10 ms·

Doctors call out Spotify for letting Joe Rogan spread ‘false and harmful’ claims

58 points by Audiophilip 5y ago

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I’ve listened to a (very) few Rohan podcasts. He’s not a great interviewer but he has some great guests. But COVID Rogan is something else entirely. He’s gone pure contrarian conspiracy theorist on everything. Many of the things he’s saying are easily disprovable and his guests are even telling him he’s wrong, but he won’t let it go. It’s sad that this is one of the most popular podcasts out there. Stunning that he’s piping misinformation directly to so many people. His conspiracies aren’t even logically consistent. For example, he’s a proponent of monoclonal antibodies because he received them, but strictly against the vaccine because he didn’t. He claims “they” are withholding the monoclonal antibodies to drive more people to the vaccine, while shrugging off the fact that both are made by “big pharma” (in some cases the same companies), and that monoclonal antibodies are orders of magnitude more expensive and more difficult to make.
- tyleo 5y ago
  I listened to a lot of Rogan podcasts. Mainly before 2020. It was a different time and the show was a lot more interesting with a range of guests from different backgrounds. The few times I’ve listened post 2021 have all felt a lot more political and conspiratorial. It’s been a sad deterioration of a show I once found entertaining. It’s worth noting that Rogan used to be deep into moon landing conspiracies. He mentions on his show a few times how he now sees the error of his ways. Perhaps some people just have tendencies for conspiracy and it was only a matter of time before another took hold.
  - drcongo 5y ago
    Prior to 2020 he was already peddling 9/11 truth conspiracies, fake moon landing conspiracies, and anti-vax conspiracies. His entire success rests on pushing absurd nonsense to credulous bros to make them feel like they're "in the know".
- mistrial9 5y ago
  edit: why does an Israeli medical researcher's blog show this: ""It’s been nearly two years now and my confidence in publicly funded science is completely destroyed. I don’t believe anyone reasonably intelligent can read the COVID literature and come out the other side without concluding that universities and governments cannot tell the difference between science and scientism. Our society is completely in the grip of people who have effectively evolved under selection pressure to strongly resemble scientists without actually being scientists. Their work looks roughly right from a distance - there are data tables, charts, equations - but when you sit down and read it the scientific method has gone AWOL. I am now explicitly open to counter-narrative claims I’d never have previously considered." edit: looking for the actual reference here [0] it appears that it is an embedded quote, not the author. Please confirm for yourselves [0] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...
  - rover0 5y ago
    "an Israeli medical researcher" Does he have a name? What has he published before? Is he even an expert in the field?
  - kayxspre 5y ago
    It doesn't look like it came from Researcher. According to [1], it's a quote by Mike Hearn, a software engineer. [1] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...
  - nnvvhh 5y ago
    If you are going to paste what you claim to be a direct quote, please provide a source.
  - javagram 5y ago
    Without any context or analysis, this snippet could easily be applied to the surprising (if still 1% of the whole) of scientists who have thrown themselves into the work of pro-virus propaganda, or creating fake studies to boost ivermectin. Simple common sense comparison of the % of vaccinated people ending up in the hospital with COVID vs unvaccinated ending up in the hospital with COVID is all you need to see the vaccine works. mAB do work too but only if you test for covid and use it within the first 5 days or at least 10 days of illness.
- imglorp 5y ago
  The outrage economy, as they call it, is the new cash pump of the post-factual society media. It exercises a remote code execution flaw in human physiology that gets us a little involuntary shot of adrenaline. Subliminal advertising doesn't work, but this truly does. I wonder if we'll treat it the same way. The FCC issued a warning to broadcasters in 1971: > We believe that the use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee, and therefore we take this occasion to make clear that broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive. https://www.lawpublish.com/fcc1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/fcc1.html
- ramblerman 5y ago
  Agreed, Joe definitely had a golden age where he interviewed quite well. The Spotify move and perhaps the 100m that came with it have seen him interject a lot more of his own opinions though. I’ll still tune in if the guest is great. But I find myself wishing joe would bite his lip far more often than before.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    He's a garbage-quality thinker himself, but he's always been great at getting people to let their guard down and start talking and he has pretty good selection of people on his show.
- jokoon 5y ago
  My wild guess is that it can divide his audience, and that it brings more ads, it increase his audience, and then he makes more money. Bad publicity is publicity, and then it's money. Facts and reality are not linked to money. Hank Green tweeted about this. That's the reality of the internet now: lies are more profitable. Everyone wants an underground, alternative source of information.
- rafaelm 5y ago
  Same here. I used to listen to a lot of episodes and he had super interesting conversations. But the whole covid situation really sent him off the deep end. And the more the "establishment" tries to push back, the more he's digging in. The last Rhonda Patrick episode was specially hard to watch. I guess it's the last time she's going to be on. I'm listening more to Lex Fridman these days, even though he's had Weinstein on recently...
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > The last Rhonda Patrick episode was specially hard to watch. I guess it's the last time she's going to be on. That's the only recent one I've tried to listen to, and I agree. You could tell she was trying not to upset Rogan, but she was also completely uncomfortable with what he was saying. She later posted a long follow-up on her own website to try to correct the misinformation. What a sad situation.
- rajin444 5y ago
  > and that monoclonal antibodies are orders of magnitude more expensive and more difficult to make. We’re in a global heath crisis and the average people have been convinced that they need to be concerned about big pharma’s “bottom line” instead of doing what’s best for humanity. Millions of lives are being ruined by pandemic response measures and you’re arguing that we can’t give out life saving treatments because it’s too costly. We’re sacrificing the average person’s (already somewhat poor) quality of life to spare big corporations the cost of making a positive contribution to the world. In a world where we have political leadership that is deserving of trust these corporations would have had their freedoms trampled first instead the common person. Instead they’re posting record profits while the rest of us suffer. The hardest thing for me to swallow is millions of people are ok with this and support it! Without any personal gain they’ll preach the good word of our modern oligarchy and shame dissenters. Seemingly out of nowhere “big pharma” can do no wrong and is above reproach.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > We’re in a global heath crisis and the average people have been convinced that they need to be concerned about big pharma’s “bottom line” instead of doing what’s best for humanity. You know that pharma companies aren't literally paying for their own treatments out of their own pockets, right? The government and insurance companies are paying the pharma companies to produce these things. It would be the pharma companies' dream come true if the government paid them thousands of dollars for monoclonal antibodies for every patient instead of a < $20 vaccine. This is what I meant when I said that the conspiracy theories aren't even logically consistent. Baffling that you think the pharmaceutical companies don't want to produce the more expensive drug.
