13 ms·

I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Jo

I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care. Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone: "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

gorgonzolachz 5y ago
You don't need to trust him, but I think you're making a false equivalency there. The reason Joe Rogan apologizes, is that some of his takes are WILD. The whole thing about the wildfires last year being set by left-wing activists was a truly insane statement, and I have no idea where he found that information or what possessed him to say it on his show. On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it. Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not). I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic. [0]https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-coronavirus-vaccine-comments https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-cor... Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day. The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham. That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance." https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190 My point is that the media is absolutely capable of getting things immensely wrong on incredible magnitude.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The President’s son is on record saying he was interested in getting info from Russia. If Trump didn’t collaborate, it wasn’t from lack of interest or effort. It was wrong, but not a pie-in-the-sky take.
    - GauntletWizard 5y ago
      There is a huge difference between a candidate "Getting information from Russia" [1] and coordinating on election misinformation campaigns with Russian Intelligence agencies. [1] which provably did happen, except it was the Hillary Campaign that knowingly did so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
      - Cycl0ps 5y ago
        Have you reviewed the article you linked? The Steele Dossier was compiled by a British source, and the one claim that's generally agreed on is that the Russian Govt highly favored Trump over Hillary. I'd recommend the summary to get aquatinted, then the subsection "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered"
PickledHotdog 5y ago
He's also double vaccinated. So I'm not sure why the AV crews still hold him up as a hero
- logicchains 5y ago
  He was vaccine injured by the second dose, and realised something was wrong, unlike the idiots who are like "oh I may have got permanent heart damage but at least I didn't get covid yet".
  - PickledHotdog 5y ago
    I may be wrong, but I thought he got vaccinated after contracting covid? Thank you for letting me know I may be holding an incorrect belief. More research required for me :)
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  I mean Malone in the above comment
  - gumbah 5y ago
    That’s interesting and should be out in the open if true. Do you have a source?
    - vondro 5y ago
      He (Malone) said it himself on the JRE show.
- peteradio 5y ago
  He's 65+ and believes in informed consent. No contradiction there.
  - PickledHotdog 5y ago
    No contradictions for himself, no. The AV crews hold him up as a poster boy for not getting the vaccine though, citing that he as the 'inventor'* of mRNA says nobody should use mRNA vaccines. I wonder if many of them realise he's vaccinated. *he also denies that he's the inventor, of course
avemg 5y ago
It’s curious that you pit Joe Rogan singularly against “the media”. Joe Rogan has owned up to mistakes but the entirety of “the media” never has? Nobody in the media has ever owned up to a mistake? Joe Rogan is not a member of the media? What is the definition of the media here? People you dislike/disagree with?
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  In the US, the "media" is slang for the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, talking head news commentators, so forth. All the ones that supposedly don't spread misinformation. Except for FOX from the CNN and MSNBC viewers perspective, and CNN and MSNBC from the FOX viewers perspective.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    > The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham. A couple of posts back you said that the media never admits their mistakes.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Washington Post did, but didn't do any broad announcement - but rather, worked on silently rewriting history for anyone who went back and looked. CNN and MSNBC have never admitted errors.
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        > CNN and MSNBC have never admitted errors. That's just plain false. CNN has issued numerous retractions, some quite high profile. For example: https://www.wired.com/1998/07/cnn-retraction/ https://www.wired.com/1998/07/cnn-retraction/ > CNN chief Tom Johnson said in an on-air statement that CNN alone bears responsibility for the "serious faults" in TV reports and the related article in Time magazine. He said an internal investigation concluded that the claims could not be supported. He apologized to CNN viewers, Time staffers, and American military personnel. or https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resignation-20170626-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resi... > CNN removed the story and all connecting links to it late Friday, saying the story did not meet its editorial standards. CNN also issued an apology to Scaramucci, who accepted it with a tweet on Saturday. “Everyone makes mistakes,” he wrote. “Moving on.” or https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-lawrence-odonnell-deutsche-bank-1476863 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-lawrence-odo... > “Last night on this show I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting,“ O‘Donnell said at the top of his show Wednesday night. “I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had it gone through that process I would not have been permitted to report it. I should not have said it on air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.