Either way, want I wanted to hear was bonafide advocates and detractors talk with each other, and it accomplished that.
FWIW If this was an Intelligence Squared debate, I came in to it hoping for a good performance from the pro-Ivermectin side. I felt, and still feel, like that "side" is being treated somewhat unfairly. I was disappointed, however, in that regard and am ow more skeptical of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis after listening.
Tess, while bright in many ways, may just not be the best advocate for Ivermectin.
At around 20:00, Tess is asked "What would convince you that Ivermectin doesn't work?" and she responds (paraphrasing from memory): "Ivermectin works."
Then somewhere around 55:00 in Tess is asked if there's anything that should be censored on social media, and the very real example of ”bleach therapy" is offered (that’s where parents are encouraged to give children bleach to prevent autism, not Trump telling you to drink bleach). Tess is unmoved by the example and still categorically against censorship. I wonder what she'd say about PhotoDNA?
I worry that someone like Tess is too biased here. It seems to me that the pro-Ivermectin side has a lot of PR problems.
The way to think about Facebook is that it's a drug (behavioral addiction) that billions of people consume regularly, so we should think about it more like a casino or a bar. The only real exception being that the costs of mistakes are 1000x larger (or more), because it's used way more often than people go to casinos and bars.
If someone wanted to print and mail out pamphlets advocating bleach therapy, write a book, lobby for scientific study, even if they wanted to write an old-fashioned blog--I wouldn't particularly care. Maybe in some way I would support it as a someone is exercising their first amendment rights, and there is some virtue in that even if they're woefully incorrect.
I realize I used the word "censored" (mostly because David did, and there's really not better language in common use) but better term might be 86'd as it's used in bars. Meaning something like, "you're misbehaving in a bar in a way that is likely to endanger yourself or others, and we're now liable if we don't remove you."
In the context of Facebook this is saying "it's your right to create content advocating for bleach therapy, but when we at Facebook algorithmically freebase your content for maximum engagement we're worried about the externalities so we're 86ing it." That's just being a responsible digital bartender, or digital drug dealer... whatever metaphor you prefer.
Rebel Wisdom put together a good podcast, "Ivermectin, For and Against, with Tess Lawrie, Graham Walker & Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz." Tess is for sure pro-Ivermectin and is the second author on a favorable Ivermectin meta-analysis. Graham and Gideon are skeptical of Ivermectin. Graham is an ER doctor. Gideon is an epidemiologist.
Either way, want I wanted to hear was bonafide advocates and detractors talk with each other, and it accomplished that.
FWIW If this was an Intelligence Squared debate, I came in to it hoping for a good performance from the pro-Ivermectin side. I felt, and still feel, like that "side" is being treated somewhat unfairly. I was disappointed, however, in that regard and am ow more skeptical of Ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis after listening.
Tess, while bright in many ways, may just not be the best advocate for Ivermectin.
At around 20:00, Tess is asked "What would convince you that Ivermectin doesn't work?" and she responds (paraphrasing from memory): "Ivermectin works."
It gave me a flashback to the Billy Nye and Ken Ham debate when they were asked what would change their minds. Ken said “You know what? I’m a Christian, and I know God’s word is true, and there’s nothing he could say that will cast doubt on that.” While Bill said "We would need just one piece of evidence" and then gave several examples.
Then somewhere around 55:00 in Tess is asked if there's anything that should be censored on social media, and the very real example of ”bleach therapy" is offered (that’s where parents are encouraged to give children bleach to prevent autism, not Trump telling you to drink bleach). Tess is unmoved by the example and still categorically against censorship. I wonder what she'd say about PhotoDNA?
I worry that someone like Tess is too biased here. It seems to me that the pro-Ivermectin side has a lot of PR problems.
EDIT: Rebel Wisdom produced a well-researched background document on the topic. There is also a debate between Dr. Pierre Kory (pro-Ivermectin) and Dr. Luis Garegnani (skeptic) from June that is more congenial all around.