YouTube Will Remove Videos With Misinformation About Any Vaccine 549
YouTube will begin removing content questioning any approved medical vaccine, not just those for Covid-19, a departure from the video site's historically hands-off approach. From a report: The division of Alphabet's Google announced Wednesday that it will extend its policy against misinformation to cover all vaccines that health authorities consider effective. The ban will include any media that claims vaccines are dangerous or lead to chronic health outcomes such as autism, said Matt Halprin, YouTube's vice president for trust and safety. A year ago, YouTube banned certain videos critical of Covid-19 vaccines. The company said it has since pulled more than 130,000 videos for violating that rule. But many videos got around the rule by making dubious claims about vaccines without mentioning Covid-19. YouTube determined its policy was too limited. "We can imagine viewers then potentially extrapolating to Covid-19," Halprin said in an interview. "We wanted to make sure that we're covering the whole gamut."
Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2, Informative)
Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people.
People who seek to gain by misleading others are doing something very similar to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It's a deliberately destructive act.
Re: (Score:2)
Disinformation has become a public nuisance.
It's killing people.
TFA is about misinformation not disinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Misinformation is harmful. Censorship is harmful. Both are harmful. No matter who wins, we lose.
The operators of YouTube have just pronounced themselves the proper authority on truth. Why would we trust THEM? They are humans too, full of biases and corruption, and stupidity, just like the people spreading the misinformation.
The disease is bad and the cure is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the dual-meaning of my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure is even worse." In that case "the disease" was supposed to be "misinformation." Not COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders of misinformation because of my distaste for censorship.
I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the dual-meaning of my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure is even worse." In that case "the disease" was supposed to be "misinformation." Not COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders of misinformation because of my distaste for censorship.
I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win.
The only winning move is not to play.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, the best way to make a conspiracy ring true to is to forbid any reference to said conspiracy.
How do you trust the "science" behind covid when doctors or scientist that are critical get pulled from visibility? When you are only allowed to hear about how good something is, how do you trust that it is actually good?
Re: (Score:3)
I agree it's a nuisance, and I agree that it's dangerous, but it's also dangerous to see censorship by big nebulous organizations that control so much of the communication bandwidth. It's actually pretty easy to imagine a vaccine that does end up having some problems in the future, and you've just made it impossible to post a video to YouTube about it. Don't you think the pharmaceutical company will be happy that they can now get YouTube's help in covering it up? "That vaccine is approved! You can't say
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I guess that you would be insisting (pre Trump, that is) that we not believe what evil corporations tell us is "the truth".
My, how times have changed, as long as they genuflect toward your particular banners, eh? Now they're the good guys and we have people on slashdot (!) INSISTING angrily that 'freedom of speech' only narrowly applies to government and corporations can muzzle whomever they have the ability to.
You know, for the public good.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it still be disinformation if Trump gets back in office?
Yes, reality doesn't change based on who is President.
This is not a "both sides" problem. One "side" has completely untethered themselves from reality thanks to the right-wing media ecosystem.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. It was:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com]
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24... [npr.org]
https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com]
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05... [techcrunch.com]
https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com]
And those are just the top handful of articles from googling for: "facebook russia 2016". It doesn't include their shenanigans with other social networks, traditional media, leaks, hacking, and the rest. So yes, it is entirely based in reality. We don't "have the receipts," as they say, in my specific examples. But that's because Facebook WROTE the receipts after cashing the damn checks. So you can take your dear leader's "the Russia hoax" BS and just GTFO. You're not fooling anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com]
Russiagaters are great at ignoring evidence to the contrary of their conspiracy. I'm saying this as a far Leftie, not a Trump-Humper. Russiagate was a great excuse for the Democratic Party to completely ignore the actual reasons they lost to a gameshow host. I'm sure it is very comfy having your head buried in the sand.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on what you think "Russiagate" actually is. I don't think Trump is a KGB asset. Honestly he's too fucking stupid and can't keep his mouth shut. Is he being deferential to Putin because he wants Putin's help in the form of disinformation campaigns to help him win? I think that's pretty obviously true.
We already know the reasons Hillary lost to Trump. She was very unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. IN fact Trump and Hillary were the 2 least popular presidential candidates in US history. What happens when 2 very unpopular candidates are in an election together? One of them wins. And the electoral college advantage for Trump was just enough to help him beat Hillary despite losing the popular vote.
