# More than 270 medical experts call out Spotify, Joe Rogan for spreading COVID-19 misinformation



## Eric

Something needs to happen here.

From Twitter


> In an open letter published on January 10, more than 270 medical experts called on Spotify to take action against the spread of misinformation on its platform — specifically in relation to the podcast The Joe Rogan Experience — according to The Washington Post. Rogan, who has been on the line for spreading false information related to COVID-19 in the past, has an exclusive deal with Spotify to publish his podcast, which has an audience of more than 11 million, per Rolling Stone. Experts are not calling for the removal of Rogan's podcast in the letter but, instead, ask the streaming service to "immediately establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform."




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1482012689752862725/


----------



## Roller

Eric said:


> Something needs to happen here.
> 
> From Twitter
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1482012689752862725/



Sadly, these companies care only about their bottom line. And people like Rogan and his ilk find enough support from people with enough credibility to keep it up.


----------



## JayMysteri0

A follow up opinion piece



> Spotify Will Never Do Anything About Joe Rogan
> 
> 
> The streaming service's most popular podcaster is apparently above the company's rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gizmodo.com





> Wildly popular podcaster Joe Rogan is just asking questions. The wrong questions, and an awful lot of them—especially when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic. He’s discouraged young people from getting vaccinated, promoted theories that unsupported covid treatment ivermectin isn’t in broader use to protect vaccine profits, and invited well-known bullshit artists to uncritically spew misinformation about vaccines.
> 
> As Rogan has hundreds of millions of monthly downloads on the Joe Rogan Experience (JRE), that makes him one of the biggest vehicles for rhetoric that is at the very least sympathetic to, and sometimes actively promoting, the antivaxx movement. And his distributor, Spotify, is obviously willing to look the other way to protect their exclusive $100 million deal with him, even if that means letting him promote wild conspiracy theories—like he did last month. On episode #1757 of JRE, Rogan invited a virologist named Dr. Robert Malone to inform listeners that public health responses to the coronavirus, particularly mass vaccination, were inextricably tied in with something called “mass formation psychosis.”
> 
> Malone’s credibility is largely based on his claim to have invented MRNA vaccines. Whether that’s true or not—the Atlantic reported he is one of many scientists who published important work on MRNA—more recently his credentials seem to have served the more practical purpose of buoying his darling status in right-wing media and the anti-vaxx movement. Malone claims not to be a vaccine skeptic, but questions the safety and efficacy of the actual MRNA vaccines on the market. Many of his claims have been rated as false by fact-checkers and many other scientists have more or less suggested he’s gone off the rails. Mass formation psychosis, in Malone’s telling, is exactly like what happened in Germany before the rise of the Nazi Party’s Third Reich, during which the public “literally becomes hypnotized and can be led anywhere.” Malone went on to tell Rogan that this is why members of the public trust and are complying with supposedly extreme, totalitarian overreactions like social pressure to get vaccinated.






> In reality, mass formation psychosis is not a legitimate scientific idea and, according to specialists in fields like crowd and social psychology, has no credibility. (According to the AP, University of Sussex social psychologist John Drury and Binghamton University psychology professor Steven Jay Lynn described the theory as based on discredited concepts around mob mentality and the power of hypnosis.) But it _is_ convenient culture-war gristle for right-wingers and anti-vaxxers furious at public health measures who want to rebrand just being _wrong_ as enviable possession of forbidden knowledge and label anyone who disagrees as mentally ill sheeple. That’s the main reason the Malone episode went viral.






> This was too much for YouTube, which took a clip of the Malone interview down under its covid-19 misinformation policy. For its part, Spotify has done jack shit. Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday that some 270 scientists, medical professionals, and science educators, led by Boston’s Children’s Hospital infectious disease epidemiologist Jessica Malaty Rivera, have signed an open letter to Spotify denouncing Rogan for featuring Malone and spreading other hoax claims about covid and vaccines. They’re not demanding that Spotify drop Rogan or delete the episode, but simply create a defined policy on misinformation. From the letter:







> Spotify does not currently appear to have a solid misinformation policy in its rules—unlike many other major platforms, which at least have ones on paper, even if they’re poorly enforced. The ask to introduce such a policy and hold Rogan to it in the future is a clever one, if only because Spotify reportedly neglected to port over 42 JRE episodes when it signed a deal with Rogan in 2020. According to Variety, those editions contained interviews with vile far-right figures like racist provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, founder of the fashy street-fighting Proud Boys group Gavin McInnes, infamous troll and accused Holocaust denier Charles C. Johnson, anti-feminist Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin, and Owen Benjamin, a comedian mostly known for vicious anti-Semitism. The decision to throw those episodes down the memory hole doesn’t seem to have set any precedent moving forward.
> 
> Rogan later said that not porting the episodes, which was the subject of considerable anger from his fans, was part of the $100 million contract deal: “There were a few episodes they didn’t want on their platform, and I was like ‘okay, I don’t care.’” But he insisted that there wouldn’t be any corporate interference from that point on: “A lot of people are like, ‘they’re telling Joe Rogan what he can and can’t do’. They’re not — they’re not.”
> 
> Again, Rogan is estimated to have 11 million listeners per episode. To put that in perspective, Tucker Carlson is the king of primetime cable news with around 3 million viewers per episode. It’s safe to say Spotify doing anything about the Malone episode would risk pissing off one of their biggest cash-cow investments. Spotify probably also doesn’t want to chance angering a horde of fans that use their platform many times a week, let alone the inevitable firestorm from conservatives eager to make him their latest poster boy for censorship.
> 
> As it is, Spotify sporadically told media outlets last year that it removes antivax content because it prohibits “content on the platform which promotes dangerous false, deceptive, or misleading content about Covid-19 that may cause offline harm and/or pose a direct threat to public health.” So clearly some kind of policy exists, at least to the extent that they can trot it out on an arbitrary basis. Spotify just isn’t clear about the specifics of that rule or how they enforce it. The only thing that’s clear is Rogan is apparently immune to it.






> Spotify didn’t respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. Nor did it respond to CNBC, the Hill, the Washington Post, Deadline, Fortune, or the New York Daily News, among other publications. Why would they? They don’t give a shit. Go ahead and prove us wrong.


----------



## Runs For Fun

I never understood the appeal of this guy. He’s a stupid meathead dude bro.


----------



## SuperMatt

Runs For Fun said:


> I never understood the appeal of this guy. He’s a stupid meathead dude bro.



His fans mostly fit into that category. That’s why they love him.


----------



## JayMysteri0

It's interesting who will be the one to take a stand.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485757517523308548/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485776695680540672/


----------



## Eric

JayMysteri0 said:


> It's interesting who will be the one to take a stand.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485757517523308548/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485776695680540672/



Spotify is sticking with him and it's the main reason why I won't get their service in my new car. Hopefully we'll see more come out and take a stand like this.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I don't think Neil Young is going to care either.  He didn't exactly rush to be on Spotify when so many others did, as he wasn't the biggest fan.  So his music being removed is probably going to be something he has to be reminded happened, as he won't give a flip.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485995182000689156/


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I don't think Neil Young is going to care either.  He didn't exactly rush to be on Spotify when so many others did, as he wasn't the biggest fan.  So his music being removed is probably going to be something he has to be reminded happened, as he won't give a flip.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485995182000689156/



Most artists have no power to remove their music from Spotify. They signed contracts that gave all the power to the labels. Neil Young is one of the few with a voice in this situation, so good on him for doing something.


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> Spotify is sticking with him and it's the main reason why I won't get their service in my new car. Hopefully we'll see more come out and take a stand like this.



Also because spotify's sound quality is so bad I can hear the compression from a mile away. It's not even mediocre, it's just bad, that even their superior playlist AI cannot compensate for.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> I don't think Neil Young is going to care either.  He didn't exactly rush to be on Spotify when so many others did, as he wasn't the biggest fan.  So his music being removed is probably going to be something he has to be reminded happened, as he won't give a flip.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1485995182000689156/




Niel Young is comparatively irrelevant on Spotify compared to Joe Rogan.

And I'm no fan of Rogan and his Covid misinformation, but I'm also more than a bit concerned when people are toeing the line that the major pharmaceutical industry.  I wasn't always skeptical on this but when you learn more and time goes on your views should also evolve.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> *Fauci has always been a mouthpiece for the pharmaceutical industry well before covid. * I wasn't always skeptical on this but when you learn more and time goes on your views should also evolve.



Wow. That's a sort of statement that you'd better be ready to back up otherwise you should rescind.  
As exNIH, I can tell you that the NIH comes as close as possible to independence from industry in biomedical research...
So please stop spreading this bullshit narrative by people who are actual mouthpieces of many industries.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Wow. That's a sort of statement that you'd better be ready to back up otherwise you should rescind.
> As exNIH, I can tell you that the NIH comes as close as possible to independence from industry in biomedical research...
> So please stop spreading this bullshit narrative by people who are actual mouthpieces of many industries.




That part rescinded.  I'm not prepared to back it up.  It's a veiw I've heard on multiple progressive podcasts.  I don't listen to Joe Rogan.  I did, but stopped listening to him long before Covid for his tendency to parrot Fox News talking points unquestioned or critical.  

These views I heard on him were from people who said that they had worked with him in the past and that the media is giving him outsized credit for what he actually does and via that so does the general public.  It sounds kind of like a wartime President positioning themself as a military genius even though they've never served.  Maybe that was said out of career jealousy.  I dunno.

Do you have any issues with Fauci?


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> That part rescinded.  I'm not prepared to back it up.  It's a veiw I've heard on multiple progressive podcasts.  I don't listen to Joe Rogan.  I did, but stopped listening to him long before Covid for his tendency to parrot Fox News talking points unquestioned or critical.
> 
> These views I heard on him were from people who said that they had worked with him in the past and that the media is giving him outsized credit for what he actually does and via that so does the general public.  It sounds kind of like a wartime President positioning themself as a military genius even though they've never served.  Maybe that was said out of career jealousy.  I dunno.
> 
> *Do you have any issues with Fauci?*



None. The only issue I have is that his advice is bastardized by the right and those who aren't qualified to make any real medical decisions. If you want to take up issue with the pharmaceutical industry I think that's fair play, but to beat down Fauci for recommending proper measures and medications is disingenuous.

The biggest takeaway with people like Rogan, Fox News, etc., is they question experts in their fields for a political point, or because they don't want to get vaccinated. If 99.9% of doctors said you were going to die in 3 months from cancer unless you get treatment, you're going to get treated by said experts.

This post has a very pro-Rogan vibe to it, he has the ear of a lot of people out there and it's a shame. He's an idiot meatball of a comedian who promoted horse dewormers and snake oil to his ignorant masses. IMO he should be pulled off the air and prosecuted for negligent homicide.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> That part rescinded.  I'm not prepared to back it up.  It's a veiw I've heard on multiple progressive podcasts.  I don't listen to Joe Rogan.  I did, but stopped listening to him long before Covid for his tendency to parrot Fox News talking points unquestioned or critical.
> 
> These views I heard on him were from people who said that they had worked with him in the past and that the media is giving him outsized credit for what he actually does and via that so does the general public.  It sounds kind of like a wartime President positioning themself as a military genius even though they've never served.  Maybe that was said out of career jealousy.  I dunno.
> 
> Do you have any issues with Fauci?



The reason I get extremely pissed about this is shit is parroted by people with clear financial conflict of interest, by virtue of Fauci-hate producing views/clicks. NIH employees can't accept pharma dinners, gifts, I even had to give up on $100 range proceedings from book chapters I've written after weeks of back and fourth with ethics. When you read a paper, you'll read the conflict of interest disclosure statements of scientists, and guess who can't have those. The ones at NIH. And about these statements, there was recently this guy at at very famous cancer institution who was sacked after it turned out he forgot to disclose a few millions. So yeah, you can end one's career just reporting undisclosed COI. NIH is not a perfect place, but calling it corrupt is despicable when their anticorruption policies are many many layers stricter than any other institution I know. 

Which takes us to Fauci. At his level, people will make a lot of enemies and being 30+ years there this guy's an expert navigating these, i.e. a politician. Fauci never practicing?! The guy is the co-editor of the standard internal medicine textbook of the west (Harrison's). I think people are just unaware how insanely productive Fauci is even if the productivity at the level above rookie comes from collaborations and help from junior people. 





Fallibility is a different topic, and his is definitely not infallible. Being tasked to provide opinions when there is no data means you are exposed to situations where you'll be inherently wrong and people are clueless about this. His early recommendations people giving him heat about were supported by the scientific data available, the stuff that I was following extremely closely then. I'll add that if it wasn't the very streamlined work at Fauci's institution identifying a target for a vaccine, we wouldn't have the best COVID vaccine that exists in the world at the present, the Moderna vaccine. So people should really give some credit to this guy rather than threatening him and his family with murder.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> He's an idiot meatball of a comedian who promoted horse dewormers




No he didn't and even CNN's expert medical reporter admitted under pressure that, that was a lie on their part.  

But in the spirit of this topic, and if we are going to be completely honest, it's about the danger of spreading general information that can easily, and most likely, be mistranslated into something that is completely wrong.  I agree that is a major issue that should be avoided.  If there's a good chance that people are going to go the wrong route with limited detailed knowledge then don't put it out there.

My only question is, there are probably all kinds of medications that have human versions and veterinary versions.  Which side was pushing the veterinary version on this one?  Was it the right out of lazy ignorance or the left trying to make them look like idiots?  I'm not saying I have the answer.

...but I know that probably isn't the point of this thread and there may not be room for this kind of conversation here.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> No he didn't and even CNN's expert medical reporter admitted under pressure that, that was a lie on their part.





> This post has a very pro-Rogan vibe to it.




Thank you for making my point, he was all over the internet promoting every alternative under the sun. Yet you want to nitpick over a disagreement in the weeds touted by right wingers. He has your ear, that much is clear, what I don't get is why you simply don't admit it, is it just not Fox News/right wing friendly enough for you here?


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> If there's a good chance that people are going to go the wrong route with limited detailed knowledge then don't put it out there.



Sorry, but this is some stupid shit circulated by dumb fucks. If we don't have PPE and you are tasked to orient demand where it is the most justified, i.e. preventing gen pop from syphoning away PPE from hospitals then maybe you need to say something about it. Just because a fucking lie is repeated 1202349348938 times it's still a dumb fucking lie and I'm really losing my patience about this shit. 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> My only question is, there are probably all kinds of medications that have human versions and veterinary versions.  Which side was pushing the veterinary version on this one?  Was it the right out of lazy ignorance or the left trying to make them look like idiots?  I'm not saying I have the answer.
> 
> ...but I know that probably isn't the point of this thread and there may not be room for this kind of conversation here.



People were literally buying up the veterinary formulations of a drug flaunted as the alternative of vaccinations but even the very low quality supportive evidence put it in the range of like 20x lower efficacy than prevention by vaccination. 

Can we stop regurgitating stupid shit?


----------



## Eric

P_X said:


> Sorry, but this is some stupid shit circulated by dumb fucks. If we don't have PPE and you are tasked to orient demand where it is the most justified, i.e. preventing gen pop from syphoning away PPE from hospitals then maybe you need to say something about it. Just because a fucking lie is repeated 1202349348938 times it's still a dumb fucking lie and I'm really losing my patience about this shit.
> 
> 
> People were literally buying up the veterinary formulations of a drug flaunted as the alternative of vaccinations but even the very low quality supportive evidence put it in the range of like 20x lower efficacy than prevention by vaccination.
> 
> *Can we stop regurgitating stupid shit?*



Some of these people can't be reasoned with, as is the case here.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> The reason I get extremely pissed about this is shit is parroted by people with clear financial conflict of interest, by virtue of Fauci-hate producing views/clicks. NIH employees can't accept pharma dinners, gifts, I even had to give up on $100 range proceedings from book chapters I've written after weeks of back and fourth with ethics. When you read a paper, you'll read the conflict of interest disclosure statements of scientists, and guess who can't have those. The ones at NIH. And about these statements, there was recently this guy at at very famous cancer institution who was sacked after it turned out he forgot to disclose a few millions. So yeah, you can end one's career just reporting undisclosed COI. NIH is not a perfect place, but calling it corrupt is despicable when their anticorruption policies are many many layers stricter than any other institution I know.
> 
> Which takes us to Fauci. At his level, people will make a lot of enemies and being 30+ years there this guy's an expert navigating these, i.e. a politician. Fauci never practicing?! The guy is the co-editor of the standard internal medicine textbook of the west (Harrison's). I think people are just unaware how insanely productive Fauci is even if the productivity at the level above rookie comes from collaborations and help from junior people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallibility is a different topic, and his is definitely not infallible. Being tasked to provide opinions when there is no data means you are exposed to situations where you'll be inherently wrong and people are clueless about this. His early recommendations people giving him heat about were supported by the scientific data available, the stuff that I was following extremely closely then. I'll add that if it wasn't the very streamlined work at Fauci's institution identifying a target for a vaccine, we wouldn't have the best COVID vaccine that exists in the world at the present, the Moderna vaccine. So people should really give some credit to this guy rather than threatening him and his family with murder.




Thanks for sharing that information and your experience. I don’t question any of it. I just take issue with a belief in or need for absolutes, one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, not willing to even entertain the possibility that even 1% of the opposing view is a valid point. I’m sure me even just saying that now probably pisses some people off based on this specific topic and like I said in a previous post, there may not be room for that type of discussion in this thread.  Which is fine.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> Sorry, but this is some stupid shit circulated by dumb fucks. If we don't have PPE and you are tasked to orient demand where it is the most justified, i.e. preventing gen pop from syphoning away PPE from hospitals then maybe you need to say something about it. Just because a fucking lie is repeated 1202349348938 times it's still a dumb fucking lie and I'm really losing my patience about this shit.
> 
> 
> People were literally buying up the veterinary formulations of a drug flaunted as the alternative of vaccinations but even the very low quality supportive evidence put it in the range of like 20x lower efficacy than prevention by vaccination.
> 
> Can we stop regurgitating stupid shit?