“ > “Tonight we are retracting the story,” he added. “We don‘t know whether the information is inaccurate. But the fact is, we do know it wasn‘t ready for broadcast, and for that I apologize.“ or https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/msnbc-apologizes-for-using-inaccurate-maps-in-discussion-of-mideast-conflict-427563 https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/msnbc-apologizes... > MSNBC apologized for using “not factually accurate” maps in a segment discussing the violence that has erupted across Israel in recent weeks. > “MSNBC Live” host Kate Snow acknowledged Monday that her show displayed maps describing present-day Israel as a Palestinian state in 1946, when the area was under British mandate rule. The series of maps shown last Thursday gave the impression that Palestinians had control over all of modern-day Israel and have continuously lost land since. > “[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region,” Snow said. “We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.” I eagerly await your retraction of that false claim.
joyeuse6701 5y ago
He’s a hack (pun intended) for other reasons, namely using the above credentials to obtain a greater credibility than he deserves.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  It must be useful to know how much credibility doctors and scientists deserve so that you can criticize them when they overstep.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  So you think Fauci, Berx, they deserve more credibility than the original inventor? I trust the inventor more than the followers.
  - bigfudge 5y ago
    They perform different roles. A biologist is not necessarily expert in epidemiology/public health, which is really the expertise you need to evaluate the vaccines at scale.
  - acdha 5y ago
    He wasn’t “the original inventor”. He’s one of many, many people who worked in the field (very early on) and has subsequently shown that he’s no longer willing to practice science by promoting antivax propaganda and offering patients false hope over ineffective treatments. Fauci is far more credible because he’s talking about what many hundreds of researchers have confirmed. When he’s talking about vaccines, he’s not just making things up but summarizing peer reviewed studies which have been extensively analyzed. Malone now avoids the scientific process because he knows that his claims aren’t rigorous enough to survive it, and he can profit by telling people that’s censorship rather than admitting inadequacy.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      A. He has over a dozen patents on mRNA-related technologies. He was the first person to get the ball rolling, and is credited as the inventor by Nature, so this is not a made-up title. B. Fauci has had every position on every issue throughout the pandemic. No masks, then masks. No vaccine mandate, then vaccine mandate. Don't mask the children, then mask the children. Don't return to school, return to school, don't return to school. Lockdown for 2 weeks, keep it up for over a year. You might call it science changing. I consider it (as do many Americans at this point) an excuse for a dictator who doesn't know what he is doing to cover up his arbitrary decisions.
raverbashing 5y ago
> is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has Your lack of knowledge about media "owning up" to their mistakes is not evidence they don't. Because they do. I'm sure most people don't see the difference between actual Journalists (and not necessarily with a degree) and some dude talking crap on a microphone but there is. > "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. Well, so f what? This is 20% of the work that lead us today Apparently having done that work (if that was actually his actual work) doesn't prevent him from misrepresenting his work spouting crap 30 years after that. Best definition for Robert Malone is that "he had as much influence on the vaccine as Graham Bell had on the Lady Gaga's song Telephone"
- logicchains 5y ago
  A sample of some of the patents held by Malone. Note the "Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery" and "Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence": Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,413,942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
sebow 5y ago
> but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that. That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece. The mentality of 'scientific consensus says A, therefore B is bogus' does a lot more damage than people realize.Still, to be taken seriously you need to have some sort of proof or a sensible explanation of how you reached that conclusion.Here it's not as much that the guy is an incredible genius and is the only one with that position, but more of the fact that the critical voices almost entirely colluded.(This is de facto "proved" by the latest wave of western articles admitting that the narrative they adopted and pushed was done in an irresponsible fashion.See german press or even american outlets)
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece. You are saying that on average, those going against scientific consensus are more often right than they are wrong? That sound like a load of bullshit.
  - sebow 5y ago
