The whole "both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news and why I signed off years ago. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Let's get a crazy person on and see. It's okay because we'll give an expert a few minutes too.
Props to Bernie for taking the battle to the middle ground though and not preaching only to the choir. He kind of got shit on for that as well.
Whether you like him or not, or agree with his views, is entirely subjective. But it's interesting to see how much control people want over others by the topics and conversation they want to prevent and suppress, and those actions speak far louder than words.
> When you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative.
This is in spite of his politics.
There are plenty of people who are exposed to (far)left perspectives from his show - do you take issue with that?
You are evidently very unwilling to accept the claim, so I don't think anything said here will convince you otherwise, but perhaps it is meaningful that so many people are convinced of it.
Very few people have such trouble with his massive variety of guests, topics and politics; otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular podcast in the world.
An obvious example of this in action, is Jordan Peterson, who the left almost universally detests. He's neither alt-right nor far-right, and yet the left tries to slander and control him with that label constantly (bury him under fake labels). If you're not in total agreement with them, you're the enemy; that's widely the ethos of the intolerant left today. Rogan has given people like Peterson a large platform to speak through. That's the sort of thing the left hates Rogan for.
The biggest social media site is Facebook. Facebook is very right leaning.
The biggest cable news/punditry channel is Fox. Fox is _very_ right leaning.
The rest of cable news is mostly centrist, certainly not left. MSNBC is vaguely left, that's about it.
Radio is dominated by right-wing blowhards.
Where is my 95% exactly?
> They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
would you consider biden left?
By US standards, he's a moderate. So no, still not left. And that's why he got elected.
It used to be the best when there was regulation that made sure equal amounts of attention were devoted to both sides of an issue with proper research.
What we have today are ideological echo chambers with some caricature of an opposing side, not actual debate.
Just like the chair you're sitting in is stationary according to your frame of reference, while from another it is hurtling through space.
There's no such thing as a "normal" frame of reference.
> the geocentricists tried to build mechanical models but the increasing number of epicycles was a big clue that the system was in fact heliocentric.
Not exactly, it was a big clue that the planets did not move in perfect circles. The mechanical models did not provide any evidence of heliocentrism. It was Galileo's observations of Venus that torpedoed the geocentric theory.
[1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
A rotating reference frame is different. A local experiment can tell you whether you're rotating and how fast you're rotating.
The Sun has a certain mass, the Earth has a certain mass, the center of the point of orbit of both (barycenter? That seems to be the right term) is inside of the Sun no matter what frame you hang out in. What am I missing?
Such as the word "sunrise" is very geocentric. We don't even have a word for the heliocentric term for the same thing. We also use geocentric phrases like "jets chasing the Sun" and "sundials track the movement of the Sun", etc.
Yes. It's what I've been talking about in this thread. You could always, of course, demand that the local TV station change the word "sunrise" to "when the Earth rotates until the Sun shines on the TV station", but I suspect that won't be successful.
I bet you have. From your frame of reference, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I also bet if I asked you "which direction should be a rocket be launched into earth orbit to minimize fuel consumption" you'll have to stop and think about it.
Some Polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40 for years, and it does, in fact, alter human DNA.
For COVID-19, there have been at least 2 major cases of live virus vaccine contamination and recall. In the case of the Sputnik vaccine in Brazil and South Africa, there are claims that at least some made it into patients.
And then the "Baltimore Factory" testimony before Congress included company executives admitting to making ~100 million contaminated doses, more than the number of safe doses they had produced.
So this "don't mind him, he does conspiracies" attitude isn't doing anything except getting nods from those that don't need convincing, and proving to skeptics that you have a knowledge gap, whether it's ultimately relevant or true (or not).
I don't think it's currently happening happening here (at a minimum, adenovirus doesn't alter your DNA), but I also think it's just as reckless to imply that any concerns aren't legitimate or that it's impossible.
>>polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. There have been many questions as to the effects on people who received the contaminated vaccine. SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, but researchers have not conclusively established whether or not it could cause cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.
>>However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221112/
That sounds like a load of nonsense?
>sciencebasedmedicine dot org
>> This one popped up at that online repository of all things quackery, NaturalNews.com
lol, pot, meet kettle.
Why can't you trust the science?
Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in human brain and bone tumours
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9776221/
Sequence analyses of human tumor-associated SV40 DNAs and SV40 viral isolates from monkeys and humans
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584955/
Human cytomegalovirus major immediate early gene product can induce SV40 DNA replication in human embryonic lung cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2173262/
Phylogenetic analysis of polyomavirus simian virus 40 from monkeys and humans reveals genetic variation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15308725/
SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9311596/
Natural simian virus 40 strains are present in human choroid plexus and ependymoma tumors
> That sounds like a load of nonsense?
"Based on these limitations, the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer."
There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines. First, this was a contamination issue with polio vaccines between 1955 and 1961, long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination). Second, there has never been any good evidence that the 'contaminated' vaccines ever did anyone any harm.
>In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
>long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination)
Multiple vaccines have already been recalled due to contamination, after they passed initial qaqc.
How does that make it unlikely that contaminated products don't go undetected?
My point isn't that vaccine's shouldn't be taken.
It's that the same people that constantly complain about pharmaceutical companies taking shortcuts and behaving unethically, suddenly decide the same companies are infallible when it comes to a rushed development of a product, from which they are fully shielded from liability.
>There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines
When someone suggests a concern is scifi conspiracy theory nonsense, and that concern has actually historically happened, then it's absolutely relevant.
The scare tactics are bad enough, but don't try to trick people with lies and outright manipulation, and there won't be anything to call out.
Come on – this is just the standard ass-covering language in a scientific paper. "Further research is needed." By the nature of the case it's very hard to conclusively show that no-one has ever had a cancer caused by a 1960s Polio vaccine. But at present there is no good evidence that this has happened, as the paper that you linked to states very clearly.
Any medication can contain contaminants. I do not understand why you think that the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants is relevant to COVID vaccination efforts. This is like cautioning against people taking Aspirin because any given Aspirin pill might contain contaminants.
That's not a standard "further research needed" statement.
>the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants
Because other medicine isn't mandated, isn't developed in under a year, and isn't given statutory waivers of liability.
My point isn't "don't get vaccinated",
but that claiming "a vaccine altering human DNA is conspiracy theory nonsense" is a bad take, because it's factually wrong and has actually happened.
Right, and the Harvard Mark II had a moth that caused it to malfunction, therefore we can't trust the Apple M1.
This is the level of reasoning that anti-vaxers have sunk to. It's deliberate ignorance and sophistry.
Anti-vaxers aren't "asking questions". They aren't curious about actual reality. They are very confused people who want to maintain a simplistic (maybe naturalistic, who knows?) worldview and are increasingly twisted in knots and therefore filled with cognitive dissonance.
I personally don't like hunting down morons, but when they step on stage and refuse to yield, the should absolutely be mocked, shamed, and embarrassed, maybe even more so that they risk the health and safety of others with their idiocy. They didn't reason themselves into their positions, so I see no reason why we should try to reason them out.
Done.
OP doesn’t claim Rogan should be de-platofrmed. Just that pushing batshit theories is an explanation for his declining influence. I enjoy watching flat earthers from time to time. But I’m not going to make it a part of my information diet.