6 ms·

There's 'don't like' and then there's 'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice'. Can you appreciate there's a difference?

francisofascii 5y ago
Pretty sure some in the religious right considered Howard Stern dangerous in corrupting the youth or society. Really depends on how you define when speech becomes considered dangerous.
johng 5y ago
What dangerous, anti-scientific medical advice has Joe Rogan given?
- drcongo 5y ago
  I'll forgive you for being unable to use a search engine to find out because the results are now all about this spat, but for years he's been telling people that vaccines (pre-covid) cause autism, which anyone with half a brain (which disqualifies Rogan) knows is dangerous bullshit.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  Amateur ivermectin ingestion has directly caused people to die. Rogan's own words: “This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,” This is objectively false.
  - holbrad 5y ago
    Ivermectin has widely been used in various countries. You can argue about the actual effectiveness, I think I remember a pre-print study being retracted. But talking about that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of dangerous public menace and should be banned.
    - micromacrofoot 5y ago
      Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners. You don't find that irresponsible?
      - tptacek 5y ago
        It is plainly irresponsible, but if you frame it like this in a message board comment, you're practically baiting message board nerds into taking the opposing position for sport. This whole thread is pretty silly. I think the analogy between Rogan and Stern is weak, but that's all it is: a weak argument. Spinning off into 20 comments about whether Rogan is or isn't a crank isn't getting us anywhere.
        micromacrofoot 5y ago
        I will have this argument as long as people insist Rogan's not a total crank. There are a lot of people that look to this guy for their worldview, which would be fine if it didn't occasionally skew into dangerous nonsense and outright denialism. People have been suing hospitals to get ivermectin treatments because of this nonsense.
        tptacek 5y ago
        Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.
        micromacrofoot 5y ago
        I had to argue with my brother about Joe Rogan for about a year until he got vaccinated (before the pandemic it was arguing with him about not sending randos on the internet money for perpetual motion devices), so I'm used to it. A big part of spreading disinfo is badgering people until they give up, so I've already resigned myself to doing this forever.
cronix 5y ago
> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' That sounds like an opinion. One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated, but an opinion I'm happy you can express openly. I'm also appreciative of other opinions I hear on Joe's show, and others. Can you appreciate that building up a false dichotomy and then asking someone if they can spot the difference is disingenuous?
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  This is the same kind of rhetoric Rogan uses to say nothing and make it sound like it's a worthwhile opinion. Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense. You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode Rogan says it's "weird" to call black people black because they're not dark enough to be considered black technically. You feel like you've gained something from this exchange?
  - cronix 5y ago
    > despite doctor's advice Despite some doctor's advice.... Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words? Please show where Joe, actually Joe and not a report of it, once recommended anyone take "horse dewormer" using those words. That was CNN's specific framing and where those words first showed up. They used those words, Joe didn't. Are you aware of that? The first time "horse dewormer" came out of Joe's mouth was in response to CNN's publicly false characterization of what he said. Haven't heard Jordan's interview yet, but thanks for the heads up. I'm sure there will be something in the 4+ hour interview that I will gain, or will provoke thought, or cause me to go look something up, and some things I don't agree with or learn I was wrong about. Provoking thought is good.
    - 5y ago
holbrad 5y ago
'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' Just a general point, but people really love throwing around "anti-scientific" and other such terms without appreciating that generating accurate scientific knowledge is actually really difficult with a huge amount of disagreement. (Especially in medicine) It's trivially easy to have two knowledgeable people or groups who have completely opposing views with seemingly strong cases for both.
tptacek 5y ago
No, he doesn't, or he wouldn't have made the analogy. He's not dumb, and he knows the rap on Rogan. His position seems pretty clearly to be "if you don't want awful, dangerous medical advice, don't listen to the show", which is a coherent argument, just as "if you don't want to work in partnership with a company that has a significant financial interest in promoting dangerous medical advice, you should dissolve your partnership" is both a coherent and compatible argument. What you've got here is an attempt to win this debate by DQ'ing his argument. That's never going to work, not least because it doesn't engage with the substance of what he's saying. Instead, it just invited a bunch of comments sticking up for ivermectin; it had the opposite outcome to what your premise suggests you wanted.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 5y ago
I think different folks have different, but sincerely held, ideas of what ideas are dangerous for other people to be hearing. I’m sympathetic to your particular point, but more fundamentally, skeptical of the assertion that “but my concern is real while their concerns are fake.”
yes_really 5y ago
> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice Can you quote exactly which medical advice Joe Rogan gave that was anti-scientific? I am 90% sure that you are saying BS, and that Rogan's advice was not anti-scientific, it was just against your politics.

