The Joe Rogan Effect
- Admin
- Jun 5, 2022
- 20 min read
Updated: Jun 5, 2022
Introduction
Joe Rogan has become increasingly popular online over the years, but no more careful or considering of his content. I am not opposed to free speech; although some would frame it as though I, and others who speak about these issues, are advocating for censorship. I am not opposed to open and balanced conversation or transparency; and as such am not advocating for Joe to be cancelled. The fact is that polarisation, public health misinformation and false balance is rife, far reaching and damaging – so something more, if only openly criticising the bad stuff, has to be done.
His outreach is now millions of listeners per episode with a larger viewership than Fox News at times, but he continually hosts – and often seemingly endorses - quacks, conspiracists and politically polarised guests. This enables them to freely spread misinformation, lies, or politically biased opinions about things which are objectively and factually wrong - often cherry picked and taken out of context. He portrays himself as ‘just asking questions’ and tagged the line for his show – Joe Rogan Questions Everything.
I think it’s more accurate now to say Joe Rogan Doesn’t Question Enough – at least not things that he seems to agree with already, as he frequently panders to the allure of sensationalist takes and poorly vetted claims without much pushback. In contrast, he has a disproportionately smaller number of relevant experts on the show when concerning public health and science topics. It’s the human tendency to shun the difficult, boring, complex, and nuanced truth, in favour of a juicy scandal or the exclusive privilege to be one of the only groups to know of a worldwide conspiracy. It’s also far easier to monetise the latter.
This document is focused on the YouTube video ‘Joe's COVID Experience, CNN's Ivermectin Claims’, in which he talks with his comedian friend Tom Segura, taken from episode 1703. Although the title sets a frame as to debunk CNN’s ‘claims’ on Joe’s treatment with Ivermectin (and I do agree that CNN’s approach was inaccurate and a low blow), he wastes no space in this short clip cramming in lots of other unfounded claims.
As you’ll see, it takes a document this large to properly parse through each of his short arguments and put each piece of misinformation right. There is too much misinformation for an average listener to catch, coming in so fast. This is the Joe Rogan Effect, and it is fuelling public misconceptions, distrust in expertise via institutions, and undermining science, while reinforcing the fears and biases of a vulnerable proportion of the population. His show is a platform for entertainment and opinions, but certainly not for a credible source of reliable and unbiased information, public health advice, or expertise.
Exactly as predicted
Joe Rogan recovered from his experience with COVID thankfully, and once I saw that news, there was one thought that hit me about what would come next. His recovery would be the simple confirmation bias he needed to affirm his belief in Ivermectin (the COVID-19 misinformation flavour of the month) being effective for COVID, and to go about his business peddling the same misconceptions about it, and conspiracies of the scientific and medical establishments, to his millions of followers. This happens to be the confirmation his fans would also need after being primed for so long by the MANY quacks and conspiracy believers that he has on his show, to continue unknowingly strengthening their misinformed opinions, and making bad individual and public health choices.
False credibility
To start with, to his credit, he says that the Ivermectin was prescribed to him by doctors, and clearly does not endorse people going out on their own to buy the horse de-wormer dose that CNN reports him to have used. He then argues the company is American (not relevant) and they won a Nobel Prize, which is true; Ivermectin was developed to fight infections caused by parasitic worms. COVID-19 is not caused by parasitic worms. Winning the Nobel Prize does not impact a drug's ability to treat COVID-19 and has nothing to do with Ivermectin treating COVID-19 or any viruses. The fact it was prescribed by a doctor, in this case, is not a boost to his argument, as I will explain further on.
Monoclonal antibodies
‘The sh*t they gave Trump’ that Joe refers to, was monoclonal antibodies, he beams smugly. This is an extremely expensive treatment not available to most people and reserved for those with mild to medium symptoms of COVID-19, but with risk of progressing to severe symptoms and hospitalisation or death, according to the FDA. There’s a couple of points here.
Firstly, the cost and availability. It’s fine that he’s able to afford such medication whenever he wants it but sitting there advocating for Ivermectin, while glossing over the fact that he had access to a myriad of other effective treatments which most of his audience can’t afford, and which the public at large don’t have access to, is immoral in my eyes. He is ignoring the fact that he’s had all this extra care but still touting Ivermectin as being effective, which clearly does not follow, given the number of treatments he had at the same time which are more likely, or have been shown to alleviate symptoms.
