YouTube has blocked Sen. Ron Johnson for 7 days after it removed a video of him spreading coronaviru

[George II]

YouTube has blocked Sen. Ron Johnson for 7 days after it removed a video of him spreading coronavirus misinformation

Sen. Ron Johnson has been suspended from YouTube for a week after his account uploaded a video of him spreading medical misinformation, in violation of Google's detailed policy on the matter.

The conflict is the latest episode of a running feud that the Wisconsin Republican is waging against the video-sharing website, accusing the company of censorship when it enforces its terms of service.

"Big Tech and mainstream media believe they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives," Johnson said in a statement to Insider. "They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies."

Johnson, who promoted the "Big Lie" that led to the assault on the US Capitol in January, has used his position as a senator to promote baseless conspiracy theories and undermine trust in public institutions.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtube-suspends-sen-ron-johnson-for-spreading-coronavirus-misinformation?via=twitter_page

[spanone]

1. Senate should censure him.

[SmartVoter22]

2. Wisconsin should retire him

The best solution is the Final Solution for people like Ron Johnson.
That solution is an overwhelming loss on election day.

Voting has always been the final solution to all societal, economic and legal problems.

[Blue Owl]

3. No Ron is better than MoRon

[Firestorm49]

4. Seven days gives the idiot some free time to come up with more ridiculously stupid things to say.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Post overstates study's '200%' finding on hydroxychloroquine's power vs COVID-19

I saw this bullshit study being cited by some low IQ TFG supporters and knew that it was bogus. This study is so bad and poorly done that only a TFG supporter who is clueless as to science and the scientific process would cite it.

Link to tweet

For example, this is not a peer review study but was taken from a site that does not deal in peer review works

The study is posted on a website that publishes “preprints” — studies that “have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.”....

The study was posted May 31 on medRxiv, a website that publishes studies that have not been fully vetted. This note is posted with the study: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

he website also says about its "preprint" or "unrefereed" articles: "Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by ‘peer review.’ In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts — called ‘referees’ — who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods and conclusions … Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community."

The analysis concludes that this study is poorly designed and the conclusions are not supported. Politifact interviewed several real scientists who concluded that this study is flawed and should not be relied on (even by low IQ TFG supporters).

Here is the conclusion about this study

Our ruling
A widely shared social media post stated: "Study: hydroxychloroquine can boost COVID-19 survival chances by nearly 200%."

A study says a certain dosing of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin "improves survival by nearly 200%" among hospitalized COVID-19 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, but the post exaggerates the finding’s significance.

The study is posted on a website that publishes studies that "have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." Experts told PolitiFact the study is poorly designed and that no conclusion about cause and effect should be drawn from it.

For a statement that contains only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.

I am amused that the RWNJ believe that this study is meaningful.