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.