YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist(dailymail.co.uk)
dailymail.co.uk
YouTube and Twitter delete Joe Rogan interview with scientist
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10364679/YouTube-Twitter-delete-Joe-Rogan-interview-scientist-helped-invent-MRNA-vaccines.html
119 comments
Weinstein himself was visibly shaken when he was "canceled", i.e., nearly attacked by a mob of ideologically brainwashed students.
But I suppose that was just a master plan to cash in on the IDW.
But I suppose that was just a master plan to cash in on the IDW.
I've read some accounts from former students of Weinstein and Heying - they sounded like good, dedicated profs (Heying esp.)
I don't think Weinstein's "exile" was done intentionally, but his arc did establish a career path with a huge audience and wealthy patronage.
I don't think Weinstein's "exile" was done intentionally, but his arc did establish a career path with a huge audience and wealthy patronage.
I thought Weinstein was pretending to be crippled to try and get a reduced prison sentence after he was cancelled
They're talking about Bret Weinstein, not Harvey Weinstein
Too many notable Weinsteins! I think the grandparent comment is actually referring to Bret's brother Eric, the parent is about Bret, and the commenter you're responding to may be confusing them with the unrelated Harvey.
I think he is rather miffed that he never got the credit he felt he deserved for the initial work he did - he also lost out on money when the early patents was re-assigned to another company.
His words - "They got rich on the products of my mind.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
His words - "They got rich on the products of my mind.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
That's capitalism for ya! The folks at the top are the ones who enjoy the fruits of your labor.
> Malone's been bootstrapping this "cancelled scientist" grift in plain sight since his appearance on Weinstein's podcast.
But he actually was censored.
Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.
And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.
You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.
If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.
There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.
Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.
But he actually was censored.
Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.
And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.
You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.
If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.
There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.
Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.
Context is everything. The life and death ramifications of misinformation on this specific issue make this more than just an abstract disagreement of principles.
What is IDW?
Intellectual Dark Web - the folks like Joe Rogan and Brett Weinstein who recommend horse dewormer for Covid treatment :).
Ivermectin is not horse dewormer, characterizing it as such is just lazy propaganda. It's primarily human dewormer. The whole idea of it being a house dewormer came about because the medicine intended for human use sold out around the initial hype, and desperate people bought the doses intended for animals instead.
So horse paste then - and it is still idiotic to use it as a Covid treatment.
I don't know much about ivermectin (could be useless, don't know or care), but your framing makes as much sense as saying people think injecting mold in their butt will cure syphilis.
Rogan had a prescription for the human version, please do your research.
Well I have done enough "research" to tell the difference between an intestinal worm and a virus.
Many medicines have multiple uses that are not at all related. For example, Botox is used for stretching old skin to look nice but also used to treat migraines. Ketamine is horse tranquilizer but is also used to treat depression, etc
Minor nitpick: Botox doesn't stretch skin, it relaxes facial muscles that cause a "wrinkled" appearance.
thanks for the correction
Ivermectin is not only used for deworming. Low information comment.
[deleted]
(...much like your comment) It's an anti-parasitic medication. Doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.
Research failed to confirm the utility of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. [1] Much of the research indicating otherwise was fraudulent or misleading. [2]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
Research failed to confirm the utility of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. [1] Much of the research indicating otherwise was fraudulent or misleading. [2]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
Statement #1: "Lol idiots this is horse dewormer!"
Statement #2: "This suggested treatment does not have the desired effect in clinical trials. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/"
Can you agree that those are entirely different statements? And that one is trolling while the other is informative?
Statement #2: "This suggested treatment does not have the desired effect in clinical trials. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/"
Can you agree that those are entirely different statements? And that one is trolling while the other is informative?
1 infers 2.
There's no substantial evidence that Ivermectin effectively treats COVID-19 in humans, or that it should be taken as an alternative to being vaccinated.
A worm is a parasite (which Ivermectin effectively treats). A parasite (in this sense) is not a virus. Ivermectin does not treat the COVID-19 virus. The GP was glib and insulting but not entirely off base.
A worm is a parasite (which Ivermectin effectively treats). A parasite (in this sense) is not a virus. Ivermectin does not treat the COVID-19 virus. The GP was glib and insulting but not entirely off base.
He probably had worms
It's lazy, but from what I have heard from people I trust (which itself is lazy, since I haven't searched journal articles) is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that Ivermectin is a useful therapeutic for covid infection.
You are correct that the "horse dewormer" meme was due to desperate people buying industrial amounts, not human amounts, from vet supply shops. It's worth mocking because these people are desperately avoiding mainstream medical advice per se.
You are correct that the "horse dewormer" meme was due to desperate people buying industrial amounts, not human amounts, from vet supply shops. It's worth mocking because these people are desperately avoiding mainstream medical advice per se.