    - rajin444 5y ago
      > You know that pharma companies aren't literally paying for their own treatments out of their own pockets, right? Yes that is my entire point. The average person is paying out of pocket for this pandemic and you’re saying we can’t force corporations to do the same.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
- jayski 5y ago
  Not a Rogan fan, but hes not anti vaccine (has said that in those exact words many times) and he is vaccinated.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  His IQ is directly proportional to that of the interviewee, as is his ability to spot grifting.
- poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
  You haven't actually listened because he's 100% for the vax for high risk groups. I'd be really curious how you can "easy disprove" the main themes that come up on his show: natural immunity is better than the vax, big pharma has a long history of lawsuits and criminal penalties for falsifying data, effective treatments do exist, and there's a higher risk profile of the vax than public authorities let on. Those are the big themes, so please, "easy disprove" them? Per the last one: The FOI lawsuit pertaining to FDA approval (follow Aaron Siri) already revealed in the first 2.5 months of the rollout that Pfzier received 130k case incidents of adverse events. VAERS shows staggering incidents of disability and death, and he's spoken with many physicians who believe there's useful signal from VAERS like there has been for over 30 years. A bunch of countries have now slapped myocarditis warnings on either Pfzier or Moderna. He talks about the 15+ people he knows who have had serious reactions after second dose or booster including his friend's daughter who's now dead. Our family friend here died after booster. The articles about european footballers dropping on the field from cardiac issues (greater than previous 20 years combined) is a signal too. He even had a guest talk about fake vax card going around in Hollywood because many celebrities/people of means don't want to risk it. There's plenty of other statistical or otherwise anecdotal signals that you can hear about if you decide to listen to his show, or you can follow dozens of other people on substacks who track these issues. But please go ahead and disprove all of it.
- jccalhoun 5y ago
  I've heard a very small handful of clips from Rogan. The two that I heard this week were him talking to someone who disagreed with him, showed him a study, and Rogan still didn't want to admit he was wrong, and another, which I"m told is quite old, where he was going on about some new primates and a primatologist called in to tell him he was wrong and he talked all over her and mocked her credentials. These may be very rare and cherry picked examples but they still don't make me want to give him any more of my time.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Rogan is doing this because it makes money and in his mind, there's nothing unethical taking advantage of people who want to listen to conspiracy theories and questionable medical advice. There are a lot of people out there who don't really care, as long as their pockets are lined and they can go to their walled mansion.
henriquez 5y ago
[flagged]
- namdnay 5y ago
  No we don’t
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  I would love to see the evidence you used to reach those conclusions, care to share it?
  - breitling 5y ago
    I could see what they are trying to say because I hear the same thing all around me. I'm in Ontario, Canada. There are regions with 90% vaccinations rate (Toronto) and still the hospitals are full and we are in lockdown. As laymen, people do question whether anyone knows what they're doing. Toronto has been one of the most compliant cities for masking, social distancing, and vaccines. Even then we are not spared.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      It appears that the techniques everybody was using to slow the spread of the original virus aren’t working as well for omicron. That doesn’t mean they weren’t a good idea for the original strain.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      What should give you pause: imagine what it could have been like without all those measures. Because they do work, and if in spite of that you have a pretty bad disaster on your hand that translates into being spared from a much worse one.
  - bsaul 5y ago
    I see everywhere epidemiologist and doctors calling for « humility » with covid, since it has shown to be « full of surprises ». Which, to me, looks like another way of saying they got wrong numerous times in the past on how to manage the epidemic. The fact is, we’ve never had (at least in europe) that many vaccinated people, that many sanitary measures (except for full lockdowns at the very beginning), and yet that many number of cases, as well as that many number of people in hospitals (from delta, since omikron looks much weaker, thanks to nature). In that context, trying to blame JR for trying to give speech to other medical experts, and have a different opinion on that topic, is really unfair. This should actually be the stance most scientists should take : what did we do wrong, what did we miss, was there something we could have done differently ?
newsbinator 5y ago
> “Though Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, the company presently has no misinformation policy,” the group wrote in the letter What would a Spotify misinformation policy look like? Who decides what misinformation is? In March 2020 telling people to wear masks was misinformation. A month later telling people not to wear masks was misinformation. I always prefer receiving my misinformation earlier rather than later.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > What would a Spotify misinformation policy look like? Who decides what misinformation is? Rogan's misinformation isn't even vague or subtle, it's just completely wrong. His own guests and his own podcast runner even call him out on it in real-time (when they can): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4oRlqPntY8&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4oRlqPntY8&t=10s He's pushing blatant nonsense that he picked up from who knows where, and it's not even a question. Much of it can be debunked by literally just checking anything.
  - newsbinator 5y ago
    I'm willing to take the downvotes on this topic, since anything related to Joe Rogan is controversial but I support the existence of shows like his. People have trouble understanding why his show is popular and what his role in it is. He's not a news anchor, a public radio host, or a broadcaster attempting to communicate information to the public. He's an approximately regular guy having long form conversations with interesting people. In conversations people are often wrong and people often say BS things and get called out for it. And Joe Rogan says BS things and gets called out for it. That's not shocking or a gotcha about his show. It's not a bug, it's a feature. People tune in because they get to sit in on interesting conversations that usually don't have a particular "I came on here to say" agenda. And when the reverse is the case, those episodes are heavily panned and usually those guests are not invited back. Enjoying this type of media means putting up with plenty of BS from any given side on any given day, and doing one's own research. If somebody isn't willing to do their own research and is instead prepared to believe anything Joe Rogan or his guests say at face value, then that's a problem for them far larger than anything they might encounter on his podcast.
