YouTube pulls a news video of two doctors, citing disinformation

YouTube pulls a news video of two doctors, citing disinformation

These doctors, who jointly run a small health clinic in Bakersfield, Ca have been widely criticized by a large majority of peers. They had created a video that went viral, where they shared their opinion against the continuation of stay safe at home orders that have been given by governors of most of the states in America. YouTube has pulled the video, citing the danger of Covid-19 misinformation

Brett
Brett
Joe
Joe 3 weeks

Remember, citizens, youtube is the one and only guardian of the TRUTH. All questions and doubts will be censored and citizens labeled for re-education.

GT...
GT... 3 weeks

Actually many epidemiologist says the same. I personally saw more on this opinion then on the other. For example: dr. John Ioannidis. You hardly find more credible then him and his videos not banned (yet): https://youtu.be/cwPqmLoZA4s But there is Knut Witkowsky, dr. Judy A Mikovits, all of the Swedish doctors. They are saying the same. Some may say they all are lying. Sorry, but I'm not convinced by citing the mainstream news here... some are totally irrelevant.

edwin
edwin 3 weeks

Yeah, I got lucky and managed to find a copy of their video on another channel and downloaded it using y2mate. I try to preserve videos that seem likely to be purged.

Patrick
Patrick 3 weeks

So YouTube get to be the arbitor of truth in our world? I'm not saying the video is true or false but YouTube has no place deciding what I can and can't see. The American people aren't stupid. We didn't vote against that woman because Russia told us to, it's because she made us sick. I don't rant against quarentine because I'm stupid or want people to die; I look at CDC numbers and my math says there is nothing to make a fuss over. I have never had math challenged, just my intentions. If YouTube wants to silence the video, pair it with a video that refutes the claims made. Show us why our math is wrong. I've wanted to have my math challenged since February.

Adam Marceau
Adam Marceau 3 weeks

Start using bitchute

themdg
themdg 3 weeks

Makes sense. A tech company disagrees with doctors... Should probably look at jailing these renegade docs. Ppbbbbrrrrtttt.

Lilith
Lilith 3 weeks

This is very bad journalism. No where in the article did you once cover the numerous lies, misinformation, and bad science, nor the conflict of interest these two doctors used for their propaganda. I do not use that word lightly. These men straight up lied. It took me less than a minute to prove thief statement false: “We've never seen the healthy, where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home. So some of these things from what we've studied from immunology and microbiology aren't really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds who read this stuff," said Erickson.” “When officials in Seattle announced a citywide lockdown, 15-year-old Violet Harris was overjoyed that she no longer had to go to school.” - How the 1918 Pandemic Frayed Social Bonds - March 31 2020 The Atlantic ————————————— Authoritative Measures The public health authorities in both the United States and Europe took up fundamental measures to control epidemics that dated back to Medieval times of the Bubonic Plague. ... This translated into the controversial and imperative measure of closing of many public institutions and banning of public gatherings during the time of an epidemic. ... The Public Health Response - Stanford University ————————— “With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.” 1918 Pandemic - CDC —————————- “Now as then, public health interventions are the first line of defense against an epidemic in the absence of a vaccine. These measures include closing schools, shops, and restaurants; placing restrictions on transportation; mandating social distancing, and banning public gatherings. (This is how small groups can save lives during a pandemic.) ... Of the cities that kept interventions in place, none experienced a second wave of high death rates. - National Geographic - How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic - March 27 2020 ———————————— For an outstanding comprehensive look at the 1918 pandemic and future recommendations, with stunningly accurate predictions for the next pandemic, written in 2007, go to: “Economic Effects of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Implications for a Modern-day Pandemic” by Thomas A. Garrett - Assistant Vice President and Economist Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/community-development/research-reports/pandemic_flu_report.pdf —————————————- As for proof of the use of junk science, you can read a very balanced report on the Stanford Study these two doctors used to give credibility to their claims: According to the following article, the Stanford Anti-Body study is under scrutiny, was not peer reviewed and the numbers and formula fail when applied to New York City’s infection and death rates. In addition new evidence is coming to light that skews the research numbers and conclusions. Such as the Santa Clara health coordinator’s very recently found earlier death, by three weeks. The following is from Undark “a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society. It is published with generous funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation”, and is rated least biased: “While death rates may vary from place to place, if the fatality rate of Covid-19 is as low as 0.12 percent, as the Stanford study authors claim, this would suggest that more than 12.5 million people in New York City have already been infected with Covid-19, even though only 8.3 million people live there.” “In the past week, though, the Stanford study, and a related effort in Los Angeles, have come under fierce criticism from prominent statisticians and infectious disease experts. Critics have argued that statistical sloppiness, inaccuracies in testing, and a skewed survey method likely warped the results.” Alexander Rubinsteyn, a geneticist and computational biologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, ... added: “Pretty much no one with statistical acumen believes these studies.” “The study was released, like many other Covid-19 studies, as a preprint, meaning it had not yet received peer review vetting from other scientists. And it quickly came under criticism from other researchers, who eviscerated its methods ...” ... ““The Stanford study was not a true random sample,” said Prabhat Jha, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, in an email to Undark.” And finally: “The propriety of the Stanford analysis was called into further question on Friday when BuzzFeed News reported that Bhattacharya’s wife had sent a message to a middle school’s private email list to recruit families for the study. It included the claim that the testing would help determine if they could “return to work without fear,” raising additional concerns of bias in the sample population.” For the full story, more balanced info and to make up your own mind, go to: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ —————————————- It took only a few minutes to find credible evidence to debunk claims made by these two doctors on their video. I suggest you go back and research all their claims, and the conflict of interest with their own financial problems concerning their urgent care business. And finally, you can watch this news cast where the two doctor’s claims of support from local and state agencies are publicly denied by those very same agencies: https://youtu.be/OhxAIOhCPHQ

