The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts

MrStuffins

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus.... I just noticed it was you I was agreeing with.......

I may have to rethink my position :P:P:)

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No you aren't "bro".

Would I be antivax if I encouraged my elderly mother to take the vaccine and was of the opinion that my twenty year old pregnant niece and my 22 year old fitness instructor nephew shouldn't?

Is that really what you think anti Vax is? Putting everyone who doesn't wholly promote the vaccine as anti Vax alongside Gemma o Doherty?

But indeed, "whatever".

These people definitely should be taking it....

Sudden Valley

I think people obviously have different definitions of what anti vax is. Sure the original doctor that started the mmr scare wasn't even against vaccination in theory just wanted three separate vaccines to be given instead all in one go. If listeners went with Joe Rogans opinion it could lead to herd immunity not being reached so it was somewhat dangerous and ignorant. Throughout the pandemic he has complained about masks, lockdowns, PUP payments to workers all from the safety of his billion dollar bubble.

Sudden Valley

Sudden Valley wrote: »

I think people obviously have different definitions of what anti vax is. Sure the original doctor that started the mmr scare wasn't even against vaccination in theory just wanted three separate vaccines to be given instead all in one go. If listeners went with Joe Rogans opinion it could lead to herd immunity not being reached so it was somewhat dangerous and ignorant. Throughout the pandemic he has complained about masks, lockdowns, PUP payments to workers all from the safety of his billion dollar bubble.

Wakefield wanted a single measles vaccine used because he filed his own patent for it... His paper was fraudulent. So while he only voiced concerns about MMR (to stop using it was profitable for him). He has since heavily become antivax and it's been lucratively profitable for him.

And I'd concur that his position tended to negatively impact people getting vaccinated. That might not be outright antivax but it was a hugely uninformed view that endangered a vaccine effort given his huge reach.

Mic 1972

The episode with Bret Weinstain and Dr Kory about alternatives for treatment of Covid is one of the best episodes he's done in a while.
it's brave of him to pull stuff like that considering the level of censorship around Covid at the moment

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The episode with Bret Weinstain and Dr Kory about alternatives for treatment of Covid is one of the best episodes he's done in a while.
it's brave of him to pull stuff like that considering the level of censorship around Covid at the moment

Just started watching this, are they starting from a position that covid was man made? Am I getting that correct?

They're saying that allegedly covid patient zero was the wife of a worker in the wuhan lab.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

Just started watching this, are they starting from a position that covid was man made? Am I getting that correct?

the episode is about Ivermectin, a drug that mainstream media is describing as ineffective although it has been very effective to prevent the infection.
All source and links are in the video

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

the episode is about Ivermectin, a drug that mainstream media is describing as ineffective although it has been very effective to prevent the infection.
All source and links are in the video

Eh, there's ongoing research into its efficacy. The FDA has concluded there's currently insufficient evidence of its efficacy hence further research needed. The EMA back this stance up. It's an unproven treatment and more research is needed. That's based on research, not mainstream media conspiracies.



https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-ivermectin-covid-19-5385782-Mar2021/

A large multinational clinical trial in Covid-19 patients is to begin shortly, and Professor Nichol heads up the Irish arm. He’s aware of claims of ivermectin as a miracle cure, but “the enthusiasm does not match with the evidence to date”. He hopes the new trial will provide an answer.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

the episode is about Ivermectin, a drug that mainstream media is describing as ineffective although it has been very effective to prevent the infection.
All source and links are in the video

How do I access sources and links in a spotify video?

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

the episode is about Ivermectin, a drug that mainstream media is describing as ineffective although it has been very effective to prevent the infection.
All source and links are in the video

Have to admit my bull**** alarms go off when MSM censorship gets mentioned.

Pierre Kory has some weird arguments in favour of it. He's claiming clinical trials are a blocker. Strange to suggest clinical trials should be skipped for any drug. Why not just get them done and we can see for sure. I can't find much online to support this drug. Kory's wiki page doesn't paint him in a good light.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

How do I access sources and links in a spotify video?

you listen to the podcast and look up the articles, sources and people mentioned

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to admit my bull**** alarms go off when MSM censorship gets mentioned.

Pierre Kory has some weird arguments in favour of it. He's claiming clinical trials are a blocker. Strange to suggest clinical trials should be skipped for any drug. Why not just get them done and we can see for sure. I can't find much online to support this drug. Kory's wiki page doesn't paint him in a good light.

if Wikipedia is your goto place to check references, then you might just skip this podcast altogether

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

if Wikipedia is your goto place to check references, then you might just skip this podcast altogether

How about scientific journals? :rolleyes:

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, there's ongoing research into its efficacy. The FDA has concluded there's currently insufficient evidence of its efficacy hence further research needed. The EMA back this stance up. It's an unproven treatment and more research is needed. That's based on research, not mainstream media conspiracies.



https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-ivermectin-covid-19-5385782-Mar2021/

I take you haven't listen to the podcast

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

if Wikipedia is your goto place to check references, then you might just skip this podcast altogether

Wikipedia obviously isn't gospel but yes it is my goto place to get a general overview of someone. What's yours?

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

I take you haven't listen to the podcast

Nope, I have checked journals and multiple health agencies and their advice. I'm inclined to trust them more than some doctor that's a bit controversial.

DaTown

The Darkhorse podcast on youtube is brilliant. Bret and Heather are outstanding.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, I have checked journals and multiple health agencies and their advice. I'm inclined to trust them more than some doctor that's a bit controversial.