Secondly, if the FDA state that the monoclonal antibodies are used for people at risk of developing severe symptoms, then it seems wise enough to assume that they may have prevented clinically severe or life-threatening symptoms in Joe. He also might have got better quicker anyway with no treatment if his case wasn’t as bad a case as others have had. Taking this treatment as a pre-emptive and preventative measure may have kept any possible severe symptoms in Joe under control.
I don’t know whether he is vaccinated, but if he is, then that would almost certainly be the reason that he was fine, discounting all other treatments. There is overwhelming data now showing that is the case with vaccines.
It’s worth noting that he gleefully mentioned he had monoclonal antibodies and ‘threw the kitchen sink at’ the disease, implying that he took just about every symptom reliever that works, not just the ineffective ones. But of course, Ivermectin must work because he took that as well and he’s better. This is a correlation, not causation. Classic confirmation bias.
Press play below for a discussion on Donald Trumps receiving of monoclonal antibodies as an experimental treatment, alongside steroids and Remdesivir, and the ethics and risks this could pose (3 mins 10 Sec - 15 mins 35 sec) -
Dr. Pierre Kory
The doctor who Joe Rogan had on his show, who told him to use Ivermectin. Despite Joe explaining that this man has ‘treated thousands of people for COVID’, Kory isn’t a virologist, immunologist, microbiologist or a practicing physician in a relevant field of expertise, but an expert in critical care in ultrasonography (ultrasound therapy). Qualified physicians can also lack high enough levels of the relevant scientific expertise and critical thinking skills, which causes them to go against the consensus in that field, without good reason.
Joe stumbles his way through some technical jargon reading from his phone, before stating that multiple doctors including Pierre Kory had told him to use it. You can tell he is only really repeating some very ‘face value’ pieces of information, without any understanding of what they mean, or how to evaluate them. It’s an example of a lay person googling the first results that come up, and confirmation bias does the rest.
He then draws himself up and reinstates his confidence, announcing that “what they didn’t highlight, is that I got better”. But this doesn’t mean that Ivermectin played a part. To be fair, he was addressing the CNN claims which were not fully representing his situation – however I also don’t think it would have been wise for CNN to leave any doubt in millions of people’s minds that it is a bad idea to associate Ivermectin with the treatment of COVID-19. That’s a different discussion which I will address later.
Back to Pierre Kory, who is on record as erroneously claiming that the anti-parasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19. It is this strength of unsubstantiated claim which should raise the biggest red flags.
Pierre Kory was among the witnesses at a senate hearing by businessman and politician Ron Johnson, to promote fringe theories about, and unproven treatments for, COVID-19, including Ivermectin. It was here that he made the above comments. Video footage of his statements went viral on social media, receiving over one million views – and that is how one sentence by one guy can cause huge confusion.
When science did its self-correcting job throughout the pandemic, and the global consensus ruled out the best available evidence as weak at best, he dug in his heels and began to promote the conspiracy theory that:
“Its true effectiveness was being suppressed by the "Gods of Science" who wanted to monopolize scientific information.”
This is untrue. All the study data published is out there to parse – including the flawed positive studies that people try to use to proves it works. It’s just a matter of communicating the significance of those results to a lay person. Dr Kory for reasons I can only speculate, does not at any point consider challenging his own skewed interpretation of it, nor consider the consensus which shows that the positive studies have all had serious flaws, and misinterpreted data.
Pierre Kory appears in this episode of Science V.S. podcast more recently than this post, where you can hear that he continues to double down and refuses to let go of his emotionally held position, in light of the most robust evidence to date that Ivermectin is ineffective for COVID-19. It’s a great episode giving a background of the origins and reasons Ivermectin was used by Kory, and then how his path diverged from the consensus, even as his position grew weaker and the scientific studies stronger -
Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC)
This is a typical acronym for a seemingly legitimate body, it sounds authoritative and no different to any other recognised, trusted agency. However, you don’t have to look very far to get down to the questionable integrity and motives of this alliance.
One of the first things Joe does is name Dr. Pierre Kory, from the FLCCC. There’s a good reason this guy told him to take Ivermectin, and that’s because the FLCCC is a U.S. organization of fringe physicians formed in March 2020 that advocates for the use of the anti-parasite drug ivermectin to treat COVID-19, which is not recommended by leading health agencies. Its president and cofounder is Pierre Kory.