hirundo 5y ago
“Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, Joe Rogan has repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine.” I don't think they're properly evaluating the distrust created by banning such information. People have far less trust for the pro-vaccine data when they are aware that they do not have equal access to the alternative data. This is amplified when the "misinformation" label is routinely expanded to include not just the contested details, but whole conversations that include things like data directly from the CDC and FDA that other sources do not. Yet the bans are the opposite of surgical. But I think that the worse thing is that people hear the horror stories by word of mouth, over and over again. I certain have. But in the current environment, where online discussion of those stories is suppressed, they do not hear the frequently convincing and valuable rebuttals, because those are often suppressed too for including the claims they are rebutting. "Shut up" is not a persuasive rhetorical technique.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > I don't think they're properly evaluating the distrust created by censoring such information. That's exactly what I was thinking while reading that sentence. Gee, doctors are calling to not provoke distrust in doctors? I'm 100% on the doctors' side in this debate, but I am not part of the group that is being mislead. I can only imagine how this sounds to someone who is not sure about trusting doctors and common news outlets.
  - berdario 5y ago
    The solution is to just do what Doctors are calling for, without attracting unnecessary attention. Not to push back against the reasonable requests for falsehoods to be curtailed.
Overtonwindow 5y ago
Not a big fan of Rogan, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with people speaking their mind, within legal limits; calls for violence etc. We as a society should exercise our greatest restraint for silencing speech, but we are accelerating the silence.
- vowelless 5y ago
  What if the person continuously says “smoking isnt bad for you. It’s actually great for you” on their podcast that is delivered by Spotify to hundreds of millions? What about they say something even more egregious like “seatbelt laws are against freedom and they do more harm than good and so we should stand up against them?” I dont care either way. But i think its not clear.
  - modzu 5y ago
    if people are that gullible, why not just tell them everything is fine?
  - ravenstine 5y ago
    This position only works under the premise that the Approved Facts never wrong. Nutrition is a prime example of where the Approved Facts have been wrong and have likely lead to earlier deaths for people and industry lobbies promoting their poisons. All of these supposed "facts" have been widely considered true in my lifetime: "Don't eat fat because fat just clogs your arteries just like when you pour it down the drain. Eat plenty of low fat foods, and replace saturated fat with industrial seed oils." "Sugar is just energy you burn off. It's pure calories!" "Calcium builds strong bones! Therefore, you can never drink enough cow's milk." "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! You shouldn't skip breakfast even if you're not hungry." "If you don't eat then you'll starve, your body will go into starvation mode, and your metabolism will crash!" "Salt just raises your blood pressure! Never add salt to your food and only eat things that are low in sodium. The less sodium the better." "If you eat too much protein then you'll destroy your kidneys. High protein diets are bad for you." "Distilled water will weaken your bones and you won't get enough minerals! Never drink distilled water." --- Although attitudes towards such ideas have been changing significantly, in my life I've had teachers, professors, and even doctors tell me these things. And they're all essentially wrong for the average healthy non-elderly person. There was enough scientific data available in my lifetime that authorities should have known better. The only way that I was able to come to the conclusion that the bulk of generic health advice is wrong was that contrary information was available to me, even though you can almost certainly still find a horde of medical experts to say that I'm wrong. If I couldn't hear facts and opinions that went against the mainstream, I'd probably still be overweight with prehypertension and possibly prediabetes. By now I'd be in even worse condition. To say that people should only be allowed to hear the mainstream facts is the same as saying that you should only listen to health advice approved by Coca-Cola. And yes, to a certain extent, there's natural selection. The idea that you can save everyone from themselves is the same as saying that we can bend the law of averages so that bell distributions no longer apply.
imrelaxed 5y ago
Interesting how the list of names attached to the open letter is mostly not doctors as the article claims. For reference: https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/ https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-l...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bufferout 5y ago
Joe Rogan: “If you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I’ll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person? Like, look, don’t do anything stupid, but you should take care of yourself. You should — if you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well, like, I don’t think you need to worry about this,” Also Joe Rogan: “(I) threw the kitchen sink at it, all kinds of meds, (including) monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak, prednisone — everything. I also got an NAD drip and a vitamin drip, and I did that three days in a row. Here we are on Wednesday, and I feel great.”
- ravenstine 5y ago
  You're taking two separate ideas and implying that they are supposed to be somehow consistent when consistency isn't required for either to be correct in some capacity. By your logic, if a doctor smokes cigarettes, then their health advice to be patients is bunk. Perhaps the same could be said of a fat doctor. That analogy is of course not comparable, but it's similar enough on a judgmental level.
  - bufferout 5y ago
    He's certainly healthy, fit and not exactly old at 54. Do you honestly see no inconsistency in his own behaviour radically differs from his advice?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- Jefro118 5y ago
  I don't with agree Rogan's point but it isn't hypocritical for him to do the opposite of what he advises 21 year olds because he's not 21, he's 54.
  - bufferout 5y ago
    He's fitter then most 21 year olds: https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/fitness/joe-rogans-diet-workout-plan https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/fitness/joe-rogans-diet-work...
ravenstine 5y ago