Sounds like some of these “completely useless” or “unproven” “alternatives” are successfully being used as supplements in treatment. Is that incorrect? Sincere question. I’m not disputing that they shouldn’t be used as an alternative to vaccinations. I’m disputing that they are completely useless in any capacity. But again, I’m asking. I’m not saying this with any authority.

And honestly, I’m trying to have a discussion here. I’m not trying to piss you off. But if that’s all its accomplishing then I’ll bow out.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Thanks for sharing that information and your experience. I don’t question any of it. I just take issue with a belief in or need for absolutes, one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, not willing to even entertain the possibility that even 1% of the opposing view is a valid point. I’m sure me even just saying that now probably pisses some people off based on this specific topic and like I said in a previous post, there may not be room for that type of discussion in this thread.  Which is fine.



You mean to say spreading misinformation and questioning science while touting talking points from a washed up comedian is unacceptable at this site. And you would be right. If it's based in science we'll be happy to discuss but otherwise it will not be tolerated, there are plenty of other sites out there that question our experts, we are not one of them.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Thanks for sharing that information and your experience. I don’t question any of it. I just take issue with a belief in or need for absolutes, one side is 100% right and the other is 100% wrong, not willing to even entertain the possibility that even 1% of the opposing view is a valid point. I’m sure me even just saying that now probably pisses some people off based on this specific topic and like I said in a previous post, there may not be room for that type of discussion in this thread.  Which is fine.



I'm all on board for criticism, but these are topics that were discussed and eviscerated a gazillion times and the only thing that keeps them alive is people profiting financially or politically from perpetuating them.

So when Joe Rogan is told he's a dumb fuck and knows nothing about myocarditis but goes on about it, it's no longer about open discourse it's about propaganda.



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Sounds like some of these “completely useless” or “unproven” “alternatives” are successfully being used as supplements in treatment. Is that incorrect? Sincere question. I’m not disputing that they shouldn’t be used as an alternative to vaccinations. I’m disputing that they are completely useless in any capacity. But again, I’m asking. I’m not saying this with any authority.
> 
> And honestly, I’m trying to have a discussion here. I’m not trying to piss you off. But if that’s all its accomplishing then I’ll bow out.



You need to know the effect size and then design a prospective randomized controlled double blinded study that includes adequate number of patients to answer questions definitively. This shit takes a lot of expertise beyond basic medical training and clinical skills and a lot of money. This is why the stuff with the best evidence have pharma money in it. THe ivermectin studies were done at enthusiastic, but extremely inexperienced investigators at places like Egypt. 

Zinc had some anecdotal evidence in shortening colds, but that's it. I'm not aware of an RCT that evaluated it further. So no, when it comes to evidence-based medicine, evidence takes time and money, but at the end of the day it helps us get rid of voodoo shit.


----------



## SuperMatt

Here’s a discussion to pursue: why do people believe a middling stand-up comic who got fame on a stupid gross-out show instead of Dr. Fauci, who was instrumental in helping get the AIDS epidemic under control?

People wouldn’t take their car to a comedian to get the transmission repaired. But they take medical advice from one? I just don’t get it. I guess I should have pursued a career as a snake oil salesman. It’s quite lucrative and requires no actual education or knowledge.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I'll just leave here, how it mystifies me people in droves turn up for gems like this...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486380134873534464/



> Spotify's Joe Rogan and guest Jordan Peterson suggest Michael Eric Dyson isn't really Black
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediamatters.org





> JOE ROGAN (HOST): What did Michael Eric Dyson call you? A mean, angry white man?
> 
> JORDAN PETERSON (CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST): Yeah. A mean, angry white man.
> 
> ROGAN: Hilarious. You're not mean at all. That's what's dumb about that statement. You're not mean at all.
> 
> PETERSON: I am white -- actually that's a lie too. I am kind of tan. And he was actually not Black, he was sort of brown.
> 
> ROGAN: If you're tan then what the fuck am I. Because I'm darker than you. That's ridiculous.
> 
> PETERSON: Neither of us are white.
> 
> ROGAN: Well, I'm Italian.
> 
> PETERSON: And he was brown, not Black.
> 
> ROGAN: Well, isn't that weird. The Black and white thing is so strange because the shades are such a spectrum of shades of people. Unless you are talking to someone who is like 100% African from the darkest place where they are not wearing any clothes all day and they have developed all of that melanin to protect themselves from the sun, even the term Black is weird. When you use it for people who are literally my color, it becomes very strange.
> 
> PETERSON: Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is true.




Just two White guys chilling, deciding who's Black & what that means.

Because the guy maybe nice to Rogan or what Rogan has seen, it MUST mean that Peterson can't be mean.  Especially not to someone else, or even worse a critic of his.


----------



## SuperMatt

JayMysteri0 said:


> I'll just leave here, how it mystifies me people in droves turn up for gems like this...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486380134873534464/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just two White guys chilling, deciding who's Black & what that means.



He knows who his audience is. He should headline the next “Unite the White” rally.


----------



## JayMysteri0

SuperMatt said:


> He knows who his audience is. He should headline the next “Unite the White” rally.



I believe there is a logistics issue in convincing Chappelle to go on with him.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Some of these people can't be reasoned with, as is the case here.




I've admitted ignorance and that I've possibly been misguided, corrected myself, and welcomed new information I was unaware of several times in this thread.  So what's your issue here, that I can continue to post and ask more questions?  What would satisfy you?


----------



## JayMysteri0

A quick aside about the NOT mean guy chilling with Joe discussing who's Black, and how weird it's called that.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486328060538466311/


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Here’s a discussion to pursue: why do people believe a middling stand-up comic who got fame on a stupid gross-out show instead of Dr. Fauci, who was instrumental in helping get the AIDS epidemic under control?
> 
> People wouldn’t take their car to a comedian to get the transmission repaired. But they take medical advice from one? I just don’t get it. I guess I should have pursued a career as a snake oil salesman. It’s quite lucrative and requires no actual education or knowledge.




Honestly I think it’s because he does manly stuff and the right feels they converted him from liberalism, you know, like Donald Trump, and therefor an expert on everything else too. Although I’d argue Joe is way more manly than Trump and entertains multiple viewpoints. But this Covid thing seems to be a one side low for him, and it’s just perpetuating itself through pressure. It’s probably an ego thing that he feels he needs to double down on “experts” and not be lumped in with the willfully and politically motivated ignorant.

There might also be some kind of Manchin/Sinema new national ridicule attention spite thing going on here "Oh, you don't like what I'm doing?  I'm just going to do it more now."


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Honestly I think it’s because he does manly stuff and the right feels they converted him from liberalism, you know, like Donald Trump, and therefor an expert on everything else too. Although I’d argue Joe is way more manly than Trump and entertains multiple viewpoints. But this Covid thing seems to be a one side low for him, and it’s just perpetuating itself through pressure. It’s probably an ego thing that he feels he needs to double down on “experts” and not be lumped in with the willfully and politically motivated ignorant.
> 
> There might also be some kind of Manchin/Sinema new national ridicule attention spite thing going on here "Oh, you don't like what I'm doing?  I'm just going to do it more now."



Another way to say this is that people feel he is part of their tribe.

Are we devolving as a species? It seems a majority of people toss out millennia of human progress in science and technology and rush to quacks offering superstition instead of science.

I cannot stand folks like Rogan. They act like they know it all, and discredit people with decades of experience in their fields. They are detrimental to humanity.


----------



## Edd

Like they did with HRC, right wing media has successfully vilified Fauci. That toothpaste will never go back in the tube. Half the country will never believe a word he says, no matter how reasonable and provable it is. He represents science, which is bad.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> I'll just leave here, how it mystifies me people in droves turn up for gems like this...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486380134873534464/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just two White guys chilling, deciding who's Black & what that means.
> 
> Because the guy maybe nice to Rogan or what Rogan has seen, it MUST mean that Peterson can't be mean.  Especially not to someone else, or even worse a critic of his.



*"2022 AD: Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson discover that race is a societal construct and skin color is a continuous, non-binary variable."*

Jokes aside, this conversation excerpt is incredibly disturbing (and racist). Especially when Rogan says "from the darkest place (sic!) where people are not wearing any clothes", so living in huts is a criterion to be considered black that I apparently missed out on when the last time some college kids told me they'll kill this N tonight. Maybe I missed out on some smart retort explaining them that my being hypomelanistic and dressed disqualifies me from the racial abuse?! (Not that I took it to heart, but come on...). 

For the US right, I can just switch black to jewish and ask them whether they'd question whether someone qualified as being jewish in the same conversation? (The far right where I grew up would just laugh and say, sure).


----------



## JayMysteri0

Neil Young is as good as his word

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486449675217604612/

Of course, when framed like that , really not the best look for Spotify.

"Vaccine misinformation or an artist?  We're going with the vaccine misinformation."


----------



## JayMysteri0

One more return to Rogan & Petersen's exchange so we can appreciate the brain power that could barely power a 1 watt bulb.



> Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan Talking About Climate Change Will Make Your Brain Dissolve
> 
> 
> The big boys had a big thinky about climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gizmodo.com





> Rogan starts the exchange by mentioning he’s reading a book about climate change, which he describes as “intense” and “requiring a lot of thinking” and that he’s looking into criticisms of climate science from “both sides” (uh, that’s not… a thing). “The climate change one is a weird one,” he concludes.
> 
> Peterson responds with some of the most pure, unadulterated nonsense I’ve heard in some time:





> PETERSON: Well, that’s ‘cause there’s no such thing as climate. Right? “Climate” and “everything” are the same word, and that’s what bothers me about the climate change types. It’s like, this is something that bothers me about it, technically. It’s like, climate is about everything. Okay. But your models aren’t based on everything. Your models are based on a set number of variables. So that means you’ve reduced the variables, which are everything, to that set. Well how did you decide which set of variables to include in the equation, if it’s about everything? That’s not just a criticism, that’s like, if it’s about everything, your models aren’t right. Because your models do not and cannot model everything.
> 
> ROGAN: What do you mean by everything?
> 
> PETERSON: That’s what people who talk about the climate apocalypse claim, in some sense. We have to change everything! It’s like, everything, eh? The same with the word environment. That word means so much that it doesn’t mean anything. … What’s the difference between the environment and everything? There’s no difference.





> For the next several minutes, as they continue this frankly bonkers conversation with all the seriousness of libertarian college students at debate club, Peterson also claimed that climate models are untrustworthy because of errors he said “compound over time,” which means, apparently, the models are “all errors.” Trying to predict what’s going to happen with the climate, he said, is analogous to trying to “predict how your life goes.” He also said that poor people are the real reason for climate change (??); that solar power is more deadly than nuclear because people fall off roofs during installation (???); and that fracking hasn’t polluted any water supplies (????).









> Unfortunately, people like Peterson are some of Rogan’s favorites to platform, and this interview underlines the true issues with his “I-like-to-hear-both-sides” approach. Despite Peterson having absolutely no official expertise in climate change or science whatsoever, Rogan makes basically zero effort to question any of these wild assertions or correct course when Peterson begins pulling in the parable of the ant and the grasshopper as well as 1930s Weimar Germany to talk about why climate models suck (??????).
> 
> Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised, because Rogan’s last “climate” guest was a guy who thinks the world goes through cyclical stages of changing climate. His bio reads that he is “a master builder and architectural designer, teacher, geometrician, geomythologist, geological explorer and renegade scholar.” Weirdly, Rogan hasn’t had any actual _scientists_ on his show recently to talk about climate change. But yes, both sides. Sure.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> One more return to Rogan & Petersen's exchange so we can appreciate the brain power that could barely power a 1 watt bulb.



Again. JR talks like someone who has marginal cognitive functioning.
JP is much smarter, but he is pandering to his alt right younglings. JP is a psychologist so he actually understands the issues and limitations of using models, so on his end the reasoning is dishonest (and lazy).

I'll peace out of this thread, JR and his guests definitely don't deserve my time or attention.
The more shit he produces, the more attention he gets the more he is to stay. Just ignore him.


----------



## SuperMatt

Too many people choose #2 for some reason.


----------



## Edd

So Young was asking them to deal with the misinformation, not pull Rogan altogether. And Spotify wouldn’t do that? Like an audio warning may suffice perhaps.

“Joe Rogan lies sometimes”.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> Too many people choose #2 for some reason.




I don't remember when this started or by who, but remember when politics got distilled down to "Who would you rather sit down and have a beer with?"?  Apply that here while also realizing who you are asking that question to.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> Yes, but, like I have been telling people, I would love to go for a beer with Borris. It would be a crazy night and we would probably stumble out of a casino at 8 am the next morning, blinking at the sunshine with sheepish grins. (Casinos in London are one of the few places where one can purchase drinks after about 3 am on a weeknight). That does not mean I trust him to run a country. If you want to put people in charge based on that criteria, then you have a serious fucking problem.
> 
> As for this whole Spotify and JR shit,I’ll repost what I posted elsewhere. i do recommend perusing through the related article and 1000+ comments on arstechnics, to see typical JR fans and what they believe.
> 
> ..context blah blah.
> However, considering that around 800,000 people are dead in the US because of a pandemic, it is not responsible to spread misinformation that can cause further suffering and deaths. Likewise, he spreads climate change misinformation. Data shows us heading straight into a climate disaster that will have consequences far beyond this pandemic.
> 
> It is one thing to have opinions on things, whether they are based on facts, or on unicorns and make-believe. But it is another when you are a public figure with such a reach and influence. It is irresponsible to spread your agenda based on your opinions, especially when your message reaches millions of people.
> 
> Whether he does this for the ratings and the popularity, since this is an easy train to hop onboard in our modern world, I am not sure. But it does not really matter and, either way, I think "irresponsible" does not really convey the gravity of the situation. I think "criminal" would be more apt.




There seems to be a high percentage of people on the right who don't want people smarter than them running things.  They want people are just as dumb as they are, at minimum.  Dumb is folksy.  Smart is elitist.  

Honestly I think all this noise is just going to end with Joe having even more listeners.  People are going to check it out just to look into the controversy.   I also think corrupt corporatist media has a vendetta against independent news or content creators who are a lot more successful than they are.  There's a good chance we wouldn't even know about this if that vendetta wasn't there.  I think it's going to backfire and bring Joe even more success.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> No he didn't and even CNN's expert medical reporter admitted under pressure that, that was a lie on their part.
> 
> But in the spirit of this topic, and if we are going to be completely honest, it's about the danger of spreading general information that can easily, and most likely, be mistranslated into something that is completely wrong.  I agree that is a major issue that should be avoided.  If there's a good chance that people are going to go the wrong route with limited detailed knowledge then don't put it out there.
> 
> My only question is, there are probably all kinds of medications that have human versions and veterinary versions.  Which side was pushing the veterinary version on this one?  Was it the right out of lazy ignorance or the left trying to make them look like idiots?  I'm not saying I have the answer.
> 
> ...but I know that probably isn't the point of this thread and there may not be room for this kind of conversation here.




Would love to know why this post was labeled as containing false information?




P_X said:


> I'm all on board for criticism, but these are topics that were discussed and eviscerated a gazillion times and the only thing that keeps them alive is people profiting financially or politically from perpetuating them.
> 
> So when Joe Rogan is told he's a dumb fuck and knows nothing about myocarditis but goes on about it, it's no longer about open discourse it's about propaganda.




Want to know what else is dumb as fuck?  CNN spouting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer when they clearly should have known it wasn't true.  Even Sanjay Gupta, their own medical expert, said they shouldn't have said that. 

Want to know why it was dumb?  Because all CNN wanted to do was make Rogan look dumb as opposed to explaining to its viewers why it wasn't effective.  So all they did was give Joe Rogan a talking point.  Probably not a good idea when his podcast has more listeners that you have viewers.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Want to know what else is dumb as fuck?



There's something seriously wrong about your value system. You are trying to place unnecessary banter about an _actual antihelmintic agent_ on the same level of concern as promoting ineffective treatments for a serious *endemic* disease as an alternative of extremely effective prophylactic measures. 

This scratches the bottom of my expectations, even from you.


----------



## AG_PhamD

My theory is that the record label went along with Young in pulling his songs from Spotify figuring it would increase his name in the public consciousness and drive more clicks on the other platforms. When the drama calms down I’m sure he (or the label, more accurately) will be back on Spotify. I’m sure the label, a business, will not sacrifice 60% of their streams in the long run.

I’ve watched bits and pieces of Rogan. He has interviewed some quite interesting and prominent people, including experts all sorts of random topics. Admittedly I have not watched the Malone interview other than a few clips.

When it comes to COVID, I think Rogan is wrong on a quite a lot of stuff- including ivermectin, young/healthy people avoiding vaccines, a fair amount pseudoscience around means of so called “boosting” you’re immune system, etc. Basically objectively wrong stuff. But I also sense people are upset, if not more so, with him asking uncomfortable questions that have murky answers or bringing up information that may contradict current policy.

Here’s the deal- do I like misleading, misinterpreted, false, etc medical information being spread around? No, absolutely not- and I’ve seen the personal consequences of medical misinformation for years. You can go on google and find page after page of absolute hocus pocus BS. And if you want to talk about people with “platforms”, how about Dr. Oz pushing snake oils for years, Oprah having a long career dabbling with junk science, etc. Or even Chris Cuomo’s wife’s blog or whatever on various forms of hocus pocus and bleach baths for COVID prevention?

