Some words regarding Neal Young removing his music from Spotify.

[Danzilla31]

The Rogan Experience- censorship from lying. aka I have right to my lies & conspiracies. I do agree with the latter more, except when it comes to more people dying.

It's human behavior to be curious and defiant about things your told not to do.

Two years later? At your own peril. Thanks, Fox.

Yeah free speech is a bi#$ch like that I guess

People are going to do what they are going to do.

I'm thinking give it another year or 2 and a lot of this is going to blow over anyway.

People are only going to be able to handle closures with schools financial stress mandates and mental issues this causes for so long. Eventually they will just stop complying

I'm so numb to it all I kindoff just don't care anymore either way to be honest

 

[John Parks]

As usual, Russell Brand has a fun (and informative) take on the issue:

Link to the very good Jacobin article mentioned in the video:

Censoring Joe Rogan Is No Solution to Vaccine Misinformation

There’s a campaign underway to kick podcast host Joe Rogan off Spotify for spreading COVID misinformation. But Rogan at his worst couldn’t do as much damage to public trust in science as the political and scientific establishment has during the pandemic.

www.jacobinmag.com

 

[SithZedi]

The fact that the White House is commenting on this is fascinating. I feel the media has blown this up to a level that part of the issue with Joe's platform is on them

It's human behavior to be curious and defiant about things your told not to do. If parents are too strict what's a pattern a lot of young adults go through as they enter society? They rebel and are attracted to whatever you denied them access to. That's not just youth it's a part of human nature.

I wasn't running around having anyone on the street at work or anyone else talking about Rogan and COVID the last 2 years but thanks to all this publicity from the press now everyone is paying attention.

I feel if they hadn't have reacted nobody would even be paying attention to Rogan and the guests he's had on Spotify. Basically by taking this stance people may have given him attention and a platform that wouldn't have been there

Most peoples minds are made up 3 years into this anyway. Your not going to change them now.

I saw the guest he had Malone right? The guy that claims he's behind MRNA vaccines? Thanks to that interview with Rogan I was able to do research and watch Malone and a lot of his claims get shredded by experts that I do trust.

So it can go both ways both negative and positive I guess

Hey D, can you direct me to those experts that shredded Malone. Curious for the info..thx

 

[Danzilla31]

Hey D, can you direct me to those experts that shredded Malone. Curious for the info..thx

Yeppers as soon as I get off work

 

[Danzilla31]

Yeppers as soon as I get off work

This is one he also a good one directly addressing a lot of Malones issues with Dr Offit I'll link that as well.

@Swerd also had a lot of excellent links and articles in the coronavirus thread that were very insightful because this was a topic of discussion in that thread as well hopefully he can point out some of those posts or provide those links over here as well. A lot of what he linked or spoke about was super helpful to do research on about Dr Malone

I know that Malone got a huge amount of flak linking a high school athletes death to heart conditions due to Covid 19 which turned out to be totally bogus the kid died of a heart condition like back in 2013 or 17 Malone later retracted that after the fallout stating he didn't know the article had been hijacked. I know the family had to do a cease and desist order on him with that article

He got dinged for totally supporting an article about myocarditis and these vaccines that was found after peer review to be faulty due to errors in statistical analysis and a faulty calculation technique. He took a more stubborn stance on that one. There are other studies that show a possible link but not near the level that study did or Malone claims it did

His proposal of mass psychosis was kindoff inherently faulty even to a simpleton like me it was easy to see the same criteria for applying it to others could be actually turned around and used for him and his supporters so a huge kind of hole in his entire argument

I also know that he kindoff deserves more credit for the early ideas behind MRNA techniques but other scientists took those early ideas and implimented them successfully into workable vaccine solutions we see today. So the whole idea he is the inventor or the total expert on these had a huge hole in his argument right there and led to possible bias on his part as he is quoted as saying he felt he got unfairly left behind and deserved more credit

Also his claims of the spike protein that it lodges into vital organs and implements a toxicity in the bodies reaction I can't find a single study by him or others that backs that up with hard valid data so he just lost me there

Now is he brilliant yes and very experienced in his field I just don't see a lot of valid research done especially by him that backs up his claims.

