The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571372#Comment_118571372

This is hilarious. I mean, this bit in particular

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10418589/Most-270-signed-anti-Joe-Rogan-letter-demanding-Spotify-action-not-actually-doctors.html

Like, the "270 doctors" line has been appearing in media, including decent papers like The Guardian, as if 270 expert immunologists were demanding action. Not just a bunch of randomers, including a marriage guidance counsellor.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571594#Comment_118571594

1. You will never get such a clear line of causality. You will never be able to say a particular individual died because they didn't get a vaccine. Given that most folk who die with covid typically have a couple of other conditions, you could never draw a direct link in an individual case. You can just say, in the round, folk who get vaccinated and catch covid don't die as often as folk who are unvaccinated.
2. As I think people are pointing out, folk who don't listen to the podcasts (or have only seen little excerpts from the 3 hour shows) are being led to believe that Joe Rogan spends his time strongly advocating an anti-vaccine stance. He, genuinely, doesn't. Folk are allowed to say stuff, that is explored at length. The shows are lengthy conversations, and the tenor and tone is the kind of conversation you might have if you met that guest for a few leisurely drinks in the pub. There isn't some doctrinaire line being followed - for the sake of argument, in the course of those conversations he has had guests who have said very clearly they think the evidence base for Ivermectin just is not there. And those statements aren't rubbished - they are delivered in an environment where (as he says himself) the answer to misinformation isn't censorship, its better information.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571647#Comment_118571647

There's a difference with a medical opinion provided by a medical professional and one provided by mma commentator. The former could be construed as medical advice the latter entertainment. But you are probably right that tv doctors or doctors on podcasts are immune from being sued even if they give advice that 99% I do others in their field would disagree with

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571696#Comment_118571696

It was never adverised as "270 doctors".

From the actual letter.

We are a coalition of scientists, medical professionals, professors, and science communicators spanning a wide range of fields such as microbiology, immunology, epidemiology, and neuroscience.....We, the undersigned doctors, nurses, scientists, and educators thus call on Spotify to immediately establish a clear and public policy to moderate misinformation on its platform.

Thats what happens when you dont "do your research" and believe the Daily Fail over the actual source.

#sad

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571915#Comment_118571915

Absolutely, if you don't do your research you won't see what's been reported

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/14/spotify-joe-rogan-podcast-open-letter

270 experts. (You can quibble about "doctors").

Including a "Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist". And a podcast host who dropped out of a biology course to pursue a degree in cinema studies.

Nowhere in the Guardian coverage (illustrative of what even good quality media are saying) does it make it clear that the assessment this is a menace to public health is being made (ironically) by folk who are experts in things other than public health.

You surely don't need an expert to tell you when something is obviously a complete crock.

archfi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571915#Comment_118571915

The poster is talking about the headlines '270 medical doctors' - which, as I'm sure you're aware is about as much as most people take notice of especially when amplified. there's a consistent example of that in this thread!

Another recent example is major mainstream headlines in the US and I'm sure over this side of the pond declaring Spotify lost over 2 billion (some headlines say 4billion) the minute Spotify decided to remove Neil Young's stuff at his request.

Another, the 'three black men murdered' by Kyle Rittenhouse headlines.

And on and on and on.

Headlines, soundbites and out-of-context clips (from both extremes) are more dangerous to everyone than a longform podcast conversation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571915#Comment_118571915

As noted Dr. Malone contracted Covid in early 2020 and was suffering Long Covid / Long Haul symptoms for months before the vaccines were available.

He hoped that receiving the vaccine would help him with these Long-term symptoms even though the most compelling indications are now that Long Covid is primarily an auto immune disorder.

Malone claimed that the vaccine made his Long Covid symptoms worse.

Since then Malone has shown little regard for the quality of misinformation that he has spread, even when he knows for sure that it's completely inaccurate.

He tweeted about an erroneous Canadian study about heart inflammation and didn't change his position even though the study was retracted completely by its authors.

