YouTube Censors Senate Testimony From Doctor On Possible Covid Drug

We have have been discussing how writerseditorscommentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. The erosion of free speech has been radically accelerated by the Big Tech and social media companies, including YouTube. Now YouTube has censored actual testimony given to the United States Senate by Dr. Pierre Kory, who was testifying on different drug treatment. So now these companies are going to censor what was told to the government and decide what viewers will be allowed to consider from the public debate. It is a continuation of the movement to prevent people from hearing opposing views and to control what is shared or discussed in a growing attack on free speech.

YouTube removed two videos from a December 8th hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It featured Kory who discussed the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid-19, particularly in the early stages. It is a drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites. Kory was calling for a review by National Institutes of Health on trials for the drug. Ultimately, it does appear that the NIH did change the status of the drug.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has said that the videos were blocked on his account, including Kory’s testimony. The Federalist maintained that YouTube removed the videos to the platform’s COVID-19 Medical Misinformation Policy. That policy stipulates that anything which goes against “local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19” will be removed.

I can hardly shed light on the merits of the medical debate but this is the censoring of an actual Senate hearing that is so disturbing. YouTube is preventing citizens from watching testimony on an issue of national importance. It is an example of the slippery slope of censorship and how such speech regulation becomes an insatiable appetite for many.

95 thoughts on “YouTube Censors Senate Testimony From Doctor On Possible Covid Drug”

  1. I am here and now calling on all concerned Americans to boycott YouTube until these videos are restored. By continuing to use their service in any form, you are implicitly endorsing their suppression of information that is vital to the public interest.

  2. Where are the journalists? We were taught in 2020 that silence is complicity. This era’s journalists will be remembered in infamy if freedom of speech survives these efforts.

    1. I think anyone under 40 who was interested in being a reporter: (1) decided against it due to the escalating difficulty of earning a living in that trade or (2) did land a reporting job and got laid off as conventional news outlets cut staff, or (3) decided against it due to the degeneration in the quality of what were once known as ‘news sources’. They get propagandists and click-bait generators now, and no serious person would want to work in such an environment.

  3. Do you really think they want to lose their power and control?? They will NEVER let you know the truth as long as they are in power. It’s easier to control a public that is scared and afraid to leave their houses.

  4. They censured it yet at a recent visit to my doctor he mentioned the steroid treatment had been working fairly well at the hospital where they are treating the worst Covid cases. Why would that get censured? Great news that a readily available treatment can help relieve breathing and congestion and allow more patients to recover.

  5. A vigorous debate over the virus has been lacking in Europe and the United States, with the result that we have a ‘dominant narrative’ based largely on speculation and a very incomplete knowledge of the virus and its effects. We still need an informed discussion by a variety of ‘experts.’
    A link which illustrates how little we actually know about how to ‘combat’ it.
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/05/understanding-singapores-covid-miracle/

  6. Wait. You’re a lawyer? Good thing we live in a capitalist society or Turley Esquire would be having his socialist government telling private businesses like Youtube what they can and cannot host on their site.

    I notice neither Turley nor the host of morons who listen to him are worried about what, say, OAN or Fox are not showing their viewers.

    1. If the Internet is the new Press, protected in the Bill of Rights and the 1st amendment, then Congress can make no law abridging the free exercise thereof. The Internet was invented with the intent to be a survivable method of national communications. It is the new town square, encompassing the library, the press, speech and methods of assembly and redress of grievances. You either have free speech or you don’t, and let each person be the judge of it.

      1. Youtube is not the government. Youtube is a private company with Terms of Service that users agree to, and they can remove content that’s inconsistent with the ToS.

    1. “antiracist arts instruction ” “dismantling white supremacy culture” hmmm

      this is code talk for destroying WHITE CULTURE period.

      see they used to say, there IS NO white culture, they would say, what is that, stuff like white bread?

