Talk Radio Banned from the Platforms of YouTube for Criticising Lockdowns

Scroll to see replies

You think that RT is not a biased source? :rofl:

Accuracy in Media called RT "the well-known disinformation outlet for Russian propaganda".
Reporters Without Borders called it "state controlled information"
A study by the Columbia School of Journalism concluded "RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism—checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage. You’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".

I don't think it is a perfect source of information but you have asked for a link. It's better to provide this link rather than a link from the daily mail or the guardian so I won't be considered that I am referencing right or left wing sources.

Same argument that you made can be made against the Daily Mail and the Guardian according to someone's ideological views.

However this is information you can find everywhere with a simple Google search. I am against providing links for this exact reason.

Reply 81

Lucifer323

Original post by QE2

You seem confused.
The general consensus amongst scientists and healthcare workers is that there should be more severe restrictions, and they should be imposed for longer.
The government is opposed to this and has tried minimise restrictions.

I don't think I am confused or that there is a general consensus about this matter. Opinions differ considerably between scientists. Several of them have criticised the measures as extreme and counterproductive as well as catastrophic.

Reply 82

Lucifer323

Original post by QE2

So you believe that scientists who oppose evolution and support creationism should be given equal time and weight in the media? What about in schools?
Similarly, any scientist who opposes vaccinations? Remember what happened last time?

Hid work has been criticised by other experts in the field as flawed.
Ironically, you are displaying the confirmation bias of the religionist here. You are ignoring the consensus in favour of the small minority that validates your established conclusion. You should know better.

If you do a News Google for him, you will find dozens of results, including the MSM. This "but the media won't report it" claim is another common fallacy employed by religionists and the right.

I think Dr Ioannidis knows very well what he is talking about. Likewise several other scientists who more or less are called conspiracy theorists, crackpots, and nutjobs. There is something really wrong here.
If there was one of them I would have said, maybe he has some ideas that are not sensible. However someone needs to have some academic background to assess these claims. Most people don't. I have spent more than a decade as an undergraduate and postgraduate student and I understand a couple of things well.

Reply 83

Admit-One

Universities Forum Helper

@QE2 Your efforts in this subforum are frankly, exemplary. I have absolutely no idea where you get the energy to keep going, (sometime seemingly in circles), but I am pleased that you do.

Reply 84

QE2

Original post by Lucifer323

Ioannidis is not being called a conspiracist nut job. It is just the people who cherry-pick his work over the larger body of contradictory work, and use it to claim there is something shady going on.

Reply 85

Lucifer323

Original post by QE2

Ioannidis is not being called a conspiracist nut job. It is just the people who cherry-pick his work over the larger body of contradictory work, and use it to claim there is something shady going on.

I think he has on some occasions. As the matter of fact one guy here has called him a conspiracy theorist together with me and whoever else was debating about lockdowns in these threads.. Mr @ByEeek

Reply 86

QE2

Original post by Lucifer323

I think he has on some occasions. As the matter of fact one guy here has called him a conspiracy theorist together with me and whoever else was debating about lockdowns in these threads.. Mr @ByEeek

Well, if Ioannidis deliberately constructed his allegedly flawed paper specifically in order to oppose the policy of restricting social contact, because he believes that the government was attempting to impose it to fulfil a secret agenda agains the public interest - then yes, he would be a conspiracy theorist. However I am not aware that he was doing that. Are you?

Reply 87

QE2

Original post by Admit-One

@QE2 Your efforts in this subforum are frankly, exemplary. I have absolutely no idea where you get the energy to keep going, (sometime seemingly in circles), but I am pleased that you do.

Thanks. One does what one can.

Reply 88

username1799249

Original post by Lucifer323

I think he has on some occasions. As the matter of fact one guy here has called him a conspiracy theorist together with me and whoever else was debating about lockdowns in these threads.. Mr @ByEeek

Could you please point me to the post where I said that please?

