Big Tech, the Death of Medicine, Censorship, and Pregnancy Loss; or, How Covid Ruins Everything

 

I just got a YouTube notification that a physician I follow, Suneel Dhand, who posted a new video titled “Dr. Peter Doshi Capitol Hill video REMOVED by YouTube.” I had watched the referenced video featuring Dr. Doshi, in which he pointed out the inconsistencies in the arguments used for the current push for vaccine and mask mandates.

Dr. Dhand had shown Dr. Doshi’s video in the context of his own video raising similar concerns. Dr. Dhand is by no means “antivaxx,” but favors a multifaceted approach towards treating and preventing Covid that does not coincide with the one-size-fits-all vaccine or nothing. Dhand has also been a strong proponent of ongoing discussions in the name of scientific rigor, that there is no “settled science.”

To blindly follow what a few people are saying would fly in the face of the most basic of scientific and medical reasoning. However, YouTube removed his video stating it violated community standards. He appealed its removal and received word that they would not budge from their position.

This is one of many videos that has been struck for not following the party line. YouTube is censoring scientists and physicians acting in good faith. I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

Debate and discussion have been foundational to science and medicine since they became fields of study. It is how these fields grow and develop, through constant reexamination. Instead, we’re seeing science shut down in favor of a narrative that has been chosen by a few. The doctors raising questions about Covid treatments, vaccines, and masking are being silenced regardless of their political bent.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, a self-avowed Progressive, has come out loudly against the label of “misinformation” for anything that doesn’t support the vaccine or nothing position. In fact, after listening to Prasad speak in his videos, one starts to wonder if he really is as progressive as he claims. I’m heartened to see physicians speaking out against censorship and trying to uphold the critical thinking that has been a hallmark of medicine for centuries. I am heartened because my own experience with the physicians I work with has been so disheartening.

When Covid first hit, my hospital, like so many others, shut down elective surgeries and minimized inpatient hospitalization in an effort to stop the spread and keep beds open for the flux of Covid patients that must be on the horizon. My service, cardiothoracic surgery, only did elective cases for lung cancer patients and those with critical heart disease. We went from having 30+ patients on our list at any given time to three or four. The five of us advanced practice providers (PAs and NPs) were repurposed temporarily, and I was sent to manage patients in the Covid ICU alongside our colleagues in critical care and pulmonology. This was a brief sojourn of a few weeks, and we were back to our normal service.

Months later, no longer consistently caring for Covid patients, I asked a few of my colleagues in critical care if they had read any of the literature about Ivermectin, which had just come out as a possible cheap and safe treatment. I was told, “the CDC doesn’t endorse it, so we won’t consider it.” Only one critical care physician had taken the time to read the available literature. I was shocked that the physicians I worked so closely with and trusted would choose to not even read the studies to decide for themselves.

As the months went on, it became increasingly clear that the majority of doctors I work with are not reviewing the literature themselves, but rather going along with whatever the CDC and their colleges/associations say. My favorite doctor, a strong conservative normally suspicious of anything that smacks of collectivism or socialism, told me during surgery one day that I just needed to get the vaccine because “everyone is going to mandate it, and you won’t be able to go anywhere or do anything without being vaccinated, so you might as well get it.” He said this in July after the vaccine mandate was announced at hospitals across my state. I have not gotten the vaccine because I have had Covid, and natural immunity is a thing, despite what the CDC says. I have seen healthy doctors in their thirties lining up to get their Pfizer vaccines and subsequent boosters, despite the fact that Covid has a less than 1% mortality rate for that demographic. I’ve also seen doctors who had native infection roll their sleeves up to get the vaccine afterward.

While we are being beaten over the head to get everyone and their dog vaccinated, only a small group of physicians are talking about risk stratification and mitigation. When the delta strain took over, the headlines in my in-basket from medical email blasts read “Delta variant more likely to kill those under the age of 50” and “Covid deaths amongst young people highlight need to get vaccinated.” Not working in the Covid ICU consistently anymore, I was unsure about these claims. But I started hearing rumblings about the risk factors these young people had that made them susceptible to death from Covid.

I was sitting in the critical care NP office one day when one of my friends in critical care came in to call one of the large tertiary hospitals, trying to see if they would accept the transfer for a 35-year-old woman who was in the Covid ICU maxed out on her ventilator settings and getting worse. “Hi, I’ve got a 35-year-old lady with Covid. She completely maxed out on the vent, and her sats are continuing to drop and she’s increasingly difficult to oxygenate. I was wondering if you guys would be open to putting her on ECMO? She’s pretty healthy, just has diabetes and hypertension … her BMI? 45.”

