Coronavirus Thread v.2

[Ben_Jamin]

What should this doctor's punishment be? Does this count as fraud?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2021/09/01/mask-exemptions-signed-chiropractor-district-revises-qualifications/5684533001/

A chiropractor in Venice, Florida, provided more than 500 medical exemption forms for children attending Sarasota County Schools who did not want to wear a mask.

Dan Busch, a chiropractor at Twin Palms Chiropractic, has signed roughly one-third of all medical exemption forms turned in district-wide, district spokesman Craig Maniglia said Wednesday morning.

Various media reports over the last week have shown families in lines wrapping around Busch's practice, and some families have told news reporters that they simply grabbed a pre-signed form off of the counter.

How can he when there is no system in place to determine what is "vaccine card" fraud?

And how can he be when you have people worrying about if their cards will be accepted because they're not all the same?

Basically, how can they determine who is an official doctor to provide a medical exemption?


Can you fault people for finding the loopholes and taking advantage of these loopholes?...

[Ben_Jamin]

Understanding that the vax isn't necessarily going to keep you from getting COVID, but keep you from life threating symptoms (in the majority of cases) is an important point that I think gets glossed over, if not outright missed.  I hear people say "if I can still get COVID, why force me to get poked" and I shake my head because the vaccine mechanics really have not been explained fully to a mass audience (in my opinion).  I suppose it's also possible that explanations have been ignored as well... though I think that's another discussion.

I see this information everywhere so I'm not sure that's the reason peolpe don't understand, I think it's more about manipulation via social media.  You got your advice from a doctor.  When people are asked where they get their advice from, a lot say social media.  That is the problem.  Social media is driven by your own likes and interests.  If you follow an anti-vaxxer, the algorithms are going to show you more.  Eventually you never see the other side of the table.  SO many people fall into this trap.  Then when they see the actual reality they don't believe it because everything else they've seen/read has said the opposite.

The only medical advice you should be taking is from your doctor. As they are the ones that should know your medical history and how your body is developing. They advise you on what to do and what not to do, as doing certain things can affect your health and could even make those health issues worse.
If people would have seen their doctor before taking the vaccines, I am sure that these adverse reactions wouldn't have been so high. As they would've likely been told by their doctor not too, as that could affect their current health and should not take it for their risk of an adverse effect is higher than the benefits of the vaccine.

The drug commercials for the shingles vaccine I saw even states to "consult your doctor and see if (shinglax, made up name) is right for you."

Which means, see your doctor before taking this because you could take it and have one of these adverse effects I spent the entire commercial naming can happen.

I personally feel people in general should be seeing their doctors more and telling them everything that is wrong or that doesn't feel right. Myself included in this sentiment because even though I haven't visited a doctor in how long for check-ups and do not have a good account of my health history, I am likely considered still healthy until I go in and tell them all that is wrong with me, and until I get diagnosed as having these health issues.

To be honest, I see a lot of doctors, and I'm not sure I'd trust any of them to be up on the medical research. Like the rest of us they largely rely on others to do the research and offer best practices. I have no doubt my [former] PCP knows far more about T cells and protein spikes than I do, and how they may effect my immune system, but I don't know as he's actually done any research to determine a specific vaccine's applicability to my specific situation. Doctors specialize for a reason, and most of the doctors we interact with have a broad, general knowledge, but that comes at the expense of greater detail across the spectrum. They're getting their intel from the same virologists and immunologists we are. They just understand it a bit better.

It should also be noted that doctors are people too and can show bias and be manipulated just like anyone else.  Regardless, it's still pretty good idea to get information from your doctor over randoms on social media.

Precisely...We're all humans. And those "experts" are not God's and are not all-knowing. They probably wish they were gods and all knowing. The scary part is that some people do believe they are God's and all knowing, and even scarier when these people become the controllers of authority.