What this letter is effectively saying is that you can't share an opinion on anything, even if you have expertise in a field, if it at all goes against the Cathedral. I don't give a damn if someone is wrong. I listen to people who are wrong all the time because that's the only way to sometimes find out if you are wrong yourself. If you read the letter from these doctors, which is linked to in the WP article, all it does is assert that Malone's positions are wrong and dangerous. Are they? Is the fact that you can find a variety of doctors to openly disagree with Malone actually worth something? In actuality, the list of individuals who signed this open letter is padded; I see a nurse practitioner, a science teacher, a PhD student, a medical student, a registered nurse, a nurse practitioner, another registered nurse, a licensed clinical worker... I could go on and on. So is my ability to listen to people to be dictated by nurse practitioners and med school students? Get real. When people aren't allowed to hear different opinions or contrary facts, and they aren't supposed to make their own decision that deviates from the mainstream in any way, they are cattle. Although this was pretty much the only JRE episode I bothered to listen to on Spotify in quite some time, I hope Spotify ignores this tripe.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  > What this letter is effectively saying is that you can't share an opinion on anything, even if you have expertise in a field, if it at all goes against the Cathedral. Is it? Or is it saying that a hugely popular platform shouldn't amplify false information likely to cause harm? I don't see any call for government intervention or regulation.
  - mpfundstein 5y ago
    who dictates what false information is and what not? the majority? guess what. the majority once thought the earth is flat
    - drewcoo 5y ago
      Citation needed. There is a common myth of consensus flat earth in the past, created and perpetuated by people who claimed they were "enlightened."
smaryjerry 5y ago
I’d really like to know how “calling out Spotify” is any different from cancel culture. Unless it is specifically your job to spread the truth, I’m not worried one bit if you allow wrong voices to be heard. For instance if the director of the CDC was lying to the public, that would be a scandal, such as if they said they intentionally lied about masks working. But if there was anything middle school teachers have taught us it was that you can’t believe everything you see on the internet or on TV or that a celebrity says. It’s sad really that these people think the public is too stupid to do this and take everything they read with a grain of salt.
benpiper 5y ago
This reminds me of those "scientists" who asserted—with zero evidence—that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. Not coincidentally, they all turned out to be associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I'm more interested in hearing arguments supported by evidence than having blind, lemminglike faith in self-proclaimed experts.
- subsection1h 5y ago
  > I'm more interested in hearing arguments supported by evidence than having blind, lemminglike faith in self-proclaimed experts. LOL. Your submissions include biblicalscienceinstitute.com and crev.info Is benpiper.com your website? That site has a list of websites titled "Science" that include Creation.com: https://benpiper.com/free-resources/#science https://benpiper.com/free-resources/#science I'm so glad that religiosity is declining and that crazies like you are being marginalized more and more every day.
yashg 5y ago
Who knew natural selection worked through a podcast? But it does.
ThinkBeat 5y ago
One of the worst fallouts from the pandemic and the Trump presidency is the autocratic power that has been seized by a relatively small group who share a lot of the same political views to be the judge and jury on what is true. It has grown from early mild assertion into a politically grounded smug movement who loves calling out, cancelling, and mocking those who dont share their world view. All if that is more or less what you can except for any politically fraction to seize on. Churches, Guilds whatever is an entity seeking to control speech The real terror is in the fact that a large part of the population do not only tolerate it, but to some extent reinforces it and welcomes it. In times when society is going through something dramatic and frighting demagogs pop out of their caverns and hope to become the prophet. For a fraction to decide and dictate to all what is truth may perhaps start benign but it will metastasize and corrupt into a autocratic demand for the population to conform unquestionably to the prescribed dogma. This is never healthy for society, and the longer it is allowed to grow. It will grow. This type of dictatorial power does not reach a steady state, it grows into every crevice of society. The conflict that arises from society ridding itself of it can become something similar to a civil war. In the US today there are two (major) fractions that claim to hold the truth. If you do not adhere fully with one side, you will be labelled as a traitor and belonging to the other side. This again creates an Overton window where the public is led to believe that these two views are the only views that exist. Black and white. Your sports team vs mine. etc. This has to stop and the only ones who can stop it are the people. Thankfully we do not have to live our lives with a radio that has only one channel (or in this case perhaps two) We dont have to give our adherence to one or the other. We can make the choice to ignore them.
aaomidi 5y ago
I think the difference here isn't just that Spotify is hosting this content. It's that Spotify is actively recommending it to people. There's a difference between self discovery of content vs when a platform highlights one above others.
drewcoo 5y ago
What does this mean in terms of medical ethics?
Jansen312 5y ago
First off, I do think he spread less than 100% truth. I also think vaccines works. But...without vaccines death is rather low at around 4%. Had we allow Wuhan variant covid to spread earlier, alpha, beta, delta, omicron, IHG, deltacron, etc would be neglible and tolerable by public as we would have achieve natural herd immunity by now. What the medical professions failed to highlight is 80% has no symptom and recover just like ordinary flu. Most testings done where underreported causing 4% to appear bigger than necessary. Look at Singapore data that do testings very crazily to some extend (though China probably more but less reliable than SG). Death rate is near 0% and severe cases are extremely low for all variants. Also, medical professions are self-censored. There are doctors they differ opinions to general Fauzi-sponsored one and they will be heavily ostracised. Hence if you have these 200+ doctors against Joe, there at least substantial quiet minority doctors for Joe as well but can't voice their opinions. My personal GP also always remind me to take vaccines if the risk of death/complication is higher than risk of vaccines. Chicken pox vaccines and rabies vaccines are good examples. You can opt not to take Chicken pox vaccine and won't matter much in your life except maybe some scars and agingles later on. You need to take rabies vaccine when you got bitten but doesn't meant you should take it every 3mths to be fully protected for all situation. What we are doing now with covid is very excessive. Doctors (hospitals) are being paid by governments for covid patients with almost no upper bound consteaint. It is in their best interest to maintain these revenue even if doctors work to death. Economics. What is missing here is "measured approach". You do things when it is necessary. You escalate when needed and you de-escalate when things improve. What is the point of omicron wave when it is significantly less severe. Why keep reporting infection rates and deleting any mention of 1. ICU cases and 2. Deaths? HPV has 90% infection rates and proven to cause many cancers, but people isn't exactly dying from it like covid or even flu. Why then we didn't do social distancing for HPV which makes Omicron looks like noobs.
benpiper 5y ago
Big deal. The Great Barrington Declaration has almost 50k medical professionals and 16k scientists.
haspoken 5y ago
https://archive.is/7J3tB https://archive.is/7J3tB

