You’re missing out to be honest, even pre-covid he had some amazing conversations. All he does is indiscriminately ask questions to interesting people, without voicing opinions of his own. The fact that people are trying to cancel him is akin to book burning. It’s really bad. Anyone that doesn’t “tow the line” shouldn’t just be cancelled. That’s not how democratic free societies should function.
By the way, regarding Laurence Fox - it's a great example of this form of 'performance trolling' - he's saying that he's taking Ivermectin for his current bout of Covid. Umm....where did he get that/who prescribed it to him (because no actual doctor would do so). It's bullshit, and all just about building a platform as a 'controversial voice', because otherwise nobody would be giving him the time of day.
I do laugh when people say that these dissenting voices are being silenced. Joe Rogan has 11m listeners to his podcasts. It's the very definition of NOT being silenced. (Spotify aren't going to cancel him. Neil Young has just said that it's either him or Rogan. It's Rogan, so Young has 'lost' in that sense. What Neil Young and the others probably should have done is made this about Spotify's appalling payout to songwriters and musicians rather than Rogan, but that's another conversation).
Doesn’t stop the fact that these old hippies are trying to cancel him though. I think it’s disgraceful. If the science is to be trusted, what harm is it for rogan to have these conversations? They are happy to share the platform with ****philes (r Kelly, lostprophets), murderers (many rappers), rapists and domestic abusers (Chris brown etc.) - but suddenly get on their moral high horse because someone is having a conversation that they disagree with.
Japan's Kowa in partnership with Kitasato University at Tokyo Medical University says ivermectin is effective against Omicron in phase III trial.
From https://www.bbc.com/news/55949640 "Claim: Suicides increased "200%" during lockdown Verdict: The only reliable recent data available on suicides in England - from the University of Manchester - has found that rates have not risen during lockdown. Stay-at-home orders and the economic impact of the pandemic have undoubtedly taken a toll on people's mental health. However, shared posts saying suicides have gone up by 200% during the pandemic are false.
Haha. I don’t trust that “fact checker”. It’s blatantly obvious that these lockdowns will have an effect. I personally know of 4 people that have committed suicide and two more who have mental health problems thanks to the pandemic. Not to mention the delayed cancer treatments and medical interventions missed. I guess all of the data become clearer in time though
Which is entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making. He's either not taking ivermectin and is saying it for effect (my suspicion), or he's got it illegally. (By the way, Merck, who make ivermectin, don't recommend it as a treatment...so...)
I'm sorry about the people you know, that's awful, but you do seem to rely a lot on anecdotal 'evidence'. You may not trust the BBC fact checkers for some reason, but the report is from the BMJ. Just because actual real-life evidence doesn't tally with personal experience, doesn't mean it's incorrect.
It’s because for the last two years, what’s started as “fact checked” & conspiracy, has eventually been proven that the conspiracy is correct and the fact checkers wrong. It’s happened again and again. So no, I don’t trust fact checkers whatsoever anymore. I think anecdotal evidence and official gov data is the only way I can trust anything.
That might have happened once or twice, but "again and again"? Really? But in this case, the fact check is taking information from a report from the BMJ. So you're not being asked to trust the fact checker, you're being asked to trust the information collected by the British Medical Journal. As in this bit - https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/1...been-the-effect-of-covid-19-on-suicide-rates/ I have to say that those findings are a surprise to me. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.
If this is the case why did you dismiss someone’s evidence the other day by saying it wasn’t “peer reviewed”. Seems to be a moving of the goalposts Or that if you had been presented with peer reviewed information you would have said “but it isn’t government data” Also I thought you didn’t trust the government. So why would you trust their data?
I’m not questioning the BMJ at all. If that’s what they are saying for now then I believe them. All I’m saying is it won’t surprise me if this data changes in the next six months to a year and the real stats are starkly different. Guess we will see. My point is that I don’t blindly trust the government, but I also don’t blindly trust the media fact checkers either. Each source has to be evaluated on its own merit. I am sceptical of absolutely everything to do with this pandemic now. Official data is all I trust, but even with this stuff people are playing games and can make the data prove or disprove whatever they like People on one side are making out to seem like the most dangerous virus ever created. People on the other are saying it’s a nothing burger. I lean towards it being a lot less dangerous than many people believe, however I am following the precautions just in case. I think this is totally reasonable when statistics are so manipulated & politicised.
It’s a dilemma for a small “l” liberal like me; on the one hand, I’m all for freedom of speech. On the other hand there’s a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense, not to mention poisonous bile, currently given airtime in the name of free speech. The spread of digital media has exacerbated this alarming trend, and we saw last January in America, how the deliberate, targeted spread of disinformation can threaten the foundations of democracy.
The problem is, who decides what is disinformation and what is truth? The only way to establish truth and allow everyone to move forward is to allow free speech. The good ideas will rise to the surface when questions are asked, and the bad ones will disappear. Good ideas backed by transparent data will silence all the conspiracies. Unfortunately Pfizer filed in court to hide all the medical testing records, which feeds the conspiracies further. Digital media has 100% changed society in a massive way. It used to be that narratives could be controlled entirely. Now we are seeing the positives of free information flowing instantly across the world… but also the negatives are that echo chambers are formed, and bad information is spread just as quickly. It’s a real conundrum, but I believe that the side trying to shut down people like Joe Rogan for simply asking questions (of licensed doctors I might add - you may disagree with his guests but they are legitimate medical professionals with a history in vaccine development) is in the wrong. Having listened to the whole interview, i do not think it’s dangerous at all. He is concerned about a few specific data points and mostly backs up his assertions. To me the media furore could easily be construed that there is something to hide. But I still came away from it thinking taking the vaccine was the correct choice for someone in my age group. The easy answer would be to get the big pharma companies to be more transparent and accept legal liability for the vaccines. Then none of this would even be a discussion.
Nail on head. There lies the problem, we have free speech available to a bigger audience. Unfortunately, a fair proportion of it is total bullshit. And dangerous if people believe it. And people do as it is on the internet so it must be true. No easy answer without curtailing free speech. We need free speech and it is not grounds to stop it if we disagree with the content, but if it is spreading total lies and bullshit then it is tricky.