There are also people in the media who are furious about Rogan who have mislead the public by exaggerating things like risk of COVID to children or creating misleading impressions of hospitalizations by not contextualizing people with COVID who are hospitalized vs people hospitalized for COVID. You can argue exaggeration isn’t as bad, but in the end it can be quite damaging.

And here’s my other critique… why do people believe that Joe Rogan should be a/the accepted voice of medical advice? Honestly, it’s the same level of stupidity to treat other celebrities or cable news hosts of the opposite side of the ideological divide to act as some sort of authority on COVID. It’s a ridiculous fallacy to impart wisdom upon someone just because they are famous or rich or sit behind a camera. If people can’t differentiate who are qualified sources of information, I don’t know what to say, it’s a problem.

I think censorship is a very unhealthy thing. And frankly, censoring just encourages people to seek out what is being censored and then they are all the more willing believe conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. It’s better to be able to debate ideas publicly, especially objectively false ones, so more people will hopefully be persuaded to the truth. And let’s be honest, removing this content is not going to magically persuade people who don’t want to be vaccinated to get vaccinated. Even Donald Trump tacitly promoting vaccines in recent times has probably done little to persuade the antivaxxers of his base. The fact he got booed on stage for even mentioning the vaccines in a positive light is amazing.

And the irony about this misinformation petition is that apparently only 87 of the 270 signatories are medical doctors. Keep in mind there’s almost 1 million practicing physicians in the US. (And before someone whines that I’m insinuating Rogan’s false opinions are valid, that’s not the point I’m making)

All of this is just so stupid.


----------



## User.45

AG_PhamD said:


> I think censorship is a very unhealthy thing. And frankly, censoring just encourages people to seek out what is being censored and then they are all the more willing believe conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. It’s better to be able to debate ideas publicly, especially objectively false ones, so more people will hopefully be persuaded to the truth. And let’s be honest, removing this content is not going to magically persuade people who don’t want to be vaccinated to get vaccinated. Even Donald Trump tacitly promoting vaccines in recent times has probably done little to persuade the antivaxxers of his base. The fact he got booed on stage for even mentioning the vaccines in a positive light is amazing.



Let's not pretend that this whole thing isn't a grift. The common denominator about these showmen is that over the years they sought out the most gullible audiences. People who never do their actual research and don't respect their own time or, their money. These people are really easy to capitalize on and people like JR or JP just do that. This is how you make money off drugs that would be dirt cheap, like HCQ or Ivermectin. 

Personally, I know one of the co-authors of Dr Malone's better cited papers, who's a very grounded and reasonable guy. 
If I cared, I'd just ask him what he thinks about Malone's claims.




AG_PhamD said:


> And the irony about this misinformation petition is that apparently only 87 of the 270 signatories are medical doctors. Keep in mind there’s almost 1 million practicing physicians in the US. (And before someone whines that I’m insinuating Rogan’s false opinions are valid, that’s not the point I’m making)
> 
> All of this is just so stupid.



It's ironic when a PhamD is expecting all 270 people to have MDs. I see 100 PhD/PhD(C)s listed too.


----------



## Thomas Veil

JayMysteri0 said:


> Neil Young is as good as his word
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486449675217604612/
> 
> Of course, when framed like that , really not the best look for Spotify.



They don’t care. Rogan is immensely popular and is exclusive to their platform. As it always does,  wins.


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> I just want to double check I understand the flow of events here...
> 
> JR gets COVID
> JR takes all kind of "treatments" such as Ivermectin and other. Tweets about it
> JR gets better
> JR is on CNN and a CNN anchor mentions "horse dewormer" instead of Ivermectin
> CNN health guy says on JR podcast that he agrees CNN anchor should not have used the words "horse dewormer"
> 
> Is that roughly correct?




Roughly.  Except it wasn't just a "mention" of horse dewormer.  They went all in including this:









						Right-wing media pushed a deworming drug to treat Covid-19 that the FDA says is unsafe for humans
					

Public health officials are aggressively dispelling claims by right-wing media personalities who have been promoting an anti-parasitic drug used for livestock as a potential Covid-19 treatment.




					www.cnn.com
				




If the FDA thinks it is unsafe, why did they approve it as a medication?  Is the base drug also used for deworming horses?  Yes it is.  I have also given my cat Pepto Bismol (that was a fun day), so are people now taking cat antacid?  Of course not.

Here's a fun fact:  All the refugees coming in from Africa are given, wait for it, Ivermectin.  Why are we giving refugees horse dewormer?



P_X said:


> There's something seriously wrong about your value system. You are trying to place unnecessary banter about an _actual antihelmintic agent_ on the same level of concern as promoting ineffective treatments for a serious *endemic* disease as an alternative of extremely effective prophylactic measures.
> 
> This scratches the bottom of my expectations, even from you.




Why?  Because I think the news media has a responsibility to educate its viewers as opposed to trying to make a podcaster look dumb?  Unnecessary banter?  Look at the headline I posted.  They are all in on misinformation about Ivermectin.


----------



## Herdfan

Thomas Veil said:


> They don’t care. Rogan is immensely popular and is exclusive to their platform. As it always does,  wins.




I have posted this before:

 "The answer to all your questions is money".


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> Would love to know why this post was labeled as containing false information?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to know what else is dumb as fuck?  CNN spouting that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer when they clearly should have known it wasn't true.  Even Sanjay Gupta, their own medical expert, said they shouldn't have said that.
> 
> Want to know why it was dumb?  Because all CNN wanted to do was make Rogan look dumb as opposed to explaining to its viewers why it wasn't effective.  So all they did was give Joe Rogan a talking point.  Probably not a good idea when his podcast has more listeners that you have viewers.



CNN doesn't make Joe Rogan look dumb, he does that all on his own. A large part of his audience doesn't care so much about all the COVID stuff, they like that he's a comedian with a show, a lot like Howard Stern hated Trump yet still never lost his supporters. The fact that he smokes weed and touts a lot of leftwing talking points while having the support of people like you and Fox News only bolsters that point.

But when it comes to this issue he's shown himself to be reckless in every way, when he got sick and made all those crazy videos about demanding every alternative treatment under the sun, with the exception of the vaccine, only showed just how fucking stupid the guy actually is.

Enjoy his podcast for a laugh but the guy is a clueless meatball.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Why?  Because I think the news media has a responsibility to educate its viewers as opposed to trying to make a podcaster look dumb?



Well, this is bold coming from someone who frequently posts and repeats talking points from Fox.
Rogan doesn't need anybody to make him seem dumb.


Herdfan said:


> Unnecessary banter?  Look at the headline I posted.  They are all in on misinformation about Ivermectin.



You gave yourself away here. When you only read the headlines as you usually do, but you feel entitled to criticize the media for clickbaity headlines, you sorta give up on the moral high ground to demand them to be accurate. But let's do this:




*Did RW media push ivermectin to treat COVID-19?* Yes.
*Is it a deworming drug?* Yes, it is.
*Is it an anti-parasitic drug?* Yes it is.
*Is it used for livestock?* Yes it is. I've only seen it being used as a topical delicer for humans.
*Did the FDA say it's unsafe?* I don't recall the exact wording, but the FDA generally considers off-label therapies that lack sufficient preliminary evidence to treat a potentially life-threatening are unsafe. They did state there's insufficient evidence. I actually spent 4 hours in the summer to review ALL the supportive evidence for Ivermectin and it was indeed inadequate.
*Is it directly toxic for humans?* There can be if dosed incorrectly, especially the veterinary formulations (that I suspect have much greater availability).
*Are there indirect safety concerns for humans? *Definitely when people push it as alternative to evidence-based therapies.
*Did public health officials try to aggressively dispel claims from RW talking heads? *Definitely.

Anything else?


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Anything else?




Was it initially developed for use in humans?  Yes or no?


----------



## Eric

theSeb said:


> He actually says that's he's just a dumb ape whilst utilising the "I am just asking questions" shtick, as popularised by Limbaugh.
> 
> I am not sure whether he plays dumb and self-deprecates on purpose, or whether it's a learned mechanism that he has realised works over time, but it's a well known technique to garner support to appear humble and make the speaker more relatable to the listener.



He doesn't just play dumb...


----------



## Herdfan

Eric said:


> The fact that he smokes weed and touts a lot of leftwing talking points while having the support of people like you and Fox News only bolsters that point.




TBH, other than seeing one of his comedy specials and possibly hearing him on a random UFC broadcast, I don't listen to him.

But I am pretty sure given his status and wealth, that he didn't take horse dewormer.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> TBH, other than seeing one of his comedy specials and possibly hearing him on a random UFC broadcast, I don't listen to him.
> 
> *But I am pretty sure given his status and wealth, that he didn't take horse dewormer.*



If nothing else, wealth plays no role in equity when it comes to this virus. The vaccine and horse dewormers can be had by rich or poor alike, it's one of the few things in the world where one's personal choice is not based around money (at least in first world countries). This post doesn't make sense, Herdfan.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Was it initially developed for use in humans?  Yes or no?



Sweaty attempt to move the goal posts. 99.9% of drugs are developed for humans. Not 99.9% drugs are safe for humans.
By this implied logic, we should just hand out chemotherapy drugs over the counter to everybody.

Now you tell me, which one is much worse? Factually correct clickbaity titles or factually incorrect clickbaity titles?


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> He actually says that's he's just a dumb ape whilst utilising the "I am just asking questions" shtick, as popularised by Limbaugh.
> 
> I am not sure whether he plays dumb and self-deprecates on purpose, or whether it's a learned mechanism that he has realised works over time, but it's a well known technique to garner support to appear humble and make the speaker more relatable to the listener.





Politics aside, Joe has always been a supplement meathead, constantly trying to formulate the perfect pot/shrooms/hunted meat combo for maximum efficiency and performance. He’d probably smoke or inject anything that grows in the ground or runs across a field if an “expert” nudged him in that direction. He’s a big fan of “occurs in nature”. He’d probably come to his same conclusions even if Covid was a just as deadly but rare virus.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> Sweaty attempt to move the goal posts. 99.9% of drugs are developed for humans. Not 99.9% drugs are safe for humans.
> By this implied logic, we should just hand out chemotherapy drugs over the counter to everybody.
> 
> Now you tell me, which one is much worse? Factually correct clickbaity titles or factually incorrect clickbaity titles?




No, what I am saying is a Top 5 news organization should not be calling a drug medically indicated for use in humans for parasitic infections a horse dewormer.  What happens when a person is diagnosed with one of these parasitic infections and their doctor prescribes Ivermectin, but they won't take it because CNN called it a horse dewormer?

That is 100% irresponsible journalism.  I would have had no problem with CNN doing a story on why people shouldn't take it.  That is their job.  But instead they simply wanted to make Rogan and people on the right who were clamoring for it look stupid.  

I can't believe that you, as a medical professional, are OK with this.



theSeb said:


> *Did people rush out to buy Ivermectin and when they could not get it at pharmacies started buying the farm animal dewormer versions?* - Yes




Sadly, yes they did.  But again, had the media done their job explaining the situation as opposed to just wanting to score points, people would have been informed enough to not do this.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> No, what I am saying is a Top 5 news organization should not be calling a drug medically indicated for use in humans for parasitic infections a horse dewormer.  What happens when a person is diagnosed with one of these parasitic infections and their doctor prescribes Ivermectin, but they won't take it because CNN called it a horse dewormer?
> 
> That is 100% irresponsible journalism.  I would have had no problem with CNN doing a story on why people shouldn't take it.  That is their job.  But instead they simply wanted to make Rogan and people on the right who were clamoring for it look stupid.
> 
> I can't believe that you, as a medical professional, are OK with this.




You really have no shame, do you?

To be frank I've always considered you a mystery.  I think I know you enough by now to know you're not trolling, but I still can't decide if you really have this little sense of proportion/relevance, or if you are really _this_ misguided. One thing is certain, I would be ashamed of myself if I were contradicted as many times as you've been here.

Let's put it in perspective. We have a pandemic that killed every 400th American, we have a preventative intervention that reduces the risk of dying from the disease by 95%. Yet we have more than 50,000,000 Americans who aren't willing to get this intervention largely due to disinformation and the false belief in unproven drugs. We have the top public health experts in the world fighting disinformation tooth and nail in exchange for death threats that include their children and spouses.

Yet we have you here belaboring this point about the adequacy of calling a drug horse dewormer that isn't only primarily used as a veterinary antihelmintic, but due to the shortage, people are actually using the veterinary formulations which are by definition not human drugs.

Your fake concerns disgust me about this insultingly ridiculous hypothetical scenario of a doctor having difficult time prescribing 3rd-line ivermectin (after albendazole and mebendazole) for non-endemic diseases because CNN referred to it as horse dewormer. The real-life scenario is doctors desperately trying to convince people to get vaccinated and prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths a day and have to outcompete the Joe Rogans in the process.

You are shameless and unworthy of anybody's time.


---------


theSeb said:


> No. It was discovered to have interesting effects in mice back in the early 70s
> 
> 
> 
> People often go on about big pharma and its evils, but one has to stop and think when the company that invented the stuff (Merck) and stood to profit from it even further during the epidemic announced that there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19



Fun fact, that a lot of times these drug repurposing data come from serendipitous discoveries, where the small animal lab has a roundworm infestation and the animals treated with the dewormers show a remarkable resistance to the disease studied in the lab. Interestingly researchers design clinical trials to test the hypotheses, rather than starting to prescribe it to everyone left and right.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

P_X said:


> You really have no shame, do you?
> 
> To be frank I've always considered you a mystery.  I think I know you enough by now to know you're not trolling, but I still can't decide if you really have this little sense of proportion/relevance, or if you are really _this_ misguided. One thing is certain, I would be ashamed of myself if I were contradicted as many times as you've been here.
> 
> Let's put it in perspective. We have a pandemic that killed every 400th American, we have a preventative intervention that reduces the risk of dying from the disease by 95%. Yet we have more than 50,000,000 Americans who aren't willing to get this intervention largely due to disinformation and the false belief in unproven drugs. We have the top public health experts in the world fighting disinformation tooth and nail in exchange for death threats that include their children and spouses.
> 
> Yet we have you here belaboring this point about the adequacy of calling a drug horse dewormer that isn't only primarily used as a veterinary antihelmintic, but due to the shortage, people are actually using the veterinary formulations which are by definition not human drugs.
> 
> Your fake concerns disgust me about this insultingly ridiculous hypothetical scenario of a doctor having difficult time prescribing 3rd-line ivermectin (after albendazole and mebendazole) for non-endemic diseases because CNN referred to it as horse dewormer. The real-life scenario is doctors desperately trying to convince people to get vaccinated and prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths a day and have to outcompete the Joe Rogans in the process.
> 
> You are shameless and unworthy of anybody's time.
> 
> 
> ---------
> 
> Fun fact, that a lot of times these drug repurposing data come from serendipitous discoveries, where the small animal lab has a roundworm infestation and the animals treated with the dewormers show a remarkable resistance to the disease studied in the lab. Interestingly researchers design clinical trials to test the hypotheses, rather than starting to prescribe it to everyone left and right.




I know this wasn’t aimed at me but have incurred similar wrath and disdain in this thread. I also corrected when given better information or counter to disinformation.

I think I posted in another thread that there was a day at my work when a couple of anti-vaxxers were mumbling about the possible impending mandate and how it might impact their job situation. Their objections were peppered with Fox News talking points like there just isn’t enough data yet and people were dying from getting the vaccine. After a couple minutes of back and forth I abruptly cut things off with “Just get vaccinated!” I was in no position to do that and my reaction was possibly outsized for the tone of the discussion, but I had it. Just do the bare minimum and get vaccinated FFS. Then maybe we can discuss everything else you’ve heard.

I assume most, if not all, of the members of this forum are fully vaccinated and probably got boosters, including myself. And not as a dig on this forum, but it’s hardly the place that’s going to potentially influence millions (or thousands…hundreds?...tens?). I didn’t see discussing alternative information as some big threat like it’s going to get out into the world like, well, a virus. I feel like the anger is coming more from a place of general exhaustion similar to when you are on the 6th tier of a tech support call and all 6 asked you the same fucking questions.

For my part I think I saw this thread as an opportunity to discuss alternative information and, hell, new information. Why this thread? You can actually listen to the episode that is getting the most heat and confirm or disprove what is said point by point. But I realize that is probably asking a bit much and violates the spirit of this thread which is to just rally against Rogan, or at least that’s what I realize now. Some threads feel more like you’re signing a petition than welcoming debate.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I know this wasn’t aimed at me but have incurred similar wrath and disdain in this thread. I also corrected when given better information or counter to disinformation.
> 
> I think I posted in another thread that there was a day at my work when a couple of anti-vaxxers were mumbling about the possible impending mandate and how it might impact their job situation. Their objections were peppered with Fox News talking points like there just isn’t enough data yet and people were dying from getting the vaccine. After a couple minutes of back and forth I abruptly cut things off with “Just get vaccinated!” I was in no position to do that and my reaction was possibly outsized for the tone of the discussion, but I had it. Just do the bare minimum and get vaccinated FFS. Then maybe we can discuss everything else you’ve heard.
> 
> I assume most, if not all, of the members of this forum are fully vaccinated and probably got boosters, including myself. And not as a dig on this forum, but it’s hardly the place that’s going to potentially influence millions (or thousands…hundreds?...tens?). I didn’t see discussing alternative information as some big threat like it’s going to get out into the world like, well, a virus. I feel like the anger is coming more from a place of general exhaustion similar to when you are on the 6th tier of a tech support call and all 6 asked you the same fucking questions.



That's absolutely not my point. Disinformation killed tens of thousands of people last year.  My point is to stop rewarding disinformers with our attention. 