[El Barto]

What should this doctor's punishment be? Does this count as fraud?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2021/09/01/mask-exemptions-signed-chiropractor-district-revises-qualifications/5684533001/

A chiropractor in Venice, Florida, provided more than 500 medical exemption forms for children attending Sarasota County Schools who did not want to wear a mask.

Dan Busch, a chiropractor at Twin Palms Chiropractic, has signed roughly one-third of all medical exemption forms turned in district-wide, district spokesman Craig Maniglia said Wednesday morning.

Various media reports over the last week have shown families in lines wrapping around Busch's practice, and some families have told news reporters that they simply grabbed a pre-signed form off of the counter.

How can he when there is no system in place to determine what is "vaccine card" fraud?

And how can he be when you have people worrying about if their cards will be accepted because they're not all the same?

Basically, how can they determine who is an official doctor to provide a medical exemption?


Can you fault people for finding the loopholes and taking advantage of these loopholes?...

Vaccine cards don't factor into this at all.

If the reason he issued exemptions is related to disorders of the skeleton, and he examined each of these kids to determine their eligibility, I'd give him a pass. We all know he didn't, though. The reality is that there's probably no law in place, which is actually bad news for him. If he were to be charged with something he could parlay his newfound "victim of government persecution" status into a career in politics. Though I'm sure he makes more money in quackery than he would with a political career.

[cramx3]

My pediatrician friend's office is refusing to give anyone exemptions for wearing a mask, I can see why people are flocking to that guy.  My friend said it's non stop with parents asking for it for no legitimate reasons.

[El Barto]

Reading a bit on Ivermectin (the horse dewormer), and it's pretty interesting. It may well work, and it is well tolerated. The problem is that it may not work, and people seem to be latching onto that message as part of the big conspiracy. In reality, it's being misrepresented by both sides. It's probably not the miracle drug people think it is. Some small studies show it's effective and other small studies show that it's not. None of them are large scale or particularly sound scientifically (and the first one might have been fraudulent). Now you've got dipshits taking massive doses, and doses meant for veterinary use, causing the FDA and others to shout even louder to stop taking it, continuing the mistrust. Doctors say to skip Ivermectin and get vaccinated because it's the scientifically proven method. Meatheads see anecdotal evidence of people taking it and getting better, and naturally assume the doctors are either wrong or in on the scam.

At the same time, calling it  "horse dewormer" isn't really fair. It is used for that purpose, but it's been used in humans for quite some time, and has seen quite a bit of traction around the world as an anti-viral medication. Dismissing it based on its primary usage and the morons eating horse pills by the handful only widens the gap, and we may well find out that it does work, giving credence to the people who don't understand how science works.

[cramx3]

The difference from my understanding, is people buying it from walmarts and other stores where it's meant for horses, not going to a doctor and getting the low grade prescription for human usage. There's a political spin to this for sure as well since Trump promoted it.  I don't think it got a fair shot in a real large study to see it's effects, but the smaller studies and anecdotal evidence doesn't really win me over on it being effective.  Of course vaccination makes more sense, but add it to the Darwinism when people who don't get a shot because they don't trust what's in it but then buy and use the horse product.

[lonestar]

I saw pfizer has a treatment in trial phase, an oral pill. I can't wait to see people trust it cause it's a pill but not the vaccine even though they're made by the same people.

[Lonk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

[Ben_Jamin]

Reading a bit on Ivermectin (the horse dewormer), and it's pretty interesting. It may well work, and it is well tolerated. The problem is that it may not work, and people seem to be latching onto that message as part of the big conspiracy. In reality, it's being misrepresented by both sides. It's probably not the miracle drug people think it is. Some small studies show it's effective and other small studies show that it's not. None of them are large scale or particularly sound scientifically (and the first one might have been fraudulent). Now you've got dipshits taking massive doses, and doses meant for veterinary use, causing the FDA and others to shout even louder to stop taking it, continuing the mistrust. Doctors say to skip Ivermectin and get vaccinated because it's the scientifically proven method. Meatheads see anecdotal evidence of people taking it and getting better, and naturally assume the doctors are either wrong or in on the scam.