Our dumb election system causes dogshit candidates to be nominated. It only benefits the two political parties.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com]
The reasons go beyond Hillary's disastrous campaign and are quite the condemnation of what the Democratic Party has become. Obama acting like Reagan turned off a lot of voters, such as myself. I voted for him in 2008, but not in 2012. The Dems chased me from their party, and no planet destroying Republican will ever get my vote. So, third party it is, until the Dems get their heads out of billionaire butts and do more than write strongly worded letters or post sassy twee
Re: (Score:3)
What are some things Trump did that Putin didn't want? I can think of like 1 or 2, but not quite a lot. And it IS obviously true that Trump sought and welcomed Russia's help. The evidence that Trump was sucking up to Putin is not contradicted by the fact that he also did some things that Putin maybe didn't like. Trump does lots of things that lots of people don't like because he's a buffoon.
Being for or against a gas pipeline isn't sucking up to anyone. What I am referring to is constantly talking abou
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take the Trump vaccine [msn.com] but, now that they're in power, it's the most important thing ever [nbcnews.com]?
Get your facts straight. Here's what Kamala Harris actually said: If Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it. So all she's saying in regard to Trump is that she wouldn't take him at his word. Given his demonstrated problems with truthfulness, that's not unreasonable.
The article contains no quote at all from Biden, so there's nothing to refute.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you have to understand, my ideas are all correct. Everyone else should be censored.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I think a lot of people don't understand that diagnosis of most diseases isn't done through some sort of actual biochemical test, or chemical assay - it's literally "you have X out of Y of these symptoms, so we'll say you have Z".
If we were doing medicine like science, diagnoses would have clear falsification criteria. Medicine is an art, practiced by people in white robes.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Big media and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people.
They've sided with their sponsors, who would very much like to see this pandemic end so they can get back to making money.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Big media and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people.
Big media and big tech side with themselves and their profits, not the state (spoiler; they hate the state!) And it turns out that killing your users is terrible for profit.
Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Either you can openly discuss things and have different viewpoints allowing individuals to decide for themselves
Except that's not what's happening here. Instead of discussion, we get people being led down gradual, but increasingly-crazy rabbitholes by algorithms designed to increase 'engagement'. We get whole sections of society so infected by nonsense they've become immune to any sort of rational argument. Open discussion is failing to curb this, so sane, rational people are looking for different avenues to stem this tsunami of bullshit that's rolling over us.
Re: (Score:3)
You're confusing group risk with individual risk.
Yes, it is better for the group that 1 in a million children die from any given vaccine. But for that one child, it's a pretty shitty outcome.
If you're going to push vaccines, be honest - "Vaccines might fuck you up, but on average, fucking you up is a price our society is willing to pay to keep a bunch of other people, who aren't you, safe".
Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Imagine what they might block in pursuit of "The Truth" which will actually be true.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ah yes, good that we now know that smoking is good for you; bacon is good for you; climate change doesn't exist and even if it exists it will make life better for everyone; and the Earth is flat.
Re: (Score:3)
“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump” on the reliability of a vaccine, Harris said. The California senator, however, added that she would trust a “credible” source who could vouch that a vaccine was safe for Americans to receive.
https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true?
Could you be specific? I only know of one lie (of tens of thousands) that happened to collide with a possible truth.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
...after 3 years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about removal, it's about timely removal.
They need to remove these as fast as they remove copyright claims.
Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful of what you think you agree with. Make sure you are not being propagandized and just one of the lemmings that thinks they know(from perceived free will).
Almost all censorship, and agreeing with it, is long term terrible for a society.
Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're still free to share whatever bullshit tickles your fancy, you just have to do it on your own dime. As in, how it used to work throughout most of human history since the invention of the written word. It's still free to stand on a street corner and hold up a sign. That costs nothing but your time (and possibly your dignity).
It's amazing how many people believe they have some sort of God-given right to put their shit on someone else's privately-owned computer(s).
Ignorant. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, because if they follow this approach to it's logical conclusion, between COVID and whatever else happens in the next 20yrs, they'll be mostly dead anyway and thus unable to admit they were wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of other video hosting sites for you to choose from.