But as I said above Joe Rogans interview was insightful and I did enjoy it and it gave me a lot of info based on Malones claims his background to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. I actually thought it was a good and necessary interview we have to have these conversations and dissenting opinions so the science of Covid and vaccinations can hold up to claims that try to refute it or state other theories or approaches

Honestly I don't think the interview influenced most people at this stage anyway. People's minds are pretty made up it seems like when it comes to this situation

 

[Danzilla31]

Hey D, can you direct me to those experts that shredded Malone. Curious for the info..thx

Also here's that other link from Dr Z I told you about above

 

[Danzilla31]

Hey D, can you direct me to those experts that shredded Malone. Curious for the info..thx

On that second one with Dr Offit they focus on Malone at the 44min mark just to help you as you browse through it to go to that particular topic

 

[Dude#1279435]

As usual, Russell Brand has a fun (and informative) take on the issue:

Link to the very good Jacobin article mentioned in the video:

Censoring Joe Rogan Is No Solution to Vaccine Misinformation

There’s a campaign underway to kick podcast host Joe Rogan off Spotify for spreading COVID misinformation. But Rogan at his worst couldn’t do as much damage to public trust in science as the political and scientific establishment has during the pandemic.

www.jacobinmag.com

After the controversial ones I'd be open to having experts on with differing opinions.

Huh, you mean more of the controversial ones with differing opinions. Since the consensus is to get the vax.

Russell Brand-
Right. He isn't a scientist. That would be the point. He just takes all points of view. Mmkay. What's up with his waving hangs?!?! LOL
Wasn't Trump's Task Force behind the decision for the lockdown? Trump's problem was his "public" handling of covid early on. Faux's "it's just the flu", "it's a hoax", followed by Hannity's "we never hear said it was a hoax." Faux's silence on getting the vax as well as interviewing anti-vax people/movements recently. Faux hosts having gotten the vax. Aside the politics of it, ironically CNN/Msnbc have been pro-vax (ie pro-life, pro-saving lives). Conservative media have consistently opposed that for political gain. That's something conservatives will have to digest (but won't). Brand's use of "J" as a source is laughable. Biden spread misinformation on CNN. OK. Like? Even one quote would be sufficient. A quote here, a quote there etc.

 

[Dude#1279435]

This is one he also a good one directly addressing a lot of Malones issues with Dr Offit I'll link that as well.

@Swerd also had a lot of excellent links and articles in the coronavirus thread that were very insightful because this was a topic of discussion in that thread as well hopefully he can point out some of those posts or provide those links over here as well. A lot of what he linked or spoke about was super helpful to do research on about Dr Malone

I know that Malone got a huge amount of flak linking a high school athletes death to heart conditions due to Covid 19 which turned out to be totally bogus the kid died of a heart condition like back in 2013 or 17 Malone later retracted that after the fallout stating he didn't know the article had been hijacked. I know the family had to do a cease and desist order on him with that article

He got dinged for totally supporting an article about myocarditis and these vaccines that was found after peer review to be faulty due to errors in statistical analysis and a faulty calculation technique. He took a more stubborn stance on that one. There are other studies that show a possible link but not near the level that study did or Malone claims it did

His proposal of mass psychosis was kindoff inherently faulty even to a simpleton like me it was easy to see the same criteria for applying it to others could be actually turned around and used for him and his supporters so a huge kind of hole in his entire argument

I also know that he kindoff deserves more credit for the early ideas behind MRNA techniques but other scientists took those early ideas and implimented them successfully into workable vaccine solutions we see today. So the whole idea he is the inventor or the total expert on these had a huge hole in his argument right there and led to possible bias on his part as he is quoted as saying he felt he got unfairly left behind and deserved more credit

Also his claims of the spike protein that it lodges into vital organs and implements a toxicity in the bodies reaction I can't find a single study by him or others that backs that up with hard valid data so he just lost me there

Now is he brilliant yes and very experienced in his field I just don't see a lot of valid research done especially by him that backs up his claims.

