YouTube Punishes Politician for Sharing Information About Ivermectin as Evidence of ‘Regulatory Capture’ Grows

YouTube Punishes Politician for Sharing Information About Ivermectin as Evidence of ‘Regulatory Capture’ Grows

Apparently, Congressman Sen Ron Johnson (R-Wis) is in hot water again with social media, this time his team uploaded a video associated with a June 3 appearance by the senator at the Milwaukee Press Club. Upset with both the previous Trump as well as the current Biden administrations for “not only ignoring but working against robust research [on] the use of cheap, generic drugs to be repurposed for early treatment of COVID-19,” YouTube made the call that these violated their “misinformation” policy and thus yanked the content. But what’s misinformation and what’s not is up for debate and, in many cases, the regulators and government agencies, such as the FDA and NIH,  appear to move in concert with the regulated to establish a party line that blocks low-cost competition. Does overt censorship exist in America today? What if a nation such as Slovakia, or India, for at least a duration during the emergency pandemic, authorize the use of Ivermectin as an early on care option for COVID-19? What if that’s an absolute fact backed by government documents? Is reporting on that fact considered misinformation? In fact, it is, as TrialSite can attest both Facebook and YouTube have taken down TrialSite content that simply reports on the fact that Slovakia, for example, authorized the emergency use of the drug. They assume the American public are too dumb to understand that just because Slovakia authorizes use doesn’t mean the FDA does. But perhaps that’s not the real intention. Perhaps regulatory capture is so strong now that a confluence of interests can literally censor large swathes of the internet? The evidence of government and tech industry collaboration over what is fair game for censorship is on display for all to see. For example, as the lab theory of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 became a topic again, perhaps in anticipation of the Fauci email leak, the line between government and federal agency blurs as recent emails demonstrate collaboration between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and NIAID’s director Dr. Anthony Fauci. Put another way, the U.S. government’s dictating to a massive social platform what is and what is not truth and not necessarily to protect the public but rather to prevent them from the diverse opinions that can help one find the actual truth. 

As reported recently in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, YouTube’s position on the matter was that the recent censorship was “in accordance with our COVID-19 medical information policies, which don’t allow content that encourages people to use Hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin to treat or prevent the virus.”

In the meantime, Rep. Johnson was “baffled” that this “concerted effort to deny the American public the type of robust exploration research into early treatment early in this pandemic.” Apparently, YouTube follows a policy launched in May 2020 that centers on the censorship of what’s deemed misinformation as defined by the World Health Organization. So, in America, where the National Institutes of Health seemingly would have influence changed their position on Ivermectin to neutral (meaning they don’t recommend to use or to not use given the evolving data sets), the fact that YouTube would enforce such a restrictive interpretation serves essentially to introduce similar censorship of the internet one would experience in a place such as a China. 

In response, Rep. Johnson criticized Google-owned YouTube suggesting that these tech companies “have accumulated too much unaccountable power.” He went on, “Big Tech and mainstream media believe they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives.” Johnson continued, “They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies.”

In this way, perhaps the concept of regulatory capture—the economic theory that emphasizes what occurs when regulatory agencies may come to be dominated by the industries or interests they are charged with regulating—is actually a major force at this point in our history. What results? Instead of serving the public’s interest, the agencies serve industry, those very firms they’re supposed to regulate.  

Responses

  1. It would be great to have an edit button for comments to fix spelling errors. It was Democrats, not Democrates in my last post. Maybe they are becoming more like Demon-crats than I would have wanted.

  2. Perhaps it’s better to not be honest, but this is more of a coup, than an accident. Fauci said there was going to be a pandemic back in 2017 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Fauci%20predicted%20pandemic%202017&ko=-1&iax=videos&ia=videos

    Fauci is not psychic. This psychopath knew he was funding the virus that was going to get released. They may have intentionally infected a lab worker to spread the virus, if that story is even true.

    Globalist are a real thing. Bill Gates is a globalist, as well as other members of the World Economic Forum. This has been an ingenious way to enact draconian rule over the globe.

    It scares me the FDA only let Sergey Brin’s wife’s company, 23&Me do DNA testing over the counter.

    I think there’s another company now, but they gave her a monopoly on gathering DNA from the general public.

  3. It’s unfortunate that politicians who speak out against this censorship seem to be polarizing characters. While I welcome voices against this outrageous censorship, I wince at this one, because this man will not help the cause due to the baggage of his past actions.

    1. Although I don’t agree with much of what Ron Johnson supports, I do find it interesting that he is the only one to take this position on censorship of “everything Ivermectin.” I just wrote his office encouraging him to continue the fight against regulatory capture and to find others of like-mind, including lawyers and doctors, to keep reaching out to others with the data. I don’t want this to be an “I can only support Democrates” issue, and even though I have been a Democrat my entire life, I am having serious doubts about them now too.

  4. I empathize with staff working at social media outlets who are forced to comply with government instructions to thwart content. The only content that should be stopped is violence, terrorism, illegal activity. Content that is non violent, non terrorism, not illegal should be shareable. A % of government and regulatory decision makers will be corrupt. I do not support their right to employment in these positions.

    1. The people censoring everyone are probably in India. Big tech olives outsourcing. I’ve been completely banned from posting links in comments. It happened after I was paying against S386 and HR1044. HR1044 passed, but S386 introduced by Mike Lee from Utah stalled. The bill was going to bring 300,000 visa workers in from India to replace US workers.

    2. Well said and I agree. IF big tech and/or regulatory agencies feel there are dangerous consequences with non-violent opinions I’d much prefer flagging with a warning which could include links to what they consider the generally accepted opinion i.e. CDC, FDA etc. At least this would allow the reader to still make their own informed decision. The worst approach is to silently censor which is a blatant violation of free speech. We’ve also seen how these authorities have been wrong on many occasions during the pandemic and took far too long to change their guidance.

  5. If anything I’m broadly a progressive, and it’s infuriating that “the left”, and progressives in particular, are going along with a narrative clearly designed to benefit the giant pharmaceutical corporations of which they are usually so critical. It’s a topsy-turvy world when it’s corporate Republicans that are the only national politicians willing to defend medical experts advocating the use of effective, cheap, early treatments for COVID-10.

    Trump opening his dumb mouth didn’t help, but progressives seem to have completely closed their minds, and won’t do a scrap of research into why death rates in other, poorer countries have been lower than those in the US, or whether it’s really good policy to send infected people home to wait until their lips turn blue. Just one more progressive blind spot, like the approaching energy crisis and the true seriousness of climate change.

    1. It is NOT closed minds!!! It is greed and money!!! They know Ivermectin makes their dangerous vaccines not necessary. Fluvoxamine may well be just as good as well as the new discovery of repurposed drugs in Japan. Don’t know much about that one yet.

    2. We are 20th or 21 in the “deaths per million” category (based on population) per world meters.were not at the top. Also some countries are not reporting correctly examples : China and North Korea. That said too many people died we have a high number of people with preexisting conditions especially diabetes which has elevated our numbers. Early on everyone who died also “died of COVID” even suicides and car accidents I have several friends who are medics and have told me what was on the death certificates I also had a young mom in my practice who suffered a miscarriage last year and the baby was counted as COVID on the death certificate even though the mom was negative so who really knows what our real numbers are with all that said I agree we should be using the cheap early intervention drugs just makes sense PS seeing lots of positive cases in fully vaccinated patients 10 in the last 3 weeks most not too sick but I still think the natural immunity is stronger I guess that will be determined