Bret Weinstain ...some doctor
oookey

humberklog

Yeah. Like I said in a previous post on the Korey/Weinstein episode: JR had a good sign off when he said "Sort that out for yourselves ladies and gentlemen."

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Bret Weinstain ...some doctor
oookey

Korey was the doctor I was referring to. Individual doctor's opinion(biologist in this case) don't trump research which faces peer review. Weinstein is known as a contrarian on the topic cause it's not backed up by research.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

Mic 1972

They are biologists who speak from the perspective of educated people.
information is being censored and silenced all the time on YT, I'm glad Joe Rogan is giving them a platform

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

They are biologists who speak from the perspective of educated people.
information is being censored and silenced all the time on YT, I'm glad Joe Rogan is giving them a platform

Publish a paper, get it peer reviewed. Avoiding doing that indicates their arguments aren't great in the first place. The fact that your reference point is a podcast is a weak argument to start with.

LessOutragePlz

Deleted User wrote: »

Publish a paper, get it peer reviewed. Avoiding doing that indicates their arguments aren't great in the first place. The fact that your reference point is a podcast is a weak argument to start with.

This man perfectly highlights the issues with constantly asking for peer reviewed studies and not believing anything unless it is peer reviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y

Dyr

Peer review doesnt work very well when there are disastrous consequences for being a contrary voice.

The advent of Twitter feeds has allowed us to see that a lot of the people who are SMEs are so emotionally incontinent that you wouldnt let them run a bath let alone trust their objectivity

What disillusioned me with expert guidance was back when COVID first broke and masks could not be had for love nor money you had the Irish experts telling us that masks were of no benefit and might even be detrimental only to completely reverse that position once the supply was there

Or the fact that people were fired and deplatformed as conspiracy theorists for suggesting that covid may be man made when that was part of an overall campaign against Trump only for that position to be reversed once the Biden administration floated the possibility

I'd have more faith in Weinstein to play a straight wicket than the WHO or the other players. My last naive optimistic hope is that all of this is going to come out in wash in a few years as the inquiries are held and data is studied but I suspect that it will all be memory holed.

The lunatics are taking over the asylum if we are shunning expertise and peer review

Bobeagleburger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The lunatics are taking over the asylum if we are shunning expertise and peer review

Nobody with sense is tbf.

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

Publish a paper, get it peer reviewed. Avoiding doing that indicates their arguments aren't great in the first place. The fact that your reference point is a podcast is a weak argument to start with.

that's random, I reference 2 biologists who speak on a podcast.
They could be speaking in any other capacity, what matter is the content

Bellbottoms

Mic 1972 wrote: »

that's random, I reference 2 biologists who speak on a podcast.
They could be speaking in any other capacity, what matter is the content

The content absolutely matters. Why would you think it shouldn't.

The almost reflexive resistance to Ivermectin is bizarre. I have been following this story and others connected to it for a long time. For example the way the lab leak hypothesis resulted in censorship for so long. The tsunami of adverse reactions to all vaccines, including significant deaths, being steadfastly ignored by the media. The evidence from Japan for example for accumulation of lipid particles in body's organs. Right back to early doctors who said this is the inflammatory response causing maasive damage not a respiratory thing. And them being considered fringe theorists

There have been doctors on the ground reporting brilliant successes who have been broadly ignored eg Sr Shankara Chetty in South Africa who has successfully treated 1000s with early use of steroids, inhalers and other pŕotocols which you can find online.

There have been immunologists who up until speaking out re covid where highly respected in their fields. For example Geert Van Den Bossche who says that the basic and well known immunological axiom that one does not mass vaccinate during the heat of a pandemic as it always drives variants due to immune pressure on the virus still holds true in this case. It is similiar to serial passaging of viruses done in a lab but now being done in whole populations. And even more so because non sterilising vaccines are being use on a mass demographic.

People like Dr Pierre Kory helped to develop early respected widely adopted treatment protocols re covid. Kory spoke before the US Senate and his official on the record testimony to government was censored by Youtube - just think about that.

People like Kory were highly respected people entrusted with senior positions of medical responsibility right up until they piped up about the remarkable efficiency of repurposed drugs when it came to covid. People like emeritus professor of immunology at the University of Newcastle, Robery Clancy, who says it is crystal clear that Ivermectin is useful and should be adopted.
These are drugs off patent. Drugs with decades of good safety protocols. Drugs that won Nobel prizes and revolutionised life in developing countrues. Repurposing drugs is gold standard response when facing a novel health situation.
Countries like Mexico, India, South Africa have used Ivermectin with stunning results. There have been many small research studies done and several meta analyses which point towards good results. Even if the results were moderate - which they are not - Ivermectin should be used as an adjunct tool to drive towards success re covid.

But drugs like ivermectin would challenge the emergency use authorisation of vaccines that remain in stage 3 testing until the end of 2022 and early 2023. They challenge the emergency use of novel drug treatments like the one Merck is bringing forward, which perhaps unsurprisingly has molecular similarities to their old off patent product which would not earn them a bob.

Weinstein has been addressing issues aloud that many of us lay people have been quietly wondering about for a long time. I do not agree with him on everything but he is standing up to the present hegemony, a hegemony which is not the basis for good science Doing that, which is normal, has incurred censorship. It is all very odd.

I appreciated Joe giving them a platform to speak. Other interviews with Kory are available on the FLCCC Alliance website.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

The lunatics are taking over the asylum if we are shunning expertise and peer review

lol have a look at what happened to peer review in places like Romania during the soviet era. Peers suddenly become very bashful when there's consequences to querying anything that backs government policy.

It's all contingent on free speech