At the same time, calling it  "horse dewormer" isn't really fair. It is used for that purpose, but it's been used in humans for quite some time, and has seen quite a bit of traction around the world as an anti-viral medication. Dismissing it based on its primary usage and the morons eating horse pills by the handful only widens the gap, and we may well find out that it does work, giving credence to the people who don't understand how science works.

That's quite interesting and as is sometimes usual, it seems that the answer is within the spectrum of both sides and once you drown out the excess noise, you will find the truth there in the middle of all the yelling and screaming, deep within the trenches both sides dug.

So, if a doctor thinks it may work, and you yourself agree, then why not try it if there is a chance it might work. That is the logic of people taking the vaccines, because it may work, then why not try it if it does work.

I know people who took a vaccine and said, "Well then, if I die we'll know then won't we." to which I say...

That over excess noise, is the problem because it drowns out the truth. And the truth could easily have been told with a simple..."Ivermectin is shown in some studies to possibly work. While in other studies it is shown to not be effective at all. Consider talking with your doctor to see if taking Ivermectin is beneficial or detrimental for your personal health."

Which means, asking your doctor about this study you saw and see what his advice is about that study, and if he hasn't seen it, maybe he will and may possibly consider it. But that is up to him to decide what he feels is best for you to do to better your health and keep yourself from dying sooner than expected.

The difference from my understanding, is people buying it from walmarts and other stores where it's meant for horses, not going to a doctor and getting the low grade prescription for human usage. There's a political spin to this for sure as well since Trump promoted it.  I don't think it got a fair shot in a real large study to see it's effects, but the smaller studies and anecdotal evidence doesn't really win me over on it being effective.  Of course vaccination makes more sense, but add it to the Darwinism when people who don't get a shot because they don't trust what's in it but then buy and use the horse product.

I have an instinct that those people, may very well be the same that went out and panic bought all the supply of toilet paper.

[Ben_Jamin]

I saw pfizer has a treatment in trial phase, an oral pill. I can't eaito see people trust it cause it's a pill but not the vaccine even though they're made by the same people.

I personally am waiting for the edible vaccine....

[lonestar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Rogan represents a fairly large slice of the problem. By taking everything under the sun we have no idea what helped, what hurt, and what was meaningless. That's a big part of the problem with Ivermectin. People are taking it on their own with no way of analyzing its efficacy other than "welp, they didn't die."

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

In fairness, the Ivermectin is probably as well understood as the vaccine. That's been a thing since the 70s, and people have been taking it since the 80s. No idea about the monoclonal antibodies.

[lonestar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

In fairness, the Ivermectin is probably as well understood as the vaccine. That's been a thing since the 70s, and people have been taking it since the 80s. No idea about the monoclonal antibodies.

The medical community supports the antibody treatments, and they obviously support the vaccine. While there have been some small studies showing ivermectin as having a possible effect in treatment of covid, it's obviously second to the two more proven treatments.

[Lonk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Rogan represents a fairly large slice of the problem. By taking everything under the sun we have no idea what helped, what hurt, and what was meaningless. That's a big part of the problem with Ivermectin. People are taking it on their own with no way of analyzing its efficacy other than "welp, they didn't die."

And that's my thing. I'm glad he's ok, but he could've easily poisoned himself. It's possible one of those things worked, maybe the combination of everything, but maybe nothing worked and he just had a mild case of Covid.

With the following he has, I think it's safe to assume one of his followers would try the same, with a very different result.

[hunnus2000]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

In fairness, the Ivermectin is probably as well understood as the vaccine. That's been a thing since the 70s, and people have been taking it since the 80s. No idea about the monoclonal antibodies.

Taking ivermectin in the 80s for what?

