I didn't watch the piece, but I've read enough of what Sakora has written to conclude that Sakora is a consistent liar. Even if a liar tells the truth, he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not.

> and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel.

If nobody knows what's true with corona, then shouldn't claim to know what's true with corona, which is what Sakora is doing.

> he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not

How do I know what anyone says is true? Why should I trust what you're saying about Sikora?

I should be able to watch a video on youtube and decide for myself because censorship is inimical to free thought.

You should take a moment to consider that most of the examples throughout history of censorship were carried out by decidedly bad people. Truth can stand on its own!

I am definitely NOT pro-censorship, so I don't know why you're saying this to me. Please read a few comments up. The entire reason censorship is a topic on this subthread is that I brought it up as a problem.

ive never heard the name sakora before. genuine question -- just curious how/why you've come across their writing, when it seems the claim is that they are some kind of quack?

When the Libyan government was trying to get the Lockerbie bomber out of jail, they paid Sikora off to say that the bomber was going to keel over in a few weeks from cancer. He admitted that the Libyans let him know what prognosis would be most helpful when they hired him. Lo and behold that's the prognosis that he came up with (which also ended up being completely wrong)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karol_Sikora is mentioned in another comment.

The Wikipedia article looks very unbalanced to me, but there is definitely some smoke there too.

He’s not qualified to speak about infectious disease.

Infectious disease is a distinct specialty in medicine.

Are you qualified to decide whether someone with medical expertise can discuss medicine, health and policy?

Yes because doctors are licensed by their specialty. Which is only achieved by years of direct subject matter training...coupled with continuous education.

The doctor in question is not licensed for infectious disease.

You should never trust a doctor speaking outside of his expertise.

However most of the celebrity doctors do that every single day which is an insult to the entire medical profession.

In the US at least that isn't how physician credentialing works. Doctors are licensed by state medical boards. In addition, some go on to earn certification from specialty medical boards but those certifications are not legal licenses.

In general we shouldn't blindly trust any single doctor about an important or risky topic, even within their own specialty. Always get a second or even third opinion if practical. (I agree that most celebrity doctors are little more than quacks.)