Ah, there it is. My coworkers and I had noted that the young patients with Covid we were putting on ECMO in a last-ditch effort to save their lives were all very overweight. Not just overweight, but morbidly obese. A five-foot, six-inch woman would have to weigh 250 lbs to reach a BMI of 40. When I surveyed nurses and NPs in the Covid units, they all said the young people that are dying from Covid all have BMIs over 40, and often also have diabetes and hypertension, or other comorbidities.

No one is talking about this. One’s weight, blood sugar, and blood pressure are all things that can be controlled and modified. A study also showed that 97% of those who died from Covid were deficient in vitamin D. Again, something that can be addressed. But no one will talk about these things. Instead, we have vaccine mandates and a singular focus on the vaccines, even though you can still catch and spread Covid after being vaccinated.

The blind following of whatever the CDC says, the abandonment of critical thinking, and the lack of a multifaceted approach to treatment and prevention have almost destroyed my faith in the medical community. In fact, I’m almost to the point of wanting to leave. I’m not blind to the dangers of Covid, not in the least. I experienced a stillbirth in February at 33 weeks gestation. It was caused by a combination of tight nuchal cord and clot in 50% of the placenta leading to placental insufficiency. I was worked up for clotting disorders after I delivered my son, and have none. We do know, however, that Covid has a significant embolic aspect to it. At the time, I read one study that showed an increase in clots in the placentas and umbilical cords of women that had Covid during pregnancy. Even though we know this, OB/GYNs are not treating Covid-positive pregnant women with full or even partial anticoagulation. Of course, I’ll never know, but I wonder if my son would be alive today if my Covid infection had been treated differently.

Next week, Mustangman and I fly back to Portland to spend the first holiday with his family since we moved cross-country. We wanted to get together with our good friends while we’re there. The first question they asked was if we were vaccinated. I told them that Mustangman is, and I had Covid. They will only get together with us if we can find a place that has outdoor heated dining because of my unvaccinated status. They do not believe that natural immunity is a thing when it comes to Covid. We are unsure if we will be able to see our friends. Covid ruins everything.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 141 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    • #91
  2. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    There are also harms to wearing masks, especially psychological and political harms,  so even assuming a benefit, this must be weighed, and  so far as I can see, the wearing has been found wanting. 

    • #92
  3. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Sandy (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    There are also harms to wearing masks, especially psychological and political harms, so even assuming a benefit, this must be weighed, and so far as I can see, the wearing has been found wanting.

    While the data on using masks for children is certainly much less supportive than for adults-the data doesn’t support psychological harm from masks in children- children can read adults faces while masked and are more resilient than advertised – the REAL damage to kids is school closure. The best response is to vaccinate  teachers and open the schools and leave masks to older kids.

    addendum- the one silver lining to this whole mess is parents have gotten a better glimpse of what is being taught to their kids with the remote learning- can you say Youngkin?

    • #93
  4. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    I don’t think it’s a conspiracy to believe that some in the government are loving the power it has found to dictate to its citizens how they can live their life.

    • #94
  5. Sandy Member
    Sandy
    @Sandy

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    One doesn’t have to charge conspiracy to notice that masks have promoted fear and continue to do so, and that this in turn has led to some very bad consequences. It isn’t so much COVID that ruins everything but the fear of it.  How different might have been the result had we promoted a simple, cheap prophylaxis like vitamin D is suggested by the results of a new meta-study from Germany. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3596

    • #95
  6. Vicryl Contessa Thatcher
    Vicryl Contessa
    @VicrylContessa

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    Correct. The Bangladesh study showed that cloth masks, which are the community standard and what children are told to wear, had zero effectiveness. Procedure masks (which are different from surgical masks) had a statistically significant reduction in the spread of Covid of 11%. If we were really concerned with stopping the spread, we would be telling people to wear N95s. The problem is N95s are not a great option for a large group of people. Places with draconian mask requirements are still seeing a spread, while places with no mask requirements see similar or lower numbers of new cases. I got Covid while wearing a mask everyday, as did many of my coworkers. I have yet to be convinced that they work well. Even the masks we wear in surgery are meant to be changed every two hours ideally, and between every case because studies have shown they lose their effectiveness after two hours. The only thing the surgical masks are meant to do is keep droplets out of the surgical field. Again, the only thing that’s actually effective are N95s. 

    • #96
  7. Vicryl Contessa Thatcher
    Vicryl Contessa
    @VicrylContessa

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    There are also harms to wearing masks, especially psychological and political harms, so even assuming a benefit, this must be weighed, and so far as I can see, the wearing has been found wanting.