A Canadian COVID-19 study that turned out to be wrong has spread like wildfire among anti-vaxxers

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-error-anti-vaxxers-1.6188806

Timothy Caulfield, the Canada research chair in health law and policy at the University of Alberta, said Malone injecting himself into a conversation with the kind of credentials he has, and “cherry-picking rotten data,” was “a worst-case scenario.”

“You have this individual who has all these credentials and this history in the biomedical world, so that looks impressive. And he’s referencing a study that, on the face of it, may look impressive. But you don’t know that the study is fraudulent,” Caulfield said, adding that Malone has “weaponized bad research.”



In November, Malone shared a deceptive video to his Twitter followers that falsely linked athlete deaths to coronavirus shots. The video suggested that coronavirus vaccination killed Jake West, a 17-year-old Indiana high school football player who died of sudden cardiac arrest. But the vaccine played no role in West’s death. The teen died of an undiagnosed heart condition in 2013.

Malone tweeted the video with three words about vaccination: “Safe and effective?” He deleted the tweet about the same time he received a cease-and-desist letter from West’s family, according to the AP, and later noted to his followers that he didn’t know the video had been “doctored.”

“Given the polarization that exists in our world, I don’t think what he’s doing is helping,” said Malone’s former colleague. “That’s what I would ask him right now: ‘Do you think this is helping?’”

I kinda think the people who are giving out about rogan are just those who can't actually think for themselves, and because of that, can't trust others to think for themselves..

Their first reaction when they come across an inquiring mind is to silence it..

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572067#Comment_118572067

Do you understand, at any level, that the assessment of whether Dr Malone is right is completely different to the question of whether he should never be interviewed by anyone, anytime?

Should Dr Fauci be similarly silenced for saying, in May 2021, that post vaccination “The risk is extremely low of getting infected, of getting sick, or of transmitting it to anybody else, full stop.” When it turns out:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-risk-of-vaccinated-covid-transmission-is-not-low/

People can say dumb stuff. This is a basic right. People have a basic right to say stuff that's wrong. And everyone gets stuff wrong, even Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists and biology degree dropouts.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572169#Comment_118572169

Is Fauci still standing behind that comment the same way that Malone is still standing behind the erroneous and retracted Canadian study?

He's not.

Everyone knows that the situation evolved with the variants from Delta to Omicron have changed the game on spread and infection.

With the prior variants the vaccines were effective at reducing, not eliminating spread.

Were and are the vaccines still hugely effective at preventing serious illness and death - yes they are.

Malone is still wilfully standing behind erroneous information, long after it has been proven wrong.

Let's not silence anyone - just put an audio clip of this text before Rogan's podcast with him.

 “What you are about to hear about Covid and the vaccine is total and absolute bullshit. If you believe these lies and act on them, you are gambling with your life and the lives of all the people you love.”

Malone is a version of Delores Cahill on a larger scale - "oh look this person has some historical credentials" but that fact needs to be disassociated from the content of what they are saying and whether they have proof for that - which both don't .

Sudden Valley

If people can say anything some of which may not be true why was Alex jones successfully sued? he is a conspiracy theorist so you would think he would fall under the entertainment defence. I think if you went to your local doctor and he prescribed a treatment that 99% of other doctors disagreed with you would be sued, I can’t see why the doctor on joes podcast can promote such friinge ideas with no repercussions. I believe in freedom of speech but that freedom may come with consequences.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572235#Comment_118572235

You are getting lost in minutiae. Folk can say stuff, and we can make up our minds about what we think. Both Fauci and Malone can speak. In Malone's case, it certainly is interesting to hear a highly qualified doctor justifying why they are taking a contrarian position.

The point isn't (as you seem to repeatedly think) about whether his contrarian views are justified. That's what we've each to make our judgement. The point is, simply, that it is good that Joe Rogan interviewed him, so that people could make their own judgement.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572253#Comment_118572253

Alex Jones made specific allegations about parents of children who died in a school shooting that were false, which meant those parents had grounds for a case.