People use youtube for information? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's incredible that society has progressed so far that people are taking medical advice from random people on a video website that was mainly known for cat videos back in the day.
we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to times when the minority voice turns out to be right?
there is no 100% solution to many/most complex issues of humanity, only tradeoffs; so to take a big-picture tack, if I have to choose between...
empowering and depending upon the common person to decide for themselves how to best determine their pursuit of happiness .... for me, I put my faith in the individual, not some distant and disinterested 3rd party; is it perfect? no, but that's not a reasonable expectation anyway; I just have faith that in the long run, it's best
-- or --
empowering 3rd parties -- just as imbued with all the human failings an individual has -- to decide for others
now before some on-the-spectrum pedant starts bashing their keyboard to set me straight, let me be clear that I'm not an anarchist or somebody that thinks gov't has no place anywhere; I know it's not an all-or-nothing proposition, but I do want to make sure we are careful when we move to disempower the individual, which is what happens when anybody or anything makes decisions for them
from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price for the capitulation of personal responsibility
Re: (Score:3)
from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price for the capitulation of personal responsibility
It's true. What has government ever really done for us? All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, public health (i.e. National Health Systems in every developed country other than the US), education, public order, roads (the US interstate system), what has government ever done for us? -- Brought peace (the proportion of people dying violent deaths has been dropping steadily over the past millenia, hand in hand with civic structures).
Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful)
gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to times when the minority voice turns out to be right?
No but people forget that YouTube is not a public utility. YouTube is not part of the government. They are part of Google which is a for profit company who gets to decide what people can and cannot do on their platform. That is the nature of capitalism.
Jail med trolls, send a message (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion medical info is too important to let yahoos lie. If we need to shore up the medical info evaluation procedure, then so be it.
A consolation prize is to increase the legal penalties and enforcement on med liars and context manipulators.
For example, if you present the opinion of an outlier doctor, you have to clearly state it's an outlier opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a false dilemma. You can have free speech without having the right to say it to people who don't want to listen.
What children sees should be controlled by parents. That's a viewer-side self-restriction, which is different from the platform blocking all non-child-friendly content even for people who want to see it.
As an adult, I would be perfectly fine if social media companies gave us options or filter lists that we can select for ourselves. I don't want to see gore, so I would enable a filter for th
Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm NOT an Anti-vaxxer, I fully support getting vaccines, but I also support the open expression of information. Can any health "expert", list every possible side effect of the C Vaccine? I'm sure they can list the "approved" side effects, and they can list the "approved" complications, but what if a new complicate or side effect is discovered they won't accept?
A good example is a lower abdominal issue I developed 1 week after getting the first shot. It led to 7 ER visits, and a urology visit, but no doctor is will to say "it's related to the C Vaccine", except they can't tell me what caused it, and we've isolated virtually all variables apart from freak occurrence.
I got my second shot yesterday, so if it comes back (and it never really went away), then we have a correlation, but if Health Canada won't accept it as a complication, will YouTube allow videos about it? If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky, because they don't just hurt at the moment, the fallout can last a year+, which what I'm going through right now. While it's fine to say it's "Not the C Vaccine", you then have to give me some options on what caused it, because if you don't then you're irrationally throwing out possible correlations.
That's why this is dangerous, it's shutting down the trade of information, in favour of biased groups from accepting that information, based solely on their opinion, regardless if that's medically / scientifically sound.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky
We finally found Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend [gq.com]! Why didn't you come forward sooner?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out there), how do you report that to the public?
It seems like all of the social media platforms are likely going to set up AI filters flagging everything about vaccines that isn't coming from the CDC as "fake news", so the warning will likely go unneeded.
No fixing this (Score:3)
Last time I checked, YouTube is not a researcher. (Score:2)
Just a condescending cunt, that thinks it knows better, exactly because it knows so little.
Exactly like those it tries to stop.
And ain't that a typical pattern in stupid assholes!
The only problem here is, who has power over whom.
Anti-vaxxers would not be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else.
YouTube wouldn't be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else.
