No, he doesn't, or he wouldn't have made the analogy. He's not dumb, and he knows the rap on Rogan. His position seems pretty clearly to be "if you don't want awful, dangerous medical advice, don't listen to the show", which is a coherent argument, just as "if you don't want to work in partnership with a company that has a significant financial interest in promoting dangerous medical advice, you should dissolve your partnership" is both a coherent and compatible argument.

What you've got here is an attempt to win this debate by DQ'ing his argument. That's never going to work, not least because it doesn't engage with the substance of what he's saying. Instead, it just invited a bunch of comments sticking up for ivermectin; it had the opposite outcome to what your premise suggests you wanted.

> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice'

That sounds like an opinion. One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated, but an opinion I'm happy you can express openly. I'm also appreciative of other opinions I hear on Joe's show, and others. Can you appreciate that building up a false dichotomy and then asking someone if they can spot the difference is disingenuous?

This is the same kind of rhetoric Rogan uses to say nothing and make it sound like it's a worthwhile opinion.

Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense.

You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode Rogan says it's "weird" to call black people black because they're not dark enough to be considered black technically. You feel like you've gained something from this exchange?

> despite doctor's advice

Despite some doctor's advice....

Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words? Please show where Joe, actually Joe and not a report of it, once recommended anyone take "horse dewormer" using those words. That was CNN's specific framing and where those words first showed up. They used those words, Joe didn't. Are you aware of that? The first time "horse dewormer" came out of Joe's mouth was in response to CNN's publicly false characterization of what he said.

Haven't heard Jordan's interview yet, but thanks for the heads up. I'm sure there will be something in the 4+ hour interview that I will gain, or will provoke thought, or cause me to go look something up, and some things I don't agree with or learn I was wrong about. Provoking thought is good.

Yes, Rogan was quite smart to get a real prescription and to get the actual human medical product. CNN (and other news agencies, and people on twitter) were outright foolish in attempting to make him look dumb (he won that round). I am quite irked at the people who thought the way to recommend not taking ivermectin is to shame people.

That said if he is smart enough to anticipate what people are going to say and adjust his actions to negate them, you'd think he'd also be smart enough to see that there really isn't any strong evidence for ivermectin being useful, and it's also possible you can take the drug, have no positive or negative effects, and get better from COVID, even if ivermectin made no difference. From that perspective, thing he did that was bad was "not even being wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) in the sense that we can't say really much of anything about his experience representing a generally useful medical advice.

Rogan is smarter than the average bear, but he's not in the club of the smartest bears.

“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective in treating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”

Actual quote. The guy spins it as "big pharma doesn't want you to know about this" so of course people are going off script. He's a dangerous moron.

It’s a moronic comment, but equally moronic comments are made about “big pharma” all the time by a bunch of people. He sounds like every Bernie supporter.

He's a moron that sounds like other morons, got it.

Hyperbole like this doesn't help. I'm not an advocate of ivermectin because I have no idea what the science is behind it, but calling it horse dewormer is just disingenuous. This is like the leftist version of the right wing media calling Seattle's CHOP/CHAZ a war zone.

Veterinarians were literally turning people away because they were attempting to buy actual horse de-wormer. This isn't hyperbole. Some people poisoned themselves.

I mean, it's not hyperbolic, it's literally used to de-worm horses.

"horse dewormer" is a type of medicine you can buy which is intended to be given to horses to deworm them. it's a different product from "people dewormer" (we call it an anti-parasitic in that context) with a different formulation and concentration. So it's not correct to say "literal" here, and just weakens your argument.

I think ivermectin doesn't work, but there's nothing wrong with a doctor prescribing it off label in a COVID context. It is not unsafe enough, generally speaking, to override the judgement of an individual doctor. The legal/regulatory system explicitly permits this, and there are other examples where doing this is likely ethically positive.

For example, there was a big controversey around lucentis and avastin where doctors found they could treat peoople with wet AMD with avastin far more cheaply, but the pharma (which marketed both) wanted people to use the far more expensive drug. Doctors actively precribed avastin instead of lucentis and treated patients (most case reports coming in positive) and then finally a large trial was run that showed it was basically as good as lucentis. Ethically, in retrospect, we say the doctors were acting in a good way (saving patients for less $$ and probably treating people who couldn't afford lucentis). I could imagine the owner of the two drugs running a PR campaign "Doctors: why are you prescribing a cancer drug to eye patients? Do you want to kill them"?

There are horse medicines with aspirin, too. Is aspirin now a horse medicine because it contains a common ingredient? Ivermectin is also literally used by millions of humans in countries all over the globe that have parasite problems, because it's an antiparasitic. My whole photo tour group was given Ivermectin when we went to Africa before covid was even a thing.

> Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug for use in humans to treat a variety of parasitic infections including parasitic worms, hookworm and whipworm. It may also be used as an effective treatment for a wide range of other conditions and as a treatment of onchocerciasis, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis or river blindness.

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html

people are literally buying and taking horse de-wormer, this is well documented... the FDA had to put out multiple statements in an attempt to get people to stop taking animal medications instead of vaccines...

I agree that hyperbolic isn't the right word, but do you really think people who call it horse de-wormer* are really being genuine.

*(Outside the context of literally treating horses)

> One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/6907616035?s=20

Looks like the Rogan apologists have a similar relationship with proof as the man himself. Suddenly they're all quiet.