Red flags. Newly formed, by a stubborn doctor playing outside his own field, with clearly overstated claims when the long established, trusted, and regulated agencies globally are already testing the treatments for COVID. A reason for forming a new one suggests that these few individuals are not getting their way, rejecting the scientific consensus of what is shown to be effective, while overstating the efficacy of ineffective treatments which are not supported by the evidence.
The FLCCC promotes "the global movement to move #Ivermectin into the mainstream". What they appear to miss is that the global consensus of science has already identified it as ineffective, and that if it was a ‘global’ movement, it would likely already be considered mainstream. The effort has gone viral on social media, where it has been adopted by COVID deniers, anti-vaccination proponents, and conspiracy theorists. When you have those crowds on board, you should seriously question the validity of the evidence or lack therefore of, that you are proposing.
You should at least communicate it accurately and stop inflating the claims of the drug to ‘miracle cure’ levels. Finally, they should be transparent and intellectually honest, and acknowledge that the studies are coming out no more effective than placebo and stop doubling down when faced with a lack of evidence.
A quick note on placebo
A review article by FLCCC members on the efficacy of ivermectin, which had been provisionally accepted by “a Frontiers in Pharmacology” journal, was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher called:
"a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".
David Gorski has written that the narrative of ivermectin as a "miracle cure" for COVID-19 is a "metastasized" version of a similar conspiracy theory around the drug hydroxychloroquine, in which unspecified powers are thought to be suppressing news of the drug's effectiveness for their own profit. You can read that article here - a very good take on it with more detail.
Tokyo Medical Association
Reading again from his phone, Joe quotes a misleading interpretation of a press conference, which has been proven false by fact checking websites. The Tokyo Medical Association, "one of the most conservative and cautious" in the world:
“recommended Ivermectin to all doctors, for COVID patients”
This is a gross misrepresentation of what was said, particularly the word ‘recommends’, and cherry picks snippets to misrepresent what was meant by that press conference. In fact, they say explicitly that no data shows that Ivermectin is effective for COVID treatment, but that they can cautiously afford to give them the treatment, meaning essentially that it won’t harm them directly when prescribed properly. This doesn’t mean it works though and is taken too seriously by those who try to find any excuse to dodge the real effective treatments in vaccines. Taken from the press conference:
“The official guidelines for doctors from the Japanese Ministry of Health states that "compared to standard treatment and placebo, ivermectin did not reduce deaths, shorten the hospitalization period or improve time of virus disappearance."
In addition, neither the Tokyo Medical Association nor Ozaki (the chairman in the video) are affiliated with the official Japanese government health organisations, and members of the organisation can only provide recommendations and actionable guidelines such as experimental and cautionary measures - not official advice.
You can find more detail on the above here at AFP Fact Check, a website dedicated to the accuracy, verification, and objectivity of information.
Conspiracy time
I had a lot to say on this matter, so it's divided into expandable points below.
Joe leads on from Tom commenting that you have people saying different things, some saying ‘it’s crazy to take Ivermectin, the Tokyo Medical Association saying take Ivermectin’ (which as we’ve covered they do not say, or promote it as a treatment), into what starts off being reasonable.
Speculation does not equal information
Emergency Authorisation
Switching the burden of proof
The scientific process is not a conspiracy - it's transparent
Big Pharma are not profiting from smearing Ivermectin
More correlation, not causation
Joe concludes the recounting of his experience with saying that being on just about every symptom-relieving treatment there is, he felt pretty good by the 3rd day. That is exactly what you would expect, is it not? I expect he would have felt the same without the Ivermectin, which treats neither inflammatory symptoms or viral infections (and also felt the same without a few other of those questionable treatments).
This podcast episode (42.06 – 1.15.31) does a fantastic job of summarizing the inherent problems with Ivermectin being given a false, overhyped sense of legitimacy for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, and the damage that Joe and other ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ members are causing. Also a good point about the politically left wing liberal side of misinformation too, concerning the male fertility and Ivermectin myth as a way of combating one political side of misinformation with another piece of misinformation – something which honest intellectuals should not partake in. It’s a good lesson in keeping misinformation and biases off the table from BOTH sides of the political spectrum.
