4 ms·

Did you actually watch the episodes in question? The big difference is that those Rogan has on actually have credentials to back up their claims, and they prov

Did you actually watch the episodes in question? The big difference is that those Rogan has on actually have credentials to back up their claims, and they provide evidence in the form of studies, it is the opposite of what you've laid out here. On the other side the expert from CNN seemed extremely uninformed.

dekhn 5y ago
From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.
- jayspell 5y ago
  If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    "The two guests sound very reasonable". Do you mean Malone? https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-malone-joe-rogans-guest-was-vaccine-sci/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-ma... sums it up; he's made numerous statements that are almost certainly false. "the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation. Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
    - jayspell 5y ago
      Can you highlight some of the BS?
      - dekhn 5y ago
        You want me to... highlight the details from the fact-checking report? OK. Here's the ones I ignore: He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here. False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet. False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-effectively-prevent-severe-disease-havent-shown-signs-of-antibody-dependent-enhancement-as-claimed-by-robert-malone/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff... Here are the serious ones: Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fails-screen-test-for-truth/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai... "A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said. Distorted statements about the approval status of vaccines: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor... I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them. If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above. If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted. If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted. If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.

dekhn 5y ago

From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.

jayspell 5y ago
If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.
- dekhn 5y ago
  "The two guests sound very reasonable". Do you mean Malone? https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-malone-joe-rogans-guest-was-vaccine-sci/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-ma... sums it up; he's made numerous statements that are almost certainly false. "the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation. Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
  - jayspell 5y ago
    Can you highlight some of the BS?
    - dekhn 5y ago
      You want me to... highlight the details from the fact-checking report? OK. Here's the ones I ignore: He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here. False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9EU9W7-1 https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet. False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-effectively-prevent-severe-disease-havent-shown-signs-of-antibody-dependent-enhancement-as-claimed-by-robert-malone/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff... Here are the serious ones: Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fails-screen-test-for-truth/ https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai... "A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said. Distorted statements about the approval status of vaccines: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor... I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them. If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above. If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted. If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted. If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.