"apologists" as if there's anything to apologise for.

You can disagree with that tweet and still be for open discussion and against censorship. Also that tweet is very old, people do change there mind. (Not that I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, or know if he still holds that belief)

Because Joe was commenting on the HuffPost article that was linked in his tweet? I missed where he was actually giving advice? Commenting on something you read is not "giving advice," generally.

One thing to note is that court decisions are not required to be scientifically valid. For example, a court could find a company liable for damages, even if the plaintiff lacked any scientific evidence (or lacked evidence surpassing a reasonable doubt, or whichever standard applied in that case). That doesn't "prove" anything in a scientific sense. Further, the case found that vaccine's dont cause autism, the opposite of what rogan said.

Also, the rogan tweet links to an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a well-known anti-vaxxer who recently had to apologize for saving covid vaccines were like nazis.

'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' Just a general point, but people really love throwing around "anti-scientific" and other such terms without appreciating that generating accurate scientific knowledge is actually really difficult with a huge amount of disagreement. (Especially in medicine)

It's trivially easy to have two knowledgeable people or groups who have completely opposing views with seemingly strong cases for both.

> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice

Can you quote exactly which medical advice Joe Rogan gave that was anti-scientific? I am 90% sure that you are saying BS, and that Rogan's advice was not anti-scientific, it was just against your politics.

I think different folks have different, but sincerely held, ideas of what ideas are dangerous for other people to be hearing. I’m sympathetic to your particular point, but more fundamentally, skeptical of the assertion that “but my concern is real while their concerns are fake.”

Pretty sure some in the religious right considered Howard Stern dangerous in corrupting the youth or society. Really depends on how you define when speech becomes considered dangerous.

What dangerous, anti-scientific medical advice has Joe Rogan given?

Amateur ivermectin ingestion has directly caused people to die.

Rogan's own words:

“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”

This is objectively false.

Ivermectin has widely been used in various countries. You can argue about the actual effectiveness, I think I remember a pre-print study being retracted.

But talking about that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of dangerous public menace and should be banned.

Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners.

You don't find that irresponsible?

It is plainly irresponsible, but if you frame it like this in a message board comment, you're practically baiting message board nerds into taking the opposing position for sport. This whole thread is pretty silly. I think the analogy between Rogan and Stern is weak, but that's all it is: a weak argument. Spinning off into 20 comments about whether Rogan is or isn't a crank isn't getting us anywhere.

I will have this argument as long as people insist Rogan's not a total crank. There are a lot of people that look to this guy for their worldview, which would be fine if it didn't occasionally skew into dangerous nonsense and outright denialism. People have been suing hospitals to get ivermectin treatments because of this nonsense.

Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.

I had to argue with my brother about Joe Rogan for about a year until he got vaccinated (before the pandemic it was arguing with him about not sending randos on the internet money for perpetual motion devices), so I'm used to it. A big part of spreading disinfo is badgering people until they give up, so I've already resigned myself to doing this forever.

Please keep in mind that you're not entitled to badger here; this isn't a venue for convincing people that you're right about things (for what it's worth: I'm well aware that you are right in this instance), but rather for having thoughtful conversations.

Wikipedia has a good rule in Articles for Deletion debates, where they decide which articles to keep when people nominate them for deletion. They're not votes. You can get all your friends to chime in with dumb comments saying "keep" or "delete" for stupid reasons, but the admin who evaluates the AfD debate is supposed to ignore the count of comments supporting any given argument, and just make a note of the diversity of those arguments, and then evaluate which set of arguments are stronger. You can spam an AfD with misinformation, but at least in theory it shouldn't work (in fact, you might be just as likely to piss off the admin and nudge them the other way).

That's a good way to look at HN threads as well. If you have something interesting to say, say it, and then get out of the way; let the dumb comments be the noise, not yours.

This is all very meta, I know, but this whole thread is so pointless that meta can only improve it.

Oh sure, I'm not intending to badger anyone myself. But I'll humor anyone that wants to continue to talk without resorting to personal insults. Appreciate the guidance.

Your comment

“Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners.”

was really valuable to me. Because it's so incredibly stupid that if one can string together a bunch of such comments from JR, it can actually persuade some people to not believe him. We have a type of Godman quack around here who spouts nonsense on TV. Some people string together all the outright nonsensy parts and make a single video, while referencing where they came from. Those are really helpful.

Edit: also it's a problem with only some message boards. There are message boards where a comment such as 'raynier made will be outright dismissed. And they are also places where 'thoughtful conversations' happen. Also I don't think it's 'badgering' when you quote something incredibly stupid and dangerous JR said.

Edit2: also there is an order of more people that just read comments than comment. A concrete comment of yours like the one I quoted above can really convince some people. It's a good thing.

I can't say I understand the full context, but not really.

I listen to a few podcasts sometimes hosts get things wrong, sometimes really wrong. That's fine.

Sure, getting things wrong is how people learn. But Joe's still pushing a lot of nonsense that he's been proven wrong about time and time again.

I'll forgive you for being unable to use a search engine to find out because the results are now all about this spat, but for years he's been telling people that vaccines (pre-covid) cause autism, which anyone with half a brain (which disqualifies Rogan) knows is dangerous bullshit.