[Stadler]

Reading a bit on Ivermectin (the horse dewormer), and it's pretty interesting. It may well work, and it is well tolerated. The problem is that it may not work, and people seem to be latching onto that message as part of the big conspiracy. In reality, it's being misrepresented by both sides. It's probably not the miracle drug people think it is. Some small studies show it's effective and other small studies show that it's not. None of them are large scale or particularly sound scientifically (and the first one might have been fraudulent). Now you've got dipshits taking massive doses, and doses meant for veterinary use, causing the FDA and others to shout even louder to stop taking it, continuing the mistrust. Doctors say to skip Ivermectin and get vaccinated because it's the scientifically proven method. Meatheads see anecdotal evidence of people taking it and getting better, and naturally assume the doctors are either wrong or in on the scam.

At the same time, calling it  "horse dewormer" isn't really fair. It is used for that purpose, but it's been used in humans for quite some time, and has seen quite a bit of traction around the world as an anti-viral medication. Dismissing it based on its primary usage and the morons eating horse pills by the handful only widens the gap, and we may well find out that it does work, giving credence to the people who don't understand how science works.

At the heart of all of this is short-cut, Twitter (read:  surficial, 140-character bumper sticker insight) ideological thinking.   Again, if those with an opinion and the inclination to weigh in with that opinion (I mean elsewhere, Bart, not you personally) would take even a five minute break from the incessant "sides" arguments, we'd be better off.

The funny thing is, if this was a parent looking for a solution for her kid's autism or cancer it's hard NOT to imagine people screaming for the government to do more, or fast-track approval for any piece of hope.  Instead, it's just moron deplorables.   Very frustrating.

[Stadler]

I saw pfizer has a treatment in trial phase, an oral pill. I can't wait to see people trust it cause it's a pill but not the vaccine even though they're made by the same people.

Why would that matter?   I'm no Luddite when it comes to medicine, but I'm also not the person that runs to the doctor every time I have an itch or an ache.  I don't do a lot of medicines generally - I can count the aspirins I've taken in the last year on one hand and my wife yells at me for that - but I'm far more likely to take a pill over getting a vaccine and it's not even close.  It doesn't matter even an iota who made it.

You just can't make these kinds of assumptions.

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Rogan represents a fairly large slice of the problem. By taking everything under the sun we have no idea what helped, what hurt, and what was meaningless. That's a big part of the problem with Ivermectin. People are taking it on their own with no way of analyzing its efficacy other than "welp, they didn't die."

But it's important to point out, that's not "misplaced trust" or "conspiracy thinking", that's just bad scientific method. I can point to many examples of those smart, "right side of history"* people that have done the same thing and pointed to SUCCESS! with no idea how they got there.  Anyone who's ever worked on a car or diagnosed an electrical circuit knows you only mess with one variable at a time so you can track the impacts.


* And no, I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter WHAT side you're on, there are more things in play here than just ideology or some arbitrary measure of "intelligence".

[lonestar]

I saw pfizer has a treatment in trial phase, an oral pill. I can't wait to see people trust it cause it's a pill but not the vaccine even though they're made by the same people.

Why would that matter?   I'm no Luddite when it comes to medicine, but I'm also not the person that runs to the doctor every time I have an itch or an ache.  I don't do a lot of medicines generally - I can count the aspirins I've taken in the last year on one hand and my wife yells at me for that - but I'm far more likely to take a pill over getting a vaccine and it's not even close.  It doesn't matter even an iota who made it.

You just can't make these kinds of assumptions.

I can make whatever assumptions I want. It's a superpower of sorts.

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Two interesting points from that:

One, Spotify paid $100 million for the library of podcasts, then deleted 40 of them from the roster, the implication being that it's because of "misinformation"; it's like buying the Dream Theater catalogue and deleting 40 songs because "they are too long".   Presumably, that's at least in part how he got to be the most popular podcast.  Why not do like old movies and present it with a rebuttal or disclaimer?