    While the data on using masks for children is certainly much less supportive than for adults-the data doesn’t support psychological harm from masks in children- children can read adults faces while masked and are more resilient than advertised – the REAL damage to kids is school closure. The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools and leave masks to older kids.

    addendum- the one silver lining to this whole mess is parents have gotten a better glimpse of what is being taught to their kids with the remote learning- can you say Youngkin?

    My friends with young children are having to put their kids in speech therapy because their kids can’t see mouths at the age when they’re learning to talk, and their language is significantly lagging. Saying children don’t need to see faces flies in the face of everything we know about childhood development.

    • #97
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    If full discussion of the issue is not allowed, it is definite that the issue is being used for monetary gain combined with a need for control over a population.

     

    You omitted the fact that the people are probably either being lied to or fed deliberate deception. How else can we explain the initial lie about fifteen days to flatten the curve. This was ostensibly to ease the hospital burden. The pandemic itself has never been any worse than anticipated and known about at the beginning. Notice the recent change in the viewpoint of party politicians towards the corporate powers that be, a complete reversal. We can tell who the fascists are.

    And if this were really a national emergency, for which 100% (even babies) need to be vaccinated, or else apparently the intention is that everyone will lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families, Why is the border deliberately left open, and new-comers are not vaccinated, but instead are whisked off in the middle of the night to communities all over the US to seed local populations?

    This isn’t the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. This is coordinated at the top of the current administration.

    All of this is coordinated. Michael Malice brought up a good point. When Joe Rogan took Ivermectin, every journalist ridiculed him for using “horse medicine.” Well, Ivermectin is used for a lot of animals. You would think at least one journalist would say “cat medicine” when they’re ripping on him. But no, they’re all repeating each other. It’s a hive mind.

    The term “conspiracy theory” is spoken of with contempt by those who engage in it. Much of the American electorate has been slow to recognize that more evil exists among those we sometimes refer to as the “elite” at the top of our society than at the bottom among the people. The Founders enumerated a few specific individual rights at the last minute and recognized that there were many that were not enumerated. The Constitution was designed to guarantee all these rights and protect against infringement by an authoritarian government. A conspiracy that essentially says there is no freedom to be exercised by the people except with approval of the governing authority needs no ongoing direction. The Communist conspiracy we face has been at work in the “hive” for more than a century.

    Conspireality: Strong enough evidence short of absolute proof of conspiracy to make people change their view of reality. (I’m sorry I don’t remember which member coined this.)

    Looks to be Rodin.

     

    https://ricochet.com/1092328/conspireality/

    Thanks, I missed that when it was posted.

    • #98
  9. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    A rare instance in which I disagree with GK. Everything is a matter of trade-offs. Mask-wearing is dehumanizing in the same way face coverings for Muslim women is. If we’re not saving lives with mask wearing (and I suspect we’re not), it isn’t worth it to do it badly.

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    • #99
  10. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Vicryl Contessa (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    Correct. The Bangladesh study showed that cloth masks, which are the community standard and what children are told to wear, had zero effectiveness. Procedure masks (which are different from surgical masks) had a statistically significant reduction in the spread of Covid of 11%. If we were really concerned with stopping the spread, we would be telling people to wear N95s. The problem is N95s are not a great option for a large group of people. Places with draconian mask requirements are still seeing a spread, while places with no mask requirements see similar or lower numbers of new cases. I got Covid while wearing a mask everyday, as did many of my coworkers. I have yet to be convinced that they work well. Even the masks we wear in surgery are meant to be changed every two hours ideally, and between every case because studies have shown they lose their effectiveness after two hours. The only thing the surgical masks are meant to do is keep droplets out of the surgical field. Again, the only thing that’s actually effective are N95s.

    Not what the data shows- clearly the better the mask, the more effective-the more transmittable the virus the more mask quality counts. Lousy quality cloth masks are of little use, but higher quality ones appear to provide benefit- the better ones have pockets and you can place filters them (even clean & dry diaper wipes or cut up vacuum bags etc work well-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7559551/).

    • #100
  11. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    double post

    • #101
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    All of this is coordinated. Michael Malice brought up a good point. When Joe Rogan took Ivermectin, every journalist ridiculed him for using “horse medicine.” Well, Ivermectin is used for a lot of animals. You would think at least one journalist would say “cat medicine” when they’re ripping on him. But no, they’re all repeating each other. It’s a hive mind.

    I like to remind people that the Carter Center (founded by that alt-right radical Jimmy Carter) distributes Ivermectin across the world.