But as I said above Joe Rogans interview was insightful and I did enjoy it and it gave me a lot of info based on Malones claims his background to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. I actually thought it was a good and necessary interview we have to have these conversations and dissenting opinions so the science of Covid and vaccinations can hold up to claims that try to refute it or state other theories or approaches

Honestly I don't think the interview influenced most people at this stage anyway. People's minds are pretty made up it seems like when it comes to this situation

Huh. I didn't need to research it. I knew that when I heard mass psychosis formation (ie mob psychology). Plus it was on Rogan's show. Red flag. I think that's the stupider parts of our intellectual fields: some of em don't have common sense.

 

[Dude#1279435]

-- Trump did more for Americans than the entire conservative media has in two years by saying, Get the vax!

-- Conservatives continue to push fringe ideas like Rogan's show while being vaxed. Ironically, meaning they agree with the left science.

-- Desensitizing is a lot better than having to say Faux has blood on their hands.

-- The Cuomo's and Newsom also suck.

-- I would define the left media as having a pro-vax position. I would not define right media as having a pro-vax position. (Nor am I aware of them transitioning to a pro-vax position, like the sooner we get vaxed, the sooner we can get the economy rolling again. Differentiating themselves from covid perpetuity. Meaning conservative media has contributed to the slow down.)

 

[Dude#1279435]

Again not saying Trump has a great record on covid, but at least recently he's said that.

 

[cpp]

Again not saying Trump has a great record on covid, but at least recently he's said that.

Trump seems to always do and say what's best to get votes including flip flopping on his own stance. Covid statement early on to get a booster.

 

[panteragstk]

But why would you continue to give the anti-vax a voice if there's less and less reason to believe in that vs. the shot? The science appears to be panning out. It's why Faux has been abysmal on covid and caused death (well like Cuomo). They've been in opposition to science for the sake of opposing the left. I'm guessing Rogan is blurring the lines so these fringe voices can be heard..

I have no clue. If I thought they were full of it, I would have them on my show WITH an expert that can show that they aren't correct.

Having them on separately gives them a soap box instead of making them defend their BS.

 

[highfigh]

But the folks who should not listen, do.

Trump Just about every politician seems to always do and say what's best to get votes including flip flopping on his own stance. Covid statement early on to get a booster.

Better? They all do it.

 

[jinjuku]

There are four things people are taking issue with and to pull back the camera a bit for a bigger shot:

1. The mRNA shots are gene therapy. They are not
2. Ivermectin has a curative action. This hasn't been proven
3. You are @ greater risk for serious side effects when getting the vaccine post infection. * I take this with a grain of salt because they know that you can certainly get lesser complications with the vaccination post infection and we are still early on.
4. Younger people are safer just getting Covid vs the vaccine. You should get the vaccine but the other part they message about reduced transmission while fully vaccinated has proven incorrect.

He's said some dumb poop for sure. I wish the science community would not present everything in such a brick wall manner however. We can handle some nuance.

 

[SithZedi]

Better? They all do it.

To this point. I love old movies. I might watch Casablanca next.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1416094954603044864

 

[Swerd]

There are four things people are taking issue with and to pull back the camera a bit for a bigger shot:

1. The mRNA shots are gene therapy. They are not
2. Ivermectin has a curative action. This hasn't been proven
3. You are @ greater risk for serious side effects when getting the vaccine post infection. * I take this with a grain of salt because they know that you can certainly get lesser complications with the vaccination post infection and we are still early on.
4. Younger people are safer just getting Covid vs the vaccine. You should get the vaccine but the other part they message about reduced transmission while fully vaccinated has proven incorrect.