Chew Toy McCoy said:


> For my part I think I saw this thread as an opportunity to discuss alternative information and, hell, new information. Why this thread? You can actually listen to the episode that is getting the most heat and confirm or disprove what is said point by point. But I realize that is probably asking a bit much and violates the spirit of this thread which is to just rally against Rogan, or at least that’s what I realize now. Some threads feel more like you’re signing a petition than welcoming debate.




Well, all I can say if we need Joe Rogan to learn new information, then we are fucked.


----------



## Edd

This is not the only forum I've seen outrage over the CNN / horse dewormer story.  The reaction is so far out of whack and largely coming from Fox News watchers, who are fed a steady diet of FAR, FAR, more damaging information from Fox.

Ivermectin doesn't need defenders.  It's of no use to us in this pandemic.  Vaccines are, and need all the supporters they can get.  That CNN fucked up that story is of no consequence at all.


----------



## Hrafn

P_X said:


> That's absolutely not my point. Disinformation killed tens of thousands of people last year.  My point is to stop rewarding disinformers with our attention.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all I can say if we need Joe Rogan to learn new information, then we are fucked.



Hey guys!  I just found proof that the earth is flat and big foot exists.  Can we discuss without disdain?


----------



## JayMysteri0

Hrafn said:


> Hey guys!  I just found proof that the earth is flat and big foot exists.  Can we discuss without disdain?


----------



## JayMysteri0

While the rumor of Barry Manilow pulling his music from Spotify is NOT true, the same can't be said about the great Joni Mitchell



> Joni Mitchell to pull music from Spotify over Joe Rogan COVID misinfo
> 
> 
> Neil Young removed his music from the service in protest of Joe Rogan’s vaccine misinformation, prompting the hashtag #spotifydeleted to trend on social media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.smh.com.au





> Joni Mitchell said she’s pulling her music from Spotify following a similar move by Neil Young, while Barry Manilow said he’s keeping his on the streaming service amid rumours he was also removing his songs.
> 
> Mitchell said she was standing by Young, who accused podcaster Joe Rogan of spreading vaccine misinformation on his show distributed by Spotify.




For both these artists there isn't any real financial hit, having their music available on Spotify really meant it was available for possible new audiences.  Still, it will be an interesting trend if this grows.  For many artists as Aloe Blacc pointed out on the Daily Show, being on Spotify isn't any kind of financial windfall for the majority of artists on the platform.  The biggest thing they do on the platform maybe making a show of leaving it for personal reasons.


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> While the rumor of Barry Manilow pulling his music from Spotify is NOT true, the same can't be said about the great Joni Mitchell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For both these artists there isn't any real financial hit, having their music available on Spotify really meant it was available for possible new audiences.  Still, it will be an interesting trend if this grows.  For many artists as Aloe Blacc pointed out on the Daily Show, being on Spotify isn't any kind of financial windfall for the majority of artists on the platform.  The biggest thing they do on the platform maybe making a show of leaving it for personal reasons.



Good on Joni. My respect grew a lot for these two people. We need one more artist pull their discography and it will become a movement. 

And just to prove that im not the one who dislikes spotifys sound









						Neil Young was fed up with Spotify’s ‘shitty’ sound quality anyway | Engadget
					

The musician 'felt better' after his music was removed from the platform this week..




					www.engadget.com


----------



## Edd

I'm at work and my wife just texted about switching from Spotify to Apple because of this.  I tried to get her to switch awhile back but she wouldn't.  Of course, I've built up alot of music since on Spotify.  Thanks Joe Rogan?


----------



## SuperMatt

Edd said:


> I'm at work and my wife just texted about switching from Spotify to Apple because of this.  I tried to get her to switch awhile back but she wouldn't.  Of course, I've built up alot of music since on Spotify.  Thanks Joe Rogan?



Interesting to see that it is having a negative effect on Spotify. I remember people were upset and wanted Howard Stern off the air back in the day, but that was because he is vulgar. He wasn’t promoting dangerous quackery.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Further



> Spotify support buckles under complaints from angry Neil Young fans
> 
> 
> Young: Spotify represents 60 percent of my streams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> arstechnica.com




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487445711918546944/

I wonder if in the long run, he will be worth it?  For now Spotify has to stay the course and hope this all blows over.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> That's absolutely not my point. Disinformation killed tens of thousands of people last year.  My point is to stop rewarding disinformers with our attention.




Yet, by CNN jumping on the "horse dewormer" bandwagon, they have given way more attention to this issue than they should have. 

All I am saying, and I can't really believe anyone would disagree, is that CNN has a duty to present facts.  Calling what Joe Rogan took a horse dewormer is factually incorrect.  ( I do make the assumption that what Rogan took is the actual version for humans).

They had a great opportunity to educate their viewers, but instead took easy path to try and generate clicks.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> *Yet, by CNN jumping on the "horse dewormer" bandwagon, they have given way more attention to this issue than they should have.*
> 
> All I am saying, and I can't really believe anyone would disagree, is that CNN has a duty to present facts.  Calling what Joe Rogan took a horse dewormer is factually incorrect.  ( I do make the assumption that what Rogan took is the actual version for humans).
> 
> They had a great opportunity to educate their viewers, but instead took easy path to try and generate clicks.



I thought we were obsessed with Fox News but you're making us look like boy scouts here with your hangup on CNN and this stupid story. Nobody cares, really man. 

Joe Rogan has been peddling snake oil this entire time, this is why you're seeing blowback from scientists and citizens alike. He caters to dolts and there are millions of them out there, pushing his bullshit to the lowest common denominator.

Would be interesting to see if you have an opinion here that doesn't involve the obsession with CNN.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Yet, by CNN jumping on the "horse dewormer" bandwagon, they have given way more attention to this issue than they should have.
> 
> All I am saying, and I can't really believe anyone would disagree, is that CNN has a duty to present facts.  Calling what Joe Rogan took a horse dewormer is factually incorrect.  ( I do make the assumption that what Rogan took is the actual version for humans).
> 
> They had a great opportunity to educate their viewers, but instead took easy path to try and generate clicks.



 We literally debunked every single statement you've had about your headline of choosing but you still feel entitled to preach about journalistic values you actually don't believe in... But well, what would one expect from you.


----------



## DT

Runs For Fun said:


> I never understood the appeal of this guy. He’s a stupid meathead dude bro.






SuperMatt said:


> Here’s a discussion to pursue: why do people believe a middling stand-up comic who got fame on a stupid gross-out show instead of Dr. Fauci, who was instrumental in helping get the AIDS epidemic under control?




I've come to realize there's a huge group of people, many men, who are some mix of:

- A chip on their shoulder vs. academics/education, and they see Rogan as the perfect FU, a hard working guy who "made it without a PhD" (because in their mind, success ==  $$$)
- Talk a big game but are really just big fucking babies, at the end of the day they want all their bro-lifestyle uncompromised
- Rogan provides a simple channel for confirmation bias, and the bros love a fellow bro to confirm they're bro-ness ... HE LIFTS, I LIFT, FUCKIN' A, IM TAKING IVERMECTIN!

It's just a fucking absurd mix of being a shitty, selfish human being, and so ragingly stupid you're willing to follow the least informed, most indirect, illogical path as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.


----------



## DT

Joni and Neil may not have quite the current cultural relevance with younger audiences, but they're icons in the music industry, and Joni leaves, and that trickles down into newer artists, as is already apparently happening:


https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487308181500043265/


----------



## User.45

DT said:


> Joni and Neil may not have quite the current cultural relevance with younger audiences, but they're icons in the music industry, and Joni leaves, and that trickles down into newer artists, as is already apparently happening:
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487308181500043265/



It's gonna be Domino effect. If other companies are smart, they'll use the opportunity to syphon away the users in an instant. Of course, Spotify will recover, but they'll really have to re-evaluate whether JR is worth it. And all thanks to Neil Young having the balls to stand up for what he (and I) feels right.


----------



## DT

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487265849807360001/


----------



## lizkat

JayMysteri0 said:


> While the rumor of Barry Manilow pulling his music from Spotify is NOT true, the same can't be said about the great Joni Mitchell
> 
> For both these artists there isn't any real financial hit, having their music available on Spotify really meant it was available for possible new audiences.  Still, it will be an interesting trend if this grows.  For many artists as Aloe Blacc pointed out on the Daily Show, being on Spotify isn't any kind of financial windfall for the majority of artists on the platform.  The biggest thing they do on the platform maybe making a show of leaving it for personal reasons.




Meanwhile The Onion piles on with a little tease about exactly what kind of windfall is being foregone...  hilarious.









						Spotify Celebrates 100th Dollar Given To Artists
					

NEW YORK—Proudly declaring that they never thought they’d see the day their vision would finally be realized, streaming service Spotify reportedly celebrated Thursday the platform’s 100th dollar given to artists. “When we launched Spotify in 2008, our mission was to reward artists when customers...




					www.theonion.com
				






> "...today, we finally reached three figures in artist payouts,” said Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, posing with a giant check for a $0.00000029 payout to Dua Lipa for her song “Break My Heart” that propelled the world’s musicians past a collective $100 in earnings.


----------



## Herdfan

lizkat said:


> Meanwhile The Onion piles on with a little tease about exactly what kind of windfall is being foregone...  hilarious.




My BIL hates Spotify/Pandora/Any random streaming service.  He thinks they take advantage of artists and since he gets some backend, he isn't getting paid like he did pre-streaming for top hits.  So there is that.


----------



## JayMysteri0

All of this must be getting noticed because...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487990076185456648/

I wasn't aware Nils Lofgren also joined in.



> Longtime E Street Band Member Nils Lofgren Pulls Music From Spotify, Encourages All Musicians to “Cut Ties” With Service
> 
> 
> Lofgren follows Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, who are removing music from the streaming service in protest of COVID misinformation being spread on the platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hollywoodreporter.com




https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487910843333296128/



> Spotify to add content advisory when podcasts mention Covid as more musicians yank songs from platform
> 
> 
> The Rock and Roll Hall of Famer joins Neil Young and Joni Mitchell who are also pulling their music from the streaming service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com





> KEY POINTS
> 
> Spotify said Sunday it will add content advisories to any material mentioning Covid-19, and direct its users to public health sites for more information.
> Rock and Roll Hall of Famer and Bruce Springsteen guitarist Nils Lofgren said Saturday that he is joining the boycott of Spotify over Covid misinformation.
> Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are also protesting the streaming service and pulling their music from it.
> Separately, popular podcaster Brene Brown said on Twitter that she would “not be releasing any podcasts until further notice.”




Perhaps if the focus continues on the artists as well as allowing covid misinfo, more attention will be given to how little artists make on the platform.


----------



## GermanSuplex

I'll say this... I used to like Rogan. He's a very funny dude and I enjoyed his podcast because he talks about so many things with such an array of people. I was dismayed when he seemed to be doing the "both sides are bad" speak, which always seemed like a way to defend Trump. He's a smart guy, I don't know how on one hand you can be intelligent and call people out, but on the other hand not instantly recognize how daft and dumb Trump is. He always had an easier time bashing Hillary or Biden than he did Trump. Like, he's scared to be a full-blown MAGA-hatter, but brave enough to show where his allegiance lies.

The last couple years, he's went full-on with the crazy train. However, I was somewhat ok with his Instagram response. It's not perfect, but I expected him to do the Trump-like thing and double-down on his stupidity. He doesn't seem to be doing that, so that's a start I suppose.

Joe Rogan is a pretty powerful voice on Spotify, but not if they end up losing a ton of legendary artists. He's still spreading misinformation in his response though... lots of what he said simply isn't true. I don't remember anyone ever disputing you can be vaccinated and still catch and spread covid... nevertheless, he is a host who talks with people and his statement is more humble than some of the usual Trumpkin non-apologies.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1488019683404136448/


----------



## User.45

GermanSuplex said:


> He's a smart guy, I don't know how on one hand you can be intelligent and call people out, but on the other hand not instantly recognize how daft and dumb Trump is.



I have an answer to this:


----------



## Runs For Fun

JayMysteri0 said:


> All of this must be getting noticed because...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487990076185456648/
> 
> I wasn't aware Nils Lofgren also joined in.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487910843333296128/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps if the focus continues on the artists as well as allowing covid misinfo, more attention will be given to how little artists make on the platform.



Yep, it's already starting to snowball. I feel it's only going to get worse for Spotify.


----------



## Huntn

JayMysteri0 said:


> A follow up opinion piece



They paid him too much to back out.


----------



## lizkat

British singer,  songwriter and producer James Blunt laughingly tweeted a threat to release more music if Spotify doesn't shape up.  Hilarious. 

But Spotify should not be laughing...  when a brand becomes comedy gold, the stock markets tend not to be all that amused.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487364023003844610/


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Runs For Fun

lizkat said:


> British singer,  songwriter and producer James Blunt laughingly tweeted a threat to release more music if Spotify doesn't shape up.  Hilarious.
> 
> But Spotify should not be laughing...  when a brand becomes comedy gold, the stock markets tend not to be all that amused.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487364023003844610/



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1487148945792978953/


----------



## lizkat

Runs For Fun said:


> I never understood the appeal of this guy. He’s a stupid meathead dude bro.




Yes, there's a difference between having an eclectic range of guests on a podcast, and knowingly giving a platform to guests whose speech offers up hateful or misinformative material.

For instance, Rogan had interviewed Alex Jones (_*not once but twice*_) and so to me Rogan falls into the no-go zone of having lent that despicable peddler of conspiracy theories even the flimsiest of platforms.   It had taken legal action and a judicial decision for Jones to  "concede" that the Sandy Hook slaughter of 20 first graders and their teachers and administrators in the Newtown school was not "a hoax".   

What decent person on the face of the earth would invent such a horrific lie?  What corporation is willing to sully its name with a track record of supporting such trash?     I"m leaving aside the question of who the hell would buy into it or believe the other garbage Jones rounds up or invents to pitch.   That's food for thought in some other thread, probably one about education.

Those interviews Rogan did with Jones were before Rogan even inked his Spotify deal,  and it's not like Spotify was unaware of them,  since those and a few other episodes were among those that Spotify declined to bring over, _*and yet*_ they apparently went for language in Rogan's contract that would brook no ongoing corporate "interference" in his podcasting from their platform, or so Rogan claims.  If so, then Spotify's c-suite and legal counsel themselves prepared the bitter ground in which they now have to wrestle  with Rogan over their pre-lamed assertion of a right to moderate content on their platform.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## JayMysteri0

It's interesting because according to Twitter, today is the day that conservative media has jumped to Rogan's defense.  So I'm curious if Joe sees that, keeps pretending to play the "I look at both sides & just ask questions" bit, but leans more towards his defenders.



lizkat said:


> Yes, there's a difference between having an eclectic range of guests on a podcast, and knowingly giving a platform to guests whose speech offers up hateful or misinformative material.




I worked with a pretty smart guy that is a Joe Rogan fan.  He'd wonder why I rolled my eyes when he would want me to listen to occasional Rogan podcasts.  Rogan has the benefit of not leaning heavily into the crazy train, just making a few stops along the way giving him the look of somehow seeing both sides.  When you ask a fan about those interviews with the likes of Jones, you always get the response that he's trying to see where they are coming from.  The problem of course is he doesn't push back on the crazy, but will push back on other things.  It's the selectivity of when he's interested in "both sides", and then inadvertently wanders into some shit like

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1486686427807051780/

The problem as I see it is that Joe Rogan wants to present himself as "the lovable meathead", that millions happen to listen to.  Which means "the lovable meathead" can't possibly be responsible for just saying what's on his mind.  Ignoring that we often hold anyone who has that kind of influence ( Well, ...until a 45th president that is it seems ) responsible for what they babble.  Or am I forgetting how many want athletes, especially Black athletes have to automatically assume the responsibility of being a "role model" and watch what they say like about China or the police?  It's the handy double standard many will use when someone says what they like to hear, or those they may not care for say what they might not want to hear.

It's only with Covid we are finally seeing ANYONE who spouts misinformation, get called out & dragged to the carpet.


----------



## lizkat

JayMysteri0 said:


> It's interesting because according to Twitter, today is the day that conservative media has jumped to Rogan's defense. So I'm curious if Joe sees that, keeps pretending to play the "I look at both sides & just ask questions" bit, but leans more towards his defenders.




Well of course today's that day...  how else keep the social media pot bubbling.... with heat  _from both side_s.

Meanwhile Spotify advances the start of the lunar New Year of 2022 by one day,  and so today lights candles to ancestral corporations,  among which are all those that ever misjudged public opinion and brushed off something that wasn't just a cute ad gone viral.  

Imagine how busy the search engines are in Spotify's legal and PR unit lately.   They seek from above now and from history the wisdom of corporate gurus gone before them:   what other corporations have had things go south with customers on social media?  How did they handle it?   What happened to their stock?  _*HOW DID THEY FIX IT??*_ 

What are the magic, meaningless words that will shift attention to anything else?   Curious Spotify execs wanna know.


----------



## SuperMatt

lizkat said:


> Well of course today's that day...  how else keep the social media pot bubbling.... with heat  _from both side_s.
> 
> Meanwhile Spotify advances the start of the lunar New Year of 2022 by one day,  and so today lights candles to ancestral corporations,  among which are all those that ever misjudged public opinion and brushed off something that wasn't just a cute ad gone viral.
> 
> Imagine how busy the search engines are in Spotify's legal and PR unit lately.   They seek from above now and from history the wisdom of corporate gurus gone before them:   what other corporations have had things go south with customers on social media?  How did they handle it?   What happened to their stock?  _*HOW DID THEY FIX IT??*_
> 
> What are the magic, meaningless words that will shift attention to anything else?   Curious Spotify execs wanna know.



They wanted the listeners. They took a chance on the value added would be more than value subtracted based on what Rogan might do. 

