cover up the rest

More like actively silence any result they don't like and try to destroy the livelihoods of people who conduct studies that give "problematic" results.

It's like voting in the EU!

One of the best wake up moments for anyone is when someone goes on these shows and then has recorded it themselves, so that way it can be compared later.

The sheer level of editting that goes into most of them would boggle the mind.

I noticed something reading IVM studies and mask studies. The conclusions agree with the acceptable position even when the data in the study doesn't. Pre-coof mask studies and post-coof mask studies show consistent results (that cloth masks block very few particles and have typically very small positive effects but well within the margin of error). Only the conclusions have changed. The study out of Denmark (iirc) early in the coof that was spread around as showing that masks don't work had the same results as later studies that show they do; it's just they didn't put a positive conclusion on it.

Of course there's no pre-coof IVM studies for prevention of coof, but I read the seven studies that the NIH said they based their decision on and they didn't even have to cherry pick. All of them concluded IVM didn't work even though everyone showed fairly strong positive results in all metrics except for one study had 4 deaths for the IVM group while placebo had 3. However in the body they said the average time to ventilator for the IVM group was 5 days and in the placebo group was 10 days, which would suggest the people who died in the IVM group were already much more progressed by random chance (or "random" chance).

I've found people who claim that the same thing occurred with the "low fat" diet studies in the 80s and 90s. The data would show low fat is bad but the conclusion would say low fat is good. I haven't confirmed this for myself but it would make sense given that low fat is indeed bad.

The most amazing thing is they don't even have to actively cover things up.

I wonder if you could preface a commentary video with something like "as any first year law student knows, commentary is quintessential fair use, therefore, by reasonable person test, only a malicious agent would file charges along that line, especially with this disclaimer. Thus, any copyright claim will be met in court with anti-SLAPP, harassment, stalking, and malicious prosecution claims, both civil and criminal."

Everyone gives their cutesy friendly "Fair Use" disclaimer, and those clearly just don't work. I think some people need some court trials and some millions in legal costs down the drain (on the defense even if not in a court loss) in order to chill the aggressive litigation.

Copyright is garbage

No one should ever agree to talk to a screen person without the right to make their own recording.

Are you serious? What an asshole.

Cart narcs nabbed him.

Channel metrics with views might be tied to it? Not sure I’m not a YouTuber so that my guess. And they may want to stealth relist it after all the attention does down.