YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist
dailymail.co.uk
dailymail.co.uk
It's a formula you see over and over again. 1) Say enough shit to get your hand slapped 2) Do the IDW podcast tour to whine about the "establishment" and plug your Patreon and/or supplements. 3) Get bankrolled by Thiel.
No need to downplay it by calling it “horse dewormer” now that we know where the correlations come from. “human dewormer” might be more accurate!
Research failed to confirm the utility of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. [1] Much of the research indicating otherwise was fraudulent or misleading. [2]
Statement #2: "This suggested treatment does not have the desired effect in clinical trials. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/"
Can you agree that those are entirely different statements? And that one is trolling while the other is informative?
2 is useful information and additive to conversation
1 is just juvenile and belongs to Reddit not hacker news
A worm is a parasite (which Ivermectin effectively treats). A parasite (in this sense) is not a virus. Ivermectin does not treat the COVID-19 virus. The GP was glib and insulting but not entirely off base.
You are correct that the "horse dewormer" meme was due to desperate people buying industrial amounts, not human amounts, from vet supply shops. It's worth mocking because these people are desperately avoiding mainstream medical advice per se.
Here's Jimmy Dore's [1] segment referencing a WaPo article [2] and Dr. John Campbell's [3] analysis on why "Japan is doing better" because of this stupid "horse dewormer" narrative.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S5YG7X52PE
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/22/japan-covid-...
Please educate yourself about ivermectin.
https://vetmedbiosci.colostate.edu/vth/services/equine-field...
His words - "They got rich on the products of my mind.”
But I suppose that was just a master plan to cash in on the IDW.
I don't think Weinstein's "exile" was done intentionally, but his arc did establish a career path with a huge audience and wealthy patronage.
But he actually was censored.
Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.
And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.
You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.
If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.
There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.
Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en
This comment was brought to you by Pfizer.
What’s your point? That pharmacy isn’t gaming it but one man is?
That's not a good sign.
Seems like he was involved in the research, but he's not the one out of the hundreds of scientists involved that generally get given that title by others, so has to enter it himself in inappropriate places to ensure it shows up in his profile.
It is strategically better to preserve his existing YT presence. And for that it is smart not to publish anything else
[1] - https://biology.stackexchange.com/
Article contains embedded video of the entire interview on Twitter.
Same way accountability in any system with many actors works, in reciprocal fashion.
The vast majority of people would appear to miss this conundrum entirely and thereby never consider the fallibility and corruptibility of fact-checkers and/or experts.
If you do not agree with this viewpoint fine, but to try to attribute deceit ("pretending" in your words) to anybody who thinks differently about it from you seems really odd and highly presumptuous to me.
The condundrum isn't who, it's whether they're doing a good job.
Fact checkers are just a name like antifa, to make it sound like if you are against them, you are anti-fact and therefore a crazy person. Smart play with naming.
Fact checkers are just "narrative control".
That's not censorship at all.
He has a personal website with some more details on who he is: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.
Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
Being critical of the vaccine is one thing, but that crosses into an extraordinary and borderline mathematically-infeasible claim that defies virtually all the published data and observations provided by the rest of the scientific and medical community, and requires strong evidence to support it.
There is literally no other data available to you or I. What data are you using to support your claim?
> When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
What data supports what claim? You are also aware that anyone can submit reports to VAERS, right?
Until someone actively investigates the case and finds it was indeed caused by the vaccine, the VAERS data does not show anything. Using VAERS as your 'data' in a rhetoric is highly unscientific.
Let's also not forget how the raw VAERS data was used during the autism-vaccine link litigation. We should know better.
Our health care system was rotten and had broken incentives well before covid-19, I think the same factors that were keeping that system in the state before are now being stress tested and must either cave or continue to extract value in a self preserving way that would no longer work in this fast pace environment.
Tangent, I’ve seen articles musing about hospitality staff shifting to these positions from hotels, restaurants, and the like. The article I read clearly had no firm grasp on the knowledge and years of training needed to replace a nurse or even a tech.
https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
In context this clearly refers to Nazi Germany, I don't believe he used the word. That was added by the far-right tabloid publishing this article.
"How does an educated and intelligent society succumb to and embrace extreme ideas?"
The longer clip is quite interesting to ponder in it's relation to our current issues with tribalism.
The same Rogan with a Spotify deal? He...is big tech.
So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.
Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.
At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.
Funny enough, that's why Dr. Malone isn't against vaccines at all, he's against mandates. (and vaccinating kids, specifically.)
I'm also not at all convinced he's the one invoking Godwin's law. If you have 5 minutes, check out the relevant section of the interview: https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
It’s the same as trying to post porn on facebook. They are not tumblr and will not allow it.
A broken clock is correct twice a day. Don't disregard a perspective based on the channel.
The saying may relate to a clock, but it doesn't apply to human being. People who have psychotic tendences will display remarkably consistent wrongness. Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
because even those with psychotic tendencies tend to express them with a level of consistency.
Example : A paranoid schizophrenic may tell everyone that he's being followed habitually, but that doesn't mean he's wrong -- in fact in some cases the (three letter agencies) may use this trait to their advantage.[0]
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-fbi-knew-oklahoma-bomb-p...