      Now they are past poking fun. That is a school program of cultural genocide aimed at white Americans

      from wiki”

      “Cultural genocide or cultural cleansing is a concept which was distinguished by lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1944 as a component of genocide.[1] Though the precise definition of cultural genocide remains contested, the Armenian Genocide Museum defines it as “acts and measures undertaken to destroy nations’ or ethnic groups’ culture through spiritual, national, and cultural destruction.”[2]

      Some ethnologists, such as Robert Jaulin, use the term ethnocide as a substitute for cultural genocide,[3] although this usage has been criticized as risking the confusion between ethnicity and culture.[4] Juxtaposed next to ethnocide, cultural genocide was considered in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; however, it was removed in the final document and simply replaced with “genocide.”

      my comment: this precisely applies to what they are doing to us. and yet…

      THEY DENY IN ONE MOMENT THAT WE EXIST– THEN SUDDENLY WE DO EXIST, WHEN THEY ARE ATTACKING US

      WHEN THE MOPPING UP OPERATION COMES, THEN THEY WILL PRETEND WE NEVER EXISTED AT ALL

      SOMETIMES THEY PRESUME BOTH ATTITUDES AT ONCE!

      The irony here is that these institutions are controlled and funded mostly by white people. Figure that one out.

      The key to turn the lock in understanding is this. Billionaires only see green. They do not fear 20 different minority groups. The only group they sincerely fear, who could take them down?

      Guess who that is. If you’re not sure, look in the mirror

      Sal Sar

      1. I’ll add one more thing. Why are they censoring information about Ivermectin?

        Not because it doesnt work– BUT BECAUSE IT DOES WORK

        they LITERALLY WANT US TO DO

        MORE WHO DIE FROM COVID THE BETTER

        get rid of the CO2 emitters right? Easier to “fight global warming”

        Years ago when i would hear people say stuff like that, I thought they were nuts’

        Now it’s not so nutty after all

        Sal Sar

        1. I mean you need to understand how censorship in any regime works

          The power clique does not censor lies that threaten them

          THEY CENSOR TRUTHS WHICH CENSOR THEM

          always ask why they pick this or that needle out of the haystack to delete

          Sal Sar

        2. There is a reason as I understand it. As long as there are effective FDA approved methods of treating the disease or disorder, even if off label, the FDA cannot issue a EUA or emergency use authorization to drug companies for these experimental vaccines against Covid-19. If this is true then the development of the EUA approved experimental vaccines may have been illegal and people need to answer for it. Instead, the approved method from the Govt in DC is to limit speech.

  7. Not a Trump fan, but “guilt-by-association” is always wrong and illegal under the U.S. Constitution. Criminally prosecute those individuals that exceeded First Amendment limits, by trespassing and committing insurrection, but those that stayed in-bounds (that didn’t trespass past barriers) broke no laws.

    Unless a particular organization publicly advocates “constitutionally-subversive” actions, you can’t use guilt-by-association to search the non-violent members. Every group has a few nuts, that doesn’t mean you can search the other 99.9% that are non-violent and non-subversive. Using that logic, we could stereotype every police officer, every FBI agent and every intel official for the actions of the 1% bad apples.

    Authorities need to focus only on “violent-extremists” on both the right and left, instead using the loose subjective term “extremists” which can mean almost anything and be used against almost any group. Jonathan Turley fans that believe in the “constitutional rule of law” and the Oath of Office could be viewed as “extremist” simply for supporting American style government.

    Prosecutors have ample tools to prosecute “individuals” for insurrection and there are already federal statutes that criminalize terrorism and intimidation of other citizens (Title 42 US Code 1983 or Title 18 US Code 241-245). Prosecutors also have ample “probable cause” to perform perfectly legal searches under the 4th Amendment of some “individuals” where evidence points to past crimes. The crime scene was well photographed with clear video footage. Judges would easily grant warrants with that much evidence.

    Guilt-by-Association can also be used against BLM supporters, LGBT-Americans, non-violent environmentalists (Virginia Fusion Center targeting tree-sitters instead of terrorists), NRA members, Tea Party members or any other peaceful group.

    1. Zersetzung, I read your statement carefully. I give credit where credit is due. Thank you for that defense of free speech.

      Free speech is the best weapon available to ethnic and political minorities. Many of these people would still be laboring under Jim Crow if it wasn’t for free speech. Many of these people would still be suffering under McCarthyism if it wasn’t for free speech.