Two, this exchange:  "But months later on his podcast, he lambasted the push for mass vaccinations and also questioned whether the vaccines actually prevented the spread of the virus — even as he couched his remarks, saying “this is neither pro- nor con-vaccine.”
Public health experts have said that vaccines are the most effective way of preventing the spread of the virus and are effective at preventing people from getting very sick and dying from covid-19, including the delta variant."

Now, I'm no denier - I've gotten both shots and will get a booster on day one if that's what we need to do - but this is indicative of why so many people DON'T trust what's being told.   Rogan asked one specific question:  "WHETHER VACCINES ACTUALLY PREVENTED THE SPREAD" and the response?   It answered the question - sort of; they didn't say they do, just that they were better than anything else - then had to deflect to a point that, while important, had nothing to do with Rogan's question. It's like how the masks/vaccines were to reduce load on the ICUs but once that problem was solved the goal pivoted to something else.  All legitimate, but if one of your primary concerns is consistency of message and credibility, someone's got to look in the mirror.

[Ben_Jamin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Two interesting points from that:

One, Spotify paid $100 million for the library of podcasts, then deleted 40 of them from the roster, the implication being that it's because of "misinformation"; it's like buying the Dream Theater catalogue and deleting 40 songs because "they are too long".   Presumably, that's at least in part how he got to be the most popular podcast.  Why not do like old movies and present it with a rebuttal or disclaimer?

Two, this exchange:  "But months later on his podcast, he lambasted the push for mass vaccinations and also questioned whether the vaccines actually prevented the spread of the virus — even as he couched his remarks, saying “this is neither pro- nor con-vaccine.”
Public health experts have said that vaccines are the most effective way of preventing the spread of the virus and are effective at preventing people from getting very sick and dying from covid-19, including the delta variant."

Now, I'm no denier - I've gotten both shots and will get a booster on day one if that's what we need to do - but this is indicative of why so many people DON'T trust what's being told.   Rogan asked one specific question:  "WHETHER VACCINES ACTUALLY PREVENTED THE SPREAD" and the response?   It answered the question - sort of; they didn't say they do, just that they were better than anything else - then had to deflect to a point that, while important, had nothing to do with Rogan's question. It's like how the masks/vaccines were to reduce load on the ICUs but once that problem was solved the goal pivoted to something else.  All legitimate, but if one of your primary concerns is consistency of message and credibility, someone's got to look in the mirror.

Nah...They just mad people are listening to him instead of listening to them.   


I am sure Joe Rogan knows and understands the difference between Ivermectin for Livestock use and Ivermectin for Human use. His listeners/followers on the other hand, can't really say that for them.

But, yet, since ivermectin is the bad enemy now. The headlines just have to read and mention "he took the livestock medicine", when we had people posting the middle truth of Ivermectin is shown to work and yet again, it's shown not to work.

[jingle.boy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

"Public health experts have said that vaccines are the most effective way of preventing the spread of the virus and are effective at preventing people from getting very sick and dying from covid-19, including the delta variant."

Rogan asked one specific question:  "WHETHER VACCINES ACTUALLY PREVENTED THE SPREAD" and the response?   

Did he have a podcast where he specifically asked the question to a 'public health expert', or was it just his commentary?  I took the article to imply the latter.  I haven't listened to his podcasts, so I don't know the segment specifically... but it sounds like it's *his* words and his musings.  If so, it's a dumb statement.  Clearly nothing is "preventing" the spread... all we can do is try to manage/minimize/slow/whatever the spread.  The question is dumb, but answering it the way the article says it was "answered" is even dumber.

[hefdaddy42]

The difference from my understanding, is people buying it from walmarts and other stores where it's meant for horses, not going to a doctor and getting the low grade prescription for human usage.

That's my understanding, as well.  People are taking the version intended for animals, which is a super concentrated dose that can have bad effects on humans, while probably not doing anything against Covid.

Ivermectin is sometimes used for humans, but at much lower doses.

