Thread by @alexandrosM

I didn't realize how insane YouTube's guidelines were until I read them. First, you might not realize that there is a specific page for covid guidelines. It's not about medical misinformation generally. You can recommend homeopathy or celery, so long as you don't touch covid-19

Secondly, the guidelines specifically call out specific treatments that should not be discussed as effective. Not "treatments that are not approved" in general. Specific ones, by name, regardless of expert consensus: ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

Third, you can't contradict the WHO. By its current admission, the WHO has been wrong about several things in recent past. E.g:

Human-to-human transmission,
Aerosol transmission,
Asymptomatic transmission,
Mask usage,
Lockdowns

Are we to believe it has everything right today?

Looking at "the science", there are very good indications that contrarians actually help reduce extremism, and even when wrong, can help a team arrive at a better conclusion. What are the implications of eliminating them?
researchgate.net/publication/23…

broad.msu.edu/news/15988/

I'm not sure if there's something going on that connects the deep physiological response to the idea of a pandemic with a knee jerk push for purity, but whatever it is, it's not good. Eliminating dissent against authorities we know are just as flawed as all of us is madness.

If those that promised us a platform for civilized conversation are going back on their promise in a pandemic, they're actively worsening our outcomes. Sorry but: if your pokicies would censor Galileo when he contradicted the Pope, you are, indeed, the baddies.

I'd rather be tweeting about PCBs and 3dprinting, but when those who are qualified to speak are being silenced, standing by idly is only slightly better than being an active participant. I can't in good conscience pretend everything's ok. #followthesilence

https://twitter.com/mysteriouskat/status/1405338763702595584?s=19