And to think a comedy show framed it better than their mainstream counterparts..
Here's Jimmy Dore's [1] segment referencing a WaPo article [2] and Dr. John Campbell's [3] analysis on why "Japan is doing better" because of this stupid "horse dewormer" narrative.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S5YG7X52PE
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/22/japan-covid-...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g
Here's Jimmy Dore's [1] segment referencing a WaPo article [2] and Dr. John Campbell's [3] analysis on why "Japan is doing better" because of this stupid "horse dewormer" narrative.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S5YG7X52PE
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/22/japan-covid-...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g
The best thing would be to just call it a dewormer
You do know that pretty much every animal drug is also used on people, right?
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
No need to downplay it by calling it “horse dewormer” now that we know where the correlations come from. “human dewormer” might be more accurate!
No need to downplay it by calling it “horse dewormer” now that we know where the correlations come from. “human dewormer” might be more accurate!
cmallp(2)
You believed it was a horse dewormer because the mass media said so?
Please educate yourself about ivermectin.
Please educate yourself about ivermectin.
Out of curiosity, I did a quick search and it is used in horses, but not exclusively. Here's a recommended deworming schedule from CSU:
https://vetmedbiosci.colostate.edu/vth/services/equine-field...
https://vetmedbiosci.colostate.edu/vth/services/equine-field...
My brother is a farmer and he uses it for his sheep , they also give it to birds to control mosquito's that spreads the West Nile virus and to humans infected with fly larva that causes river blindness.
For posterity, here is Dr Robert Malone's Google scholar profile showing his parents and papers:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en
Just 12k citations? Hardly a real scientist. Follow the real science.
This comment was brought to you by Pfizer.
This comment was brought to you by Pfizer.
Gonna put it out there .. number of citations != real science. People are aware of the value of number of citations as a proxy metric and game the system for it.
As are Pharmacy companies aware of all the other metrics they can game and game them with bigger deeper pockets.
What’s your point? That pharmacy isn’t gaming it but one man is?
What’s your point? That pharmacy isn’t gaming it but one man is?
The point is that the metric being used to indicate trustworthiness isn't sufficient to indicate trustworthiness
He obviously is a real scientist. Still, plenty of individual scientists go off the deep end w.r.t. various subtopics. "Science" is the output of a community, not individuals.
well to be fair a h-index of 32 is very low in this field
Did he enter "inventor of <X>" in the area where you are supposed to enter labels of areas of interest?
That's not a good sign.
Seems like he was involved in the research, but he's not the one out of the hundreds of scientists involved that generally get given that title by others, so has to enter it himself in inappropriate places to ensure it shows up in his profile.
That's not a good sign.
Seems like he was involved in the research, but he's not the one out of the hundreds of scientists involved that generally get given that title by others, so has to enter it himself in inappropriate places to ensure it shows up in his profile.
Rogan stopped publishing his episodes on YouTube, since his contract with Spotify says that.
Exactly. How do we know this wasn’t just copyright protection? And in any case, YouTube is notorious for removing anything controversial with no regard for censorship concerns. It’s what they do.
He's allowed to post short clips from his Spotify episodes on YouTube, these were what was deleted. He hasn't had full episodes on YouTube ever since he moved to Spotify.
The reason he doesn't publish more videos is that if he does Youtube will give him more 'strikes' and eventually delete his channel and all his content
It is strategically better to preserve his existing YT presence. And for that it is smart not to publish anything else
It is strategically better to preserve his existing YT presence. And for that it is smart not to publish anything else
copies of the podcast not published by Rogan, on Youtube, were removed.
Listening to it on Spotify to see what this is all about and form my own opinion.
The discussion with Dr. Malone is quite fascinating. I would encourage everyone to watch the entire interview and be ready to take notes. There is a lot of information packed into this interview.
What's your plan for verifying that information? Reproducing the results?
I will probably start by reviewing some of the papers he mentions. Then I will reach out to my friends in the scientific community. I'm sure they will be totally thrilled to answer all my dumb questions. Then when the dust settles I might reach out to one of the people he mentions who happens to be a friend of an acquaintance. Whatever questions remain might end up on StackExchange. [1][2][3] Oh and I might ask some questions here.
[1] - https://biology.stackexchange.com/
[2] - https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/
[3] - https://psychology.stackexchange.com/
[1] - https://biology.stackexchange.com/
[2] - https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/
[3] - https://psychology.stackexchange.com/
That is until Spotify take it down, then no one can listen to it... Regardless of whether it is anti-vax nonsense or not.
I think Rogan has a deal with them NOT to do this, but we'll see
This level of protection (from what I've read on other sites for whatever that's worth) was part of the deal when moving to Spotify.
It's fine, the entire podcast is also on bitchute.
Headline – interview deleted from Twitter.
Article contains embedded video of the entire interview on Twitter.