And yes, people taking horse pills are morons.

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

In fairness, the Ivermectin is probably as well understood as the vaccine. That's been a thing since the 70s, and people have been taking it since the 80s. No idea about the monoclonal antibodies.

Taking ivermectin in the 80s for what?

The same thing it's given to animals for; dealing with parasites parasitic infections. It's also been used off label as an anti-malarial.

[hunnus2000]

Well bummer you need a subscription to read that WaPo article.

Joe Rogan is a mystery to me. He has some wonderful guests and was one of the first to get ahead of this COVID by interviewing Michael Olsterholm back at the beginning of this mess so he comes across as a man of science and rational. But when he has more controversial guests on, he can easily waffle to the side of his crazier guests. What's ironic is he has talked up building up your immune system so he eats right, exercises and doesn't really drink much alcohol and yet he still gets COVID and as someone wrote earlier, he took so much shit he'll never know what worked. 

[cramx3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

The article I read said he won't tell anyone if he has or hasn't taken the vaccine. Do you know for a fact he hasn't gotten it?  I know he's skeptical but that doesn't mean he didn't get it.  :cough: Abbott :cough:

[hefdaddy42]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

The article I read said he won't tell anyone if he has or hasn't taken the vaccine. Do you know for a fact he hasn't gotten it?  I know he's skeptical but that doesn't mean he didn't get it.  :cough: Abbott :cough:

He did say that he felt the vaccines were safe, but that if you are young and healthy, you probably don't need it.

[El Barto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Rogan represents a fairly large slice of the problem. By taking everything under the sun we have no idea what helped, what hurt, and what was meaningless. That's a big part of the problem with Ivermectin. People are taking it on their own with no way of analyzing its efficacy other than "welp, they didn't die."

But it's important to point out, that's not "misplaced trust" or "conspiracy thinking", that's just bad scientific method. I can point to many examples of those smart, "right side of history"* people that have done the same thing and pointed to SUCCESS! with no idea how they got there.  Anyone who's ever worked on a car or diagnosed an electrical circuit knows you only mess with one variable at a time so you can track the impacts.


* And no, I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter WHAT side you're on, there are more things in play here than just ideology or some arbitrary measure of "intelligence".

You do realize that a massive slice of America is taking sides, right? I don't like it any more than you do, and we both agree that it's a big problem, but it is the realityw. All I did was point out that to the people taking sides Rogan didn't help matters. Your car analogy is bang-on. He got better and there's zero indication that ivermectin had anything to do with it, but a whole lot of Americans are going to see his recovery as proof, and they're going to feed the conspiracy that the government is trying to keep us from taking a cheap and effective cure so we'll take the expensive and experimental cures.

[cramx3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

The article I read said he won't tell anyone if he has or hasn't taken the vaccine. Do you know for a fact he hasn't gotten it?  I know he's skeptical but that doesn't mean he didn't get it.  :cough: Abbott :cough:

He did say that he felt the vaccines were safe, but that if you are young and healthy, you probably don't need it.

I saw those headlines when he said that, but he isn't young so that also doesn't mean he didn't get it.  For me, to really have more of an opinion here I kind of need to know if he was vaccinated or not.  It kind of changes how I feel about his covid battle.  If he threw the kitchen sink at it, that implies to me he was also vaccinated.  Sounds a lot like Abbott really.  Regardless, I got to think the anti-body treatment did more for his recovery than anything else.  And he should be open with that treatment being very expensive and not going to be available to everyone where as the vaccine is free and available.

Personally, I don't dislike Rogan at all.  I will occasionally watch the snippets on youtube.  I often feel like he's fairly balanced and takes on both sides which, for me, is a reason to like him.  I don't always agree with his thoughts and that's fine.  HAving said that, I don't really get the appeal of him to the masses.  Him always going to google and him mumbling gets tiring so I can only take it in short snippets like it's presented on youtube these days.