58 points by Audiophilip 5y ago

I’ve listened to a (very) few Rohan podcasts. He’s not a great interviewer but he has some great guests. But COVID Rogan is something else entirely. He’s gone pure contrarian conspiracy theorist on everything. Many of the things he’s saying are easily disprovable and his guests are even telling him he’s wrong, but he won’t let it go. It’s sad that this is one of the most popular podcasts out there. Stunning that he’s piping misinformation directly to so many people. His conspiracies aren’t even logically consistent. For example, he’s a proponent of monoclonal antibodies because he received them, but strictly against the vaccine because he didn’t. He claims “they” are withholding the monoclonal antibodies to drive more people to the vaccine, while shrugging off the fact that both are made by “big pharma” (in some cases the same companies), and that monoclonal antibodies are orders of magnitude more expensive and more difficult to make.

tyleo 5y ago
I listened to a lot of Rogan podcasts. Mainly before 2020. It was a different time and the show was a lot more interesting with a range of guests from different backgrounds. The few times I’ve listened post 2021 have all felt a lot more political and conspiratorial. It’s been a sad deterioration of a show I once found entertaining. It’s worth noting that Rogan used to be deep into moon landing conspiracies. He mentions on his show a few times how he now sees the error of his ways. Perhaps some people just have tendencies for conspiracy and it was only a matter of time before another took hold.
- drcongo 5y ago
  Prior to 2020 he was already peddling 9/11 truth conspiracies, fake moon landing conspiracies, and anti-vax conspiracies. His entire success rests on pushing absurd nonsense to credulous bros to make them feel like they're "in the know".
mistrial9 5y ago
edit: why does an Israeli medical researcher's blog show this: ""It’s been nearly two years now and my confidence in publicly funded science is completely destroyed. I don’t believe anyone reasonably intelligent can read the COVID literature and come out the other side without concluding that universities and governments cannot tell the difference between science and scientism. Our society is completely in the grip of people who have effectively evolved under selection pressure to strongly resemble scientists without actually being scientists. Their work looks roughly right from a distance - there are data tables, charts, equations - but when you sit down and read it the scientific method has gone AWOL. I am now explicitly open to counter-narrative claims I’d never have previously considered." edit: looking for the actual reference here [0] it appears that it is an embedded quote, not the author. Please confirm for yourselves [0] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...
- rover0 5y ago
  "an Israeli medical researcher" Does he have a name? What has he published before? Is he even an expert in the field?
- kayxspre 5y ago
  It doesn't look like it came from Researcher. According to [1], it's a quote by Mike Hearn, a software engineer. [1] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...
- nnvvhh 5y ago
  If you are going to paste what you claim to be a direct quote, please provide a source.
- javagram 5y ago
  Without any context or analysis, this snippet could easily be applied to the surprising (if still 1% of the whole) of scientists who have thrown themselves into the work of pro-virus propaganda, or creating fake studies to boost ivermectin. Simple common sense comparison of the % of vaccinated people ending up in the hospital with COVID vs unvaccinated ending up in the hospital with COVID is all you need to see the vaccine works. mAB do work too but only if you test for covid and use it within the first 5 days or at least 10 days of illness.
imglorp 5y ago
The outrage economy, as they call it, is the new cash pump of the post-factual society media. It exercises a remote code execution flaw in human physiology that gets us a little involuntary shot of adrenaline. Subliminal advertising doesn't work, but this truly does. I wonder if we'll treat it the same way. The FCC issued a warning to broadcasters in 1971: > We believe that the use of subliminal perception is inconsistent with the obligations of a licensee, and therefore we take this occasion to make clear that broadcasts employing such techniques are contrary to the public interest. Whether effective or not, such broadcasts clearly are intended to be deceptive. https://www.lawpublish.com/fcc1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/fcc1.html
ramblerman 5y ago
Agreed, Joe definitely had a golden age where he interviewed quite well. The Spotify move and perhaps the 100m that came with it have seen him interject a lot more of his own opinions though. I’ll still tune in if the guest is great. But I find myself wishing joe would bite his lip far more often than before.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  He's a garbage-quality thinker himself, but he's always been great at getting people to let their guard down and start talking and he has pretty good selection of people on his show.
jokoon 5y ago
My wild guess is that it can divide his audience, and that it brings more ads, it increase his audience, and then he makes more money. Bad publicity is publicity, and then it's money. Facts and reality are not linked to money. Hank Green tweeted about this. That's the reality of the internet now: lies are more profitable. Everyone wants an underground, alternative source of information.
rafaelm 5y ago
Same here. I used to listen to a lot of episodes and he had super interesting conversations. But the whole covid situation really sent him off the deep end. And the more the "establishment" tries to push back, the more he's digging in. The last Rhonda Patrick episode was specially hard to watch. I guess it's the last time she's going to be on. I'm listening more to Lex Fridman these days, even though he's had Weinstein on recently...
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > The last Rhonda Patrick episode was specially hard to watch. I guess it's the last time she's going to be on. That's the only recent one I've tried to listen to, and I agree. You could tell she was trying not to upset Rogan, but she was also completely uncomfortable with what he was saying. She later posted a long follow-up on her own website to try to correct the misinformation. What a sad situation.
rajin444 5y ago
> and that monoclonal antibodies are orders of magnitude more expensive and more difficult to make. We’re in a global heath crisis and the average people have been convinced that they need to be concerned about big pharma’s “bottom line” instead of doing what’s best for humanity. Millions of lives are being ruined by pandemic response measures and you’re arguing that we can’t give out life saving treatments because it’s too costly. We’re sacrificing the average person’s (already somewhat poor) quality of life to spare big corporations the cost of making a positive contribution to the world. In a world where we have political leadership that is deserving of trust these corporations would have had their freedoms trampled first instead the common person. Instead they’re posting record profits while the rest of us suffer. The hardest thing for me to swallow is millions of people are ok with this and support it! Without any personal gain they’ll preach the good word of our modern oligarchy and shame dissenters. Seemingly out of nowhere “big pharma” can do no wrong and is above reproach.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  > We’re in a global heath crisis and the average people have been convinced that they need to be concerned about big pharma’s “bottom line” instead of doing what’s best for humanity. You know that pharma companies aren't literally paying for their own treatments out of their own pockets, right? The government and insurance companies are paying the pharma companies to produce these things. It would be the pharma companies' dream come true if the government paid them thousands of dollars for monoclonal antibodies for every patient instead of a < $20 vaccine. This is what I meant when I said that the conspiracy theories aren't even logically consistent. Baffling that you think the pharmaceutical companies don't want to produce the more expensive drug.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    > You know that pharma companies aren't literally paying for their own treatments out of their own pockets, right? Yes that is my entire point. The average person is paying out of pocket for this pandemic and you’re saying we can’t force corporations to do the same.
- mhh__ 5y ago
jayski 5y ago
Not a Rogan fan, but hes not anti vaccine (has said that in those exact words many times) and he is vaccinated.
mhh__ 5y ago
His IQ is directly proportional to that of the interviewee, as is his ability to spot grifting.
poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
You haven't actually listened because he's 100% for the vax for high risk groups. I'd be really curious how you can "easy disprove" the main themes that come up on his show: natural immunity is better than the vax, big pharma has a long history of lawsuits and criminal penalties for falsifying data, effective treatments do exist, and there's a higher risk profile of the vax than public authorities let on. Those are the big themes, so please, "easy disprove" them? Per the last one: The FOI lawsuit pertaining to FDA approval (follow Aaron Siri) already revealed in the first 2.5 months of the rollout that Pfzier received 130k case incidents of adverse events. VAERS shows staggering incidents of disability and death, and he's spoken with many physicians who believe there's useful signal from VAERS like there has been for over 30 years. A bunch of countries have now slapped myocarditis warnings on either Pfzier or Moderna. He talks about the 15+ people he knows who have had serious reactions after second dose or booster including his friend's daughter who's now dead. Our family friend here died after booster. The articles about european footballers dropping on the field from cardiac issues (greater than previous 20 years combined) is a signal too. He even had a guest talk about fake vax card going around in Hollywood because many celebrities/people of means don't want to risk it. There's plenty of other statistical or otherwise anecdotal signals that you can hear about if you decide to listen to his show, or you can follow dozens of other people on substacks who track these issues. But please go ahead and disprove all of it.
jccalhoun 5y ago
I've heard a very small handful of clips from Rogan. The two that I heard this week were him talking to someone who disagreed with him, showed him a study, and Rogan still didn't want to admit he was wrong, and another, which I"m told is quite old, where he was going on about some new primates and a primatologist called in to tell him he was wrong and he talked all over her and mocked her credentials. These may be very rare and cherry picked examples but they still don't make me want to give him any more of my time.
dekhn 5y ago
Rogan is doing this because it makes money and in his mind, there's nothing unethical taking advantage of people who want to listen to conspiracy theories and questionable medical advice. There are a lot of people out there who don't really care, as long as their pockets are lined and they can go to their walled mansion.

