Were either Neil Young or Joni Mitchell trying to censor Joe Rogan? I thought they both said they didn't want their music associated with Spotify because that platform was allowing Joe Rogan to promote incorrect anti-vaxx material. They were just drawing attention to the misinformation and inaccuracies of some the podcast's anti-vaxx messaging.
Scientific debate isn't limited to vaccines. There's also debate over lockdowns, mandates, alternative medications, vaccinating everybody vs. specifically targeting vulnerable groups, etc. Majority opinions haven't always been on the right side of history either. Covid policies are being determined by a group of scientists, governmental health officials, and pharmaceutical corporations who all have their own agendas. If other scientists with backgrounds in epidemiology, virology, and immunology come along and present different ideas on how to control Covid, I'm going to listen to what they have to say. It doesn't necessarily mean they're right, but they should be allowed to make their case.
When something has already failed, it's only natural that stressing it even further will make that failure even worse.
Detailing his personal experience with Covid and advocating for alternative treatments does not make Rogan "anti-vax."
It's more than that. He's spreading lies and misinformation to undermine confidence in the vaccine programme.
www.bbc.co.uk
Rogan said this during a conversation with Australian media personality Josh Szeps. When Szeps said Rogan was incorrect, Rogan fact checked himself during the podcast. Rogan later tweeted "If anyone was going to make me look dumb on the podcast I’m glad it’s @joshzepps, because I love him, and he’s awesome. However this is why I was confused: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...zer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study."
Rogan was on a regimen of vitamins and medications, of which Ivermectin was one of. I don't how effective it is, but Rogan recovered from Covid within a few days.It's more than that. He's spreading lies and misinformation to undermine confidence in the vaccine programme.
Mr Rogan said "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy". This is a complete lie. There is nothing in any of the approved vaccines that can change DNA.
His podcast has also promoted the use of Ivermectin to cure Covid. This claim was made on an episode by Bret Weinstein who said: "Ivermectin alone is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction". This simply isn't true. There is some low quality, unverified research that also made this claim and in some cases the data had been clearly manipulated. This may be what he was basing his opinion on. If you look only at rigorously carried out peer reviewed studies, there is no evidence of the drug's effectiveness.
Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid 'miracle' drug
Thousands worldwide have taken ivermectin to fight Covid. But what's the evidence?
On the podcast Robert Malone said if you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects. Although, studies have shown that a very small number of conditions, e.g blood clots and heart inflammation, are slightly more likely after certain vaccines, they are extremely rare and far less than the harmful effects of getting Covid.
Mr Rogan is not just relaying his personal experience, he is spreading misleading anti-vaxx propaganda.
A better comparison would be if a podcast misinformed people that abortion will lead to lifelong infertility and should that message be challenged or not? It's more a question about do we think it's right that people should be allowed to give incorrect and dangerous information without it being disputed.
If you have an underlying health condition or elderly and a virulent variant of Covid is prevalent in your society then yes it is very dangerous. If you don't fall in any of those categories the level of danger is less but still significantly higher than being vaccinated.