    I expressed myself poorly because my wording gives room to implied causality.The historical figures did not make revolutionary insights or reshaped human history >because< they were going against the scientific consensus (let's say accepted narrative,thought,etc).Their own brilliance,insights [often gained through isolation by not adhering to a consensus] are the reason they were right, not because of their arrogance.That arrogance comes as a second nature due to the assumed knowledge one has about the domain to make contradictory statements against the consensus. And quantifying my statement is hard if you assume causality and you don't make distinction between levels of "radical thinking".Because i can give you 5-10 well-known historical figures who fit my description and make me look right, and you can say "here are 10000 conspiracy nuts from YT who make you look wrong".What I meant by 'are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right[...]' is that the more radical/higher level your thinking is, the better chances you are to be right if you made your case for them(again, I mentioned that those people do not change their stance with time,social status,environment). Accepting scientific consensus >because< it is the consensus and upholding it as an orthodoxy is precisely why there's stagnation in many if not all the fields.And yes, the more radical,incorporating,exploratory you are in your thinking, the higher chances you probably have in being "right", assuming you are actually creating a superset of a scientific domain(i.e innovating) and not merely "go against the wave".To take my point home: 5000 flat earthers from YouTube who are undeniable wrong make my average "wrong" because they are going against the current scientific consensus.Is their thinking radical or incorporates existing knowledge into something more profound?Do they change the thinking about world, is it shockingly different?No, they're just saying the negation of a proposition, mostly based on 'loads of bullshit' without substance or regard to the consensus.We used to think the earth was flat.This is different from, say, "Here is a conjecture which lies at the limits of current knowledge about X[say gravity, or anything].You're all wrong at thinking about X/Y/Z in terms of A, my insight (often new) is better and vastly different." The main issue here is that from a known understanding, a newer,different idea might seem wrong.It's the duty of the "contrarian" to prove his case.If one stays true to his motives and is not a hack it will serve them well.
UncleMeat 5y ago
Malone did valuable and important research decades ago. But today he is far far far far more famous for being vocally critical of mRNA vaccines, in opposition to the bulk of researchers working today. He has done this without engaging with the scientific community in the ordinary fashion and made a name for himself for being "silenced." That's a hack. Plenty of scientists do great work in one topic and then also act like hacks at other times.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Some people view Fauci through this same lens.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    I don't know why you're being downvoted. Fauci made his political name pushing for a public policy response to AIDS that looks extremely similar to what he's rolled out against covid. Yet it's been decried ever since as a mistake being based on fear rather than science, pushing stigma on segments of population in the name of compliance, and being so "overly cautious" that the damages (medical and social) far outweighed the benefits, even with its limited implementation. Why does that sound so familiar?
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      The down votes are part of the whole cancel culture aspect of any critical thinking about COVID. History repeats itself. Medical tyranny and cancel culture is just one form and the latest form of tyranny.
skinpop 5y ago
ever tried reading a major newspaper? they print corrections and apologize for errors in their reporting every single day. how often do "independent" media figures apologize or admit to making mistakes? corporate media sucks, but their lies tend to be more about what they choose to present and what they choose to omit rather than made up facts.
jmcgough 5y ago
There are plenty of bright people who convince themselves of something that's crazy and unsupported by evidence. It's classic confirmation bias. Linus Pauling was one of the founders of molecular biology and spent part of his later life advocating that people megadose vitamin c to cure heart disease, something that could have very well hurt people who chose that over a more evidence-backed treatment. Steve Jobs tried treating his cancer through juice cleanses until it became too late-stage to treat conventionally. Malone really should not be given a platform. We know that being unvaccinated can make covid way more severe and puts you at 14x higher risk of death from covid, and there is a huge body of evidence on covid vaccine efficacy from the literal billions of people worldwide who have been vaccinated. People will almost certainly die because he lends credibility to anti-vaccination arguments.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  Malone is vaccinated. He's against vaccine mandates. The surpreme court seems to agree with Malone as well. Should the surpreme court be deplatformed?
  - jmcgough 5y ago
    Does the supreme court have a justice who gives interviews on hugely popular podcasts about why vaccines are dangerous?
    - beerandt 5y ago
      It doesn't need popularity to make its decrees accepted or even believed: they are by definition the controlling law of the land. Whether you read their opinions or not. You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      Maybe the reason the podcast is so popular is because there's some truth to it. Your views may not be as accurate as you believe.