I saw an article on BBC News with those same 4 points about wrong Rogan claims. The article fleshes out each point at bit, more.
Joe Rogan: Four claims from his Spotify podcast fact-checked.:
https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

I wish the science community would not present everything in such a brick wall manner however. We can handle some nuance.

My own personal experience, when talking to non-scientists, has been the opposite. They often misunderstand nuance, mistaking it for doubt. Many people want simple or absolute answers. Science doesn't do that. It demonstrates things as Impossible / Unlikely / Possible / Probable / Likely / or Highly Likely to be true. It rarely, if ever, proves something beyond any doubt. Scientists are actually trained to make cautious conclusions about their results. And when good scientists talk about their results, their language reflects that caution.

That same natural tendency towards caution in interpreting results – nuance as you call it – has been used to attack scientific findings. In the Smoking Causes Cancer or Global Warming Due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions stories, industries with vested interests attacked scientific findings because there was never data that 100% proved those cases. I see the same tactics being repeated in the Covid-19 Vaccine saga.

 

[Pogre]

My own personal experience, when talking to non-scientists, has been the opposite. They often misunderstand nuance, as doubt. Many people want simple or absolute answers. Science doesn't do that, it demonstrates things as Unlikely / Possibly / Probably / Likely / or Highly Likely to be true. It rarely, if ever, proves something beyond any doubt.

That is a really good point. A lot of folks have misconceptions about science and how it works. A lot don't understand that it's a methodology, not an ideology, worldview or group of individuals. Science does not make declarations of absolute knowledge or truth. That's the part most folks, in my experience, get wrong. It offers models that tentatively describe facts about reality based on observation, study and thorough, repeatable, peer reviewed testing. Everything in science is tentative and when better or more compelling evidence comes along science updates itself and replaces the old with the new.

There's good science and bad science, but applied correctly it really is the best thing we have and it's served us pretty well so far. I'm definitely pro science.

*Edit: I'm sharing this quote with a friend of mine who has some of those misconceptions. I thought you put it really well.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

I know that Malone got a huge amount of flak linking a high school athletes death to heart conditions due to Covid 19 which turned out to be totally bogus the kid died of a heart condition like back in 2013 or 17 Malone later retracted that after the fallout stating he didn't know the article had been hijacked. I know the family had to do a cease and desist order on him with that article

...

WOW, what an a hole that guy must be.

 

[highfigh]

I saw an article on BBC News with those same 4 points about wrong Rogan claims. The article fleshes out each point at bit, more.
Joe Rogan: Four claims from his Spotify podcast fact-checked.:
https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614
My own personal experience, when talking to non-scientists, has been the opposite. They often misunderstand nuance, mistaking it for doubt. Many people want simple or absolute answers. Science doesn't do that. It demonstrates things as Impossible / Unlikely / Possible / Probable / Likely / or Highly Likely to be true. It rarely, if ever, proves something beyond any doubt. Scientists are actually trained to make cautious conclusions about their results. And when good scientists talk about their results, their language reflects that caution.

That same natural tendency towards caution in interpreting results – nuance as you call it – has been used to attack scientific findings. In the Smoking Causes Cancer or Global Warming Due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions stories, industries with vested interests attacked scientific findings because there was never data that 100% proved those cases. I see the same tactics being repeated in the Covid-19 Vaccine saga.

Part of the problem in many topics is the fact that the 'science' is presented by people who aren't part of the scientific community as absolutely true, when they neither fully understand the info nor could they argue for or against it in a debate. Some of these people are hypocrites- Algore is one example. Preach the gospel of CO2 emissions being bad, then come up with some ferkakta plan for trading carbon credits so one person/entity can use as much as they want as long as they find some rube to use as a statistical playmate that acts to balance the output or consumption. Gore's house in Tennessee was in the 16K square foot range and used a ridiculous amount of energy.

Then there's going on about CO2 as if it's the only thing causing climate change when water vapor and Methane are at least as bad. They come up with deadlines for 'Carbon Neutrality' that are impossible to achieve, then act like they saved the whole world when other countries clearly don't give a rat's a$$.