Solution:
1. Spread more self-thinking and problem solving skills to children and promote their curiosity so they grow up as individuals and researche
contaminated discourse and general social issues (Score:4, Insightful)
It sure would be nice if I could talk about the actual problem here-- see, government doesn't regulate speech because First Ammendment, so instead we pressure Big Tech into doing it for us, and that's legal because Regulation is Bad.
But if I do try to talk about it, I'm lending support to a bunch of antivaxxer nutjobs (spare me your cherry-picked Studies guys, I'm busy watching unvaccinated people overwhelm hospitals in the red lands).
The idea that we need robust social institutions with reasonable checks-and-balances built-in and transparent decision making and so on, that's all irrelevant in the modern world, where I'm supposed to just go "Oh good, google did the Right Thing. This time."
If I had a dime... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had a dime for every time a dumbass tried to use VAERS as a data source, I'd be rich.
VAERS is not a source of data. Anyone can go on there and report anything they want.
I could go on VAERS and report the vaccine grew back my hair and made my penis 50% larger. It would mean absolutely nothing, VAERS will accept the report and include the information, but that wouldn't make VAERS a source of truth or a source of data on hair restoration or penis enlargment, VAERS is completely unsubstantiated claims.
Any time you see someone using "data from VAERS", you can automatically discredit them as trying to manufacture evidence to support their own twisted arguments and agendas.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful)
Emergency approval is still an approval.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing is not approval either.
Why do you lie [fda.gov] so much? "Clinical trials are evaluating investigational COVID-19 vaccines in tens of thousands of study participants to generate the scientific data and other information needed by FDA to determine safety and effectiveness. These clinical trials are being conducted according to the rigorous standards set forth by the FDA. For an EUA to be issued for a vaccine, for which there is adequate manufacturing information to ensure quality and consistency, FDA must determine that the known and potent
Re: (Score:2)
So, no they don't have to be complete and successful. They just have to have started, and seem to be making antibodies and not really killing that many people. That's a severely different stand than approved if you're one of the people that has suffered side effects from one of these vaccines.
Bahahahahahaah. Do you know what phase 3 clinical trials mean and what it takes to not only get to but pass phase 3? I suggest you read about that first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You stupidly repeat misinformation even when told the difference.
Both EUA and regulatory require passing clinical trials. That is the point you refuse to admit.
Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you get your medical advice from Project Veritas, you might just be qualified to host the Darwin Awards.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Informative)
Three vaccines are allowed for use against COVID-19.
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-... [fda.gov]
It would be illegal to treat people with a vaccine openly without FDA authorization.
And no, I'm not going to get into a pedantic battle about how the words "authorized" and "approved" are different, all that matters is that the FDA has given the OK for use of those three vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like the moron on Twitter who was complaining the government could force you to get vaccinated, and when asked if he had a shot for measles replied (to the effect), "Yeah. I was immunized. I didn't get vaccinated."
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, vaccines containing live attenuated viruses are pretty terrible; they are still better than the disease but have many issues. Which is why we almost never use those anymore.
I think what you are saying is "wow, vaccine science works, we moved away from these dangerous vaccines to our current very-safe vaccines." And I agree with you; excellent point!
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure it's not because no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because of that!
Pretty soon we won't even be able to find that fact online and then people like you will be shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!"
Lots of coronavirus vaccines in animals have worked. Anyone spending three minutes with a search engine can find links proving that what you're saying is NOT true.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're not hearing about this stuff you're living under a rock.
First off, -- you probably understand this but it is worth calling out explicitly -- the vaccines *do* have a very real preventative effect. The problem is that the "prevention" is far from 100%, for various reasons. We know obvious factors: how good is the early immune response triggered by the vaccine, to what extent to variants reduce that, how much does it drop over time, how large is the incoming viral dose at initial exposure. As far as I know we don't understand the relative importance of these factors, on a spectrum from "most fully vaccinated people are mostly immune but breakthrough cases happen, more frequently during a major surge" to "most people will eventually get exposed to a large enough viral dose to have a breakthrough infection".
It isn't that clear that a hypothetical attempt to vaccinate a largely immunologically naive population against polio or measles wouldn't have the same issues with breakthrough cases we're having with SARS-CoV-2. On top of that, measles *did* have outbreak levels of breakthrough cases until they added a second dose to the standard regimen after the 1989 Chicago measles outbreak. Even then breakthrough measles is still a thing -- it's just rare and almost always really mild when it happens. It may well be that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines similarly need an extra dose, or need the two doses to be further spaced than 3-4 weeks to provide robust long lasting immunity.