henriquez 5y ago

[flagged]

namdnay 5y ago
No we don’t
JaimeThompson 5y ago
I would love to see the evidence you used to reach those conclusions, care to share it?
- breitling 5y ago
  I could see what they are trying to say because I hear the same thing all around me. I'm in Ontario, Canada. There are regions with 90% vaccinations rate (Toronto) and still the hospitals are full and we are in lockdown. As laymen, people do question whether anyone knows what they're doing. Toronto has been one of the most compliant cities for masking, social distancing, and vaccines. Even then we are not spared.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    It appears that the techniques everybody was using to slow the spread of the original virus aren’t working as well for omicron. That doesn’t mean they weren’t a good idea for the original strain.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    What should give you pause: imagine what it could have been like without all those measures. Because they do work, and if in spite of that you have a pretty bad disaster on your hand that translates into being spared from a much worse one.
- bsaul 5y ago
  I see everywhere epidemiologist and doctors calling for « humility » with covid, since it has shown to be « full of surprises ». Which, to me, looks like another way of saying they got wrong numerous times in the past on how to manage the epidemic. The fact is, we’ve never had (at least in europe) that many vaccinated people, that many sanitary measures (except for full lockdowns at the very beginning), and yet that many number of cases, as well as that many number of people in hospitals (from delta, since omikron looks much weaker, thanks to nature). In that context, trying to blame JR for trying to give speech to other medical experts, and have a different opinion on that topic, is really unfair. This should actually be the stance most scientists should take : what did we do wrong, what did we miss, was there something we could have done differently ?

newsbinator 5y ago

> “Though Spotify has a responsibility to mitigate the spread of misinformation on its platform, the company presently has no misinformation policy,” the group wrote in the letter What would a Spotify misinformation policy look like? Who decides what misinformation is? In March 2020 telling people to wear masks was misinformation. A month later telling people not to wear masks was misinformation. I always prefer receiving my misinformation earlier rather than later.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> What would a Spotify misinformation policy look like? Who decides what misinformation is? Rogan's misinformation isn't even vague or subtle, it's just completely wrong. His own guests and his own podcast runner even call him out on it in real-time (when they can): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4oRlqPntY8&t=10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4oRlqPntY8&t=10s He's pushing blatant nonsense that he picked up from who knows where, and it's not even a question. Much of it can be debunked by literally just checking anything.
- newsbinator 5y ago
  I'm willing to take the downvotes on this topic, since anything related to Joe Rogan is controversial but I support the existence of shows like his. People have trouble understanding why his show is popular and what his role in it is. He's not a news anchor, a public radio host, or a broadcaster attempting to communicate information to the public. He's an approximately regular guy having long form conversations with interesting people. In conversations people are often wrong and people often say BS things and get called out for it. And Joe Rogan says BS things and gets called out for it. That's not shocking or a gotcha about his show. It's not a bug, it's a feature. People tune in because they get to sit in on interesting conversations that usually don't have a particular "I came on here to say" agenda. And when the reverse is the case, those episodes are heavily panned and usually those guests are not invited back. Enjoying this type of media means putting up with plenty of BS from any given side on any given day, and doing one's own research. If somebody isn't willing to do their own research and is instead prepared to believe anything Joe Rogan or his guests say at face value, then that's a problem for them far larger than anything they might encounter on his podcast.