Indeed, if Dr Malone (say) makes a specific allegation about Dr Fauci, which Dr Fauci thinks damages his reputation unfairly, he could have grounds for a case.

I've a sinking feeling that I'm engaging with people who won't get that distinction. If Joe Rogan was doing something that was actionable, then you can be pretty sure that someone would be suing him.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572341#Comment_118572341

you went out to make the point that Fauci had made a statement rendered not true by the evolving scene of Covid variants.

I asserted that Malone is still standing behind studies, long-proven erroneous and actually fully retracted by the authors.

so wilful misinformation spreading.

that's not minutiae - that's a very important distinction.

I wasn't asserting anything about anyone suing anyone or things being actionable- you're carrying that over from a conversation with another poster here.

take your sinking feelings to them, or whatever.

the fact that Malone has a history of credentials but no actual proof of what he is currently coming out with about vaccines merely muddies the waters in these matters.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572414#Comment_118572414

Firstly, I don't know how there's confusion over my remarks re: Alex Jones as they follow the quotation of that other poster.

Secondly, you are lost in the minutiae of the matter. It's as if you can only show Just How Wrong He Is And He Knows It, it means that he should never be interviewed.

Where we differ is some of us (and I hope its still most of us) believe that if someone looks to be wrong, and particularly someone who should know better, its actually a reason they should be interviewed.

gypsy79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118571528#Comment_118571528

Spotify are clearly going after YouTube where the money is. Are you telling me that Spotify censor like YouTuble

Or Facebook, or Twitter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572804#Comment_118572804

I don't care about Alex Jones - certainly go discuss that with the other poster by all means if they are still interested in doing so.

I'm not even saying to ban interviewing people.

There should be an honest disclaimer before the interview plays - that's enough for me

So there you go - they get to be interviewed.

This would be a fair one for Malone ->

 “Here's Dr. Robert Malone. He used to work on mRNA technology. But what you are about to hear about Covid and the vaccines is total and absolute bullshit for which he has no proof. Dr. Malone is still standing behind erroneous and fully retracted studies. If you believe these lies and act on them, you are gambling with your life and maybe the lives of all the people you love.”

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118572984#Comment_118572984

Silly comparison.

Spotify doesnt have the same content. Its still mainly music.

But on a percentage basic, yeah, they censor.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/03/30/spotify-joe-rogan-episodes-removed/

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/03/02/joe-rogan-spotify-censorship-confirmed/

So....

Spotify removed over 40 episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast. The removed episodes contain controversial guests or controversial topics. Episodes with Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, and Gavin McInnes were removed

Spotify removes songs that have anti-lockdown lyrics. Ian Brown, had his anti-lockdown song removed. The song remains on Apple Music

The Bannon's War Room podcast was delisted from Spotify. The podcast is run by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. The podcast remains on Apple music

Alex Jones's podcast was delisted from Spotify because of "hate speech". Apple, Facebook, and YouTube also delisted Jones.

Spotify deleted the song Safe Spaces by Bryson Gray and Patriot J. The song contains lyrics criticizing Fauci, Biden, social justice warriors, and LGBTQ+ ideology. Spotify said the song was "hate speech". The song remains on Apple Music.

Spotify removed all PragerU advertising from its platform. They said the content doesn't align with their policies.

So lets try this again - how are Spotify more about free speech than Tidal or Youtube, or Apple, or Facebook or Twitter?

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118573663#Comment_118573663

I'm actually going to apply what I'm claiming is my own ethic. I'll give you some thoughts, and let you draw your own conclusions on the extent to which you want your content moderated and categorised by (Licenced) family therapists and cinema studies graduates.

Some years back, Creationism campaigners got a school board to put warning stickers on a biology textbook written by Dr Ken Miller, saying the chapter on evolution should be carefully and critically considered with an open mind. Dr Miller was asked by a journalist for his response, and that response is one of the most beautiful thoughts I've ever read.