gorgonzolachz 5y ago

You don't need to trust him, but I think you're making a false equivalency there. The reason Joe Rogan apologizes, is that some of his takes are WILD. The whole thing about the wildfires last year being set by left-wing activists was a truly insane statement, and I have no idea where he found that information or what possessed him to say it on his show. On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it. Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not). I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic. [0]https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-coronavirus-vaccine-comments https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/joe-rogan-retracts-cor... Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day. The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham. That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance." https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190 My point is that the media is absolutely capable of getting things immensely wrong on incredible magnitude.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The President’s son is on record saying he was interested in getting info from Russia. If Trump didn’t collaborate, it wasn’t from lack of interest or effort. It was wrong, but not a pie-in-the-sky take.
  - GauntletWizard 5y ago
    There is a huge difference between a candidate "Getting information from Russia" [1] and coordinating on election misinformation campaigns with Russian Intelligence agencies. [1] which provably did happen, except it was the Hillary Campaign that knowingly did so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier
    - Cycl0ps 5y ago
      Have you reviewed the article you linked? The Steele Dossier was compiled by a British source, and the one claim that's generally agreed on is that the Russian Govt highly favored Trump over Hillary. I'd recommend the summary to get aquatinted, then the subsection "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered"

PickledHotdog 5y ago

He's also double vaccinated. So I'm not sure why the AV crews still hold him up as a hero

logicchains 5y ago
He was vaccine injured by the second dose, and realised something was wrong, unlike the idiots who are like "oh I may have got permanent heart damage but at least I didn't get covid yet".
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  I may be wrong, but I thought he got vaccinated after contracting covid? Thank you for letting me know I may be holding an incorrect belief. More research required for me :)
PickledHotdog 5y ago
I mean Malone in the above comment
- gumbah 5y ago
  That’s interesting and should be out in the open if true. Do you have a source?
  - vondro 5y ago
    He (Malone) said it himself on the JRE show.
peteradio 5y ago
He's 65+ and believes in informed consent. No contradiction there.
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  No contradictions for himself, no. The AV crews hold him up as a poster boy for not getting the vaccine though, citing that he as the 'inventor'* of mRNA says nobody should use mRNA vaccines. I wonder if many of them realise he's vaccinated. *he also denies that he's the inventor, of course

avemg 5y ago

It’s curious that you pit Joe Rogan singularly against “the media”. Joe Rogan has owned up to mistakes but the entirety of “the media” never has? Nobody in the media has ever owned up to a mistake? Joe Rogan is not a member of the media? What is the definition of the media here? People you dislike/disagree with?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
In the US, the "media" is slang for the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, talking head news commentators, so forth. All the ones that supposedly don't spread misinformation. Except for FOX from the CNN and MSNBC viewers perspective, and CNN and MSNBC from the FOX viewers perspective.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  > The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham. A couple of posts back you said that the media never admits their mistakes.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Washington Post did, but didn't do any broad announcement - but rather, worked on silently rewriting history for anyone who went back and looked. CNN and MSNBC have never admitted errors.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      > CNN and MSNBC have never admitted errors. That's just plain false. CNN has issued numerous retractions, some quite high profile. For example: https://www.wired.com/1998/07/cnn-retraction/ https://www.wired.com/1998/07/cnn-retraction/ > CNN chief Tom Johnson said in an on-air statement that CNN alone bears responsibility for the "serious faults" in TV reports and the related article in Time magazine. He said an internal investigation concluded that the claims could not be supported. He apologized to CNN viewers, Time staffers, and American military personnel. or https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resignation-20170626-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-cnn-resi... > CNN removed the story and all connecting links to it late Friday, saying the story did not meet its editorial standards. CNN also issued an apology to Scaramucci, who accepted it with a tweet on Saturday. “Everyone makes mistakes,” he wrote. “Moving on.” or https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-lawrence-odonnell-deutsche-bank-1476863 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/trump-lawrence-odo... > “Last night on this show I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting,“ O‘Donnell said at the top of his show Wednesday night. “I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had it gone through that process I would not have been permitted to report it. I should not have said it on air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.“ > “Tonight we are retracting the story,” he added. “We don‘t know whether the information is inaccurate. But the fact is, we do know it wasn‘t ready for broadcast, and for that I apologize.“ or https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/msnbc-apologizes-for-using-inaccurate-maps-in-discussion-of-mideast-conflict-427563 https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/msnbc-apologizes... > MSNBC apologized for using “not factually accurate” maps in a segment discussing the violence that has erupted across Israel in recent weeks. > “MSNBC Live” host Kate Snow acknowledged Monday that her show displayed maps describing present-day Israel as a Palestinian state in 1946, when the area was under British mandate rule. The series of maps shown last Thursday gave the impression that Palestinians had control over all of modern-day Israel and have continuously lost land since. > “[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region,” Snow said. “We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.” I eagerly await your retraction of that false claim.