      I admire and appreciate every liberal who risks being called an apostate for defending free speech. It is not easy standing alone. In the future, I shall accord you full respect, even when we disagree.

  8. Why is Joe Biden throwing open the borders to a flood of migrants and refugees (and more drugs!) in the midst of a pandemic when he hasn’t even gotten schools open? Or businesses open? WTH?

    1. Because Biden practices the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and his enemy is the American Working Class.

    2. Many of these measures might get shot down in the courts. Other proposals have to survive a filibuster vote (they won’t).

      I’m probably being very naive, but I want to believe Biden knows these are futile gestures and is just throwing them out there to pacify the radical wing of his party. When secession and war are the logical outcomes of the radical agenda, I want to give the man a chance before I give up on him.

      But I’m prepared for the truth, whatever that takes me.

  9. In the next election all social media should just automatically censor any and all GOP members as if they were never born. Just ordain all Dems as winners and save the cost of the election.

    Problem fixed! Commit to Dishonesty would love this! His wet dream!

    1. I agree, it would save us the nauseating excuse making, and the tedious scolding ala our poor Professor Turley that is disinclined to accept that they are lying n24/7 , and they know they are lying and they don’t care.

  10. It seems like it’s about time for a peaceful separation of the USA into two separate nations: the freedom loving Red States of America and the authoritarian socialist Blue States of America. Otherwise, we’re gonna end up like Yugoslavia!

    1. Scott and Sal are correct to want to explore the issue, but we need to be mindful of the risks.

      Peace separation is problematical, the problem being that if the Red States secede, at least some Red Counties in Blue States will want to go with them. The Blue hegemons want to keep these counties (and some Red States) as Lebensraum. Without them, most Blue States quickly become rump states with few resources. At a minimum, the Blue hegemons will engage in brinksmanship, so war could happen. Red Counties in some Blue States would likely resist a crackdown, and that could draw a Red-State response leading to a civil war.

      Some urban centers in Red States are already radicalized. Fighting would naturally erupt there, and the Blue hegemons will probably frame it as Red States persecuting urban minorities so the Blue States can sell a crackdown to the military.

      Also, the Blue hegemons know that if the Red States secede, the Red States will apply tariffs and immigration controls they never got from the federal government. This will impact trade for the Blue hegemons, and since foreign trade is much more important to the Blue hegemons than the rest of us, they might try to get the military to crack down on the Red States. It’s unlikely they’ll succeed, but again, brinksmanship is a possibility and with it miscalculation that leads to war.

      Finally, even if secession is done peacefully, the Blue States will continue to flood the Red States with illegal immigration in order to pacify us, just like they’re doing now. They’ll continue to subvert our business interests through trade, just like they’re doing now. We’ll have longer borders and fewer resources to protect them. Furthermore, the Blue States would find natural allies in both Moscow and Beijing. That will present a profound strategic threat to the Red States.

      Therefore, the real goal of the Red States would be to reduce the Blue States to rump states so that they can be more easily contained and prevent them from bringing in foreign powers to North America. Peaceful secession is unlikely to accomplish that.

      I’m getting old. I have a lot to lose and no time to get it back. I want to hold the country together as long as it doesn’t damage the Constitution. We’ll see if the Democrats give us that option.

      1. Thank you for your excellent analysis! I sympathize as I’m 60 and I too don’t want to see the USA fly apart into chaos in my retirement years.

      2. You have identified the problem. In Yugoslavia, the different ethnic groups were not in separate areas, but living cheek by jowl, so separation became very messy. Slovenia was the exception, because only about two percent of the population was not Slovene. In Croatia and Bosnia and Hegezegovina, there were large enclaves of the ‘wrong’ group living in areas dominated by the ‘right’ group. The result was a bloody civil war in which hundreds of thousands were displaced, thousands killed, and much of the country laid waste. For anyone pondering a similar separation in the States, I would recommend reading some of the scholarly (not popular or journalistic) literature on the Yugoslav wars of secession. The prelude to the conlict was a massive propaganda campaign which demonized those ethnic groups which were to be eliminated or displaced, not only in the popular press and by politicians, but also in the scholarly literature, a process similar to that playing out in the US at the moment.