"... I like "the stickers." She said "You do?" and I said, "Yeah. I think the stickers are "great--they just don't go far enough!".... Everything in "science should be approached with an open mind, studied "carefully and critically considered."

With that in mind, I think every single podcast on Spotify - on every topic - should start with this segement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHbzSif78qQ

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574442#Comment_118574442

Funnily enough I disagree with Brian when he says "You've got to all figure it out for yourself". The same as saying "Do your own research". If do your own research means dedicating 25 years to a topic and getting all sorts of PhD's, then yes that makes sense. But not spending an hour on YouTube watching some hot takes by comedians.

I know enough that I know I don't know enough about plenty of topics. I put my faith in people that dedicate their lives to study all sorts of topics. I barely understand how a car works but I have faith in the regulations and manufacturers. I extend the same faith to covid. Faith is probably a bad word here as I'm relying on a trustless system of scientific rigour. Joe and his guests constantly **** on that scientific method.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574660#Comment_118574660

And fine it that works for you.

I'd only point out that you can't avoid working it out for yourself. "I put my faith in people that dedicate their lives to study all sorts of topics" is you working that out for yourself.

I don't know how you then accommodate a difference in expert opinion, like when a person who has dedicated his life to a topic goes on Joe Rogan and explains his contrarian views. Do you, for the sake of argument, then look for advice from a (Licenced) family therapist and a cinema studies graduate?

Again, I find myself putting my faith in comedy

https://youtu.be/b2qDF0D8wuQ?t=36

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118575050#Comment_118575050

I don't think you understand the concept of a trustless system. A different expert opinion is essentially a hypothesis. If that can be repeated then it becomes the consensus. I don't know what you are talking about with family therapists and a cinema studies graduates.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118575636#Comment_118575636

Oh, I probably have no idea what a trustless system is. But, you'll appreciate, most of the country has to get out of bed in the morning similarly lacking understanding of a trustless system. And, absolutely, it's not like we're going to endless question everything. (How do I know the fridge worked last night? Damned white goods experts, wouldn't believe a word of it).

What I would say is you seem to be replicating an idea not dissimilar (but not identical) to the concept of "equilibrium" in economics. Folk have earnest debates about whether this state of perfect balance that unites the aspirations and actions of producers and consumers across all markets actually exists outside of textbooks. Of course, that doesn't stop it being put down on exams.

And, bear in mind, I'm not saying at all that you shouldn't arrive at a conclusion however you wish. I'm just pointing out that there's reasons why folk might take a different line - there's reasons why someone might prefer a contrarian view and sometimes they're right. A bit like that line in "Yes Minister" where Sir Humphrey says he never believes a press report until he's read the official denial.

Just to explain the last point, the "270 experts" who are widely reported as decrying Joe Rogan in an open letter include a (Licenced) family therapist and a blogger who dropped out of a biology course to pursue a degree in cinema studies. Only a minority of the 270 are doctors, let alone doctors with specialist expertise. I don't know if any of them could claim the same level of specialist expertise as Dr Malone.

And, you'll understand, at no time am I saying Dr Malone is right or wrong - I don't know. What I'm asking you to consider is whether your commitment to "people that dedicate their lives to study all sorts of topics" means you would favour the specialist expertise of Dr Malone over the views of 270 people who don't have that level of specialist expertise - including people with no relevant expertise (e.g. the group also includes a Vet and a dentist).

Apologies on lengthy reply - but your post seemed sincere, so I felt it deserved a good response.

And, again, I'm not defending (or attacking) Dr Malone. I'm just worried at the tolerance of censorship.

There are lot of people on Boards who pretend that there is no such thing as cancel culture. The orchestrated campaign going on at the moment to cancel Joe Rogan is a perfect case study to follow. They (the left wing activists and media class) will not stop until he is dropped from Spotify. What I fear is even if he stays on Spotify, that the pressure will actually cause Rogan to self-censor and become bland and beige and too politically correct out of fear. The left wingers in the States are such a depressing mob of witch hunting fascists. They will not stop until all opposing opinions are driven out of the public sphere.

humberklog

The Guardian's "Today in Focus" does a piece about JRE today. Might interest some here.