hirundo 5y ago

“Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, Joe Rogan has repeatedly spread misleading and false claims on his podcast, provoking distrust in science and medicine.” I don't think they're properly evaluating the distrust created by banning such information. People have far less trust for the pro-vaccine data when they are aware that they do not have equal access to the alternative data. This is amplified when the "misinformation" label is routinely expanded to include not just the contested details, but whole conversations that include things like data directly from the CDC and FDA that other sources do not. Yet the bans are the opposite of surgical. But I think that the worse thing is that people hear the horror stories by word of mouth, over and over again. I certain have. But in the current environment, where online discussion of those stories is suppressed, they do not hear the frequently convincing and valuable rebuttals, because those are often suppressed too for including the claims they are rebutting. "Shut up" is not a persuasive rhetorical technique.

lucb1e 5y ago
> I don't think they're properly evaluating the distrust created by censoring such information. That's exactly what I was thinking while reading that sentence. Gee, doctors are calling to not provoke distrust in doctors? I'm 100% on the doctors' side in this debate, but I am not part of the group that is being mislead. I can only imagine how this sounds to someone who is not sure about trusting doctors and common news outlets.
- berdario 5y ago
  The solution is to just do what Doctors are calling for, without attracting unnecessary attention. Not to push back against the reasonable requests for falsehoods to be curtailed.

Overtonwindow 5y ago

Not a big fan of Rogan, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with people speaking their mind, within legal limits; calls for violence etc. We as a society should exercise our greatest restraint for silencing speech, but we are accelerating the silence.

vowelless 5y ago
What if the person continuously says “smoking isnt bad for you. It’s actually great for you” on their podcast that is delivered by Spotify to hundreds of millions? What about they say something even more egregious like “seatbelt laws are against freedom and they do more harm than good and so we should stand up against them?” I dont care either way. But i think its not clear.
- modzu 5y ago
  if people are that gullible, why not just tell them everything is fine?
- ravenstine 5y ago
  This position only works under the premise that the Approved Facts never wrong. Nutrition is a prime example of where the Approved Facts have been wrong and have likely lead to earlier deaths for people and industry lobbies promoting their poisons. All of these supposed "facts" have been widely considered true in my lifetime: "Don't eat fat because fat just clogs your arteries just like when you pour it down the drain. Eat plenty of low fat foods, and replace saturated fat with industrial seed oils." "Sugar is just energy you burn off. It's pure calories!" "Calcium builds strong bones! Therefore, you can never drink enough cow's milk." "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! You shouldn't skip breakfast even if you're not hungry." "If you don't eat then you'll starve, your body will go into starvation mode, and your metabolism will crash!" "Salt just raises your blood pressure! Never add salt to your food and only eat things that are low in sodium. The less sodium the better." "If you eat too much protein then you'll destroy your kidneys. High protein diets are bad for you." "Distilled water will weaken your bones and you won't get enough minerals! Never drink distilled water." --- Although attitudes towards such ideas have been changing significantly, in my life I've had teachers, professors, and even doctors tell me these things. And they're all essentially wrong for the average healthy non-elderly person. There was enough scientific data available in my lifetime that authorities should have known better. The only way that I was able to come to the conclusion that the bulk of generic health advice is wrong was that contrary information was available to me, even though you can almost certainly still find a horde of medical experts to say that I'm wrong. If I couldn't hear facts and opinions that went against the mainstream, I'd probably still be overweight with prehypertension and possibly prediabetes. By now I'd be in even worse condition. To say that people should only be allowed to hear the mainstream facts is the same as saying that you should only listen to health advice approved by Coca-Cola. And yes, to a certain extent, there's natural selection. The idea that you can save everyone from themselves is the same as saying that we can bend the law of averages so that bell distributions no longer apply.

imrelaxed 5y ago

Interesting how the list of names attached to the open letter is mostly not doctors as the article claims. For reference: https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/ https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-l...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bufferout 5y ago

Joe Rogan: “If you’re like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I’ll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person? Like, look, don’t do anything stupid, but you should take care of yourself. You should — if you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well, like, I don’t think you need to worry about this,” Also Joe Rogan: “(I) threw the kitchen sink at it, all kinds of meds, (including) monoclonal antibodies, ivermectin, Z-Pak, prednisone — everything. I also got an NAD drip and a vitamin drip, and I did that three days in a row. Here we are on Wednesday, and I feel great.”

ravenstine 5y ago
You're taking two separate ideas and implying that they are supposed to be somehow consistent when consistency isn't required for either to be correct in some capacity. By your logic, if a doctor smokes cigarettes, then their health advice to be patients is bunk. Perhaps the same could be said of a fat doctor. That analogy is of course not comparable, but it's similar enough on a judgmental level.
- bufferout 5y ago
  He's certainly healthy, fit and not exactly old at 54. Do you honestly see no inconsistency in his own behaviour radically differs from his advice?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Jefro118 5y ago
I don't with agree Rogan's point but it isn't hypocritical for him to do the opposite of what he advises 21 year olds because he's not 21, he's 54.
- bufferout 5y ago
  He's fitter then most 21 year olds: https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/fitness/joe-rogans-diet-workout-plan https://manofmany.com/lifestyle/fitness/joe-rogans-diet-work...

