Fox News recently covered the outspoken critical care physician Dr. Pierre Kory, head of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), as he slammed YouTube’s ‘extremely misguided’ decision to yank actual Senate testimony concerning the research involving ivermectin, considered by a growing number of physicians and researchers as a promising low cost, generic drug to treat COVID-19. Kory and colleagues simply presented their latest research findings in that December session. What does the audience think here? Would this be considered censorship? And if so, why is censorship at this level becoming more commonplace? TrialSite has certainly identified a trend involving a pattern by high level government decision makers in Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH) favoring the allocation of billions of dollars in public monies toward the research of novel vaccine, monoclonal antibody and novel therapy-based research while in parallel, ignoring data associated with low cost, generic potential options such as ivermectin. Is this all a coincidence?
Fox News’ Joseph A. Wulfsohn recently reported on Dr. Pierre Kory’s severe criticism of YouTube for actually removing his personal testimony to the Senate covered by TrialSite. Testifying before the Senate Homeland Security Committee in December, Kory and colleagues articulated that based on their ongoing meta-analysis of the “FDA-approved anti-parasitic agent” that evidence mounts that the drug can help not only reduce duration of illness but also potentially reduce mortality rate and possibly even prevent transmission when used as pre-Exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or during post-Exposure prophylaxis (PEP). After that hearing, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Prevention Panel invited the FLCCC team to present their findings.
YouTube Removes Testimony
The Fox News reporter Wulfsohn shared that last week YouTube actually removed the testimony originating from CSPAN. But why would YouTube do this? This was a piece of official government business—open to the public. A group of critical care physicians came to present findings from a comprehensive meta-analysis.
FLCCC Head Slams YouTube for Censorship
Dr. Pierre Kory, a dedicated critical care physician who has taken on a social cause at this point to reduce pandemic deaths, was essentially censored out of YouTube history for presenting research to the American people’s political representation in the Senate. The physician responded, “During a devastating pandemic, it is arguably more dangerous for social media giants like YouTube to indiscriminately discredit and summarily remove official government information given under oath by world renowned medical experts…all while people are dying in horrific numbers.”
Dr. Kory shared with Fox News that YouTube’s actions were “extremely misguided indicating that some form of censorship campaign was ongoing: that “new and important information” originating from “highly credentialed sources such as ourselves” was somehow deemed misinformation.
The Fox News reporter was able to elicit an official YouTube spokesperson response. Defending their actions this person declared, “We enforce our Community Guidelines consistently, regardless of speaker and without regard to political viewpoints. In accordance with our COVID-19 misinformation policy, we removed the two videos in question.”
A Key Question
After the Senate hearing in question, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel also invited the FLCCC to present the most recent findings associated with ivermectin. If this group was promoting misinformation, would the world’s apex research body send an invitation to present?
What is Misinformation?
When does the act of protecting the public from misinformation become censorship. What if the supposed misinformation is actually the truth? Why would YouTube censor content associated with researchers and physicians simply reporting on their research findings? All sorts of questionable, unhealthy, and even unethical content propagates in YouTube. How could a legitimate Senate hearing just be branded misinformation and summarily deleted. Whose agenda does that serve? What is the harm of this type of action to the public?
For more on YouTube’s Community Guidelines, see the link.
Call to Action: Share your thoughts: is this recent action by YouTube simply the Google division protecting their viewers from “misinformation” or is this a form of censorship? What should be done?