3 ms·

> One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/6907616035?s=20 https://twitter.com/joerogan/st

• drcongo 5y ago
  Looks like the Rogan apologists have a similar relationship with proof as the man himself. Suddenly they're all quiet.
  • cronix 5y ago
    Because Joe was commenting on the HuffPost article that was linked in his tweet? I missed where he was actually giving advice? Commenting on something you read is not "giving advice," generally.
  • holbrad 5y ago
    "apologists" as if there's anything to apologise for. You can disagree with that tweet and still be for open discussion and against censorship. Also that tweet is very old, people do change there mind. (Not that I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, or know if he still holds that belief)
• dekhn 5y ago
  One thing to note is that court decisions are not required to be scientifically valid. For example, a court could find a company liable for damages, even if the plaintiff lacked any scientific evidence (or lacked evidence surpassing a reasonable doubt, or whichever standard applied in that case). That doesn't "prove" anything in a scientific sense. Further, the case found that vaccine's dont cause autism, the opposite of what rogan said. Also, the rogan tweet links to an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a well-known anti-vaxxer who recently had to apologize for saving covid vaccines were like nazis.