joyeuse6701 5y ago

He’s a hack (pun intended) for other reasons, namely using the above credentials to obtain a greater credibility than he deserves.

ALittleLight 5y ago
It must be useful to know how much credibility doctors and scientists deserve so that you can criticize them when they overstep.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
So you think Fauci, Berx, they deserve more credibility than the original inventor? I trust the inventor more than the followers.
- bigfudge 5y ago
  They perform different roles. A biologist is not necessarily expert in epidemiology/public health, which is really the expertise you need to evaluate the vaccines at scale.
- acdha 5y ago
  He wasn’t “the original inventor”. He’s one of many, many people who worked in the field (very early on) and has subsequently shown that he’s no longer willing to practice science by promoting antivax propaganda and offering patients false hope over ineffective treatments. Fauci is far more credible because he’s talking about what many hundreds of researchers have confirmed. When he’s talking about vaccines, he’s not just making things up but summarizing peer reviewed studies which have been extensively analyzed. Malone now avoids the scientific process because he knows that his claims aren’t rigorous enough to survive it, and he can profit by telling people that’s censorship rather than admitting inadequacy.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    A. He has over a dozen patents on mRNA-related technologies. He was the first person to get the ball rolling, and is credited as the inventor by Nature, so this is not a made-up title. B. Fauci has had every position on every issue throughout the pandemic. No masks, then masks. No vaccine mandate, then vaccine mandate. Don't mask the children, then mask the children. Don't return to school, return to school, don't return to school. Lockdown for 2 weeks, keep it up for over a year. You might call it science changing. I consider it (as do many Americans at this point) an excuse for a dictator who doesn't know what he is doing to cover up his arbitrary decisions.

raverbashing 5y ago

> is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has Your lack of knowledge about media "owning up" to their mistakes is not evidence they don't. Because they do. I'm sure most people don't see the difference between actual Journalists (and not necessarily with a degree) and some dude talking crap on a microphone but there is. > "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. Well, so f what? This is 20% of the work that lead us today Apparently having done that work (if that was actually his actual work) doesn't prevent him from misrepresenting his work spouting crap 30 years after that. Best definition for Robert Malone is that "he had as much influence on the vaccine as Graham Bell had on the Lady Gaga's song Telephone"

logicchains 5y ago
A sample of some of the patents held by Malone. Note the "Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery" and "Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence": Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,413,942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989. Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.

sebow 5y ago

> but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that. That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece. The mentality of 'scientific consensus says A, therefore B is bogus' does a lot more damage than people realize.Still, to be taken seriously you need to have some sort of proof or a sensible explanation of how you reached that conclusion.Here it's not as much that the guy is an incredible genius and is the only one with that position, but more of the fact that the critical voices almost entirely colluded.(This is de facto "proved" by the latest wave of western articles admitting that the narrative they adopted and pushed was done in an irresponsible fashion.See german press or even american outlets)