Maybe they saw the Howard Stern - SiriusXM deal and thought this would be good. The thing is, Stern is vulgar and stirs the pot. He does not, however, give platforms to Nazis, climate deniers, or covid deniers as a matter of course. Spotify was desperate to monetize podcasts. They messed this up spectacularly.


----------



## Edd

“Just asking questions” as if that’s never damaging or offensive. 

Jon Stewart did a bit on this a million years ago on The Daily Show about headlines just asking questions. His example: Is your mother a whore? I’ve no solid reason to believe that, it’s just a question. What’s the harm in asking?


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Some more perspective on Joe that I think says a lot and one of the reasons I stopped listening to him, he thought Trump was funny, like legitimate funny, from hack comedian funny to “Holy shit, I can’t believe a US President just said that!” funny. It’s like he saw his presidency as a real life SNL skit with no real consequences or danger involved. I think you can apply that same mentality to his more controversial guests as well as Covid coverage. As much as he has been told how large his audience is and how much money Spotify paid him, he seems to think he’s running a little operation out of his mom’s basement with little reach or consequence.

It makes me think of part of a Bill Burr bit where he’s doing general impressions of racists and inserted a disclaimer of “don’t come up to me after the show and say ‘I was thinking it, and then you said it.’”, meaning don’t use his comedy to validate their racist views like it’s a bonding moment. I think that’s what is going on with a lot of Rogan listeners, except in a lot of cases what Joe is presenting isn't in the context of jokes and as such is more dangerous.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Edd said:


> “Just asking questions” as if that’s never damaging or offensive.
> 
> Jon Stewart did a bit on this a million years ago on The Daily Show about headlines just asking questions. His example: Is your mother a whore? I’ve no solid reason to believe that, it’s just a question. What’s the harm in asking?




That's pretty much the pretext of every Tucker Carlson show.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Some more perspective on Joe that I think says a lot and one of the reasons I stopped listening to him, he thought Trump was funny, like legitimate funny, from hack comedian funny to “Holy shit, I can’t believe a US President just said that!” funny. It’s like he saw his presidency as a real life SNL skit with no real consequences or danger involved. I think you can apply that same mentality to his more controversial guests as well as Covid coverage. As much as he has been told how large his audience is and how much money Spotify paid him, he seems to think he’s running a little operation out of his mom’s basement with little reach or consequence.
> 
> It makes me think of part of a Bill Burr bit where he’s doing general impressions of racists and inserted a disclaimer of “don’t come up to me after the show and say ‘I was thinking it, and then you said it.’”, meaning don’t use his comedy to validate their racist views like it’s a bonding moment. I think that’s what is going on with a lot of Rogan listeners, except in a lot of cases what Joe is presenting isn't in the context of jokes and as such is more dangerous.




This is why I stopped listening to him. Don't wax poetic about why you think Biden or Hillary are bad for America - even if you have legit reasons - and then laugh when Trump acts like a dipshit on Twitter or says vile things in person. Again, Rogan is a smart man and as others have said on here, the only reason he can possibly refuse to call folks like Trump out is because his appeal to MAGA-world is lucrative, or he is on the MAGA train but too afraid to come outright and say it.

I've watched Rogan for a lot of years, and I find it hard to believe he'd find being a MAGA guy more lucrative than doing what he used to do, which is just appeal to a large swatch of average joes.

Trump has ruined a lot of things in America. Yet Rogan's apology - rife with misinformation and all - still gives me some hope. Anyone else would be whining about big tech and pretending to be victims of cancel culture. Rogan also had some fair points in his "apology". Just him acting somewhat humble and not being a dick is a change of pace from what we usually see in MAGA-world.

I'm not ready throw him in the bin just yet, but I'm also 100% on the side of artists pulling their music. While conservatives will whine about other people on other platforms who they deem to be as bad as Rogan - the real knuckleheads whining about cancel culture love to bring up Fauci  - what they are missing is that Rogan is almost an honorary CEO of Spotify. $100 million is a LOT of money. He's the number-one podcaster in the world. That means something. And this should be what conservatives love -the free market working itself out. Republicans spent years using government to "cancel" things they didn't like. Movies, TV shows, music, video games... I'm not even that old and I remember the outrage cons had over things like pro-wrestling, where the Parent Television Council headed up by Brent Bozell tried to get all of WWE's advertisers to ditch them, or congress members grandstanding about how rap and video games should be banned.

So I'm all for letting Spotify, Rogan and artists do what they feel is in their best interest./endrant


----------



## NT1440

When the State has shown itself completely unable to handle a crisis, it’s best to have the population fight themselves over which individuals should be the focus of the failure, because it can’t possibly be that the US has structurally failed at every level.

In short, America has failed on every level when it comes to Covid…therefore Joe Rogan must be the talk of the town instead of topic being we’ve given up because Capital demands business continues as usual regardless of the death toll.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

NT1440 said:


> When the State has shown itself completely unable to handle a crisis, it’s best to have the population fight themselves over which individuals should be the focus of the failure, because it can’t possibly be that the US has structurally failed at every level.
> 
> In short, America has failed on every level when it comes to Covid…therefore Joe Rogan must be the talk of the town instead of topic being we’ve given up because Capital demands business continues as usual regardless of the death toll.




Don’t worry. All government failures on Covid, inflation, not passing legislation, and the impending economic super bubble popping will be solved by sending troops to Ukraine.


----------



## Joe

I have never listened to this guy. I'm not really a podcast person. I'd rather listen to music than random people talking about random BS. Podcasts have just never interested me, but I know people that love them and listen to things like True Crime. 

I am keeping my Spotify for now. Apple Music is trash. Unless something drastic happens like tons of artists taking their music off it then I may reconsider downgrading to the free version.


----------



## Eric

JagRunner said:


> I have never listened to this guy. I'm not really a podcast person. I'd rather listen to music than random people talking about random BS. Podcasts have just never interested me, but I know people that love them and listen to things like True Crime.
> 
> I am keeping my Spotify for now. Apple Music is trash. Unless something drastic happens like tons of artists taking their music off it then I may reconsider downgrading to the free version.



I tried a while back but he doesn't exactly cater to an intellectual audience, think more like debating over whether to bong out all day or hit the gym type of discussion.


----------



## Herdfan

So what does everyone make of this?









						Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says
					

Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.




					www.reuters.com
				




My thoughts are:

1) Kowa is one of the largest privately held companies in Japan
2) They are a major global pharma company with offices across the globe
3) Reuters is not FoxNews.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> I tried a while back but he doesn't exactly cater to an intellectual audience, think more like debating over whether to bong out all day or hit the gym type of discussion.




Another reason I stopped listening, too many conversations that had nothing to do with that start veering in that direction.  Did you know every possible topic is related to MMA?  Joe will let you know how.


----------



## rdrr

Herdfan said:


> So what does everyone make of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says
> 
> 
> Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts are:
> 
> 1) Kowa is one of the largest privately held companies in Japan
> 2) They are a major global pharma company with offices across the globe
> 3) Reuters is not FoxNews.



I think the study needs be fully disclosed to be peer reviewed before I change my mind.   I have heard that Ivermectin has "anti-viral effects", but at doses that are unhealthy to lethal.   Also what do they mean by effects, does it eradicate the virus, or kill it by killing good cells as well.

Point 3...  Would love for one of my anti-vax/covid deniers who recently told me how AP and Reuters are trash, quote this article.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> So what does everyone make of this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says
> 
> 
> Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants in joint non-clinical research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts are:
> 
> 1) Kowa is one of the largest privately held companies in Japan
> 2) They are a major global pharma company with offices across the globe
> 3) Reuters is not FoxNews.



The headline is absolute trash, especially from Reuters, when the first sentence is this:


> TOKYO, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Japanese trading and pharmaceuticals company Kowa Co Ltd (7807.T) on Monday said that anti-parasite drug ivermectin showed an "antiviral effect" against Omicron and other coronavirus variants *in joint non-clinical research.*



Non-clinical research isn't really a term, but if I tried to decipher it, I'd interpret it as *definitely not in human, *most likely _ in vitro_, which means petri dish, which means irrelevant for anybody other than people doing in vitro or preclinical research. 

Show me a high quality clinical trial and then there's something to discuss. Again, I spent 4 hours in the summer going over them and the better quality ones were either negative, or showed a very low effect size (i.e. weak effect).


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> Did you actually read the article beyond the headline? It’s a repeat of the facts that have been shared here already.




Every word.  Including the linked articles.

BTW, it is dated today.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

A little humor for the thread:


----------



## User.45

theSeb said:


> Yes, and? There are no new facts in this article that somehow change anything because it is from today, except that today a Japanese company has said that Ivermectin shows antiviral effect against COVID. That is factually correct. A Japanese company has stated that and hasn’t included any details. Stating something and proving it are two different things. Then the article includes all of the facts about ivermectin that were shared and discussed here. This isn’t the first study showing *something*. There are hundreds of them. None of them have held up to scrutiny. But of course it’s actually just a big huge conspiracy against Joe and other clever people and this Reuters article proves that.



Let me emphasize again. It's a "non-clinical study". Meaning no humans involved.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> As I suspected, this is indeed floating around the far fright communications channels. I‘ve got your number, Herdfan, and I am watching you carefully.
> 
> View attachment 11461



Watch me all you want.  My goal is make everyone here doubt Reuters. 

Nope.  It was linked from a different Rogan story.   

And I really don't go for the far right places.  Fox is about as far as I go.  No Newsmax, OAN, Breitbart etc.  Sorry to disappoint.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## SuperMatt

theSeb said:


> As I suspected, this is indeed floating around the far fright communications channels. I‘ve got your number, Herdfan, and I am watching you carefully.
> 
> View attachment 11461



Andrei? Another Russian disinformation campaign perhaps….


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> A little humor for the thread:



Also, anyone under the age of 65: "Who is Fox News?"


----------



## User.45

theSeb said:


> As I suspected, this is indeed floating around the far fright communications channels. I‘ve got your number, Herdfan, and I am watching you carefully.
> 
> View attachment 11461



You might have noticed, but @Herdfan usually comes here to stress test these RW talking points. It’s pretty smart if you don’t want to make the cognitive effort yourself. Though I always feel that most of these don’t take much of that


----------



## Hrafn

P_X said:


> You might have noticed, but @Herdfan usually comes here to stress test these RW talking points. It’s pretty smart if you don’t want to make the cognitive effort yourself. Though I always feel that most of these don’t take much of that



I don't even think it's stress testing.  I think it's OMG!  I just herd, gotta Pwn the Libs!!!!!!


----------



## User.45

Hrafn said:


> I don't even think it's stress testing.  I think it's OMG!  I just herd, gotta Pwn the Libs!!!!!!



Spraying it on and seeing what sticks.


----------



## AG_PhamD

theSeb said:


> And not even good, old fashioned hamsters. It won’t matter to Joe fans though.




Actually non-clinical testing can include animals, but not if you’re testing for clinical outcomes, i.e. using  hamsters to see if ivermectin is effective in reducing COVID-19 cases or deaths or whatever metric chosen. Non-clinical trials with animals are used to investigate things like a drug’s basic pharmacological properties- absorption and distribution properties, how it’s metabolized and eliminated, it’s pharmacodynamics, toxicology profile, etc.

Based on what the article said and the fact we have known the basic properties of ivermectin for 40+ years or whatever, it suggests that this scientist was doing in-vitro testing aka test tube studies, in this case probably looking at how much drug is required to kill the virus.

What people typically don’t understand is that there is not only a requirement to have a high enough enough concentration of the drug for it to be effective, but you actually have to get the drug to the right place too. And there is a limit to how much of a specific drug you can get into a “compartment”- consider the bloodstream one compartment and the lungs another compartment and the brain another, etc. Drug concentrations are not necessarily equal between compartments.

For example Imodium, the OTC diarrhea medicine, it’s an opioid but it doesn’t kill pain or get you high. It’s chemical properties prevent it from moving from the blood stream into the brain where it would cause those effects.

With ivermectin, you’d never be able to get the required concentration of drug into the lung tissue to treat COVID. The half-maximal inhibitory concentration of Ivermectin is orders of magnitude higher than the maximum concentration of drug attainable in lung tissue. In fact, the amount of ivermectin required is something like 35x higher than can be absorbed into the bloodstream through oral route of administration. There is no intravenous ivermectin either, at least approved for human use.

Like I said, the pharmacological properties of ivermectin are well established. It should have been evident from the first in vivo study that the concentration required for COVID treatment is not only toxic but physically unattainable in the human body.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## GermanSuplex

I’m curious as to why Rogan said in his “apology” or whatever you want to call it that it’s now been proven vaccinated people can become infected and spread the virus. Uh, yeah. This isn’t news. This is common knowledge. He’s supposed to be “digging into things” and talking with experts with alternate views and non-mainstream opinions. Ok, fine. But this is pure BS… I’ve never seen Fauci, the CDC or anyone else with credibility say a vaccine is a total eradication, cure or 100% guarantee of protection from COVID. Ever. The vaccine has always been sold as a way to prevent you from being hospitalized or dying. This has been repeated ad-nauseum. And it’s very effective at that.

I don’t understand why someone pushing these “alternate” views and treatments misses this. It makes no sense whether it’s intentional or not.

He’s spreading misinformation while trying to relieve pressure about his misinformation. I haven’t watched his podcast in a while, but does anyone ever push back on some of his claims? Or is his show now vetting guests to make sure he only has banter and like-minded individual? I would really like to ask Rogan this. I’d also like someone to play a tape of Trump acted moronic - which there’s no shortage of footage - and ask him “Ok, you don’t care much for Biden. I get that. But how do you support THAT? Why don’t you ever talk or joke about that?“

This doesn’t even happen in the press very often, not even on shows like Bill Maher’s. This whole cult of Trump revolves around a very, very stupid and unstable man. I have yet to hear anyone like Rogan, Ted Cruz, Pence or hundreds of other high-profile people answer any of these questions.


----------



## Herdfan

GermanSuplex said:


> I’ve never seen Fauci, the CDC or anyone else with credibility say a vaccine is a total eradication, cure or 100% guarantee of protection from COVID.




So are you saying Biden has no credibility?  Because he said it.  Multiple times.   Even @P_X  said he shouldn't have said it.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> So are you saying Biden has no credibility? Because he said it. Multiple times. Even @P_X said he shouldn't have said it.




I haven’t seen/heard that, but if he said it, it was wrong. And no, I’m not saying he has no credibility. But clearly he was not correct if he said the vaccine makes you immune from COVID and impossible to contract/spread COVID. Where/when did he say that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Herdfan

GermanSuplex said:


> Where/when did he say that?




He actually said it multiple times in various flavors:









						Did Biden Say You Won't Get COVID if You're Vaccinated?
					

Biden overstated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations during a July 2021 town hall.




					www.snopes.com
				




Then he said you can't spread it if vaccinated:









						PolitiFact - Biden says that vaccinated people can’t spread COVID-19. That’s not what CDC says.
					

As President Joe Biden heads toward his second year in office of leading the country through a pandemic, he faces the ch




					www.politifact.com
				




There is another time he said something similar when talking about healthcare workers and if they are vaccinated then they can't spread it to you.

These two things were months apart.  What are his advisors telling him?  And is he listening?

Edit: Found the one about HC workers:









						Biden overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread
					

PolitiFact  |  The transmission risk is not reduced to zero.




					www.tampabay.com


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> He actually said it multiple times in various flavors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Biden Say You Won't Get COVID if You're Vaccinated?
> 
> 
> Biden overstated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations during a July 2021 town hall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he said you can't spread it if vaccinated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - Biden says that vaccinated people can’t spread COVID-19. That’s not what CDC says.
> 
> 
> As President Joe Biden heads toward his second year in office of leading the country through a pandemic, he faces the ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is another time he said something similar when talking about healthcare workers and if they are vaccinated then they can't spread it to you.
> 
> These two things were months apart.  What are his advisors telling him?  And is he listening?
> 
> Edit: Found the one about HC workers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread
> 
> 
> PolitiFact  |  The transmission risk is not reduced to zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tampabay.com



Well, Biden hasn't ever been the best source of vaccine information. These are mostly gaffes from him, but even if I want to attribute this to his lack of understanding, this lack of understanding is orders of magnitude more desirable than his predecessor's. The bar is low, gentlemen.


----------



## SuperMatt

GermanSuplex said:


> I haven’t seen/heard that, but if he said it, it was wrong. And no, I’m not saying he has no credibility. But clearly he was not correct if he said the vaccine makes you immune from COVID and impossible to contract/spread COVID. Where/when did he say that?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



He didn’t say that. The right only cares about sound bites. If you actually read the whole quote in context, you usually see how they’ve twisted things.

Republicans have ZERO credibility when it comes to this issue though. Did Fox rake Trump over the coals when he started riffing about shining bright lights, or using disinfectants? But they will take a tiny out-of-context quote made by somebody and use it to promote their dumb-ass conspiracy theories.

Fox knows what they are doing. Those who watch it regularly may have once had functioning brains, but they’ve long since turned to treacle after prolonged exposure to that dreck.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> He actually said it multiple times in various flavors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Biden Say You Won't Get COVID if You're Vaccinated?
> 
> 
> Biden overstated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations during a July 2021 town hall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he said you can't spread it if vaccinated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - Biden says that vaccinated people can’t spread COVID-19. That’s not what CDC says.
> 
> 
> As President Joe Biden heads toward his second year in office of leading the country through a pandemic, he faces the ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is another time he said something similar when talking about healthcare workers and if they are vaccinated then they can't spread it to you.
> 
> These two things were months apart.  What are his advisors telling him?  And is he listening?
> 
> Edit: Found the one about HC workers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread
> 
> 
> PolitiFact  |  The transmission risk is not reduced to zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tampabay.com



At the time this was the belief based on the science they had, then Omicron came back and proved them wrong. Same goes for them originally saying masks wouldn't work, etc.

