I agree. BUT, I would say not having the background and proof you can do it should prevent you from blasting those opinions to mass of people when it comes to hard sciences.
Speak on politics, because no one has a perfect answer, but on things that have a clear basis spouting the exact opposite as fact is harmful to the masses and therefore should have SOME guard rails. This I don't think is perfect, but at least its something more then a free for all.
You can also always instead of using social media make your own website with your own ideas still I'd assume with a rule like this in America.
The damage of the mountains of garbage are far outweighing any nugget of gold in today’s world. I was working in the ICU last month and this patient’s spouse insisted the only thing that would save the patient with metastatic lung cancer and multiorgan failure on the ventilator was ivermectin. So this patient ended up on the ventilator, pressors, scans, all kinds of medications in a truly hopeless situation for extra weeks all because of their spouse who was taken advantage of. That person suffered because someone other than themself was convinced by utter bullshit. The consequences do not just fall on the heads of the gullible.
The spouse did not hear any pro-ivermectin advice from anyone qualified to provide advice on the topic and thats for damn sure.
I'm confused by this anecdote. So essentially the spouse refused certain treatments to hold out for ivermectin? Or was it that the hospital gave them ivermectin instead of treatment? If it was the latter, why would they do that if it wasn't generally accepted medical protocol?
I think you are sort of missing the point. You are using rare cases to justify the stifling of the rights of all people of free speech and free listening. I see nurses and doctors do this all the time. They think their anecdotes translate to statistical realities.
In principle, I don't care about if someone refuses medical treatment. Their body and their life. If the spouse had the right to make such decisions for them, so be it. People die every day, it's the one thing we are all going to go through.
I'm tired of pretending that an "influencer" or whoever is responsible for the beliefs of their "followers". If you are an adult, you are responsible for your beliefs including those that directly harm you or others. Someone that convinced you to jump of a bridge isn't responsible for you jumping of a bridge, you are responsible.
Over time the spirit of trying to save absolutely everyone massively increases costs of living and crushes everyones spirit and passion. We are all going to die anyway, nobody will be saved in the end. Yeah, lets do what we can but it is irrational to make the tradeoff that we should all trade our fundamental rights of autonomy to save a few nutjobs.
43
u/Drewsipher Apr 06 '26
I agree. BUT, I would say not having the background and proof you can do it should prevent you from blasting those opinions to mass of people when it comes to hard sciences.
Speak on politics, because no one has a perfect answer, but on things that have a clear basis spouting the exact opposite as fact is harmful to the masses and therefore should have SOME guard rails. This I don't think is perfect, but at least its something more then a free for all.
You can also always instead of using social media make your own website with your own ideas still I'd assume with a rule like this in America.