Hydroxychloroquine
Just watch the video before you give your "professional" opinion...
Why does every social media site feel the need to censor these physicians and others? If COVID-19 is indeed a 78% match to COVID-1 and Dr. Fauci himself recommended hydroxychloroquine for COVID-1, why the tremendous push back to even trying it now? Could it be the fact that Trump pushed it so hard and no one could stand that he actually may be correct about something? Regardless, it is a sad situation. How many lives could have been saved by using it? Does anyone really believe that it would have killed 100,000+?
Link: https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1287905496104484871
Replies to: Hydroxychloroquine
Apparently Trump Jr shared the same video and Twitter temporarily suspended his account
This is how well the Right vets its sources in the age of Trump. You can literally believe in demon sperm and be a right-wing hero/expert if you say masks are bad and hydroxy is good.
That seems fair in a free society.
(no message)
Indeed, the government doesn’t control private companies and the content of their
social media platforms.
If Twitter wanted to ban LGBT platforms for religious reasons, Ned would be cool with that.
(no message)
That was a short answer, and this is a complex issue that actually merits discussion.
In short, I would not be ok with Twitter wanted to ban LGBTQ posters, although I would be ok with Catholic.com wanted to ban those same posters. So, you misunderstand my views.
But, here is the long answer that merits discussion.
Internet companies are like restaurants or other services. We don't allow either of them to discriminate on the basis of race. But, we do allow them to discriminate on the bases of political views or religious views sometimes. It may be time to reconsider how we handle this. Surely if we can force a baker to provide services to people the baker doesn't agree with, we can force internet providers to provide services to people they don't agree with.
On the one hand, I think of UHND as a private service, totally under control of the moderators. I don't begrudge management by the owners of the site. I think of it like a private club.
And, there are sites like Catholic.com, which clearly have a viewpoint, and I don't begrudge them restricting posts to only those above a certain level of decency and honest seeking. If there were a transgender site, I wouldn't begrudge them kicking me off if I went there and started pointing out how antiscience they are. Private services, right?
But, then there are sites like Google, Twitter, Reddit and many others. They have become, essentially, utilities. Sort of like the old Usenet, which was totally content neutral--anything went on Usenet, and that was kind of nice. Everyone had a voice. When sites like that begin discriminating on the basis of religious views, or political views, then maybe they cross a line that should be protected. I think it is time to extend the First Amendment to cover sites like that...to expand the 1st Amendment rights to include private actors.
Much thought needs to go into how to do it properly, but I think the time has come to have the conversation.
It used to be that only the government had the reach and power to silence people, so the 1st Amendment was sufficient to protect freedom of speech. And, to DRO's point, we all have said at some point, "Not the government, so punishment by that speech by a private individual is ok." But, now, private organizations and private individuals have the power to take people's livelihoods away from them using the Internet. This is a new development. I think that needs to be stopped somehow. We can't keep consoling ourselves that just because the government isn't abusing someones speech or religious rights, it is ok to abuse those rights, especially when we are talking about a service which has become a commodity or utility used by society for basic communication.
It used to be that private discrimination was ok, and blacks could be barred access to facilities or restaurants or the like, but we expanded Constitutional protections to that level. It was the right thing to do, and we no longer say, "That is a private restaurant, they can discriminate if they want to do so." It is time to do this for communication and the internet.
Thoughts?
I don't think platforms like that should regulate content.
If they regulate any content, then they need to be held accountable for all content.
Really? They do here.
(no message)
See my post above. UHND seems more like a private club than a utility.
There are alternative ND forums to go to.
They are used by a small portion of the country.
I'm open to discussion about that.
Either way, I think it is time to extend the First Amendment to private behavior like we have done for the Civil War Amendments.
Obviously, there have to be limits. The work place has to be able to restrict. Topic specific forums need to be able to restrict. But, utility forums like twitter should not be able to restrict. And, if I am photographed wearing a BLM Sucks shirt on my private time, or if I peaceably protest for BLM, I should be able to sue my employer if they fire me for that.
Twitter is a private company last time I checked.
(no message)
Thank you for posting that. Good thing you're backing her opinion.
She and Baron have a practice together and it's flourishing - at least while their patients are still alive.
Well done! Shows the real debate here.
It’s between the scientists and the morons.
I’ll trust the former, thanks.
Listen to me. This drug should be available to dr's at THEIR discretion for now, but D govs took it
away from us (Whitmer told pharmacists not to dispense it and threatened Dr's who used it in any setting. It should be an off label use. i have said this from the start. The debate wasn't solved yet among DR's, but it was vilified in the media because Trump was given it BY HIS D.
Just admit you were mislead on this and move on.
Don’t forget the deep state FDA.
(no message)
Yes, the government is suppressing a useful drug.
Probably makes perfect sense to QAnon types, anti-vaxxers, UFO enthusiasts.
Not a conspiracy theory at all.
You're pro choice, why shouldn't a patient get to decide if he or she wants to take a specific drug?
(no message)
Why can’t I be allowed to get chemotherapy if I want it?
Goddam FDA and its “rules,” eh?
if you can afford, yes, i think you should be able to get it.
(no message)
What about the moron scientists, this is confusing...
Still think the data and information isn't complete bullshit?
Even Frank is teetering below.
I have no opinion, unprofessional or otherwise on it’s efficacy other than what’s been reported.
I do know that apparently it does have side effects, so before pushing it on the masses as a wonder drug, I would want to be damn sure it worked. So far the evidence appears to be to the contrary but I’m willing to keep an open mind on it. I do expect that there will be real tested therapeutics out there very soon.
“Most sort of sensible people have started to move on and really look at other therapies.”
why not allow the patient to make the choice? If I were on my deathbed, I'd hope I'd be able to
smoke crack.
For whatever reason, it still has a noisy support group. I’m willing to play along so long
as it doesn’t get in the way of development and approval of effective therapeutics.
If you believe this crap I have a bridge to sell you
(no message)
HAHAHA. Well timed with the post just below.
Someone ask Stella if alien DNA helps in this case.
OK smarty, PROVE that our government isn't controlled by Reptillians
I dare you! LOL