I think QE2 was referring to you as someone who cherry picks whilst disregarding a larger body of evidence.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 89

username1799249

Original post by Lucifer323

In this particular case an entire Radio Station was taken down for a couple of hours.
What was the community rules that they broke?? What conspiracy nutjob are you taking about??

According to YouTube as reported in the Guardian, We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including Covid-19 content that explicitly contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/05/youtube-bans-talkradio-for-allegedly-breaching-content-policy

Original post by Lucifer323

Maybe this Radio Station is doing something that most other media ought to do, i.e criticising the Government fiercely for their failures and omissions?!
As far as I see they have given platform to several scientists and health experts who have been excluded from the mainstream for no other reason other than they are against lockdowns, against the measures, against the paranoia and hysteria propagated by the mainstream, and against the entire campaign of fear.

As stated by other posters, critical debate as often framed by the press and media does not involve pitting one scientist who has spent their life studying a field which is backed up by a significant body of evidence against a sofa surfer with a following of 100,000 people on Twitter because they are outspoken and saying it like it is.

Original post by Lucifer323

The nonsensical arguments that we are all at risk and we are all going to die had to be challenged and they have been challenged very well by several scientists and others not only in the platform provided by Talk Radio but elsewhere.

But sadly, followers of people who keep it real and say it as it is are generally ignorant and decidedly vulnerable to manipulation. These are the sort of people who die after attending covid parties because they thought it was a myth, who drink bleach to cleanse their system or get shot dead in the Capitol Building because they are told to storm it. Sadly, when it comes to issues of public health, the Great British people do not have any common sense despite what politicians might say.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/us/30-year-old-covid-party-death.html
https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/index.html

And when it gets completely out of hand, you risk another MMR scandal where even reasonably bright people like my cousin still doubted the honest facts enough to decide not to vaccinate her kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Original post by Lucifer323

As I have told you earlier the entire campaign is based on fear and terror, as well as in the fact that most people are irrelevant with science and public health matters, and can be easily manipulated.

You are right. People are fearful because they see their friends getting really ill and / or dying. I am scared. I discovered that another of my colleagues is really ill with Covid and my wife is really paranoid having given close personal care to a patient who later tested positive.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/britons-scared-coronavirus-infection-rest-world/

Thankfully, the advice being offered is by people who know what they are talking about and not you. My wife got her vaccine done today BTW with none of the rigmarole you talked about.

Original post by Lucifer323

On another note it is ok for those who are affluent to be ok with lockdowns or you who are getting normally. But not find for those who their jobs have been cut, reduced, or lost in general.

This is hitting all manner of people in all manner of ways, financially, mentally etc etc. But there is no point in having a job if you don't have your life.

Original post by Lucifer323

But I forgot... You have claimed that it's better to loose your job rather than die or imcapacitated... As everyone is at the same risk according to you...

I stand by it. If you lose your job you can get another one or retrain or do something else. If you are incapacitated you can do none of that. If you lose your job, you still have a future. I have lost my job a couple of times when the company I worked for went bump. There are worse things in life.

Original post by Lucifer323

The wrong stuff and the usual wrong and unsubstantiated arguments.

When you respond to this, please substantiate your arguments, otherwise you are just a very dirty kettle calling the pot black.

Original post by Lucifer323

@TCA2b
@Megacent
@PilgrimOfTruth

Aww bless. Send my love to your little gang. ❤️❤️❤️

Reply 90

QE2

Original post by ByEeek

Aww bless. Send my love to your little gang. ❤️❤️❤️

Anyone who has "Truth" in their twitter handle, channel name, etc, can be instantly dismissed as being complete strangers to the concept.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 91

Napp

Original post by ByEeek

For fear of actually vaguely sympathising with Lucy here, what exactly is supposed to be meant by 'expert consensus', there is no consensus to speak of outside of 'covid bad'. The WHO having thoroughly blotted their copy book by mixing politics with science.

Aww bless. Send my love to your little gang. ❤️❤️❤️

Reply 92

Lucifer323

Original post by Napp

Indeed, consensus doesn't exist in this case as there is a lot of disagreement in regards to how the situation should be handled.