Vitamin C mega dosing
Vitamin C is one of the most marketed pieces of health and wellbeing pseudoscience out there. This myth will not die. Joe talks about having a massive 10,000mg dose of vitamin C on a drip, straight into the blood, and confidently quotes it as being ‘very effective’. This is false, and potentially damaging at worst. At best, you are quite literally urinating money away. As explained in the below link, the vitamin C myth is old and long debunked – but the cultural idea of its many benefits is still deeply embedded. Read about the origins of Vitamin C ideas here.
One thing to point out is that he doesn’t say how it is effective. Effective in what way? For COVID? For everything in general? In the context of the conversation, I think it’s fair to assume he means for COVID or viruses in general, which it definitely is not. It’s a meaningless statement without context in any case. This aside, even if it was effective, it would be completely useless to dose vitamin C any higher than around 200mg at any time, and only as high as 400-500mg per day, as you can’t absorb and utilise higher concentrations of it – never mind doses in the 1000s, given over a short period.
This is a thorough deconstruction of the Vitamin C studies to date, and further debunking the need to overdose on it. Addressing plenty of talking points on the effectiveness of Vitamin C for illness. Effectively explaining why mega dosing is not going to have any effect and can actually be a danger (26.15 – 38.16) -
A possible helping effect may have been that as it’s an IV drip presumably diluted with a water solution, his hydration levels may have been well maintained which is a positive thing. But nothing to do with Vitamin C.
Vitamin D and NADs
Aside from the vitamin C drips, Joe also says he took vitamin D and NADs. With much the same lack of evidence for these supplements (like virtually all supplements), neither have been linked with treating COVID-19 and there are no quality-controlled studies which demonstrate a link between them and the effective treatment of the disease, although some correlations (not causes) have been observed between vitamin D levels and COVID.
This does not mean that it treats COVID, or is a replacement for vaccines, and it wouldn’t prevent infection. Like all other unfounded claims of ‘alternative’, ‘natural’ or disproven drugs, they pose other risks sociologically and culturally, in being touted as replacements for the proven preventative measures of vaccines, masks and social distancing. It’s a damaging, victim-blaming path to start down - if you’re not ‘healthy’ enough, you’ll get a worse infection (ergo, buy these supplements).
Read more about the Vitamin D approach here.
As for NADs, that is an under researched topic. To keep it brief, there is no research on these supplements (which are being sold abundantly online by a lot of pseudoscience health and wellness brands) which suggests they treat viruses, and they reek of the typical supplement scam, for ‘extended cell life’, ‘anti-ageing’, etc.
Natural Immunity from Infection
The next point Joe raises, is of a study which claims to have shown that ‘if you’ve had a previous COVID infection you’re 6-13 times more protected than if you’ve had just a Pfizer’.
It’s unclear if he meant that combined, the vaccine is even more effective having also been infected with COVID (true) or if he meant that acquired immunity from infection alone is more effective than the vaccines (false).
Firstly, let’s be clear – the phrase ‘natural immunity’ is a misnomer. The immune response is as natural to a live virus as it is to any synthetic provocation – your body doesn’t care what it is. The way vaccines work is the exact same way a virus would provoke an immune response, but without the risk of infection that you are trying to avoid in the first place. Also, the immune response is much stronger and more reliable with vaccines. Therefore, it makes no sense at all to risk infection (having no immunity), to gain immunity to that same infection.
Back to the video - it sounds to lend bias towards natural immunity rather than vaccines, or just vaccines. This isn't a better idea in any way. Whether you have or haven’t had an infection yet, it is still important to get vaccinated, as the immunity from being infected alone is less robust and much less predictable and reliable than the vaccines. Preventing infection is significantly less personal risk, less risk to society, and massively lowers the risk of catching and spreading the virus around.
There are several morally positive, selfless, societal, and personal benefits to this. For a clear comparison of natural immunity vs vaccine prevention, click this link which has an infographic comparing vaccine to infection immunity.
To add to this, if you want to read deeper into the implications of natural herd immunity and why it is a bad idea on all accounts, see here.
Ivermectin
I’ll be a lot briefer here than I could be, as I’ve more or less covered the main points earlier. The summary is that misinformation about ivermectin's efficacy spread fast on social media, fuelled by prematurely cited publications that have since been retracted, misleading "meta-analysis" websites with substandard methods, and conspiracy theories about efforts by governments and scientists to "suppress the evidence."