Article contains embedded video of the entire interview on Twitter.
I believe that is hosted by the daily mail and it's two minutes long.
I think he's talking about the embed that goes to https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/14770042390251847...
On mobile those didn't appear for me (probably something with my ad blocker), but on desktop they now do. They still appear to be 2 minutes and change long.
[deleted]
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 1 million dollar question, and there is: who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
Why do people pretend this is some kind of deep philosophical conundrum? In this case Twitter, who hires the fact checkers, and the audience, who comments on what the fact checkers do, or is free to leave the service. Your comment and the article you are commenting on and this very discussion is 'checking the fact-checker'.
Same way accountability in any system with many actors works, in reciprocal fashion.
Same way accountability in any system with many actors works, in reciprocal fashion.
No one is pretending that it presents a philosophical conundrum -- it is exactly that.
The vast majority of people would appear to miss this conundrum entirely and thereby never consider the fallibility and corruptibility of fact-checkers and/or experts.
If you do not agree with this viewpoint fine, but to try to attribute deceit ("pretending" in your words) to anybody who thinks differently about it from you seems really odd and highly presumptuous to me.
The vast majority of people would appear to miss this conundrum entirely and thereby never consider the fallibility and corruptibility of fact-checkers and/or experts.
If you do not agree with this viewpoint fine, but to try to attribute deceit ("pretending" in your words) to anybody who thinks differently about it from you seems really odd and highly presumptuous to me.
In these cases where there's an obvious customer of the fact checking service, it is really obvious who is fact checking the fact checkers.
The condundrum isn't who, it's whether they're doing a good job.
The condundrum isn't who, it's whether they're doing a good job.
> who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
Fact checkers are just a name like antifa, to make it sound like if you are against them, you are anti-fact and therefore a crazy person. Smart play with naming.
Fact checkers are just "narrative control".
Fact checkers are just a name like antifa, to make it sound like if you are against them, you are anti-fact and therefore a crazy person. Smart play with naming.
Fact checkers are just "narrative control".
We don’t ask questions like that around here, it induces vaccine hesitancy and sounds like misinformation. And we like to not ask questions that make us look anti mainstream.
The daily mail has done a lot of medical research:
https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
Why are YouTube and Twitter considered the bad guys here? Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity deal with Spotify, republishing the content somewhere else without Spotify's consent is copyright infringement and the other platforms are legally obliged to take it down.
That's not censorship at all.
That's not censorship at all.
Never heard of him, but seems like he's published a lot of scientific articles on vaccines over the past 20+ years.
He has a personal website with some more details on who he is: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.
Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
He has a personal website with some more details on who he is: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.
Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
He also retweeted claims that the Covid vaccines killed twice as many people as they saved.
Being critical of the vaccine is one thing, but that crosses into an extraordinary and borderline mathematically-infeasible claim that defies virtually all the published data and observations provided by the rest of the scientific and medical community, and requires strong evidence to support it.
Being critical of the vaccine is one thing, but that crosses into an extraordinary and borderline mathematically-infeasible claim that defies virtually all the published data and observations provided by the rest of the scientific and medical community, and requires strong evidence to support it.
There is data from VAERS and Vsafe that supports his claims though. So hardly “mathematically infeasible”.
There is literally no other data available to you or I. What data are you using to support your claim?
There is literally no other data available to you or I. What data are you using to support your claim?
https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/dataguide.html
> When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
What data supports what claim? You are also aware that anyone can submit reports to VAERS, right?
Until someone actively investigates the case and finds it was indeed caused by the vaccine, the VAERS data does not show anything. Using VAERS as your 'data' in a rhetoric is highly unscientific.
Let's also not forget how the raw VAERS data was used during the autism-vaccine link litigation. We should know better.
> When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
What data supports what claim? You are also aware that anyone can submit reports to VAERS, right?
Until someone actively investigates the case and finds it was indeed caused by the vaccine, the VAERS data does not show anything. Using VAERS as your 'data' in a rhetoric is highly unscientific.
Let's also not forget how the raw VAERS data was used during the autism-vaccine link litigation. We should know better.
thanks for the unbiased summary we need more people like you
What I’m actually more worried about now is the stress on the medical system. I’ve seen reports and heard personally that the medical systems here in the US are pretty close to collapse.
It’s sad to think about, but isn’t the entire economy on the brink of uncertainty? What would give the medical system any exception to that besides the intervention by big brother - the exact intervention which really didn’t work during covid-19.
Our health care system was rotten and had broken incentives well before covid-19, I think the same factors that were keeping that system in the state before are now being stress tested and must either cave or continue to extract value in a self preserving way that would no longer work in this fast pace environment.
Our health care system was rotten and had broken incentives well before covid-19, I think the same factors that were keeping that system in the state before are now being stress tested and must either cave or continue to extract value in a self preserving way that would no longer work in this fast pace environment.