Kbelicius 5y ago
> That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece. You are saying that on average, those going against scientific consensus are more often right than they are wrong? That sound like a load of bullshit.
- sebow 5y ago
  I expressed myself poorly because my wording gives room to implied causality.The historical figures did not make revolutionary insights or reshaped human history >because< they were going against the scientific consensus (let's say accepted narrative,thought,etc).Their own brilliance,insights [often gained through isolation by not adhering to a consensus] are the reason they were right, not because of their arrogance.That arrogance comes as a second nature due to the assumed knowledge one has about the domain to make contradictory statements against the consensus. And quantifying my statement is hard if you assume causality and you don't make distinction between levels of "radical thinking".Because i can give you 5-10 well-known historical figures who fit my description and make me look right, and you can say "here are 10000 conspiracy nuts from YT who make you look wrong".What I meant by 'are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right[...]' is that the more radical/higher level your thinking is, the better chances you are to be right if you made your case for them(again, I mentioned that those people do not change their stance with time,social status,environment). Accepting scientific consensus >because< it is the consensus and upholding it as an orthodoxy is precisely why there's stagnation in many if not all the fields.And yes, the more radical,incorporating,exploratory you are in your thinking, the higher chances you probably have in being "right", assuming you are actually creating a superset of a scientific domain(i.e innovating) and not merely "go against the wave".To take my point home: 5000 flat earthers from YouTube who are undeniable wrong make my average "wrong" because they are going against the current scientific consensus.Is their thinking radical or incorporates existing knowledge into something more profound?Do they change the thinking about world, is it shockingly different?No, they're just saying the negation of a proposition, mostly based on 'loads of bullshit' without substance or regard to the consensus.We used to think the earth was flat.This is different from, say, "Here is a conjecture which lies at the limits of current knowledge about X[say gravity, or anything].You're all wrong at thinking about X/Y/Z in terms of A, my insight (often new) is better and vastly different." The main issue here is that from a known understanding, a newer,different idea might seem wrong.It's the duty of the "contrarian" to prove his case.If one stays true to his motives and is not a hack it will serve them well.

UncleMeat 5y ago

Malone did valuable and important research decades ago. But today he is far far far far more famous for being vocally critical of mRNA vaccines, in opposition to the bulk of researchers working today. He has done this without engaging with the scientific community in the ordinary fashion and made a name for himself for being "silenced." That's a hack. Plenty of scientists do great work in one topic and then also act like hacks at other times.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Some people view Fauci through this same lens.
- beerandt 5y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted. Fauci made his political name pushing for a public policy response to AIDS that looks extremely similar to what he's rolled out against covid. Yet it's been decried ever since as a mistake being based on fear rather than science, pushing stigma on segments of population in the name of compliance, and being so "overly cautious" that the damages (medical and social) far outweighed the benefits, even with its limited implementation. Why does that sound so familiar?
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    The down votes are part of the whole cancel culture aspect of any critical thinking about COVID. History repeats itself. Medical tyranny and cancel culture is just one form and the latest form of tyranny.

skinpop 5y ago

ever tried reading a major newspaper? they print corrections and apologize for errors in their reporting every single day. how often do "independent" media figures apologize or admit to making mistakes? corporate media sucks, but their lies tend to be more about what they choose to present and what they choose to omit rather than made up facts.

jmcgough 5y ago

There are plenty of bright people who convince themselves of something that's crazy and unsupported by evidence. It's classic confirmation bias. Linus Pauling was one of the founders of molecular biology and spent part of his later life advocating that people megadose vitamin c to cure heart disease, something that could have very well hurt people who chose that over a more evidence-backed treatment. Steve Jobs tried treating his cancer through juice cleanses until it became too late-stage to treat conventionally. Malone really should not be given a platform. We know that being unvaccinated can make covid way more severe and puts you at 14x higher risk of death from covid, and there is a huge body of evidence on covid vaccine efficacy from the literal billions of people worldwide who have been vaccinated. People will almost certainly die because he lends credibility to anti-vaccination arguments.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
Malone is vaccinated. He's against vaccine mandates. The surpreme court seems to agree with Malone as well. Should the surpreme court be deplatformed?
- jmcgough 5y ago
  Does the supreme court have a justice who gives interviews on hugely popular podcasts about why vaccines are dangerous?
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It doesn't need popularity to make its decrees accepted or even believed: they are by definition the controlling law of the land. Whether you read their opinions or not. You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    Maybe the reason the podcast is so popular is because there's some truth to it. Your views may not be as accurate as you believe.