ravenstine 5y ago

What this letter is effectively saying is that you can't share an opinion on anything, even if you have expertise in a field, if it at all goes against the Cathedral. I don't give a damn if someone is wrong. I listen to people who are wrong all the time because that's the only way to sometimes find out if you are wrong yourself. If you read the letter from these doctors, which is linked to in the WP article, all it does is assert that Malone's positions are wrong and dangerous. Are they? Is the fact that you can find a variety of doctors to openly disagree with Malone actually worth something? In actuality, the list of individuals who signed this open letter is padded; I see a nurse practitioner, a science teacher, a PhD student, a medical student, a registered nurse, a nurse practitioner, another registered nurse, a licensed clinical worker... I could go on and on. So is my ability to listen to people to be dictated by nurse practitioners and med school students? Get real. When people aren't allowed to hear different opinions or contrary facts, and they aren't supposed to make their own decision that deviates from the mainstream in any way, they are cattle. Although this was pretty much the only JRE episode I bothered to listen to on Spotify in quite some time, I hope Spotify ignores this tripe.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
> What this letter is effectively saying is that you can't share an opinion on anything, even if you have expertise in a field, if it at all goes against the Cathedral. Is it? Or is it saying that a hugely popular platform shouldn't amplify false information likely to cause harm? I don't see any call for government intervention or regulation.
- mpfundstein 5y ago
  who dictates what false information is and what not? the majority? guess what. the majority once thought the earth is flat
  - drewcoo 5y ago
    Citation needed. There is a common myth of consensus flat earth in the past, created and perpetuated by people who claimed they were "enlightened."

smaryjerry 5y ago

I’d really like to know how “calling out Spotify” is any different from cancel culture. Unless it is specifically your job to spread the truth, I’m not worried one bit if you allow wrong voices to be heard. For instance if the director of the CDC was lying to the public, that would be a scandal, such as if they said they intentionally lied about masks working. But if there was anything middle school teachers have taught us it was that you can’t believe everything you see on the internet or on TV or that a celebrity says. It’s sad really that these people think the public is too stupid to do this and take everything they read with a grain of salt.

benpiper 5y ago

This reminds me of those "scientists" who asserted—with zero evidence—that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural origin. Not coincidentally, they all turned out to be associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I'm more interested in hearing arguments supported by evidence than having blind, lemminglike faith in self-proclaimed experts.

subsection1h 5y ago
> I'm more interested in hearing arguments supported by evidence than having blind, lemminglike faith in self-proclaimed experts. LOL. Your submissions include biblicalscienceinstitute.com and crev.info Is benpiper.com your website? That site has a list of websites titled "Science" that include Creation.com: https://benpiper.com/free-resources/#science https://benpiper.com/free-resources/#science I'm so glad that religiosity is declining and that crazies like you are being marginalized more and more every day.

yashg 5y ago

Who knew natural selection worked through a podcast? But it does.

ThinkBeat 5y ago

One of the worst fallouts from the pandemic and the Trump presidency is the autocratic power that has been seized by a relatively small group who share a lot of the same political views to be the judge and jury on what is true. It has grown from early mild assertion into a politically grounded smug movement who loves calling out, cancelling, and mocking those who dont share their world view. All if that is more or less what you can except for any politically fraction to seize on. Churches, Guilds whatever is an entity seeking to control speech The real terror is in the fact that a large part of the population do not only tolerate it, but to some extent reinforces it and welcomes it. In times when society is going through something dramatic and frighting demagogs pop out of their caverns and hope to become the prophet. For a fraction to decide and dictate to all what is truth may perhaps start benign but it will metastasize and corrupt into a autocratic demand for the population to conform unquestionably to the prescribed dogma. This is never healthy for society, and the longer it is allowed to grow. It will grow. This type of dictatorial power does not reach a steady state, it grows into every crevice of society. The conflict that arises from society ridding itself of it can become something similar to a civil war. In the US today there are two (major) fractions that claim to hold the truth. If you do not adhere fully with one side, you will be labelled as a traitor and belonging to the other side. This again creates an Overton window where the public is led to believe that these two views are the only views that exist. Black and white. Your sports team vs mine. etc. This has to stop and the only ones who can stop it are the people. Thankfully we do not have to live our lives with a radio that has only one channel (or in this case perhaps two) We dont have to give our adherence to one or the other. We can make the choice to ignore them.

aaomidi 5y ago

I think the difference here isn't just that Spotify is hosting this content. It's that Spotify is actively recommending it to people. There's a difference between self discovery of content vs when a platform highlights one above others.

drewcoo 5y ago

What does this mean in terms of medical ethics?

Jansen312 5y ago

First off, I do think he spread less than 100% truth. I also think vaccines works. But...without vaccines death is rather low at around 4%. Had we allow Wuhan variant covid to spread earlier, alpha, beta, delta, omicron, IHG, deltacron, etc would be neglible and tolerable by public as we would have achieve natural herd immunity by now. What the medical professions failed to highlight is 80% has no symptom and recover just like ordinary flu. Most testings done where underreported causing 4% to appear bigger than necessary. Look at Singapore data that do testings very crazily to some extend (though China probably more but less reliable than SG). Death rate is near 0% and severe cases are extremely low for all variants. Also, medical professions are self-censored. There are doctors they differ opinions to general Fauzi-sponsored one and they will be heavily ostracised. Hence if you have these 200+ doctors against Joe, there at least substantial quiet minority doctors for Joe as well but can't voice their opinions. My personal GP also always remind me to take vaccines if the risk of death/complication is higher than risk of vaccines. Chicken pox vaccines and rabies vaccines are good examples. You can opt not to take Chicken pox vaccine and won't matter much in your life except maybe some scars and agingles later on. You need to take rabies vaccine when you got bitten but doesn't meant you should take it every 3mths to be fully protected for all situation. What we are doing now with covid is very excessive. Doctors (hospitals) are being paid by governments for covid patients with almost no upper bound consteaint. It is in their best interest to maintain these revenue even if doctors work to death. Economics. What is missing here is "measured approach". You do things when it is necessary. You escalate when needed and you de-escalate when things improve. What is the point of omicron wave when it is significantly less severe. Why keep reporting infection rates and deleting any mention of 1. ICU cases and 2. Deaths? HPV has 90% infection rates and proven to cause many cancers, but people isn't exactly dying from it like covid or even flu. Why then we didn't do social distancing for HPV which makes Omicron looks like noobs.

benpiper 5y ago

Big deal. The Great Barrington Declaration has almost 50k medical professionals and 16k scientists.

haspoken 5y ago

https://archive.is/7J3tB https://archive.is/7J3tB