It’s not so much whether it’s a shock it’s this way. It’s a critical part of the civilization that once gone will endanger and lead to people dying in large numbers by things they ordinarily wouldn’t have died. There’s no fast way to replace them, too.
Tangent, I’ve seen articles musing about hospitality staff shifting to these positions from hotels, restaurants, and the like. The article I read clearly had no firm grasp on the knowledge and years of training needed to replace a nurse or even a tech.
Tangent, I’ve seen articles musing about hospitality staff shifting to these positions from hotels, restaurants, and the like. The article I read clearly had no firm grasp on the knowledge and years of training needed to replace a nurse or even a tech.
I mean, the fact that 1 reputable scientist doesn't approve the vaccine doesn't disqualifies the thousands of reputable scientists that approves it. Scientific consensus is never unanimous.
"Dr Robert Malone claimed US is now like Nazi Germany with society 'hypnotized' to believe in vaccines and extreme pandemic measures"
He [Dr. Malone] used "mass formation psychosis" to describe the observed generality of what is happening and mentioned the historical effects learned from the Nuremberg trials to put it into a relatable context.
Did Dr. Malone use the word “Nazi?” Or is that getting planted to bias people reading the headline and the lede of the article?
https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
> "what the heck happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s"
In context this clearly refers to Nazi Germany, I don't believe he used the word. That was added by the far-right tabloid publishing this article.
In context this clearly refers to Nazi Germany, I don't believe he used the word. That was added by the far-right tabloid publishing this article.
The longer quote includes the question (paraphrasing)
"How does an educated and intelligent society succumb to and embrace extreme ideas?"
The longer clip is quite interesting to ponder in it's relation to our current issues with tribalism.
"How does an educated and intelligent society succumb to and embrace extreme ideas?"
The longer clip is quite interesting to ponder in it's relation to our current issues with tribalism.
"Joe Rogan questions big tech..."
The same Rogan with a Spotify deal? He...is big tech.
The same Rogan with a Spotify deal? He...is big tech.
I don't know much about this guy, other than my conspiracy-laden mother citing him as reason enough to not take a vaccine. Along with the vaccine giving you the virus, it being dangerous, and so on. She's a polio survivor former alcoholic who has smoked a pack a day for most of the past 40 years - the hypocrisy and blindness hurts me.
So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.
Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.
At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.
So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.
Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.
At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.
I think you are 100% correct he can have his own website with podcast and video on it. He just can’t use private social network when he break their term.
It’s the same as trying to post porn on facebook. They are not tumblr and will not allow it.
It’s the same as trying to post porn on facebook. They are not tumblr and will not allow it.
+1 on the backlash of bans.
Funny enough, that's why Dr. Malone isn't against vaccines at all, he's against mandates. (and vaccinating kids, specifically.)
I'm also not at all convinced he's the one invoking Godwin's law. If you have 5 minutes, check out the relevant section of the interview: https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
Funny enough, that's why Dr. Malone isn't against vaccines at all, he's against mandates. (and vaccinating kids, specifically.)
I'm also not at all convinced he's the one invoking Godwin's law. If you have 5 minutes, check out the relevant section of the interview: https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
> I don't know much about this guy, other than my conspiracy-laden mother citing him as reason enough to not take a vaccine.
A broken clock is correct twice a day. Don't disregard a perspective based on the channel.
A broken clock is correct twice a day. Don't disregard a perspective based on the channel.
This is a fallacy I see a lot.
The saying may relate to a clock, but it doesn't apply to human being. People who have psychotic tendences will display remarkably consistent wrongness. Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
The saying may relate to a clock, but it doesn't apply to human being. People who have psychotic tendences will display remarkably consistent wrongness. Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
>Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
because even those with psychotic tendencies tend to express them with a level of consistency.
Example : A paranoid schizophrenic may tell everyone that he's being followed habitually, but that doesn't mean he's wrong -- in fact in some cases the (three letter agencies) may use this trait to their advantage.[0]
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-fbi-knew-oklahoma-bomb-p...
because even those with psychotic tendencies tend to express them with a level of consistency.
Example : A paranoid schizophrenic may tell everyone that he's being followed habitually, but that doesn't mean he's wrong -- in fact in some cases the (three letter agencies) may use this trait to their advantage.[0]
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-fbi-knew-oklahoma-bomb-p...
How is it a fallacy? Just because someone (and we are really talking about a person here so please excuse the naive analogy) has a questionable past doesn't mean that what they are currently saying is incorrect.
After she recovered from polio did she then get the polio vaccine?
jebronie(2)
It's a formula you see over and over again. 1) Say enough shit to get your hand slapped 2) Do the IDW podcast tour to whine about the "establishment" and plug your Patreon and/or supplements. 3) Get bankrolled by Thiel.