Still, regarding treatments: the biggest problem with respect to treatment is that by the time you know that a case is serious you're past the point where antivirals help that much -- at that point you're dealing as much with the immune system destroying the body. Dexamethazone was a big deal in improving the situation there, and came with something like a 1/3 reduction in chance of death.
On the other hand, there are a number of existing antiviral treatments that improve the situation if applied early on -- remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibodies -- but they don't help *that* much unless they come early and they all require hospitalization level treatment. If hospital systems are overwhelmed, treatments that require hospitalization of likely otherwise sub-hospitalization cases cases are not that helpful except for high risk patients.
There are two game changers here:
1. There's a fair bit of news about an oral covid treatment that Pfizer just launched phase 2/3 trials for. That has the same "needs to be early to be helpful" issues that existing antiviral treatments do, except that it would actually be viable to take them far more early -- at first positive test or even after known exposure.
2. In an environment where hospital systems are not overwhelmed with covid cases among the immunologically naive, even those more intensive early treatments would be far more helpful than they are now.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing is not approval either. Only one vaccine is approved. That has very specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have approval, it's even possible one or more never do.
The post you are replying to was accurate. Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson covid-19 vaccines all have been approved by the FDA. Pfizer has been fully approved for people age 16 and over; Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have been approved for emergency use. The statement by @jeff4747 was accurate:
Emergency approval is still an approval.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Emergency approval is still an approval.
It is an emergency use authorization. That is NOT the same thing as "FDA approved". Not even close.
My understanding is this is also the reason they want to discredit and destroy anyone claiming that therapeutics are effective, because they likely would not be able to retain the justification for "emergency use" authorization.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who thinks too many people here are hung up on their personal precise definition of the word "approval", and missing the big picture?
The FDA hasn't done any giant studies on whether Cheetos cause cancer or if drinking Mountain Dew causes blindness but I don't see anyone hesitating consuming those products because they weren't "approved".
Anti-vaxers let fear control their lives about as those 250lb white guys who have to take their guns everywhere because of the 1 in 1000000 chance they could be victimized.
Re: (Score:2)
On the legal level, you are correct. In a more regular use of the word "approval", I think most people would think that "emergency use authorization" is a form of approval.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the problem though. You're misleading people by your use of the word 'Approved' and there are legal and possible health consequences for the people who believe your lie. Why are you afraid of just telling people the truth and letting them decide for themselves?
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are you afraid of just telling people the truth and letting them decide for themselves?
They are telling the truth. The message is just simplified. See, most people aren't capable of understanding the difference between EUA and full approval. Most people aren't medical researchers. It's complicated and nuanced and difficult to understand how those differences affect risk. The whole message is noisy, and that noise is what dishonest actors are exploiting.
People like you want to split hairs over the legal vs the common use of the word 'approved' to make people think that EUA means completely untested. That's what I'd call a lie.
As for trusting people to make informed decisions about the vaccine, I should remind you that there are people who believe that:
This is just a small sample of the insanity people are spreading about the virus and vaccine. These people are not capable of making informed decisions. They "did their own research" and this is what they came away believing.
We need a simple message that's easy to understand if we want to save people's lives. You want to needlessly complicate that message for reasons I dare not speculate about.
Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe people should be able to make their own informed decisions.
This is the lie the libertarians tell themselves: People magically have access to perfect information and will always act in their own rational self-interest.
That's pure fantasy. People, even with easy access to reliable information, will go out of their way to make choices harmful to themselves and others.
But that's the best-case. As I've demonstrated, they're also incapable of separating legitimate information for insane conspiracies.
Re: (Score:2)
It could even be none of the other vaccines ever get approved and the emergency use revoked. Learn about the process, reasoning, risks and meanings, it's quite interesting.
We do. You seem to construct all of your arguments on terminology that makes little difference. For example, you would argue that seedless grapes are not technically fruit as they have no seeds.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an article in regular media, talking about the concept of "approval".
Words are not the magic you want them to be. Emergency use authorization is a form of approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is a lie as all CoVID vaccines required approval prior to being administered.