It would be nice if people understood that this is not a static virus with a single fix. It's dynamic and has been ahead of every step we've made. We will likely make questionable estimates again in the future as well, it's part of the process but they're doing the best they can with what they have. 

What you guys need to do is stop politicizing it and understand COVID doesn't give a shit about who you voted for, and your myopic views do nothing but further the spread.


----------



## GermanSuplex

Herdfan said:


> He actually said it multiple times in various flavors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Biden Say You Won't Get COVID if You're Vaccinated?
> 
> 
> Biden overstated the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations during a July 2021 town hall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he said you can't spread it if vaccinated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - Biden says that vaccinated people can’t spread COVID-19. That’s not what CDC says.
> 
> 
> As President Joe Biden heads toward his second year in office of leading the country through a pandemic, he faces the ch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is another time he said something similar when talking about healthcare workers and if they are vaccinated then they can't spread it to you.
> 
> These two things were months apart. What are his advisors telling him? And is he listening?
> 
> Edit: Found the one about HC workers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden overstates how well vaccines prevent person-to-person virus spread
> 
> 
> PolitiFact  |  The transmission risk is not reduced to zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tampabay.com




Ok, for semantics sake I’ll grant you he said it, but I don’t have the wherewithal to get into a lengthy debate about what - in my mind - is akin to someone saying that something that costs $99.99 costs “a hundred bucks”. He did say it, and he was wrong, and I hate when people always clarify what Trump said, so I understand your point.

If he was pressed about this and then refused to concede he was wrong, that would be much more concerning. He misspoke, and should have added “you have a greatly reduced chance of. ..” somewhere in there.

But let’s not pretend this was a crusade of misinformation. Biden has not stuck with that line of thought and governed from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> He didn’t say that. The right only cares about sound bites. If you actually read the whole quote in context, you usually see how they’ve twisted things.
> 
> Republicans have ZERO credibility when it comes to this issue though. Did Fox rake Trump over the coals when he started riffing about shining bright lights, or using disinfectants? But they will take a tiny out-of-context quote made by somebody and use it to promote their dumb-ass conspiracy theories.
> 
> Fox knows what they are doing. Those who watch it regularly may have once had functioning brains, but they’ve long since turned to treacle after prolonged exposure to that dreck.



The whole quote appears to be this:



> “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Not the vaccinated, the unvaccinated. That’s the problem,” Biden said.  “Everybody talks about freedom about not to have a shot or have a test. Well guess what? How about patriotism? How about you make sure you’re vaccinated, so you do not spread the disease to anyone else.”



Which makes it a lot less inappropriate. The pandemic of the unvaccinated statement for example still largely holds. If we had everybody vaccinated, our hospital capacity would be at least 65-75% less strained. So arguing about how incorrect he is about vaccinated catching and spreading COVID, the solution he recommends and the large scale reasoning stands.

@Herdfan, the reason these inaccuracies don't matter much anymore is because you can literally get the most informed people comment about vaccination, and they either get yawns or death threats in exchange. This is why your fixation on CNN's role to educate was so ridiculous, because >90% of their content was adequate on COVID. Also, let's not pretend, by now, people who don't understand the utility of masks, or vaccines do so by choice, not because of lack of accessible high-quality information.


----------



## MEJHarrison

Herdfan said:


> So are you saying Biden has no credibility?  Because he said it.  Multiple times.




To me the difference is, Biden isn't _*trying*_ to contradict Fauci and others who are experts in their field.  He's not deliberately attempting to get false information out there.  He still shouldn't have said those things.  But it's not like he's trying to spread disinformation.

Rogan on the other hand seems quite deliberate in spreading disinformation (though I will concede that I doubt he would agree with that statement).  He actively tries to get less popular opinions shared with the public.  He doesn't have people just stroll in off the street and start bringing up whacky theories.  These are guests deliberately invited on the show to share their opinions.  Regardless of what he may personally believe, he's giving a platform to those who aren't doing the public any favors.

Just because two things have feathers doesn't mean they're both ducks.  Also, no one should be getting medical advice from talk show hosts or presidents.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

GermanSuplex said:


> I’m curious as to why Rogan said in his “apology” or whatever you want to call it that it’s now been proven vaccinated people can become infected and spread the virus. Uh, yeah. This isn’t news. This is common knowledge. He’s supposed to be “digging into things” and talking with experts with alternate views and non-mainstream opinions. Ok, fine. But this is pure BS… I’ve never seen Fauci, the CDC or anyone else with credibility say a vaccine is a total eradication, cure or 100% guarantee of protection from COVID. Ever. The vaccine has always been sold as a way to prevent you from being hospitalized or dying. This has been repeated ad-nauseum. And it’s very effective at that.
> 
> I don’t understand why someone pushing these “alternate” views and treatments misses this. It makes no sense whether it’s intentional or not.
> 
> He’s spreading misinformation while trying to relieve pressure about his misinformation. I haven’t watched his podcast in a while, but does anyone ever push back on some of his claims? Or is his show now vetting guests to make sure he only has banter and like-minded individual? I would really like to ask Rogan this. I’d also like someone to play a tape of Trump acted moronic - which there’s no shortage of footage - and ask him “Ok, you don’t care much for Biden. I get that. But how do you support THAT? Why don’t you ever talk or joke about that?“
> 
> This doesn’t even happen in the press very often, not even on shows like Bill Maher’s. This whole cult of Trump revolves around a very, very stupid and unstable man. I have yet to hear anyone like Rogan, Ted Cruz, Pence or hundreds of other high-profile people answer any of these questions.




I believe that part you mentioned specifically was part of a list of things he mentioned that early on they were saying were/weren’t true/possible and then said the opposite later.   Granted that was probably after more research was done but that still doesn’t change his point that things change.

I know this qualifies as "too soon" and people are using it as an excuse to not do the right thing, but I don’t think you’ll find a major event in history where the trusted people weren’t being entirely honest.  I’d go as fas as saying that’s actually impossible.  It might be for greater good reasons, or economic reasons, or hell, evil reasons, but it’s what happens.  

BTW, the recent anti-mandate protests are a pretty mixed crowd.  It’s not all anti-vaxxers and Trump supporters. It’s also people on the left and fully vaxed who believe it could be part of a surveillance state slippery slope, full of IDs and data collecting that will go well beyond covid.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> BTW, the recent anti-mandate protests are a pretty mixed crowd. It’s not all anti-vaxxers and Trump supporters. It’s also people on the left and fully vaxed who believe it could be part of a surveillance state slippery slope, full of IDs and data collecting that will go well beyond covid.




I‘d like to see some coverage that supports this statement. The pictures and videos from recent protests suggest otherwise.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I‘d like to see some coverage that supports this statement. The pictures and videos from recent protests suggest otherwise.












						‎The Jimmy Dore Show: Left & Right Unite for DC Anti-Vax Mandate Rally on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show The Jimmy Dore Show, Ep Left & Right Unite for DC Anti-Vax Mandate Rally - Jan 27, 2022



					podcasts.apple.com
				




Interview with a Progressive activist at a protest sharing what they saw.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> ‎The Jimmy Dore Show: Left & Right Unite for DC Anti-Vax Mandate Rally on Apple Podcasts
> 
> 
> ‎Show The Jimmy Dore Show, Ep Left & Right Unite for DC Anti-Vax Mandate Rally - Jan 27, 2022
> 
> 
> 
> podcasts.apple.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interview with a Progressive activist at a protest sharing what they saw.



I listened to it. There was no actual evidence of the political leanings of those at the rally, and the source was a person with a vested interest in pushing the narrative that it’s “average people” at the rally… he himself was supposed to be a speaker at it.

That podcast is not a reliable source of information, and Blumenthal has the following articles on his site… not exactly a “progressive activist” based on these. More like a conspiracy theorist.

Sure, progressives love to obsess over the Steele dossier with a Trump cabinet member:








						CrowdStrike one of Russiagate's 'biggest culprits': ex-House investigator - The Grayzone
					

Former Congressional investigator Kash Patel, who helped expose the Steele dossier fraud, on the overlooked, suspicious role of another Clinton campaign contractor, CrowdStrike, which accused Russia of hacking the DNC. As a top investigator on the House Intelligence Committee, Kash Patel helped...




					thegrayzone.com
				




Vaccine passports are part of a shadowy military intelligence operation! 








						'Cloak and dagger' military-intelligence outfit at center of US digital vaccine passport push - The Grayzone
					

Described as “the most important organization you’ve never heard of,” MITRE rakes in massive security state contracts to pioneer invasive spy tech. Now it’s at the heart of a campaign to implement digital vaccine passports. While vaccine passports have been marketed as a boon to public health...




					thegrayzone.com
				




Come on….


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> I listened to it. There was no actual evidence of the political leanings of those at the rally, and the source was a person with a vested interest in pushing the narrative that it’s “average people” at the rally… he himself was supposed to be a speaker at it.
> 
> That podcast is not a reliable source of information, and Blumenthal has the following articles on his site… not exactly a “progressive activist” based on these. More like a conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Sure, progressives love to obsess over the Steele dossier with a Trump cabinet member:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrowdStrike one of Russiagate's 'biggest culprits': ex-House investigator - The Grayzone
> 
> 
> Former Congressional investigator Kash Patel, who helped expose the Steele dossier fraud, on the overlooked, suspicious role of another Clinton campaign contractor, CrowdStrike, which accused Russia of hacking the DNC. As a top investigator on the House Intelligence Committee, Kash Patel helped...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thegrayzone.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccine passports are part of a shadowy military intelligence operation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Cloak and dagger' military-intelligence outfit at center of US digital vaccine passport push - The Grayzone
> 
> 
> Described as “the most important organization you’ve never heard of,” MITRE rakes in massive security state contracts to pioneer invasive spy tech. Now it’s at the heart of a campaign to implement digital vaccine passports. While vaccine passports have been marketed as a boon to public health...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thegrayzone.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on….



Yep, it's another attempt to say "see Dems are just as bad" and it's completely baseless. Anyone paying attention understands this movement is strictly on the right.


----------



## SuperMatt

Here is another look at the “defeat the mandate” rally discussed in the podcast above.









						DC anti-mandate rally leveraged to broaden audience for anti-vax narratives
					

January 23 anti-vax rally softened messaging and utilized support from anti-mandate doctors to reach broader audiences




					medium.com


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> Yep, it's another attempt to say "see Dems are just as bad" and it's completely baseless. Anyone paying attention understands this movement is strictly on the right.




Jimmy Dore is a little too extreme left for my taste usually, but having said that.

Jimmy Dore Show - 945,000 YouTube subscribers

Secular Talk - 973,00 YouTube subscribers

Breaking Points - 704,000 YouTube subscribers

All Progressive content creators.  All fully vaccinated.  All saying people should get vaccinated.  All questioning mandates and the information given and not given by the establishment.    

So while you probably don't agree with them (on Covid), with those numbers this isn't a "strictly right movement".


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Jimmy Dore is a little too extreme left for my taste usually, but having said that.
> 
> Jimmy Dore Show - 945,000 YouTube subscribers
> 
> Secular Talk - 973,00 YouTube subscribers
> 
> Breaking Points - 704,000 YouTube subscribers
> 
> All Progressive content creators.  All fully vaccinated.  All saying people should get vaccinated.  All questioning mandates and the information given and not given by the establishment.
> 
> So while you probably don't agree with them (on Covid), with those numbers this isn't a "strictly right movement".



All outliers and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the mainstream. Just like Trump saying "there are good people on both sides" to muddy the water, not only is the movement strictly on the right, you're using right wing talking points to refute it.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> All outliers and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the mainstream. Just like Trump saying "there are good people on both sides" to muddy the water, not only is the movement strictly on the right, you're using right wing talking points to refute it.




Let me see if I get this straight and you can correct me if I’m wrong.  I offered evidence that it’s not “strictly” a right wing movement and just by doing that makes it a right wing talking point?


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Let me see if I get this straight and you can correct me if I’m wrong.  I offered evidence that it’s not “strictly” a right wing movement and just by doing that makes it a right wing talking point?



You offered YouTube links to a shows while explaining their talking points, I would hardly call that "evidence". It's no different than saying "Only 10.1 billion vaccines have been given but look at this influencer who is questioning it, AND HE'S A LIBERAL". 

Frankly, with your history of these posts trying to make the good guys out to be just as evil as the bad guys here I just don't give it much credibility, even if what you say is true they're still outliers in the bigger picture.


----------



## SuperMatt

Eric said:


> All outliers and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the mainstream. Just like Trump saying "there are good people on both sides" to muddy the water, not only is the movement strictly on the right, you're using right wing talking points to refute it.





Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Let me see if I get this straight and you can correct me if I’m wrong.  I offered evidence that it’s not “strictly” a right wing movement and just by doing that makes it a right wing talking point?



I‘d say the rare “liberal” who jumps on the anti-COVID vaccine/mask thing is the exception that proves the rule. Like the person who smokes 2 packs of unfiltered Camels a day and lives to be 100…


----------



## Herdfan

Do some of you all realize Anti-vaxxers existed before COVID?  Before vaccines became a Left-Right thing?


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> Do some of you all realize Anti-vaxxers existed before COVID?  Before vaccines became a Left-Right thing?



Yeah it's funny, being a fashionable soccer mom antivaxxer Liberal was a thing before COVID, then came hundreds of thousands of deaths and that's when Trump his ilk took that moniker over and even the Liberal moms were left saying WTF is wrong with those people.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Eric said:


> You offered YouTube links to a shows while explaining their talking points, I would hardly call that "evidence". It's no different than saying "Only 10.1 billion vaccines have been given but look at this influencer who is questioning it, AND HE'S A LIBERAL".
> 
> Frankly, with your history of these posts trying to make the good guys out to be just as evil as the bad guys here I just don't give it much credibility, even if what you say is true they're still outliers in the bigger picture.




I know in these forums it's extremely difficult to expect people to watch long videos or listen to long audio clips.  Most of the time I'm listening to podcasts while I'm driving.  So I don't really know how else to share things other than concise generalities.  I suppose looking at comments in specific YouTube videos by the presenters might also help to give a broader picture.  I'll try to point in that direction later.  

As far as equal evils, if you are talking about my Fauci comment earlier in this thread.  I did remove that and stated that it was guided by misinformation, or at least made by sources that could have ulterior motives.  As far as my general statements across the forum on equal evils, there are plenty of issues, especially on economics where both parties voted in lockstep, that only helps those at the top while hurting everybody else.  A most recent example of lockstep, actions in Ukraine.  No debate.  No critical thinking.  

We're at where we are at, not because of Trump, but because of decades of Democrats either agreeing with Republicans or letting Republicans steamroll over them when it comes to actual passed policy.  It's one or the other.  Democrats failed to pass policy nationally that should have kept Trump as the joke of a loser that he always has been instead of the leader of the country.   And after 4 years of him Congress should be nowhere near a 50/50 split.  But some people would rather believe half the country is racist than look at decades of a failed collective establishment government.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I‘d say the rare “liberal” who jumps on the anti-COVID vaccine/mask thing is the exception that proves the rule. Like the person who smokes 2 packs of unfiltered Camels a day and lives to be 100…




To be clear, it's not anti-vaccine.  It's anti-mandate and related government tracking.   The whole "be careful of what you wish for because someday it could be used against you" thing.


----------



## Eric

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I know in these forums it's extremely difficult to expect people to watch long videos or listen to long audio clips.  Most of the time I'm listening to podcasts while I'm driving.  So I don't really know how else to share things other than concise generalities.  I suppose looking at comments in specific YouTube videos by the presenters might also help to give a broader picture.  I'll try to point in that direction later.
> 
> As far as equal evils, if you are talking about my Fauci comment earlier in this thread.  I did remove that and stated that it was guided by misinformation, or at least made by sources that could have ulterior motives.  As far as my general statements across the forum on equal evils, there are plenty of issues, especially on economics where both parties voted in lockstep, that only helps those at the top while hurting everybody else.  A most recent example of lockstep, actions in Ukraine.  No debate.  No critical thinking.
> 
> We're at where we are at, not because of Trump, but because of decades of Democrats either agreeing with Republicans or letting Republicans steamroll over them when it comes to actual passed policy.  It's one or the other.  Democrats failed to pass policy nationally that should have kept Trump as the joke of a loser that he always has been instead of the leader of the country.   And after 4 years of him Congress should be nowhere near a 50/50 split.  But some people would rather believe half the country is racist than look at decades of a failed collective establishment government.



Okay, just voicing my opinions on it is all, I think we can agree to disagree here. 

However, I do agree about Democrats allowing themselves to be steamrolled by Republicans, they can have a spine and still get their work done but have always been weak that way.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> To be clear, it's not anti-vaccine.  It's anti-mandate and related government tracking.   The whole "be careful of what you wish for because someday it could be used against you" thing.



It’s not though. The “anti-mandate” instead of “anti-vaccine” was a fake pivot by the usual suspects, hoping to get some recruits at the event. But at the event itself, they jumped right back on the crazy train.

The article I posted should take you far less time for you to read than it took me to listen to the podcast; it explains how they tried to change the message to attract more people… with very limited success.

Here’s a bit more coverage of the rally:









						Joe Rogan's Friends Assemble in D.C. to Do Something They Say Isn't an Anti-Vax Rally
					

A disgraced progressive PR professional and a host of anti-vax celebrities: the disjointed coalition against vaccine mandates marches on Washington.




					www.vice.com


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Do some of you all realize Anti-vaxxers existed before COVID?  Before vaccines became a Left-Right thing?



yes, last time was like a week ago by @AG_PhamD. Sadly/luckily, there are much fewer people with schizotypal personality disorder than the current ~25% antivaxx rate. (While we didn't call it STPD, a lot of the preCOVID antivaxx trends overlapped with it).


