Huh? Does Rogan run a shop selling trinkets and snake oil?

He's a comedian chatting with people and sharing the discussion that you can choose to watch or not. The controversy around him is largely manufactured by a dying corporate media and ruling class threatened by unsanctioned voices. Speaking of being trolled by billionaires...

He makes and sells Alpha Brain and other “supplements” through the company he co-founded Onnit. He’s very much in the snake oil business. https://www.onnit.com/pro-team/

Yeah but that has to be a side gig, not perfect but it's pretty common for humans to not be perfect. You have to believe he loves stand up comedy, loves the UFC, is blown away by the success of the podcast, and generally loves life. That doesn't leave time to get the Onnit topic quite right.

I think ivermectin as treatment for a virus counts as snake oil.

Was that the only "treatment" he did at the time? No. He also took Monoclonal Antibodies and prednisone. Why didn't you bring that up?

> In addition to mentioning ivermectin, the podcaster, who has previously stated that the young and healthy should not "worry" about being vaccinated against COVID, said he had also taken monoclonal antibodies and prednisone to treat the disease.

> Thus far, three anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody products have been granted Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the FDA for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID in high-risk sufferers, though this is different from full FDA approval.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-rogan-covid-drugs-ivermectin-mo...

Based on my interactions with Rogan fans, this just confirmed biases that ivermectin works and is on par with, or better, than actual treatments like monoclonal antibodies.

Sure, let’s talk about Rogan’s overall approach toward COVID-19. I personally know people who haven’t gotten vaccinated because of Rogan’s influence. He may have caused more harm than Gwyneth Paltrow - you’d need to gather a bunch of data to measure the effects to know for sure.

What’s the harm in that? Efficiency decays rapidly (to about half in 5 months) and a false sense of security isn’t beneficial for anyone. Would you rather have vaccinated people who think they're invincible while infecting others because they think having the vaccine gives you the ability not to get infected at parties and bars?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.

prednisone shouldn't be taken until you've got severe COVID.

if your immune system is still attacking the virus you don't want to weaken your immune system.

once your immune system is just attacking itself then you want to throw immunosuppressants at it in order to weaken the response.

This is such a polarised view - there is clinical evidence that suggests it may reduce the symptoms of COVID. Its not a full on miracle cure. The problem is that what should be a medical discussion is now political - and people have drawn battle lines around it.

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/...

This supports your argument that this is polarizing but worth noting that other medical groups have highlighted a ln undisclosed conflict of interest in your linked study and selective data use in the meta analysis.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-abo...

Ivermectin is being used in many countries and is supported by a large community of physicians and medical professionals. It may or may not be useful for covid - I'm not a medical worker so I will not opine on it's usefulness, but any person is capable of browsing the medical fields support for its efficacy as an antiviral.

Ivermectin is a miracle drug against parasites due to its effects on the nerve and muscle cells of invertebrates. The evidence for its use as an antiviral in vivo is weak.

Here is a list of 83 peer reviewed studies, conducted by medical professionals, showing the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID.

https://c19ivermectin.com/

Does this mean it works? No. But it does mean that your characterization of it as "snake oil" is completely incorrect. The real question is what kind of manipulation has taken place that could lead people to such a conclusion and who was behind this manipulation?

Doesn't Rogan get more views than most cable news anchors?

Yes, probably more than all of them combined.

Cable is irrelevant for many people since it’s used by older people who still buy cable and watch news.

Exactly, that's why the corporate media is so threatened by this average Joe.

I've seen about 30 joe rogan podcasts over the years as background noise during some dark souls runs - not once does the guy present himself as an expert.

if anything he just brings on people who are experts and asks them a bunch of questions.

why the hard-on from twitterinas that want to shit on the show because he interviews people accused of "wrongthink"?

I think there's a view that his content has changed recently. I used to watch him a lot in previous years as it really was the best place to just hear conversations with interesting people. Now there's a view that he's taken on a particular political lean and has surrounded himself with conspiracy theorists. I doubt he's actually promoting them but his show does put them in front of a large and impressionable audience (in my personal opinion, he is extremely impressionable himself and parrots the views of his guest for the sake of the conversation regardless of his actual belief).

There are also some theories that his sudden giant increase in wealth may have contributed to his shift from the mainstream to the fringe

He’s believed in aliens and ancient alien civilizations and cited this book way before you noticed conspiracy theorists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprints_of_the_Gods

I don’t know when you considered him mainstream but he’s the same.

The only change I’ve noticed is an increase in boring conversations with unfunny comedians or brick head fighters.

I enjoy that he asks the stupid questions (or the questions that I would feel too self-conscious to ask) of those experts. It is such an excellent contrast to a stale interview with prepared topics and nothing natural to it.

It's easy to shit on the show for being a bro-science quackery discussion, not worthy of smart people listening to it or being guests on it. And as we all notice just how popular the show is, anything bad about it (it has plenty of that) becomes a good reason to want it _shut_ _down_

He presents his guests as experts, even when they arent

> if anything he just brings on people who are experts and asks them a bunch of questions.

But that's a pretty sure fire way to gain credibility by association, even if you try your hardest to undermine it by bringing on holocaust deniers and obvious peddlers of bunk conspiracy theories.

Since when is Joe Rogan considered a science podcast!? I've never seen it advertised, or presented, that way.

It isn't - or wasn't when I still listened every now and then back in the time when it was available to all [1]. He did interview scientists who often talked about their fields, leading Rogan to first assure the guest(s) that he - Rogan - is just an idiot upon which he would ask questions which often revolved around some of his favourite subjects: nutrition, DMT, physical training, DMT, aliens and did I mention DMT?

What made his interviews interesting is that he, apart from the mentioned standard hitching points, was inquisitive and unafraid to ask 'stupid' questions. Those often gave the guest room to delve into his or her subject of expertise, enlightening the listener and Rogan at the same time. Only a few of the guests were scientists, most were comedians, MMA fighters, ex-servicemen and such. Things might have changed since then but I can not imagine him ever labelling anything he does as 'science'.

[1] this period ended when he sold out to Spotify

It isn't a science podcast per se, but he actually has a lot of scientists/science educations on. Neil deGrasse Tyson has been on four times, Sean Carroll three times, Brian Cox twice, Brian Greene once, Roger Penrose once, etc. (those are just the science people I remember off the top of my head, there have been lots) He's had Richard Dawkins, Elon Musk, John Carmack, Sam Harris on if you're into them. But it's very hit or miss. He has about as many quacks on as legitimate scientists/educators.

He does like 3-5 episodes a week, and they're each 2-4 hours. So there's a shitload of content, much more than I could ever sit through. When I was commuting ~3 total hours each day, podcasts were my medium of choice, I would generally listen to maybe one of his podcasts per week and skipped the other 2-4 after listening long enough to know that I didn't give a shit about the guest, whether it's because they were a quack, some random boring comedian, or some meathead MMA person.

He is (rightly) criticized for having lots of shitty guests on, and that criticism is fair. But the fact that the podcast is often bad doesn't mean that it's always bad. When the podcast is at its best, it is very, very good.

On the website the episodes are broken down by category, so if you want science content you just click "scientists". Unfortunately Joe is too dumb to tell the difference between the real scientists and the fake ones, so most of the quacks are lumped in there too.

https://www.jrepodcast.com/episodes/scientists/

Many of his fans consider it a science podcast, scarily enough. The also consider the conspiracy theories he talks about to be real as well.