francisofascii 5y ago

Pretty sure some in the religious right considered Howard Stern dangerous in corrupting the youth or society. Really depends on how you define when speech becomes considered dangerous.

johng 5y ago

What dangerous, anti-scientific medical advice has Joe Rogan given?

drcongo 5y ago
I'll forgive you for being unable to use a search engine to find out because the results are now all about this spat, but for years he's been telling people that vaccines (pre-covid) cause autism, which anyone with half a brain (which disqualifies Rogan) knows is dangerous bullshit.
micromacrofoot 5y ago
Amateur ivermectin ingestion has directly caused people to die. Rogan's own words: “This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,” This is objectively false.
- holbrad 5y ago
  Ivermectin has widely been used in various countries. You can argue about the actual effectiveness, I think I remember a pre-print study being retracted. But talking about that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of dangerous public menace and should be banned.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners. You don't find that irresponsible?
    - tptacek 5y ago
      It is plainly irresponsible, but if you frame it like this in a message board comment, you're practically baiting message board nerds into taking the opposing position for sport. This whole thread is pretty silly. I think the analogy between Rogan and Stern is weak, but that's all it is: a weak argument. Spinning off into 20 comments about whether Rogan is or isn't a crank isn't getting us anywhere.
      - micromacrofoot 5y ago
        I will have this argument as long as people insist Rogan's not a total crank. There are a lot of people that look to this guy for their worldview, which would be fine if it didn't occasionally skew into dangerous nonsense and outright denialism. People have been suing hospitals to get ivermectin treatments because of this nonsense.
        tptacek 5y ago
        Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.
        micromacrofoot 5y ago
        I had to argue with my brother about Joe Rogan for about a year until he got vaccinated (before the pandemic it was arguing with him about not sending randos on the internet money for perpetual motion devices), so I'm used to it. A big part of spreading disinfo is badgering people until they give up, so I've already resigned myself to doing this forever.

cronix 5y ago

> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' That sounds like an opinion. One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated, but an opinion I'm happy you can express openly. I'm also appreciative of other opinions I hear on Joe's show, and others. Can you appreciate that building up a false dichotomy and then asking someone if they can spot the difference is disingenuous?

micromacrofoot 5y ago
This is the same kind of rhetoric Rogan uses to say nothing and make it sound like it's a worthwhile opinion. Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense. You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode Rogan says it's "weird" to call black people black because they're not dark enough to be considered black technically. You feel like you've gained something from this exchange?
- cronix 5y ago
  > despite doctor's advice Despite some doctor's advice.... Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words? Please show where Joe, actually Joe and not a report of it, once recommended anyone take "horse dewormer" using those words. That was CNN's specific framing and where those words first showed up. They used those words, Joe didn't. Are you aware of that? The first time "horse dewormer" came out of Joe's mouth was in response to CNN's publicly false characterization of what he said. Haven't heard Jordan's interview yet, but thanks for the heads up. I'm sure there will be something in the 4+ hour interview that I will gain, or will provoke thought, or cause me to go look something up, and some things I don't agree with or learn I was wrong about. Provoking thought is good.
  - 5y ago

holbrad 5y ago

'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' Just a general point, but people really love throwing around "anti-scientific" and other such terms without appreciating that generating accurate scientific knowledge is actually really difficult with a huge amount of disagreement. (Especially in medicine) It's trivially easy to have two knowledgeable people or groups who have completely opposing views with seemingly strong cases for both.

tptacek 5y ago

No, he doesn't, or he wouldn't have made the analogy. He's not dumb, and he knows the rap on Rogan. His position seems pretty clearly to be "if you don't want awful, dangerous medical advice, don't listen to the show", which is a coherent argument, just as "if you don't want to work in partnership with a company that has a significant financial interest in promoting dangerous medical advice, you should dissolve your partnership" is both a coherent and compatible argument. What you've got here is an attempt to win this debate by DQ'ing his argument. That's never going to work, not least because it doesn't engage with the substance of what he's saying. Instead, it just invited a bunch of comments sticking up for ivermectin; it had the opposite outcome to what your premise suggests you wanted.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 5y ago

I think different folks have different, but sincerely held, ideas of what ideas are dangerous for other people to be hearing. I’m sympathetic to your particular point, but more fundamentally, skeptical of the assertion that “but my concern is real while their concerns are fake.”

yes_really 5y ago

> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice Can you quote exactly which medical advice Joe Rogan gave that was anti-scientific? I am 90% sure that you are saying BS, and that Rogan's advice was not anti-scientific, it was just against your politics.