The WHO has advised against lockdowns from the beginning of the story and against extreme measures even if themselves are a political organisation and loyal to those who fund it.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 93

Lucifer323

Original post by ByEeek

Could you please point me to the post where I said that please?

I think QE2 was referring to you as someone who cherry picks whilst disregarding a larger body of evidence.

It was an older thread from the ones you have taken part where you have made a series a claims apart from this one which are erroneous.

May I remind you a few these claims:

Vaccines are not rocket science
It shows directly that you have no much relevance with the field unless you are an expert and I have misunderstood you.
There are are a number of viruses, bacteriums, protists, that have no vaccine. And vaccination in these cases are more difficult than rocket science. HIV, Hepatitis C, CMV, the disease of Malaria along the some of them.

Schools are safe environments because students and teachers wear masks and keep their distanc
Which is obviously not true as respiratory diseases are very common among schools. If you remember I told you that Schools are usually the epicentres of respiratory diseases. It has been confirmed that transmission within schools is very high. Schools are now closed by the way.

In a further message to me if you remember a private one, you tried to change your claim by now claiming that Schools maybe not as safe but in the School you work there hasn't been much transmission and it was s safe environment.

I wonder how did you measure this one??!! What kind of measure techniques have you applied?? And what data did you use?? It contradicts many of your other statements that a couple of your colleagues have gone down with Covid and they haven't returned for weeks in the School you work. Even though they were young and healthy (suspicious argument on it's own)

You claimed that Dr Ioannidis and whoever else was against these measures i.e lockdowns was probably a conspiracy theorist.

You said that is better you loose your job rather than become incapacitated or die..

Another erroneous and terrible argument in order to defend your belief in lockdowns. If it was like that then nobody should go to work.
Furthermore you seem to completely forget and disregard that the fatality rate among young and healthy is extremely low.

Hence once more you have tried to appeal to emotion as you usually do and you have made a series of unsubstantiated and erroneous claims as you usually do. There are are so many others around that I need to find time and collect them.

@TCA2b
@Megacent
@PilgrimOfTruth

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 94

Lucifer323

Original post by ByEeek

Have you ever read a scientific paper? The way it works is you put forward your argument, then you cite a source that backs up that argument. Where as this response will not be at the standard of a scientific paper, I will use the same methodology.

According to YouTube as reported in the Guardian, We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including Covid-19 content that explicitly contradict expert consensus from local health authorities or the World Health Organization.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/05/youtube-bans-talkradio-for-allegedly-breaching-content-policy

As stated by other posters, critical debate as often framed by the press and media does not involve pitting one scientist who has spent their life studying a field which is backed up by a significant body of evidence against a sofa surfer with a following of 100,000 people on Twitter because they are outspoken and saying it like it is.

But sadly, followers of people who keep it real and say it as it is are generally ignorant and decidedly vulnerable to manipulation. These are the sort of people who die after attending covid parties because they thought it was a myth, who drink bleach to cleanse their system or get shot dead in the Capitol Building because they are told to storm it. Sadly, when it comes to issues of public health, the Great British people do not have any common sense despite what politicians might say.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/12/us/30-year-old-covid-party-death.html
https://time.com/5835244/accidental-poisonings-trump/
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/index.html

And when it gets completely out of hand, you risk another MMR scandal where even reasonably bright people like my cousin still doubted the honest facts enough to decide not to vaccinate her kids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

You are right. People are fearful because they see their friends getting really ill and / or dying. I am scared. I discovered that another of my colleagues is really ill with Covid and my wife is really paranoid having given close personal care to a patient who later tested positive.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/05/britons-scared-coronavirus-infection-rest-world/

Thankfully, the advice being offered is by people who know what they are talking about and not you. My wife got her vaccine done today BTW with none of the rigmarole you talked about.

This is hitting all manner of people in all manner of ways, financially, mentally etc etc. But there is no point in having a job if you don't have your life.