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I know in these forums it's extremely difficult to expect people to watch long videos or listen to long audio clips.



Because it's a hotbed of disinformation as if you get presented with a lot of information quickly you'll take a lot of it at face value. I'd have to take notes and then do my actual research based on my notes, to be able to keep up with the info spewed at me at youtube.

*Critical thinkers read for a reason. *


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> Yes. There were some religious and ‘all-natural’ weirdos on the fringes and then a some idiot parents started jumping on the vaccines cause autism bandwagon fuelled by quacks and charlatans*. It was the republican Party (and the far right in other places around the world) that made vaccines a political issue.* If Trump had not acted the way he did, this would have gone in a very different direction.




Maybe, but maybe not.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Maybe, but maybe not.



It's CNN's fault!!!!!111!!!!


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Herdfan

theSeb said:


> That’s the other thing that also amuses me. Repubs genuinely believe that finding something bad about cnn is going to be a “gotcha” moment and will be upset non-repubs. It’s an interesting form of projection that should be studied by psychologists to dive deeper into some people’s unhealthy relationships with their sources of news.




Same reason the left always tries to find fault with Fox.  Anything that happens bad for the Dems is because the Republicans are watching FoxNews.


----------



## Herdfan

P_X said:


> It's CNN's fault!!!!!111!!!!




Hard to argue what comes directly out of their mouths.  Although I am sure some here will try.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Maybe, but maybe not.



You lost me when they cut away from Kamala Harris at "well, it's gonna be an issue for all of us"
Well, coming from the crowd saying how Trump's words were always taken out of context. 

I periodically check the correlation of COVID vaccination rates and party representation in congress. Last time I checked ≥90 of the 100 highest vaccination rate districts had Democratic representation and ≥90 of the 100 lowest vaccination rate districts have Republican representatives. You do this thing where you get debunked, disappear, and then weeks later try to convince us of the same debunked idea again. 

I hope you run your business better than you do with reasoning, LOL.


----------



## User.45

Herdfan said:


> Hard to argue what comes directly out of their mouths.  Although I am sure some here will try.



Curious BTW, would you be willing to review the transcripts of the interviews these single sentence snippets were taken from? Are you willing to do the work, or do you really take videos like this at face value? 

I'm asking, because I started reading Trumps transcripts after a while because I couldn't believe the stupid shit he was quoted to say.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> It’s not though. The “anti-mandate” instead of “anti-vaccine” was a fake pivot by the usual suspects, hoping to get some recruits at the event. But at the event itself, they jumped right back on the crazy train.
> 
> The article I posted should take you far less time for you to read than it took me to listen to the podcast; it explains how they tried to change the message to attract more people… with very limited success.
> 
> Here’s a bit more coverage of the rally:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Rogan's Friends Assemble in D.C. to Do Something They Say Isn't an Anti-Vax Rally
> 
> 
> A disgraced progressive PR professional and a host of anti-vax celebrities: the disjointed coalition against vaccine mandates marches on Washington.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vice.com




I realize shortly after I attempted to clarify myself that I wasn't clear enough, but by that time I was already in my car on the way home, a real "Fuck!  I left the oven on!" just as the plane left the runway moment.

Seems like you get it though from the articles you posted, anti-vax and anti-mandate aren't the same thing.  Now if pro-vax/anti-mandate people are showing up, as stated probably in limited numbers, because of some dishonest PR campaign that's possible, but the sources I follow were skeptical of the mandates before actual protests about it were a thing.  As an example I know this is most likely a right wing talking point, but that's not where I am getting it from.  What's with the arbitrary 100 employee number?  What's the science behind that?  It's the healthcare equivalent of saying we can solve illegal immigration by building a wall on less than 1/4 of the US perimeter.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> I don’t even understand why people listen to podcasts. if you need to listen to YouTube videos and podcasts to formulate your opinion on politics, then that was your first step in the wrong direction.




Gluing yourself to mainstream media is a much better idea and you'll be the most informed.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> I realize shortly after I attempted to clarify myself that I wasn't clear enough, but by that time I was already in my car on the way home, a real "Fuck!  I left the oven on!" just as the plane left the runway moment.
> 
> Seems like you get it though from the articles you posted, anti-vax and anti-mandate aren't the same thing.  Now if pro-vax/anti-mandate people are showing up, as stated probably in limited numbers, because of some dishonest PR campaign that's possible, but the sources I follow were skeptical of the mandates before actual protests about it were a thing.  As an example I know this is most likely a right wing talking point, but that's not where I am getting it from.  What's with the arbitrary 100 employee number?  What's the science behind that?  It's the healthcare equivalent of saying we can solve illegal immigration by building a wall on less than 1/4 of the US perimeter.



Anybody that is pro-vaccine, and anti-mandate doesn’t understand science.,The vaccine needs to go into as many arms as possible. The best way to do that is a mandate. Look at the military… over 96% vaccinated, and less than .02% death rate… 100x lower than the rest of the country. PS - ALL 52 Military members that died of COVID did NOT get fully vaccinated.

It is possible to make an argument that asking people nicely to get the vaccine would be more effective. The thing is, that was tried, and a huge portion of Americans, OVERWHELMINGLY Trump supporters, gave the middle finger to the rest of America. But the leaders of these rallies are NOT making such an argument. They are crying about how “they” are stealing our freedoms, putting fluoride in the water to ruin our “precious bodily fluids” (allegedly), and all other sorts of insane theories.

Peeling off a couple crazy fringe conspiracy theorists on the far left into the anti-vaccine movement by labeling it “anti-mandate” is NOT evidence that this “movement” is now bipartisan. But hey, it seems some folks are content with “1 liberal was there so I’m right” while totally ignoring the root of this anti-vaccine garbage… which is really just an anti-COVID vaccine movement.

The numbers don’t lie. The unvaccinated are almost exclusively Republicans. If you want to ignore that, fine, stick your head in the sand.

If you want to listen to Blumenthal and friends, have fun. You can obsess endlessly over Julian Assange, the Steele Dossier, the “faked” moon landing, JFK killed by aliens, and who knows what else…


----------



## Hrafn

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Gluing yourself to mainstream media is a much better idea and you'll be the most informed.



There's no harm in applying critical thinking skills, maybe look for corroborating evidence (check scopes, politifact, or any non-alt-right sites) prior to posting "Space aliens just anal-probed me"


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

theSeb said:


> That’s the other thing that also amuses me. Repubs genuinely believe that finding something bad about cnn is going to be a “gotcha” moment and will be upset non-repubs. It’s an interesting form of projection that should be studied by psychologists to dive deeper into some people’s unhealthy relationships with their sources of news.




I'd say there are A LOT more supposed "gotcha" moments coming from the left aimed at upsetting the right, and a lot more damning and fact based, and the right clearly couldn't give less of a shit.  Stolen election?  1/6?  Mountains of gotcha's.  Zero fucks given.  The left are unfazed amateurs.  The right are jedi masters.


----------



## User.45

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> Gluing yourself to mainstream media is a much better idea and you'll be the most informed.



This is the problem, if you really want to be informed, you actually have to do your actual research. Which involves a lot of reading.

I’ll give you a very specific example. This YouTube talking head was discussing the Available information, and the media coverageof one of the officers who died after the capital riot.  Although he specified he’s not a doctor, he still went on to speculate that there was too much time between the capital events, and the hospitalization death of the officer. I had many arguments about this, and I said it in advance that I’ve only seen one stroke syndrome that kills people in hours and that it’s super rare. The guy concluded that the death is unlikely to be related to the events. Bear in mind that at that time the autopsy results were not public. This YouTuber isa person whose videos you often post. The  mechanism of this kind of stroke is very similar to a heart attack. If he had a heart attack, would anybody say it was unrelated to the events? No. Can you persecute based on this? Not very successfully. That’s why the murder charges were dropped against the bearsprayers.

Was “the mainstream media” wrong about the cause of death? Yes. What is the alternative media correct about the cause of death? No. Did you get Better informed about the events listening to these guys. No.

I will add that it’s extremely naïve to think, the people posing as alternative media, don’t have their own conflict of interest. Even If assuming the most innocent motives, in order to maintain subscribers, they have to consistently deliver Information that deviates from “the mainstream media” coverage. Would you have been able to get the same information and draw your own informed conclusion without these guys telling you what do you think? Absolutely. It would’ve just taken time and effort.

The key thing about disinformation, is that they overwhelm your critical thinking by the sheer volume of information presented.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> *Anybody that is pro-vaccine, and anti-mandate doesn’t understand science.,*The vaccine needs to go into as many arms as possible. The best way to do that is a mandate. Look at the military… over 96% vaccinated, and less than .02% death rate… 100x lower than the rest of the country. PS - ALL 52 Military members that died of COVID did NOT get fully vaccinated.



This is where we disagree a little bit, and this is a major ethics dilemma. The science is absolutely clear about that if we want to save as many lives as possible, then we need to vaccinate as many people as possible. In a society that values the life of those who were actually born as the most sacred of all things, getting vaccinated is the most congruent thing to do with this value system. However, is it ethical to force people if human life only has secondary value in their value system? Plenty to debate about. Except for healthcare. No space for debate there. And a military that allows its service members to be vulnerable biological warfare is straight up laughable. After all it's called military and not militia. However, I do think that people who wanton waste healthcare resources should contribute proportionally more to healthcare funding.


----------



## Edd

If the timing had been different, with vaccines getting released while Trump was still in office and lead medical experts saying it's safe, I can say with confidence I would have gotten the shot just as fast, and I assume most of the left would as well.  Biden was simply saying that he doesn't trust Donald Trump, which is the sanest statement imaginable.  Trump is indeed, untrustworthy.

Trump would have pushed the vaccines from the Oval, his dumb acolytes would have lined up for it.  It wouldn't have gotten us out of Delta or Omicron but far less US deaths.  And Trump would still be president.

Timing, man...


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## User.168

.


----------



## Eric

theSeb said:


> I'll be honest and say that once people start talking about "mainstream media" I tend to switch off and move on. However, in this case, I'll ask a few questions.
> 
> What do you consider mainstream media?
> 
> Is a podcaster with around 10 to 12 million listeners in a multi million pound deal to produce podcasts mainstream media?



I don't even watch cable news, I watch local newscasts and the nightly news on either ABC or NBC to get the highlights of what's going on. To these people I think those would be considered "mainstream media" and they're simply reporting the news with no spin one way or the other. 

But for some reason they can't be trusted and you hear stuff like "listen to this trusted youtuber, they have an inside scoop" or "This trusted doctor is questioning the vaccine, you should read this article about the benefits of Ivermectin" kind of stuff that breeds ignorance or makes you a "critical thinker".


----------



## SuperMatt

theSeb said:


> Who is trying to find fault constantly with Fox here and presenting little snippets as gotchas against you?



It’s very telling when right-wingers post a “gotcha” about CNN. They assume all liberals watch it because the high viewership of Fox by middle-aged and older conservatives. They assume that since Fox is clearly and obviously right-wing propaganda, that CNN is therefore left-wing propaganda... and that every other news except Fox is also left-wing propaganda.

Fox has more than double the viewers that CNN has, and there are more liberals than conservatives in America (based on popular presidential vote in the last few decades). So I think that should tell you something about the relative popularity of each platform, and why it’s really out-of-touch when right-wingers think they “PWNED” the liberals by posting something negative about CNN.

As for finding “gotchas” with Fox, it’s way too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel. They lie and promote Republican politicians (and their talking points) without question constantly.


----------



## DT

Eric said:


> But for some reason they can't be trusted and you hear stuff like "listen to this trusted youtuber, they have an inside scoop" or "This trusted doctor is questioning the vaccine, you should read this article about the benefits of Ivermectin" kind of stuff that breeds ignorance or makes you a "critical thinker".




Eric, do your research ...


----------



## Eric

DT said:


> Eric, do your research ...



Dr. with 50 years of experience: "You have an infection that if not treated with antibiotics will kill you within days" 

Me who just listened to a podcast: "I think I'll do my own research"

Seems legit.


----------



## DT

Eric said:


> Dr. with 50 years of experience: "You have an infection that if not treated with antibiotics will kill you within days"
> 
> Me who just listened to a podcast: "I think I'll do my own research"
> 
> Seems legit.




Someone on NextDoor months ago was constantly babbling about "_Do your search ._..", which is crazy-speak for, "_Find a source that corroborates your wack job perspective ..._", and I asked her about her research protocols and data models, etc., hahaha, she just went off, then she got banned


----------



## Herdfan

SuperMatt said:


> It’s very telling when right-wingers post a “gotcha” about CNN. They assume all liberals watch it because the high viewership of Fox by middle-aged and older conservatives.




Just as liberals think Conservatives only watch Fox.

I don't think I have had FoxNews on since the election.  And mainly had CNN on that night because I really like how John King breaks things down.  Completely apolitical.

I have 4 news tabs open in my browser: Fox, CNN, Drudge, local news.  I read CNN as much as I do Fox.


----------



## Eric

Herdfan said:


> Just as liberals think Conservatives only watch Fox.
> 
> I don't think I have had FoxNews on since the election.  And mainly had CNN on that night because I really like how John King breaks things down.  Completely apolitical.
> 
> I have 4 news tabs open in my browser: Fox, CNN, Drudge, local news.  I read CNN as much as I do Fox.



IMO all cable news is just hyperbole for one side or the other. All anyone really needs is 30 minutes to catch up on the day's events, watching mind-numbing coverage for hours at a time in an echo chamber of your choicer is what pushes people over the edge.


----------



## User.168




----------



## User.45

Well, he won't cry long when he realizes he just got lifetime credit with his malleable alt-right subscribers.



> He said: “I was telling a story in the podcast about how me and my friend Tommy and his girlfriend, we got really high, we’re in Philadelphia, and we went to go see Planet of the Apes.
> 
> “We didn’t know where we were going, we just got dropped off by a cab, and we got dropped off in this all-black neighbourhood.
> 
> “And I was trying to make the story entertaining and I said: ‘We got out, and it was like we were in Africa, like we were in Planet of the Apes.’
> 
> “I did not, nor would I ever, say that black people are apes, but it sure fuckin’ sounded like that.
> 
> “And I immediately afterwards said: ‘That’s a racist thing to say.’”
> 
> Rogan said he had deleted the podcast and admitted it was “an idiotic thing to say”, adding: “I was just trying to be entertaining. I certainly wasn’t trying to be racist, and I certainly would never want to offend someone for entertainment with something as stupid as racism.”











						Joe Rogan apologises for repeated use of N-word after footage emerges
					

Podcast host says sorry for ‘most regretful and shameful thing I’ve ever had to talk about’ but says remarks were taken out of context




					www.theguardian.com
				




I don't have the recipe for how not to sound racist, or how to unracist yourself, but I suspect him debating blackness with Jordan Peterson like in the darkest spot in the world where people don't wear clothes is probably not a way to approach it. This guy is getting more pathetic by the day.


----------



## Joe

I don’t listen to JR. But I googled his clips. He was wildin’ with the N word with the hard ER at the end. I’m surprised it took this long for someone to call him out. 

Still keeping my Spotify.


----------



## JayMysteri0

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490137672559431680/
At this point, this thread & Joe have moved their way out of Covid talk, and into deeper & $#!ttier waters.


----------



## Eric

*Warning, explicit NSFW*

A mashup of all the times he's used the N word
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490020174061260800/

Spotify also quietly (not so much now) removed 70 podcasts.








						Spotify confirms Joe Rogan removed episodes with racially offensive language
					

Spotify's CEO also said the company would invest $100 million in creators from "historically marginalized groups," matching the amount of Rogan's exclusivity deal.




					www.cnet.com
				




Look at the lengths they've gone through to protect him, unbelievable.


----------



## User.45

Eric said:


> *Warning, explicit NSFW*
> 
> A mashup of all the times he's used the N word
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490020174061260800/
> 
> Spotify also quietly (not so much now) removed 70 podcasts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spotify confirms Joe Rogan removed episodes with racially offensive language
> 
> 
> Spotify's CEO also said the company would invest $100 million in creators from "historically marginalized groups," matching the amount of Rogan's exclusivity deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the lengths they've gone through to protect him, unbelievable.



Oh, shit this apology makes it even worse. "I certainly never wanted to offend someone for entertainment". 
Hahaha. Feature, not a bug.


----------



## JayMysteri0

There is soooooo much

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490323823576719367/



> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP lawmaker condemned for inviting Holocaust denier to State of the Union | House of Representatives | The Guardian
> 
> 
> Matt Gaetz says Charles Johnson, banned from Twitter for seeking help ‘taking out’ Black Lives Matter activist, is not white supremacist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amp.theguardian.com




Yet, Rogan can't be bothered to do any research to challenge his guests, so they just go on spewing their shit, and Rogan goes... 

"Interesting"

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490140017619914756/


----------



## User.45

JayMysteri0 said:


> There is soooooo much
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490323823576719367/
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, Rogan can't be bothered to do any research to challenge his guests, so they just go on spewing their shit, and Rogan goes...
> 
> "Interesting"
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1490140017619914756/



And this is what I hate about disinformation. This dude dropped this bomb about "this whole debate about the MAO-A gene," and if shit like this goes unchallenged people will subconsciously start believing it.

MAO-A or in its maiden name Monoamine Oxidase A, is an enzyme that breaks down serotonin, dopamine, noradrenaline (aka norepinephrine preferred in western literature) and the idea is that lower enzymatic activity can be linked to higher self-reported aggression scores. Well, we all have the gene...Different versions based on certain patterns have different levels of enzymatic activity. The issue is, that the lower activity version is also more common in Asian and Hispanic Americans.