Ivermectin is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in treating any viral illness and is not authorized for use to treat COVID-19 within the European Union. All of the major institutes and regulatory agencies around the world agree that Ivermectin should not be used to try and treat or prevent COVID-19. This includes the WHO (World Health Organisation), EMA (European Medicines Agency), the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases, and the Pan American Health Organization to name a few.
After reviewing the evidence on ivermectin, the EMA said that "the available data do not support its use for COVID-19 outside well-designed clinical trials". This essentially means that in the right lab conditions, an effect can be achieved, but it is not clinically useful in humans and in the real world. Specifically, the amount of Ivermectin needed to have this effect in a lab far exceeds the toxicity level that is safe for a person to take.
The better quality the study, the less effect Ivermectin is shown to have. The poorly conducted studies claiming to show even a slightly positive effect of Ivermectin are the ones being cited by those who choose not to acknowledge the science overall.
Several high-profile publications purporting to demonstrate reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients were later retracted due to suspected data falsification. This only added to confusion among the media and lay public, as these publications had been widely cited by Ivermectin supporters (such as certain doctors not qualified in that expertise) and included in meta-analyses.
The questionable meta-analysis websites which gained traction among many non-scientists on social media also violated many of the basic norms of meta-analysis methodology. This includes:
Such methodological problems are known to distort the findings of meta-analyses and cause misleading or false findings. The misinformation communicated by these sites created confusion among the public and policy makers.
In conclusion, there is no high-quality evidence to suggest any efficacy, and by contrast there are now more robust studies which are of superior methodology and quality, which show that Ivermectin does not work.
The ‘Health and Wellness’ Gambit
Just as the 14-minute clip wraps up, Joe’s message to his viewers is to ‘be consistently healthy’, as they sit there puffing huge cigars. I shouldn’t need to point out that part of being consistently healthy is taking proven, preventative measures during a world pandemic. There’s some merit to that, he says. Of course, this is good advice for all people, in all situations, broadly speaking. But it eschews the real issue here – and that is that viruses do not discriminate based on your ‘healthiness’, nor can everybody achieve the same levels of health.
This attitude stigmatises people who are ‘unhealthy’. That is, people who are at higher risk due to factors out of their control – we should not be blaming the victims. The fact is that many degrees of vulnerability exist among the population. The cooperation of less vulnerable members of society to be more responsible and step up to protect them is important, and is something we can control. You may have also seen videos of otherwise ‘perfectly healthy’ young people on ventilators, making their last Instagram posts, speaking their last words. Again, practicing good health isn’t enough.
After all the previous misleading statements in the video, he again undermines the importance of vaccination for everyone who can. It’s a win for those people, and the people that surround them. It’s no benefit to anybody not to get vaccinated if they can.
‘Healthy lifestyle’ or ‘healthy living’ is important for everybody. But this argument should always be received sceptically, as it is often used by alternative medicine, anti-vaxxers, and other pseudoscience grifters as a gateway into rabbit holes and scams. They use it as an indirect way of marketing dubious claims, and selling nonsense where evidence is lacking.
It’s an idealistic and naïve position to just say ‘be healthier’ and hope we all get better and have less ailments. This is not reality. It doesn’t stop viruses from spreading, killing, or causing long term health effects, so we must view the pandemic as it is.
Additionally, it’s possible for more dangerous mutations to emerge – more likely in unvaccinated populations, so everyone being ‘healthier’ wouldn’t necessarily matter even if that would work.
Rationalisation
One more point he makes:
“The thing that f****d me, is drinking I bet if I would’ve gone to the hotel early, get some sleep, I bet I would’ve never gotten it”
Let’s deconstruct this.
While it’s maybe plausible that the alcohol compromised his immune system, along with the lack of sleep, the virus is just as highly transmissible when sober and fresh. He may just as easily have contracted the virus at his show beforehand, or on the plane journey. Both are as likely, when in a crowded place, unmasked and unvaccinated (or among unvaccinated people, as I stated I don’t know if he is vaccinated).
Alcohol is arguably a red herring here, a rationalisation – but the amount of time spent around crowds, with a lot of people not wearing masks who are potentially infectious, and no distancing, or preventative measures (vaccines); this is what makes you susceptible to infection.
False Balance
I’ve written about addressing false balance since this document here, under ‘The Minority Opinion’.