    The Carter Center Celebrates Assisting 500 Million Doses against Diseases in 14 Countries

    Please, please, FDA, go with the narrative that Jimmy Carter is poisoning the world with “horse dewormer.”

    • #102
  13. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    There are also harms to wearing masks, especially psychological and political harms, so even assuming a benefit, this must be weighed, and so far as I can see, the wearing has been found wanting.

    While the data on using masks for children is certainly much less supportive than for adults-the data doesn’t support psychological harm from masks in children- children can read adults faces while masked and are more resilient than advertised – the REAL damage to kids is school closure. The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools and leave masks to older kids.

    addendum- the one silver lining to this whole mess is parents have gotten a better glimpse of what is being taught to their kids with the remote learning- can you say Youngkin?

    My friends with young children are having to put their kids in speech therapy because their kids can’t see mouths at the age when they’re learning to talk, and their language is significantly lagging. Saying children don’t need to see faces flies in the face of everything we know about childhood development.

    The risks of mask are way overblown- but so are the benefits to children-better to get teachers vaccinated & open the schools. But the Dems never fail to reward the unions & teachers do not want to return to the classroom-less work & full pay! In Chesterfield VA the teacher’s union was furious when the school board mandated they return to the classroom to conduct on line teaching. Masks aren’t the answer to COVID- vaccines are the 1st line with antivirals & antibodies as backups.

     

    • #103
  14. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    A rare instance in which I disagree with GK. Everything is a matter of trade-offs. Mask-wearing is dehumanizing in the same way face coverings for Muslim women is. If we’re not saving lives with mask wearing (and I suspect we’re not), it isn’t worth it to do it badly.

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    • #104
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    • #105
  16. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    • #106
  17. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    Dude. Unnecessarily masking children or keeping them out of school is the attempt to make a “safe space.”

    • #107
  18. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    Dude. Unnecessarily masking children or keeping them out of school is the attempt to make a “safe space.”

    Dude- I said do not mask little kids……to quote “The best response is to vaccinate  teachers and open the schools”. Opposition to mask mandates in children is not advanced by making ill supported claims of damage to children by masking-oppose them b/c young children aren’t serious vectors of spread & with a vaccinated teacher population the risks are too low to justify. The Dems try to use “for the children” to advance their agenda by using emotions when they are without facts to back them- we conservatives should not reciprocate.

    • #108
  19. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    Dude. Unnecessarily masking children or keeping them out of school is the attempt to make a “safe space.”

    Dude- I said do not mask little kids……to quote “The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools”

    I don’t understand your snotty wisecrack, then.

    • #109
  20. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    Dude. Unnecessarily masking children or keeping them out of school is the attempt to make a “safe space.”

    Dude- I said do not mask little kids……to quote “The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools”

    You didn’t say that in the comment  or the comment thread being responded to. You said that once upon a time?

    • #110
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    And I know something about the “resilience” of kids. It doesn’t last. We’re raising a generation to grow into PTSD.

    I was struggling to articulate the attitude about resilience and you nail it. Yes children are resilient, but that is not the same as immunity. Also, that resilience should be there only when/if needed; it’s not justification to subject kids to things they shouldn’t be subjected to.

    “‘Children are resilient’ is the lie we tell ourselves to justify the traumas we subject them to.”

    Yeah- let’s create SAFE SPACES for them! What could go wrong with that?

    Dude. Unnecessarily masking children or keeping them out of school is the attempt to make a “safe space.”

    Dude- I said do not mask little kids……to quote “The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools”

    I don’t understand your snotty wisecrack, then.

    Yes, the context made that response very out of place.

    • #111
  22. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    There are also harms to wearing masks, especially psychological and political harms, so even assuming a benefit, this must be weighed, and so far as I can see, the wearing has been found wanting.

    While the data on using masks for children is certainly much less supportive than for adults-the data doesn’t support psychological harm from masks in children- children can read adults faces while masked and are more resilient than advertised – the REAL damage to kids is school closure. The best response is to vaccinate teachers and open the schools and leave masks to older kids.

    addendum- the one silver lining to this whole mess is parents have gotten a better glimpse of what is being taught to their kids with the remote learning- can you say Youngkin?

    MM, I appreciate the gist of this comment — that schools should be open and teachers concerned about infection vaccinated. I don’t have a lot of faith in “the data” when it comes to evaluating “psychological harm from masks in children.” We’re in only the second year of masking children, and many schools were closed for much of last year. And, frankly, we’re talking about child psychology in a highly politicized environment. I just have little faith that we could have any clear understanding, yet, of the impact that one aspect of educational disruption — masking — is having. 