> 4. Role of _MAOA_ allelic variants in the ontogeny of aggression​The bulk of clinical evidence on the link between _MAOA_ and aggression comes from genetic studies on the numerous polymorphic variants of this gene (Table 1). The richest source of evidence on the functional role of _MAOA_ in aggression has come from an upstream variable-number tandem repeat (uVNTR) polymorphism, featuring alleles with different numbers (2, 3, 3.5, 4, 5 and 6) of 30-bp repeats 1.2 kb upstream of the transcription initiation site (Sabol et al., 1998, Huang et al., 2004). The two most common uVNTR alleles, harboring 3 and 4 repeats, are estimated to be present in 35–39% and 59–63% of Caucasians, respectively; conversely, 3-repeat variants are present in the majority of African (52–59%), Asian (53–61%), and Hispanic (70%) Americans (Sabol et al., 1998, Rosenberg et al., 2006, Widom and Brzustowicz, 2006, Beaver et al., 2013). The particular importance of the uVNTR polymorphism arises from its functional nature: the 3-repeat allele (and, to an even greater extent, the 2-repeat allele) is associated with low transcriptional efficiency of the _MAOA_ promoter, resulting in lower enzyme activity than that of the 4-repeat variant (Sabol et al., 1998, Deckert et al., 1999, Denney et al., 1999, Jonsson et al., 2000).




The best indicator of someone trying to justify racism using science is when they attempt to link single gene variations with incredibly complex traits that they think are associated with a societal construct such as the "African American race".








						The role of monoamine oxidase A in aggression: Current translational developments and future challenges
					

Drawing upon the recent resurgence of biological criminology, several studies have highlighted a critical role for genetic factors in the ontogeny of …




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## Herdfan




----------



## SuperMatt

Herdfan said:


> View attachment 11757



Thanks for adding less than nothing to the discussion.

If you actually read about the story (which would be a first), you’d see that some music by him is still available because it is not fully under his control, such as selections from movie soundtracks.

See how easy it is for the Fox propaganda to fill empty minds with lies when they’re too lazy to actually read anything?









						Fact Check-Neil Young’s music has not returned to Spotify, despite social media claims
					

Social media users’ claims that Neil Young’s music has returned to Spotify are false. The Spotify page dedicated to Young shows the artist’s vast music catalog remains off the platform. A minimal number of movie soundtracks and compilation albums that contain Young’s music...




					www.reuters.com


----------



## DT

JayMysteri0 said:


> There is soooooo much




I must have the "black gene" because I am predisposed to kick that guy's ass.


----------



## MEJHarrison

DT said:


> I must have the "black gene"...




Dammit.  Now I want to know what color real genes are.  Just because they're too small to see doesn't mean they don't have some color to them.  And now that I'm thinking about that, I'm wondering if an electron would have a color and what that might be.  I think I've reached that perfect level of too much/not enough intoxication.   

Couldn't find an answer on genes, but it seems electrons don't really have a color, they just reflect light in general and are color neutral.









						What is the colour of an electron?
					

Answer (1 of 20): To answer this, first we must understand what me mean by “colour”. We say all the time, “we see colour” , “I see that blue, or yellow”, and so on, when the right word to use would be perceive. Colour itself depends on who is looking at the object and by what means they are looki...




					www.quora.com


----------



## SuperMatt

A study shows that Ivermectin does literally nothing to help against COVID-19.









						Ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19, new study finds | CNN
					

The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.




					www.cnn.com
				




It may be a horse dewormer, and a dessert topping, and a floor wax…. But it won’t help you if you’ve got COVID-19.


----------



## Eric

SuperMatt said:


> *A study shows that Ivermectin does literally nothing to help against COVID-19.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19, new study finds | CNN
> 
> 
> The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a horse dewormer, and a dessert topping, and a floor wax…. But it won’t help you if you’ve got COVID-19.



Yeah but not even if it's endorsed by a comedian?


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> A study shows that Ivermectin does literally nothing to help against COVID-19.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19, new study finds | CNN
> 
> 
> The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a horse dewormer, and a dessert topping, and a floor wax…. But it won’t help you if you’ve got COVID-19.




It should be marketed as a male "enhancement" drug, because I suspect there's a large number of anti-vaxx, Rogan fans who would be very interested ...


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> A study shows that Ivermectin does literally nothing to help against COVID-19.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19, new study finds | CNN
> 
> 
> The antiparasitic drug ivermectin doesn't prevent severe disease from Covid-19 any more effectively than symptom management and close observation by medical professionals, according to a study published Friday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may be a horse dewormer, and a dessert topping, and a floor wax…. But it won’t help you if you’ve got COVID-19.




TL;DR: the study's data shows that ~6% of people taking ivermectin develop diarrhea, 1 patient almost died of it on study, and 2 other had heart attacks, i.e. the drug is not harmless. In exchange the only potential benefit was reduced 28-day hospital mortality, which was still weaker than the random noise in the data, even in a design that is biased to favor ivermectin.

---------
It's a good study overall even without the blinding. The data superficially suggests non-significant trends towards Ivermectin (until you read a little further):



> *Results*  Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; _P_ = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; _P_ = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; _P_ = .79), and *28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). *The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).




So the in-hospital mortality was 1/3rd in the Iver group showing a trend towards significance. Then you look at the causes of death: 4 of the 13 were sepsis from hospital acquired infections, all in the control group. So the COVID PNA deaths were 3 vs 6, still favoring Iver, but again the sample size if way too small to draw conclusions... Then you look at this:



> Adverse Events
> A total of 55 AEs occurred in 44 patients (9.0%) (Table 4). Among them, 33 were from the ivermectin group, with diarrhea being the most common AE (14 [5.8%]). *Five events were classified as SAEs, with 4 in the ivermectin group (2 patients had myocardial infarction, 1 had severe anemia, and 1 developed hypovolemic shock secondary to severe diarrhea), and 1 in the control group had inferior epigastric arterial bleeding. *Six patients discontinued ivermectin, and 3 withdrew from the study owing to AEs. The majority of AEs were grade 1 and resolved within the study period.



So 2 iver patients got heart attacks and 1 got nearly killed by diarrhea. Of course the open label design will increase the reporting bias for adverse events in the Iver group. But then and this is the killer part:



> Subgroup Analyses
> Subgroup analyses for patients with severe disease were unremarkable (Table 3). *Among fully vaccinated patients, 22 (17.7%) in the ivermectin group and 12 (9.2%) in the control group developed severe disease (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.99-3.71; P = .06).* Post hoc analyses on clinical outcomes by vaccination status showed that fully vaccinated patients in the control group had a significantly lower rate of severe disease (_P_ = .002; supporting data in eTable 6 in Supplement 2).



Severe disease rate was half in the fully vaccinated controls vs. the fully vaccinated ivermectin patients.

Also, length of hospital stay, etc was identical in the 2 groups.

So the only _potential_ (meaning still unproven) benefit of ivermectin could be reduced 28-day hospital mortality but which is PROVEN to be too weak to be confirmed in a 500-patient runup with a design that is high risk to be biased towards favoring ivermectin. At the same time you might severely harm 2 in 100 with ivermectin. So it is safe to say that this is not a good drug to use to treat any aspect of COVID.


----------



## SuperMatt

P_X said:


> TL;DR: the study's data shows that ~6% of people taking ivermectin develop diarrhea, 1 patient almost died of it on study, and 2 other had heart attacks, i.e. the drug is not harmless. In exchange the only potential benefit was reduced 28-day hospital mortality, which was still weaker than the random noise in the data, even in a design that is biased to favor ivermectin.
> 
> ---------
> It's a good study overall even without the blinding. The data superficially suggests non-significant trends towards Ivermectin (until you read a little further):
> 
> 
> 
> So the in-hospital mortality was 1/3rd in the Iver group showing a trend towards significance. Then you look at the causes of death: 4 of the 13 were sepsis from hospital acquired infections, all in the control group. So the COVID PNA deaths were 3 vs 6, still favoring Iver, but again the sample size if way too small to draw conclusions... Then you look at this:
> 
> 
> So 2 iver patients got heart attacks and 1 got nearly killed by diarrhea. Of course the open label design will increase the reporting bias for adverse events in the Iver group. But then and this is the killer part:
> 
> 
> Severe disease rate was half in the fully vaccinated controls vs. the fully vaccinated ivermectin patients.
> 
> Also, length of hospital stay, etc was identical in the 2 groups.
> 
> So the only _potential_ (meaning still unproven) benefit of ivermectin could be reduced 28-day hospital mortality but which is PROVEN to be too weak to be confirmed in a 500-patient runup with a design that is high risk to be biased towards favoring ivermectin. At the same time you might severely harm 2 in 100 with ivermectin. So it is safe to say that this is not a good drug to use to treat any aspect of COVID.



So it’s literally worse than doing nothing! Wow, thanks for the analysis.


----------



## User.45

SuperMatt said:


> So it’s literally worse than doing nothing! Wow, thanks for the analysis.



Yes, the clinical benefit if there is any at all, is way to weak to spend more resources on this. In a low-resource environment, something like this could still be valid as the alternatives might be much more expensive/inaccessible.* For the USA, we have the more expensive but way more effective stuff, both antiviral and antibody products. So ivermectin has literally zero chance to become standard of care in the USA.

*I'll add that even for repurposing generics, I would just look for something else at this point.


----------



## DT

SuperMatt said:


> So it’s literally worse than doing nothing! Wow, thanks for the analysis.




Sound like it's about the same as playing Oregon Trail ...


----------



## User.45

DT said:


> Sound like it's about the same as playing Oregon Trail ...



At least OT is fun


----------



## JayMysteri0

So, you may not have heard, but Joe Rogan supposedly passed a little while ago. 



> Joe Rogan death hoax sends internet into meltdown
> 
> 
> The controversial podcast host began trending on the platform on Wednesday after a number of fake tweets about his death began circulating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com




At least according to social media.  Which in his particular case was kind of funny because...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1511930736370241540/

Seems when misinformation that Rogan fans don't like, even though they know it isn't true, is suddenly bad.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513480139157377028/



https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513487543173591045/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513489369864323072/


----------



## Runs For Fun

JayMysteri0 said:


> So, you may not have heard, but Joe Rogan supposedly passed a little while ago.
> 
> 
> 
> At least according to social media.  Which in his particular case was kind of funny because...
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1511930736370241540/
> 
> Seems when misinformation that Rogan fans don't like, even though they know it isn't true, is suddenly bad.
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513480139157377028/
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513487543173591045/
> https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1513489369864323072/



This level of cognitive dissonance hurts.


----------



## fischersd

It's nice to think that he's gone though....I'm sure that brightened a lot of people's mornings...until they found out otherwise.


----------



## JayMysteri0

Just asking questions?  What happens when you actually look for answers?



> Watch Joe Rogan Realize In Real Time The Story He’s Ranting About Is Actually Fake News
> 
> 
> "Dammit. It better not be fake. It might be fake," the popular podcaster blurted in an awkward moment that's gone viral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com


----------



## Joe

That was the first Joe Rogan podcast clip I have ever watched...and I wished I hadn't. I can't get the brain cells back that I lost watching that shit.


----------



## Edd

JayMysteri0 said:


> Just asking questions?  What happens when you actually look for answers?



Like Tucker and Trump, Rogan has achieved elite levels of shamelessness. Any success he enjoys professionally is worth the damage he does. This moment should be humiliating for him but nah. Cool bros can’t be shamed.


----------



## Joe

People will say and do anything for money. Joe Rogan does what he does because he's making a shit load of money off stupid people.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Joe said:


> People will say and do anything for money. Joe Rogan does what he does because he's making a shit load of money off stupid people.




This shit didn’t seem to happen as much, if ever, before he moved to Texas. So did he move there drawn in by the stupid or did he go full native soon after he moved there?


----------



## Joe

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> This shit didn’t seem to happen as much, if ever, before he moved to Texas. So did he move there drawn in by the stupid or did he go full native soon after he moved there?




We have a lot of stupid people here lol


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

Joe said:


> We have a lot of stupid people here lol




To be fair, a lot of states have their pockets of stupid. It’s just that some stupid are more dangerous than others. I think the biggest issue is we’re losing gainful employment opportunities for the stupid which leaves them light in the pocket and with a lot of free time and for whatever reason they like to fill that free time with anti-social fantasy worlds and activities.


----------



## mollyc

Even educated people are going a little haywire with some of this stuff. My friend is a highly regarded dentist, and attended one of the top ranked dental schools; she was my college roommate and a biology major (perhaps molecular biology). She is convinced this is all a hoax by Bill Gates and big pharma and that the vaccine is causing more harm than good and now recommending nutraceuticals as prevention.

To be fair, I don't think there is anything bad with taking most vitamins/supplements, and some can have great benefit. But she seemingly believes they will actually prevent covid.

I am not quite sure how she has arrived at this point in her life, but she is definitely on the fox news train.

(She also offers botox to her patients; I wonder how she reconciles adding actual poison to faces, or if she will give up that area in her practice.)


----------



## Joe

mollyc said:


> Even educated people are going a little haywire with some of this stuff.




We saw that on 1/6 when doctors and lawyers and CEOs were being arrested. Crazy times.

It's not just rednecks anymore.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

mollyc said:


> I am not quite sure how she has arrived at this point in her life, but she is definitely on the fox news train.




I think that explains a lot of it. Somebody might start out as a fiscal conservative but over time their “trusted” news source stopped talking about those type issues and moved on to culture wars and distrust of literally everything and the viewer just went along with it. “I guess we’re doing this now” says the voice in their head.


----------



## JayMysteri0

I guess we can finally bury any pretense of where Rogan falls politically anymore.



> Joe Rogan says Fox News and right-wing personalities 'had my back'
> 
> 
> Joe Rogan said that Fox News and conservative media outlets were the only ones that supported him when he faced accusations of spreading vaccine misinformation earlier this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk





> Joe Rogan said that Fox News and conservative media outlets were the only ones that supported him when he faced accusations of spreading vaccine misinformation earlier this year.
> 
> 'They had my back through it,' Rogan, 54, said. 'It was Fox News that had my f*****g back.'
> 
> Speaking on Tuesday's episode of his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan lamented that he felt Democrats had abandoned free speech and openness to other people's ideas.
> 
> 
> He said that in the past the right was the 'suppressive' party, but that now the left has assumed that mantle.




My favorite part?  He's whining about being called out for spreading misinformation that could be harmful!  For having the audacity to do that & demand he stop with his bullshit of "I'm just asking questions" without doing any research of his own, liberals were "mean" to him.  Of course another source of spreading misinformation would be right behind him, and THAT he loves.  That tells you all you need to know about individuals who claim to be politically neutrally & want free speech.  What they want is to be free of the consequences of their bullshit, and whoever calls them out aren't open & suppressive.

Grow up the F' up!


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

JayMysteri0 said:


> I guess we can finally bury any pretense of where Rogan falls politically anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite part?  He's whining about being called out for spreading misinformation that could be harmful!  For having the audacity to do that & demand he stop with his bullshit of "I'm just asking questions" without doing any research of his own, liberals were "mean" to him.  Of course another source of spreading misinformation would be right behind him, and THAT he loves.  That tells you all you need to know about individuals who claim to be politically neutrally & want free speech.  What they want is to be free of the consequences of their bullshit, and whoever calls them out aren't open & suppressive.
> 
> Grow up the F' up!




I think part of the problem is Joe has been a health and fitness fanatic for forever and constantly on the quest for the next great thing (as these people do). Maybe his research in the past produced some questionable data but it wasn’t life threatening and he wasn’t primarily advertising himself as a health expert. That type thing was just peppered throughout his podcast. Then he applied the same method to covid and got way out of his league coupled with a public hungry for alternatives, for some any alternative to the government backed narrative was to be respected.

I know other lefties (or possibly claimed lefties in Joe’s case) who have gone on Fox as a result of being shunned or blasted by the left and their media. Fox will give some of these people a platform if it aligns with questioning the government and especially the Democrat party. I suppose for those lefties who go on there they see it as an opportunity to get their beliefs and knowledge out there as justification, but these also seem to be completely blind that Fox is using them 100% as a propaganda tool to just further enrage their base and the lefty/progressive isn’t going to win any new converts.


----------



## SuperMatt

Chew Toy McCoy said:


> the left and their media



I always wonder: what do you consider “their media” in regards to the “lefties”?

In the case of Fox, it’s obvious they are specifically a right-wing messaging platform. They don’t hide it. 

And most Fox devotees say that everything other than Fox is left wing media.


----------



## Chew Toy McCoy

SuperMatt said:


> I always wonder: what do you consider “their media” in regards to the “lefties”?
> 
> In the case of Fox, it’s obvious they are specifically a right-wing messaging platform. They don’t hide it.
> 
> And most Fox devotees say that everything other than Fox is left wing media.




Most, if not all, major news media is little more than stenographers for the establishment and the views of their advertisers with very little kickback to those in power. At best they’ll bury or marginalize a news story that is inconvenient to their political view for what they probably feel is in the service of the greater good of their political views.

As an example, Progressive firebrand Jimmy Dore isn’t allowed on MSNBC or CNN but is welcome on Fox. Why? Because he’ll talk at great length about the corruption of Nancy Pelosi and other establishment Democrats. He’s swinging from the left but the overall message is gold for the right. The left leaning major news media can’t have that kind of thing besmirching their party’s good name. Similarly former Tea Party Congressman turned never Trumper activist used to be a staple on Fox before he turned on Trump. Now he’s not allowed on Fox but is welcome on CNN and MSNBC to talk about his crusade against Trumpism. You can’t go on Fox if you consider Trump the greatest danger to our country.


----------