I think it’s time for major platforms to take this man more seriously, since he won’t take that responsibility on himself. This does not mean condemning him, wishing harm upon him, or trying to demonise him personally, as this is counterproductive behaviour, and not a progressive virtue to live by in any society.
However, it does mean calling out the misinformation and to stop enabling false balance where objectivity is most important. It means considering the implications of massive public outreach where science and evidence-based information is needed, to help people make the most favourable decisions for everyone and themselves. By not calling grifters and purveyors of disinformation out, the wrong answers are left unchallenged, and this reinforces them indirectly. Combatting misinformation is a joint responsibility, as pointed out here, which discusses studies on how social media outlets (and including Spotify, YouTube, etc.) contribute to vaccine hesitancy and damage public health.
Free Speech
Lastly, I want to highlight a common point which people emotionally react with, when faced with a good set of counterpoints to their worldview. The free speech card. Censorship, the right to say whatever they want.
‘Free speech’ is recognising that a person can speak about the truth, and not go to jail for it, not be shot for it or not face criminal charges from the government. Being allowed to say whatever you want, whenever you want is a ‘right’.
By the same virtues, being able to say and promote anything you like is not exempt from pushback. There is a point when speaking on a huge public platform comes with an inherent moral and intellectual responsibility, and although it may be his right to say what he wants, it’s also the free speech right of the public to criticise wrong or misleading information, calling it out when presented inaccurately.
Experts have the right to challenge Joes poorly vetted guests, and the mass promotion of quackery. Scientists (of relevant expertise) have the right to criticise and call out bad ideas, and to ask for them to be corrected with evidence and data. Platforms can make their own decision what standard of information to promote.
He is a public influencer now, whether he likes it or not; and if that isn’t a responsibility that he will take on personally, then perhaps the responsibility falls to the enabling platforms to vet it. This isn’t ‘Cancel Culture’, this is being a responsible platform with the larger implications in mind, upholding the scientific consensus on a public health issue.
In an online world where you can choose your own reality by screaming conspiracy, cancel culture, censorship, or free speech, at things which already have well-supported answers but you may not personally agree with, it’s more important than ever for public platforms and distributors of information to be a voice of reason, wherever the truth lies:
“If you are not a scientist, or you’re one scientist disagreeing with the consensus of scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong. Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When scientific consensus changes, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”
You are entitled to say whatever you feel like, and people have the right to speak in opposition to it. When something that is testable and falsifiable is called out as incorrect, or the manner of a claim is exaggerated, challenging it as misleading or misinformation is not censorship. It is not oppressing ‘free speech’ – the speech has already been made. The opposition of misinformation itself is free speech – in fact it is precisely because we have a right to speech, that we can oppose bad ideas.
Nobody is entitled to a public platform to frame misinformed opinions or speculations as factual. Nobody is entitled to continually enable damaging misinformation to millions of people. Nobody is entitled to have their opinion held in equal importance to a relevant experts'. A huge public influencer must recognise that a lot of people will hang off their words, and if the platform decides to vet the misinformation, then that is their right to do so.
In a nutshell, being called out as objectively misleading or wrong is not censorship. Being asked to acknowledge that and correct it is not a violation of free speech. You still have the freedom, but this isn’t (and should never be) without fair opposition. Private platforms having the option to be more accurate with platforming public health misinformation is not advocating for cancel culture. Cancel culture would be more an issue of two opposing opinions, but this is not a matter of opinion, and opinions don’t stand up to expertise.
One more caveat – opposing misinformation with evidence based information is not a political stance or personal attack – the truth is not political, the truth is our best understanding of testable reality.
This below link is a well-reasoned take on one of the main points I’ve been trying to make in this document. Intellectual author Sam Harris discusses why he personally won’t have Bret Weinstein on his show (a member of the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ Ivermectin conspiracist and spreader of misinformation). In typical fashion, Joe Rogan did have Bret on his own show, portraying Bret as a valid and qualified voice to speak on the topic (which he is not). Sam discusses the damage this causes:
This above section of the podcast (10.30 – 27.30) is a very well-spoken and fitting round off to this post, perfectly capturing the whole underlying message I am trying to convey. I urge you to listen if you made it this far. With that, I think it’s safe to say I’ve covered this topic with much more work, reasoning, and effort than a 14 minute on the fly video. It's just a shame that 14 minutes of 'just asking questions' will never see this level of enlightenment.
Comments