Dan
Dan 3 weeks

It goes against what the Cabal wants you to believe so for sure YouTube will censor a second opinion which goes against the entities that helped to fund YouTube.

SickOfTribalisem
SickOfTribalisem 3 weeks

Disinformation please... the estimates were off the dr's simlly reported whst they've seen...

DScott
DScott 3 weeks

I remember when Googles mantra was “don’t be evil”. This is leftist censorship in a nutshell: the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Lilith
Lilith 3 weeks

This is the worst form of journalism. It is basically an info snap. It states doctors made video, and made claims. YouTube took it down claiming it violated misinformation guidelines and rules. No research, no exposing either’s argument nor checking of facts on either side of the issue. No balance either way, so one is left with the erroneous feeling that YouTube overstepped its bounds and may have committed censure. This article is worthless journalistically, could be classed as propaganda by omission, and is a disservice to the public.

Lilith
Lilith 3 weeks

And finally, as to their conflict of interest, here is the recently posted report from Beacon Economics, and the down fall in earnings for elective care: “Digging more deeply into the spending data, it’s evident that the largest pullback in the economy—one that explains nearly half the decline in first quarter economic output—is, paradoxically, health care. The recent decline in spending is being driven largely by the industry’s decision to put all but medically necessary procedures on hold, both to create capacity for the expected surge in virus-related demand as well as to avoid the close mixing of patients with COVID-19 and those seeking other sorts of medical assistance. We had anticipated that accelerated health care spending driven by the need to care for those who contracted and became ill from COVID-19 would offset this decline. It clearly didn’t.” https://beaconecon.com/blog/the_expansion_is_dead_long_live_the_expansion_4_30_2020/

Exnihilo Adnihilum
Exnihilo Adnihilum 3 weeks

The really bad part about this is that they also ended up purging the pointed questions the journalists were pushing back with. They didn't just get rid of the doctor's they got rid of the questions about what they were saying.

Ironborn Pyke
Ironborn Pyke 3 weeks

It was because the comparisons the docs used were incorrect in the first few minutes of the video. They use math to compare the flu to covid and the the math is way off...they divide total state covid deaths by total state population and compare to state flu deaths divided by the states known flu cases. To make a fair comparison they would have had to compare it to known covid cases not the entire state population.

Michael Tatom
Michael Tatom 3 weeks

What do you mean “disinformation?” I watched the entire video and the doctors were very professional and presented their personal findings. There was nothing bogus about it. Fake news headline.

Lilith
Lilith 3 weeks

Since the bottom part of my first comment was chopped off, along with important links, here is the remainder of my original post: “The study was released, like many other Covid-19 studies, as a preprint, meaning it had not yet received peer review vetting from other scientists. And it quickly came under criticism from other researchers, who eviscerated its methods ...” ... ““The Stanford study was not a true random sample,” said Prabhat Jha, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, in an email to Undark.” And finally: “The propriety of the Stanford analysis was called into further question on Friday when BuzzFeed News reported that Bhattacharya’s wife had sent a message to a middle school’s private email list to recruit families for the study. It included the claim that the testing would help determine if they could “return to work without fear,” raising additional concerns of bias in the sample population.” For the full story, more balanced info and to make up your own mind, go to: https://undark.org/2020/04/24/john-ioannidis-covid-19-death-rate-critics/ —————————————- It took only a few minutes to find credible evidence to debunk claims made by these two doctors on their video. I suggest you go back and research all their claims, and the conflict of interest with their own financial problems concerning their urgent care business. And finally, you can watch this news cast where the two doctor’s claims of support from local and state agencies are publicly denied by those very same agencies: https://youtu.be/OhxAIOhCPHQ

Daniel McEwen
Daniel McEwen 3 weeks

So...this interesting video: https://youtu.be/Wf1CB_OWTgQ

Jon
Jon 3 weeks

The video was heavily criticized by the medical community. Couple of quakes 🦆

Dustin
Dustin 3 weeks

So apparently since Newsvoice updated you can just post an article with one source from one perspective. It used to be you needed at least 3 sources to publish a new post.

ז'ניה שפירו
ז'ניה שפירו 3 weeks

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WLp53rpJ2B7i/

Top in U.S.
Get the App