There's 'don't like' and then there's 'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice'. Can you appreciate there's a difference?
What you've got here is an attempt to win this debate by DQ'ing his argument. That's never going to work, not least because it doesn't engage with the substance of what he's saying. Instead, it just invited a bunch of comments sticking up for ivermectin; it had the opposite outcome to what your premise suggests you wanted.
That sounds like an opinion. One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated, but an opinion I'm happy you can express openly. I'm also appreciative of other opinions I hear on Joe's show, and others. Can you appreciate that building up a false dichotomy and then asking someone if they can spot the difference is disingenuous?
Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense.
You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode Rogan says it's "weird" to call black people black because they're not dark enough to be considered black technically. You feel like you've gained something from this exchange?
Despite some doctor's advice....
Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words? Please show where Joe, actually Joe and not a report of it, once recommended anyone take "horse dewormer" using those words. That was CNN's specific framing and where those words first showed up. They used those words, Joe didn't. Are you aware of that? The first time "horse dewormer" came out of Joe's mouth was in response to CNN's publicly false characterization of what he said.
Haven't heard Jordan's interview yet, but thanks for the heads up. I'm sure there will be something in the 4+ hour interview that I will gain, or will provoke thought, or cause me to go look something up, and some things I don't agree with or learn I was wrong about. Provoking thought is good.
That said if he is smart enough to anticipate what people are going to say and adjust his actions to negate them, you'd think he'd also be smart enough to see that there really isn't any strong evidence for ivermectin being useful, and it's also possible you can take the drug, have no positive or negative effects, and get better from COVID, even if ivermectin made no difference. From that perspective, thing he did that was bad was "not even being wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) in the sense that we can't say really much of anything about his experience representing a generally useful medical advice.
Rogan is smarter than the average bear, but he's not in the club of the smartest bears.
Actual quote. The guy spins it as "big pharma doesn't want you to know about this" so of course people are going off script. He's a dangerous moron.
> Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug for use in humans to treat a variety of parasitic infections including parasitic worms, hookworm and whipworm. It may also be used as an effective treatment for a wide range of other conditions and as a treatment of onchocerciasis, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis or river blindness.
*(Outside the context of literally treating horses)
I think ivermectin doesn't work, but there's nothing wrong with a doctor prescribing it off label in a COVID context. It is not unsafe enough, generally speaking, to override the judgement of an individual doctor. The legal/regulatory system explicitly permits this, and there are other examples where doing this is likely ethically positive.
For example, there was a big controversey around lucentis and avastin where doctors found they could treat peoople with wet AMD with avastin far more cheaply, but the pharma (which marketed both) wanted people to use the far more expensive drug. Doctors actively precribed avastin instead of lucentis and treated patients (most case reports coming in positive) and then finally a large trial was run that showed it was basically as good as lucentis. Ethically, in retrospect, we say the doctors were acting in a good way (saving patients for less $$ and probably treating people who couldn't afford lucentis). I could imagine the owner of the two drugs running a PR campaign "Doctors: why are you prescribing a cancer drug to eye patients? Do you want to kill them"?
You can disagree with that tweet and still be for open discussion and against censorship. Also that tweet is very old, people do change there mind. (Not that I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, or know if he still holds that belief)
Also, the rogan tweet links to an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a well-known anti-vaxxer who recently had to apologize for saving covid vaccines were like nazis.
It's trivially easy to have two knowledgeable people or groups who have completely opposing views with seemingly strong cases for both.
Can you quote exactly which medical advice Joe Rogan gave that was anti-scientific? I am 90% sure that you are saying BS, and that Rogan's advice was not anti-scientific, it was just against your politics.
Rogan's own words:
“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”
This is objectively false.
But talking about that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of dangerous public menace and should be banned.
You don't find that irresponsible?
Wikipedia has a good rule in Articles for Deletion debates, where they decide which articles to keep when people nominate them for deletion. They're not votes. You can get all your friends to chime in with dumb comments saying "keep" or "delete" for stupid reasons, but the admin who evaluates the AfD debate is supposed to ignore the count of comments supporting any given argument, and just make a note of the diversity of those arguments, and then evaluate which set of arguments are stronger. You can spam an AfD with misinformation, but at least in theory it shouldn't work (in fact, you might be just as likely to piss off the admin and nudge them the other way).
That's a good way to look at HN threads as well. If you have something interesting to say, say it, and then get out of the way; let the dumb comments be the noise, not yours.
This is all very meta, I know, but this whole thread is so pointless that meta can only improve it.
“Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners.”
was really valuable to me. Because it's so incredibly stupid that if one can string together a bunch of such comments from JR, it can actually persuade some people to not believe him. We have a type of Godman quack around here who spouts nonsense on TV. Some people string together all the outright nonsensy parts and make a single video, while referencing where they came from. Those are really helpful.
Edit: also it's a problem with only some message boards. There are message boards where a comment such as 'raynier made will be outright dismissed. And they are also places where 'thoughtful conversations' happen. Also I don't think it's 'badgering' when you quote something incredibly stupid and dangerous JR said.
Edit2: also there is an order of more people that just read comments than comment. A concrete comment of yours like the one I quoted above can really convince some people. It's a good thing.
I listen to a few podcasts sometimes hosts get things wrong, sometimes really wrong. That's fine.