        1. An, I agree completely. The only outcome that really works for the Red States is the abject military defeat of the Blue States and the removal of their radicalized, international ports from the Union. That isn’t secession, and it would likely be bloody and messy, like Yugoslavia.

          However, if the Democrats want to tear up the Constitution, flood the country with hostiles, and proscribe conservatives and free-speech advocates, such a conflict would be both necessary and moral.

          Time will tell.

  11. “If we allow companies like YouTube to succeed in such speech controls, true free speech could become a quaint historical relic in the United States.” What troubles me Mr. Turley is that “we” don’t really have a choice. I don’t want to allow censorship. I think that all speech should be permitted. I don’t understand why our elected representatives do not take a stand for free speech. They hold hearings, but do nothing. What can an ordinary person do? How do we fight back? I understand that YouTube and Twitter are private companies, but they also have become the public square. Any suggestions?

    1. Trump and the GOP had all control in their hands for two solid YEARS AND DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO REINFORCE FREE SPEECH. To hell with them all. Why on earth should people ever vote for the GOP if they spit on the 1st and most critical amendment?

      1. That is true that Trump fell into the Conservative delusion that if you stand up with a loud voice and spout better policies or can demonstrate that your policies work better, the voters will follow you. What they fail to work on is the cheating, they always under estimate the power of cheating.

      2. Lighten up francis…..the only spitting on the constitution is by the demoratzi zeig heil social fascist party. Your screed is just bloviating . There is no other choice than GOP. We clean out the RINO’s and shove the constitution to the front . It should not have to be so obvious but there it is. Look up “the 30 tyrants” that derived from the Spartan and Athens war of 404BC. A superb article was written this past few days with comparisons to what the social fascist party of America is doing today…uncanny how history repeats.

  12. Meanwhile, in an admission against interest, it would appear that the US Attorney’s office is having trouble building any kind of case (even one of Chauvin-Rittenhouse quality) against the ‘assailants’ of Brian Sicknick.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html

    The problem would appear to be (1) they cannot on security camera video locate a point in time where he was assaulted by anyone; and (2) the coroner cannot find evidence of blunt force trauma. Since it’s a reasonable wager the autopsy was completed two weeks ago, I’m wagering we haven’t seen the autopsy report because the results are inconvenient to the prosecutor and they haven’t extorted unwarranted conclusions from the coroner. So, now they’re working on the theory that he had an eccentric reaction to pepper spray or bear spray. There actually is electronic data (text messages to relatives after the melee was over) that he was hit with pepper spray. And we know that he had a blood clot in his brain. NB, the modal destination of clots generated by atrial fibrilation is the brain.

    So, of the 6 people whose deaths were ’caused’ by the rioters, one was a stroke, one was a heart attack, one was a suicide undertaken days after the event, one appears (thus far) to have been some combination of accidental injury and cardiac event, one is of uncertain cause but does not appear to have been a function of any injury to the deceased, and one was a woman shot dead by a Capitol Police officer a propos of nothing in particular.

    1. The woman shot dead was forcibly entering the Speaker’s Gallery which is open to the House floor and which was occupied, or just had been, by Representatives and staff. She was literally climbing through a broken sidelight window. There is no question about that and you can see it on video.

      1. Yes Joe. The police shot an unarmed trespasser. And you seem proud of that. How utterly despicable

      2. The woman shot dead was forcibly entering the Speaker’s Gallery

        The video was viewed by millions. She was standing on the other side of a heavy door and was not doing anything but standing. She wasn’t a threat to the officer at that point.

        You seem to think you can just lie brazenly.

        1. You’re the one who seems to think you can just lie brazenly when you say she “was not doing anything but standing.” She was climbing through the window above the door into the Speaker’s Lobby.

          There are multiple videos taken by different people who were there, and it’s easier to see in some than others that she was climbing through.

          Here’s one that’s pretty clear –
          https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/videos-show-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-siege/

          Here’s another with more info –
          https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2021/01/08/the-journey-of-ashli-babbitt/

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: