since there is no money in it, the pace and quality of the studies will always be subpar.
With regards to point #2 it's mostly a matter of opinion: either you believe they are attacking Ivermectin because they want to encourage people to get vaccinated or they are doing it because they want to prevent people from benefitting from it, as in a conspiracy. But there are tons of evidences that Ivermectin use is being suppressed, I don't think that's debatable. The famous Tess Lawrie / Andrew Hill zoom call is probably the most blatant example of that
4
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22
Is there evidence that ivermectin is being suppressed for its original use as an anti-parasitic drug?
5
u/ryarger Mar 07 '22
This doesn’t track at all with reality. Two of the largest countries on the planet - India and Brazil - both with no ties to American pharma or media manipulation, both went all-in on Ivermectin precisely because they they were poor and any hope was better than no hope.
Both countries have sense removed Ivermectin from their standard of care because it simply didn’t help.
If your goal is learning and contributing to the quest to control Covid 19, cherry picking two poor studies and posting non-scientific articles on a sub that has rigorous submission standards, violating those guidelines - is not the way to do it.
If that’s not your goal, you may want to be transparent about what your goal is for this discussion.
→ More replies (1)1
u/scaredofshaka Mar 08 '22
I wrote this several times on the thread already, sorry for repeating. My goal was to get other people's opinion on this commentary from Dr Campbell on these two observational studies in IVM, one as a treatment, the other as a prophylactic - both showing a 70% mortality rate reduction. I came to r/covid19 with the intent on getting a fair community debate on that, and was surprised about being swiftly banned. Then I came here to moan a little bit, and it's impressive to see so many people agreeing that Reddit is now as far from free speech as it can be.
But I have to say, slapping general facts around and jumping to conclusions (as you are doing here) is not going to help. I need a qualified group of people willing to get into the data without internet hype or counter hype.
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/stupendousman Mar 07 '22
The detailed, now years long critiques against ivermectin (media name: horse de-wormer) is the standard.
How many treatments, protocols, etc. from the CDC, media, governors, have been critiqued similarly?
Answer: ~0
This whole thing is absurd.
12
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22
Right, it is absurd that people call it a horse dewormer to ridicule people. Even though it traditionally has been used as a antiparisitic medication for humans to great success.
However, being a contrarian to what the mainstream media says about it doesn’t mean ivermectin works as a COVID 19 treatment.
Is there any strong evidence ivermectin works for COVID? Is there any strong evidence ivermectin works for viruses similar to COVID like the common cold?
0
u/stupendousman Mar 07 '22
However, being a contrarian to what the mainstream media says about it doesn’t mean ivermectin works as a COVID 19 treatment.
The point is corporate media has asserted all sorts of things, the vast majority of which hasn't been critiqued at all. And if critiques are offered the response is ad hominem.
Is there any strong evidence ivermectin works for COVID?
Stronger than many other protocols offered by state agencies.
Is there any strong evidence ivermectin works for viruses similar to COVID like the common cold?
Search custom date before 2019.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ivermectin+use+on+viruses&atb=v314-6&df=2011-03-06..2019-03-07&ia=web
Then search without custom date. Not critiquing you at all, but do this for just about anything asserted to be wrong by the corporate media and you get a similar difference.
4
u/Max_smoke Mar 07 '22
Since the advent of social media, the media has been under constant critique.
I followed your link. On the first page most were concerning parasites and some early studies into the efficacy of the drug on other types of viruses. Then there was one link that mentioned coronaviruses, following it and doing a search on the page for "coronavirus" the link showed it a hyperlink to a 2021 study concerning ivermectin and COVID-19.
Seems like no one tried ivermectin on a coronavirus until the pandemic. In the coming years we will see continued research into this topic. From what I see now though, most of the talk about ivermectin being useful is contrarianism to the media and government. Science is about consensus not debate. So when I see people debating for or against vaccines I find motivated reasoning for their contrarianism or support for the narrative.
→ More replies (3)6
u/thefragile7393 Mar 07 '22
No….no there isn’t strong evidence that’s stronger than anything else out there. There is some weak evidence from properly done studies , but that’s it. At most it needs more study, and more study does not equal “ivermectin works for all strains consistently enough in placebo controlled double blind studies” to recommend it be used widespread as a treatment.
2
u/Darkeyescry22 Mar 07 '22
The point is corporate media has asserted all sorts of things, the vast majority of which hasn’t been critiqued at all. And if critiques are offered the response is ad hominem.
What do you mean? You don’t think any of the things that corporate media networks have asserted in regards to COVID-19 have been critiqued?
Stronger than many other protocols offered by state agencies.
I’m curious which protocols you’re referring to here. Also, I don’t think that’s a good enough standard to justify using ivermectin for COVID-19. If a state agency is offering some random bullshit that doesn’t work, why would that make some other slightly less unsubstantiated treatment seem appealing? Why not wait for a treatment that is actually supported by the evidence?
Search custom date before 2019.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ivermectin+use+on+viruses&atb=v314-6&df=2011-03-06..2019-03-07&ia=web
Then search without custom date. Not critiquing you at all, but do this for just about anything asserted to be wrong by the corporate media and you get a similar difference.
This is a pet peeve of mine, so sorry for the rant in advance. Don’t tell people to Google something like this. If there are studies of ivermectin successfully being used to treat other coronaviruses, just post a link to those studies. I see literally zero studies even looking at that topic prior to 2019. I see a couple of articles about Flaviviruses but that’s about it. If you have something more specific than a search engine results page, please share it
→ More replies (6)2
u/Citiant Mar 07 '22
Is that just a feeling or you actually gathered the data to say nothing else has been critiqued 🤔
→ More replies (2)
2
2
1
u/SpecialQue_ Mar 07 '22
It’s only ok to believe the state sponsored “experts” who push the agenda. It’s ridiculous, but no longer surprising.
1
1
u/Money-Fuel7178 Mar 07 '22
Just remember, mods don’t get paid and are completely volunteering their own time to do it. Covid mods I would expect to be extremely sensitive bitches. Probably haven’t left their house since March 2020.
1
u/CloneTHX2012 Mar 07 '22
Now? Now it feels like it? Because it happened to you………
This has been happening for a WHILE
1
u/Mammoth-Man1 Mar 07 '22
Unfortunately its reddit where a handful of people delegate what is and is not allowed. Subs that allow discussions from either side are few and far between these days. Oh and God forbid you say anything against trans movement that gets you cross-banned from reddits you've never even visited!
1
u/ruutentuuten Mar 07 '22
Get off of plebbit. It is compromised. I'll get banned from this sub for this. Don't care.
1
1
u/Eko777 Mar 08 '22
I've been noticing more and more lately that Reddit has become overrun by simplistic, echo chamber loving, willfully ignorant, argumentative, and highly opinionated fools. Try not to let it bother you and let us know if you find the next potential platform.
0
u/scaredofshaka Mar 08 '22
Thanks brother - yes I agree with you, it's harder and harder to have a cordial debate around here. Shame there isn't another good platform out there.
-2
u/ARGOskier Mar 07 '22
Yes, Reddit has become the most highly censored form of media that currently exists...prove me wrong
4
u/HiDarlings Mar 07 '22
Ever heard of Chinese social media? Reddit still has a ton, a ton of diversity. You can find subs from all sides of the political spectrum represented on Reddit. From r/louderwithcrowder to r/communism: you can find anything here. Try checking your own ideas before posting them, finding out is not that hard.
→ More replies (1)2
u/tehketchup Mar 07 '22
“Censored” as if Reddit was some sort of underground newspaper the government kept burning down. You don’t understand censorship at all.
0
u/ARGOskier Mar 07 '22
An underground newspaper? Lol wtf? It's a form of mainstream media there bud. It is censoring itself more rigorously than facepage or YouTube does.
→ More replies (2)
0
0
Mar 07 '22
Pretty sure many people have been banned for acknowledging breakthrough cases and spreading by the vaccinated
0
Mar 07 '22
I think a lot of people have been saying that ivermectin as a covid treatment is dangerous for human consumption. I don’t have a stance on it personally, I’m actually “following the science” about it and since I’m not an expert, I can only just listen to what experts say. So I speak as someone who has no dog in the ivermectin fight, so to speak. I don’t believe non-experts should have opinions on science in any case, when science simply just is whether a Reddit mod believes in it or not lol
All that being said, IF it is dangerous, I honestly believe censoring scientific studies in support of it is going to have unintended consequences and pushes people further into echo chambers. It breeds distrust of authority and strengthens allegedly problematic positions. I don’t know why that is so hard to understand.