    I’m involved in a lot of school activities, and my own experience watching children cope with the isolation, acne, and shortness of breath during sports imposed by masks and related social distancing, and hearing teachers describe how challenging it is to educate younger children in this environment, leads me to think that masking is probably doing quite a lot of damage. That is, of course, anecdotal.

    Also I think Sandy’s observation that the (in my opinion) misguided obsession with masking small children in particular creates an environment of fear that will probably lead to other negative social consequences.

    And yes, I agree that greater exposure of what goes on in American education is valuable, and I’m glad that’s happening.

    • #112
  23. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    Also I think Sandy’s observation that the (in my opinion) misguided obsession with masking small children in particular creates an environment of fear that will probably lead to other negative social consequences.

    I don’t think we can overestimate the psychological damage done to kids by adults being so irrationally fearful. As Drew Klavan says about divorce — we’re blowing up their planet (any sense of security they need to grow into confident, capable adults). 

    • #113
  24. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side.  But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly.  Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies.  Government will make it worse, not better.

    • #114
  25. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    Yes, I also don’t want the government running them, or supervising them. Either gives the government too much power.

    But I’d be happy to see them broken up, on the grounds that they represent threats to our national security.

    • #115
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    Yes, I also don’t want the government running them, or supervising them. Either gives the government too much power.

    But I’d be happy to see them broken up, on the grounds that they represent threats to our national security.

    Breaking them up isn’t giving government too much authority? 

    So — status quo, I guess.

    There seems to be a clear difference in the law between the protections these companies receive as “open platforms” and the way they actually operate as editorial overseers. How about we fix that? How about the law applies to them, too?

    Conservative media personalities are saying it more and more — if the people don’t assert their rights, they’ll lose them. If you’re running an open platform, unless people are showing child pornography or inciting violence (things already illegal), no one should be barred from speaking for having an opinion, even if it’s an incorrect one. Heck, the whole Democrat media complex would have to be shut down!!

    • #116
  27. Vicryl Contessa Thatcher
    Vicryl Contessa
    @VicrylContessa

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    I guess the problem really comes down to that not enough people are upset enough by the censorship of the big social media platforms that a large group of people are willing to jump ship and go to the uncensored platforms and make them popular.

    • #117
  28. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    There seems to be a clear difference in the law between the protections these companies receive as “open platforms” and the way they actually operate as editorial overseers. How about we fix that? How about the law applies to them, too?

    Conservative media personalities are saying it more and more — if the people don’t assert their rights, they’ll lose them. If you’re running an open platform, unless people are showing child pornography or inciting violence (things already illegal), no one should be barred from speaking for having an opinion, even if it’s an incorrect one.

    I think any online forum that doesn’t have any ground rules other than it cannot be illegal content would turn into a sewer.  What if someone has a forum for Christians and anyone can join and spew as much hatred as they want towards Christians?  Should the proprietor not be able to say what is in and out of bounds?  By keeping provocateurs out they are being denied their free speech, but why should a business be obligated to provide them a platform?  People say, well, then that site functions as a publisher not an open platform and they lose their protections from lawsuits for things their members say.  But how do you make that work?  Even dinky little Ricochet has far too many comments each day to put every comment into a queue that will not be displayed until an employee reads it and verifies that it isn’t libelous.

    • #118
  29. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    Government control isn’t necessary. The problem is, they want the benefits of both platform and publisher: “platform” — freedom from being held liable for what’s posted on their sites, and “publisher” — presenting only views they personally approve of.

    They act as “publisher” while hiding behind “platform.”

    Government control isn’t necessary. Just remove the protections they enjoy from declaring themselves merely a platform and let them get sued as any other publisher would.

    • #119
  30. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    Government control isn’t necessary. The problem is, they want the benefits of both platform and publisher: “platform” — freedom from being held liable for what’s posted on their sites, and “publisher” — presenting only views they personally approve of.

    They act as “publisher” while hiding behind “platform.”

    Government control isn’t necessary. Just remove the protections they enjoy from declaring themselves merely a platform and let them get sued as any other publisher would.

    There’s a huge difference between a traditional publisher of a newspaper or magazine and an online forum.  The newspaper can vet every word before it goes to print.  An online forum has content from the public, not employees.  When someone on Ricochet types a comment, it goes live instantly.  How is the Ricochet staff, for instance, supposed to check every comment before it goes live to ensure it isn’t libelous?  How could a site with millions of members do it?

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.