I stand by it. If you lose your job you can get another one or retrain or do something else. If you are incapacitated you can do none of that. If you lose your job, you still have a future. I have lost my job a couple of times when the company I worked for went bump. There are worse things in life.

When you respond to this, please substantiate your arguments, otherwise you are just a very dirty kettle calling the pot black.

Aww bless. Send my love to your little gang. ❤️❤️❤️

The reason I tag others is to invite them to see my comments and perhaps take part in the conversation. There is no little gang as you claim here.

I have answered you with another reply a little while ago but I will concentrate on your first paragraph which I find it amusing where you are asking me if I have ever read a scientific paper🤣🤣🤣

Not only I have read peer-reviewed scientific papers but I have authored and co-authored a couple and contributed in some other. I have spent the last 12 years in academia.

What I find amusing and ironic is that you are asking me something you have probably never done given that your arguments are mostly based on emotions and the usual trend that I have described in many of my replies to you. But let's see this trend again.

You will make an argument which is not true or it is partially untrue and not very convincing. If it doesn't work and the others don't accept it then you will appeal to emotions. If this doesn't work either then you will start the accusations of lack of empathy, lack of compassion, lack of morality, etc. After these arguments have been answered and defeated then you will start again with the same arguments that you have already used...

You have never used an academic paper as a source. You have mainly appealed to emotion and you have used other sources such as podcasts, some links from various websites, etc.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 95

Lucifer323

Original post by QE2

I don't think Ioannidis deliberately constructed his paper to deceive his audience. His is quite an exceptional scientists. His paper is a very good review and it is based on other papers. I think he has referenced 97 other publications. Hid work was published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation and has been peer reviewed and accepted as a very good quality paper.

His estimations for the IFR = Infection fatality rate are considered close to what the real number should be. It's about 0.2% globally. Obviously he acknowledges that from country to country there are large deviations and the same happens for young people and those elderly in high risk groups.

He has been accused together with others that they are conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy word is highly used out of context here when someone's merits and works cannot be attacked so they attack the person instead.

Reply 96

QE2

Original post by Lucifer323

He has been accused [of being a] conspiracy theorist.

Where? By whom?

when someone's merits and works cannot be attacked so they attack the person instead.

It is the quality of his work in this context that has been criticised by other scientists.

Reply 97

Lucifer323

Original post by QE2

Where? By whom?

It is the quality of his work in this context that has been criticised by other scientists.

I am not aware that his work has been criticised for it's quality. As his paper (the review) has been accepted by the World Health Organisation as a very good quality paper and has been peer-reviewed. It contains 97 (I think) references to other publications.

Those who accuse scientists of being conspiracy theorists or crackpots have usually nothing to do with science. An example is the above user who I have been criticising for quite long now. And several others are making claims when in fact it is debatable if they have ever opened a book in biology let's say, or chemistry & physics.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 98

Lucifer323

@Napp

Hello Mr Napp,

Let's spice it up a little in relation to the origin of the virus. What is the prevailing hypothesis? Do you know?

Have you ever come across Luc Montagnier? It's the guy who got the Nobel Prize for the discovery of HIV and he has made some remarkable comments in relation to the origin of SARS-Cov-2.

Reply 99

Lucifer323

Here a rather serious situation, instead of being treated purely as a public health matter, has become a serious political issue between the right and the left...

It begs the question why on Earth an entire Radio Station was taken down from the platforms of YouTube?!

On another note, even Sunetra Gupta an epidemiologist from Oxford has been accused by a columnist of the Guardian for spreading disinformation..

The article here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/22/we-need-scientists-to-quiz-covid-consensus-not-act-as-agents-of-disinformation

So the direct accusation by the author is that Sunetra Gupta is spreading disinformation. The author says that we need scientists to quiz covid consensus not to spread disinformation.

I bet that if I create a GCSE Test in Biology, Chemistry or Physics, most of these authors would barely pass it, even fail it. But they are experts as it seems in public health matters...
The way they misrepresent others and misunderstand them is remarkable!!!

@TCA2b
@Megacent

(edited 3 years ago)