The Nal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118580418#Comment_118580418

Listened to a bit of it. Couple of good points.

I think the recent controversy has made people think hes some right wing anti vaxx holocaust denier type which he isnt.

Hes very progressive in lots of ways, for universal healthcare etc. The filthy commie.

Cienciano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118580142#Comment_118580142

Amazing that bad medical advice has become right wing and actual medical advice from doctors has been left. And Neil Young is somehow acting on behalf of some weird group that represents "mainstream media"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118581146#Comment_118581146

I don't agree with your interpretation of it but yes I do agree is a mad situation. A scientist who was involved in creating the vaccine and giving his opinions to a UFC commentator on the internet and that's all of a sudden a threat to public health?

It's interesting to note that it's over 20 years since Malone has last worked on mRNA research and in fact the experiment that was his greatest contribution dates from 1987 (and which were based off the work of other prior researchers.

Hundreds if not thousands of people have worked on them since then and as the diagram below shows the prior and subsequent advances required that led to it being usable in vaccines in the long history of the technology.

Malone had moved away from RNA onto looking at DNA vaccines in the late 1990's and then from 2001 into consulting and commercial work according the the nature article.

The article to go with is also interesting - how many will read it - mmm?

Malone has long said that he didn't get enough recognition for his work and even sent a threatening email to Katalin Karikó that accused the biochemist of inflating her accomplishments: “This is not going to end well.”

Bit of a grudge there.

Malone also was infected with Covid in early 2020 and was suffering from Long Haul Covid / Long Covid.

He then blamed the vaccine that he got for making his Long Covid worse.

Doesn't seem like a very objective voice in the whole thing tbh

He re-emerges as some anti-vax totem pole expert on the vaccines in the last number of months leveraging on his history with mRNA technology from over 20 years ago.

He has a history of standing behind erroneous retracted studies and sharing dubious media on the subject and his making false claims and was banned from Twitter after multiple infractions.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/02/scicheck-scientist-misleads-on-covid-19-vaccine-effectiveness-and-vaccine-safety-for-children/

Rogan's podcast was perfect for Malone of course because nobody of any knowledge was there to challenge him.

Malone has also aligned with Robert Kennedy Jr. (who makes millions from the anti-vax "cause") even though he is long out of the loop on mRNA.

Although some involved in mRNA’s development, including Malone, think they deserve more recognition, others are more willing to share the limelight. “You really can’t claim credit,” says Cullis. When it comes to his lipid delivery system, for instance, “we’re talking hundreds, probably thousands of people who have been working together to make these LNP systems so that they’re actually ready for prime time.”

“Everyone just incrementally added something — including me,” says Karikó.

As for who deserves a Nobel, the names that come up most often in conversation are Karikó and Weissman. The two have already won several prizes, including one of the Breakthrough Prizes (at $3 million, the most lucrative award in science) and Spain’s prestigious Princess of Asturias Award for Technical and Scientific Research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118581160#Comment_118581160

This is massively downplaying what is going on. I understand Rogan has the largest audience in the world at this stage. The debate is essentially whether Spotify and Rogan should be treated as a publisher. If the Irish times started printing about how (insert antivax talking point), they'd be held accountable for spreading lies. Social media has changed the landscape. Is Rogan a publisher with an audience of millions, if so, it's hardly censorship for trying to hold him accountable. I think Spotify is definitely a publisher. Rogan's own argument of "just having conversations" falls apart if millions of people are tuning in.

nerd69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118582210#Comment_118582210

Kind of but

1. He's not a news source. So it's different anyway. Justin better wouldn't be treated as such if he reweeted something mad

2. Fox news is a fairly clear example in the US of an actual news outlet not being held to account. I'd argue most of their news outlets are not

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118582210#Comment_118582210

Nobody spreads more disinformation than corporate news outlets.