They require permission/authorization from the FDA - which in this case is done by the EUA, not by Clearance / Approval; The CoVID Vaccines were reviewed and are authorized by the FDA for use due to the emergency situation.
Which is just as good and important as approval. It Does seem deceptive when people cite only that they have not been approved as if it indicate some kind of problem while also omitting the fact that the
Re: (Score:2)
Most vaccines have "emergency use authorization", not approval. Only one vaccine has approval. Big difference.
By saying that only one vaccine has been "approved", you want to obscure the fact that none of the vaccines cannot be administered unless the FDA says they can be under EUA or regulatory approval. In other words, you are being blatantly dishonest.
Educate your ignorant self before making accusations.
And what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval? If you know what difference is, then you are dishonest with your first statement. If you don't know, it is ironic that you call others "ignorant".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
At the end of the day the normal process for a radical new medical technology using genetic modification takes years to decades and not just because it takes that long to jump through the hoops but because many year trials to establish safety over time are required first in animals and then in humans.
By "radical new", you mean decades old [nature.com], then yes. The first animal trials were of a mRNA vaccine was in 1995 with mRNA being suggested as a drug back in 1988. So decades old.
That process wasn't followed.
What part was not followed that meets your criteria?
The safety it establishes isn't established and the reasons it exists were disregarded.
That is factually false. There is an established protocol for EUA. The main difference is that manufacturers are allowed to start making something before testing is complete. That is the main difference. The drug/vaccine still has to pass clinical trials.
Your argument is that all people should care about is that the portion of our staff we charge with testing medical treatments signed off permitting someone to offer the treatment.
Please cite when I said that. I
Re: (Score:2)
In my world communicating the underlying picture accurately is primary and literally correct statements are of secondary importance. If someone is doing so in good faith it isn't a lie. Factual statements delivered in a manner that detracts from accurate portrayal of the underlying picture are misinformation and lies.
"Please cite when I said that. I never said that. That is a strawman argument at best."
No, it is a far c
Re: (Score:3)
What a hill to die on.
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube targets a worldwide audience. It couldn't care less whether the USA has 2 different types of approval (EUA and regular).
Also, other countries including Canada fully approved Moderna and other vaccines.
Re: (Score:2)
The European Medicines Agency also has a Conditional Marketing Authorisation [europa.eu] process that is separate from the usual long-term marketing authorization. The former was used for fast-track authorization of Covid vaccines.
I won't claim that every country has a fast track for emergency authorization, but I suspect most do for exactly the same reason that the US does, and so YouTube should think about how to handle the differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until they start taking down those who tell people they can use arsenic as a way to mitigate covid symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
You are part of the problem. Please get off the Internet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are in the wrong.
"Approval" has very specific meaning including monitoring of clinical trial participants for six months or more. It includes manufacturer submittnig detailed plans and procedures that were not required for EUA. It includes high level of oversight during manufacturing that wasn't present for EUA.
Only one vaccine has had all that and been granted "approval"
Stop spreading misinformation and misconceptions. Educate yourself, learn why only one vaccine approved thus far.
Re: (Score:2)
True, and if the higher bar of FDA approval is important to you then you should have scheduled your first Pfizer jab (Comirnaty) at the end of August. There is no need to wait any longer.
Most of the population was satisfied with the lower bar of an emergency authorization, because well it was an emergency. Having some unknown consequences in the future, as rare as they seemed from the testing done over the last 18 months, was a risk people were willing to take to avoid putting family members or themselves
Re: (Score:2)
The reason we know effectiveness fades with these current vacciens is precisely because it's being discussed. No one is banning anything or else you wouldn't have heard about this.
That's the problem with propaganda, it doesn't take long for people to just assume the opposite of what you say is true and then nobody will ever believe anything you e
Re: (Score:2)
2 weeks ago Veritas released a video taken by a nurse who works for HHS showing a doctor slamming the vaccines for side effects.,
No one has ever said that vaccines have zero side effects. There are side effects to every medication. These videos start with the outrage that there are side effects "they do not tell you about." When I got my vaccine, I got a multiple page pamphlet about the possible side effects of my vaccine. The two side effects that affected me: my arm hurt and I was sleepy for about a day.
We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID from Japanese studies.