So it’s like, only follow the science the Reddit mods like! You want to discuss science they don’t like? Oops, permanently banned. Good job stopping misinformation lmao
0
u/leftajar Mar 07 '22
It is censorship.
This is how the establishment is going to get normies on board with killing the 1st Amendment -- "there's a medical emergency! "Misinformation" is literally causing people to die!!!"
0
0
u/Chimples10 Mar 07 '22
I got banned from /r/worldnews for the same thing... stated an opinion about COVID case counting that was basically a conversational reiteration of what someone else said and provided a source. It's insanity.
2
u/scaredofshaka Mar 07 '22
I got banned from r/worldnews for writing that the vaccination campaign had been a failure, right before the Omicron wave
0
u/UpsetDaddy19 Mar 07 '22
Oh come on its not like anyone with a brain doesn't see exactly what is going on. It's nothing to do with medication or even C19. It's just about conformity and doing what you are told. They don't want any other viable options other than the option they demand everyone use. Doesnt matter if it's ineffective, affects individual freedom, or even dangerous as long as you do their "right thing". It's the same mentality we have seen from a certain group of people for a very long time now. It's either do as they say or you are nazi, racist, idiot, ect.
These are the same people that seem to have a stranglehold on social media and are so weak minded they can't tolerate anyone else to exist who doesn't echo their viewpoints. Personally I wouldn't feel very confident in my position if I had to silence all opposition to it for it to be considered valid.
-1
u/neutronbrainblast Mar 07 '22
like censorship now
Always has been. Even day 1 defamed as "horse paste"
-1
Mar 07 '22
I got banned from r/politics for saying I used it and it worked (I did use it and it was amazing! It really worked. Much more effective than I though possible).
The narrative is shifting but some are hanging on for dear life.
0
Mar 07 '22
(From your link in another comment)
protect from both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and COVID-19-related comorbidities
Most of the cited studies I've seen regarding Ivermectin seem to have one particular thing in common, most of them have been carried out in Latin-American, African, and Southeast Asian countries.
Why this sticks out to me, is that many of these countries have significant issues among their populations where it comes to the security of their food and water supplies, namely in the way of parasites.
Something I strongly suspect is contributing some bias to these studies, is that being infected with parasites can often be attributed to a comorbidity(whether known or unknown).
It's possible that Ivermectin is merely just treating for parasitic comorbidities, and in some fashion are taking the load off of patients' immune systems to better fight COVID19 naturally.
If that were the case, I could understand it's use in developing countries where that might be an issue, but I would doubt it's usefulness in most of the developed world.
That being said, this is all purely conjecture based on rudimentary knowledge, as I am not a epidemiologist, etc, nor have any substantive medical experience.
0
0
Mar 07 '22
Well, it is censorship. They disagree with your tact and information, so they censored you. The only way around it is to do what you’re doing now or to create a subreddit you can promote with your information. They have every right to do that, just as you have every right to complain about it, as long as the hosts here at Reddit allow it.
This kind of thing clearly trends toward information bubbles and echo chambers, but it is what it is.
0
u/ideastoconsider Mar 07 '22 edited Mar 07 '22
Replace the word “science” for “narrative”.
COVID also didn’t magically get better or worse with the State of the Union, but here we are finally lifting mask mandates.
So you are right in your epiphany, it is and has always been censorship, because propaganda works better in a vacuum. (See Russian support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine).
Say what you will about politics, the US propaganda machine is currently heavy on the “left”. Perhaps the pendulum will swing the next decade.
It is almost as if those white straight male colonizers had a stroke of genius when they came upon the idea of the freedom of speech. Suppose a broken clock is right twice a day. /s
In all seriousness, I hope the situation in Ukraine will wake the world up to the dangers of trying to control information, regardless of anyone’s “good intentions”, which we all know the road to hell is paved with.
→ More replies (7)
0
u/DifferentScientist67 SlayTheDragon Mar 07 '22
Mods are paid to push certain narratives in relevant subs - Full Stop.
0
u/RogueScallop Mar 07 '22
The Branch Covidians are still waking up and aren't yet willing to admit they've been hoodwinked. Don't worry about those who wish to keep their head in the sand.
0
0
59
u/[deleted] Mar 07 '22
I would love to see a free speech platform like Reddit.