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

[Eric]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There is soooooo much

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

 

[MEJHarrison]

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 21): Let's start with the question how do we perceive colour? Our eyes, when receiving light, measure not only its intensity, but also very roughly its wavelength. We seldom see really monochromatic light, usually what we see is a mixture of different wavelengths. Our eyes have evolv...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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