And that study would be? Most of the studies done on Ivermectin has shown little benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
UnknowingFool on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:00AM (#61844357)
If you had read the link I included, but since you're too lazy to click a link, I'll copypasta here.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the CDC's own VAERS site has data to support what's being claimed in the video.
Here's a problem with policies like Youtube.. Ultimately the expected result is videos get taken down and possibly channels may be even blocked or banned based on categorical assumptions that anything which says there may be concerns with X vaccines - Must be misinformation.
But there's no way to separate from this a newsworthy video somebody might post some day based on actual evidence - that say something bad that's Not m
Re: (Score:2)
You make an excellent point, and here's a correlation that supports what you're saying. I forgot her name, but there was a virologist from China that was the first to speak out that this was a lab leak based on genetic signatures CRISPR editing leaves behind. It wasn't long before facebook memory holed all videos related to her, then a few months later we found it was a lab leak.
Even when there's some fairly substantiated evidence from an SME the way the digital censoring is going about it is all wrong, t
Re: (Score:3)
Even the manufacturer of ivermectin says it doesn't work on covid. https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com]
I think they should know the capabilities of their product.
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gosh, how could I have forgotten the biggest one, which I was leaving for the end?
9. "A lab-leak hypothesis is absolute insanity and a conspiracy theory. SARS-CoV-2 could only have mutated in the wild. Trust Peter Daszak and other experts in the Lancent. Over 100 of us signed this paper saying so!" vs. "Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance and others shopped a grant proposal around to DARPA and other places that sought to modify the cleavage site of SARS-CoVr in bats in China and fuse it with proteins that
The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to not understand the point that there were people who *were* correct, but who under these rules would've been censored and banned for stating their case.
Do you think truth comes down from on High like manna from heaven? It's insanely dangerous to only allow the official narrative to ever be shared or discussed. And I've provided you with examples showing the official narrative being wrong and misleading in ways that *killed people*. In all those cases there were voices of reason that saw through t
Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:4, Informative)
Making a lie frontpage headline news for months and then silently issuing a retraction on the back of a bubblegum wrapper in the bottom of a dumpster IS trafficking disinformation. It's just a different tactic.
Re:"Truth" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is none of that is facts, it is things people have said. And even then, the list itself is not correct. For example, no one ever said "Masks do nothing to stop respiratory illnesses and you absolutely shouldn't buy any.". At the beginning when Covid was thought to spread mainly through contact, people were told not to use masks. This was both because of the belief that contact was the main spread and to avoid people hording masks so that medical workers could get some (which was still an issue).
You seem to have confused things people have said and things we have evidence to back up. Misinformation is where people say things with no evidence to back it up or the evidence says it isn't true, such as vaccines cause autism, Covid vaccine will make you magnetic, Covid is just the flu, people are not dying from Covid those numbers are fake, etc. The fact that this is modded as insightful is really sad, since it is basically misinformation as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's precisely the problem: It's done against their will.
Instead of just not being a dick, and making sure everyone is allowed to actually understand the world and come to his own conclusions, namely that those vaccines are a pretty good idea. (Note: I understand enough of how they work, to know they are. And in the case of Biontech, I also know the creators are good people.)
Not being a dick also solves the trust issue.
Also, ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY complete and utter UNPEOPLE morons on a level that is w
Re: (Score:2)
good points, good post
do you think gov't intervention is the answer, though? it's just another organization, with similar failings as YT, in which we're to entrust personal health decisions?
I can see gov't regulating transparency around any censorship, but not much more
what kind of gov't intervention are you thinking?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to hear people claiming "oh, they're a private organization, they can do what they want.".
It isn't 'people' claiming that. It's the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that. And it's not going to change in your lifetime. The Trump Supreme Court adores private property rights, especially the private property rights of giant corporations. YouTube will do exactly as they like, and when they get sued for it in Federal court they will cite their private property rights and win, then do it again before the appeals court, and the Supreme Court will never hear about it.
And if Congress somehow
Re: Who watches the watchers? (Score:2)
My arm hurt when I got my flu shot last week. Clearly it was giving me misinformation. Gotta hop on the next flight to Kabul for a punitive amputation so it won't tell me nonsense about flu shots again.
Re: (Score:3)