[Stadler]

Well bummer you need a subscription to read that WaPo article.

Joe Rogan is a mystery to me. He has some wonderful guests and was one of the first to get ahead of this COVID by interviewing Michael Olsterholm back at the beginning of this mess so he comes across as a man of science and rational. But when he has more controversial guests on, he can easily waffle to the side of his crazier guests. What's ironic is he has talked up building up your immune system so he eats right, exercises and doesn't really drink much alcohol and yet he still gets COVID and as someone wrote earlier, he took so much shit he'll never know what worked. 

Maybe, just maybe, that's an "open mind".    I don't know what you're thinking here, but it's hard to read that paragraph without my thinking you just assume he HAS to reject them as morons or not even have them on the show to begin with.  Not slapping them with a stick is what debate/discussion is.   "Silence is not consent"; we can talk about controversial topics without it being a de facto acceptance or endorsement.   I don't listen to Joe Rogan (though not out of dislike for him; more due to time) but he strikes me as a curious guy who is interested in information, not just information that conforms to his (individual, subjective) worldview.

This is why I keep going back to 'wants'; it's all about what you WANT, and that's irrelevant.   We're worried that one person (or a few, or 1,000; it matters not how many) will hear this nonsense and inject battery acid in their cock to fight COVID.  But just as many people hear "Oh, vaccine solves everything!" and gets the vaccine with the same level of thought - that is to say, NONE - as the "crazies".  You're okay with that lack of scrutiny because they did what you want them to do. For someone like me, who is worried about HOW we get there, it's just as much of a problem. 

[Ben_Jamin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Saw this, he won't take the vaccine, but he trust the antibody cocktail and the ivermectin. We're doomed.

The article I read said he won't tell anyone if he has or hasn't taken the vaccine. Do you know for a fact he hasn't gotten it?  I know he's skeptical but that doesn't mean he didn't get it.  :cough: Abbott :cough:

Does he have to?....No, he does not. And it's fascinating because you then have people begin their crazy thoughts and assumptions and will then just assume Rogan took the vaccine because he isn't telling anybody he did not take the vaccine...

I am not assuming anything. He still got it and is recovered from it. That's all that should matter is he is not dead.

But I guess, people suddenly care about Joe Rogans personal health and are so concerned for him...how nice of people to be concerned about his health and life. 

[King Postwhore]

I think people see someone like Joe Rogan and Cam Newton who take care of themselves and watch what they put in their bodies not willing to take the vaccine but put everything else under the sun into their bodies to avoid taking the vaccine and that makes no sense.  If anyone has ever watched the drug commercials you see all the possible crazy side affects.


That's why people question because they are confused to their thought process.

[Stadler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/joe-rogan-covid/

 

Rogan represents a fairly large slice of the problem. By taking everything under the sun we have no idea what helped, what hurt, and what was meaningless. That's a big part of the problem with Ivermectin. People are taking it on their own with no way of analyzing its efficacy other than "welp, they didn't die."

But it's important to point out, that's not "misplaced trust" or "conspiracy thinking", that's just bad scientific method. I can point to many examples of those smart, "right side of history"* people that have done the same thing and pointed to SUCCESS! with no idea how they got there.  Anyone who's ever worked on a car or diagnosed an electrical circuit knows you only mess with one variable at a time so you can track the impacts.


* And no, I'm not taking sides, I'm pointing out that it doesn't matter WHAT side you're on, there are more things in play here than just ideology or some arbitrary measure of "intelligence".

You do realize that a massive slice of America is taking sides, right? I don't like it any more than you do, and we both agree that it's a big problem, but it is the realityw. All I did was point out that to the people taking sides Rogan didn't help matters. Your car analogy is bang-on. He got better and there's zero indication that ivermectin had anything to do with it, but a whole lot of Americans are going to see his recovery as proof, and they're going to feed the conspiracy that the government is trying to keep us from taking a cheap and effective cure so we'll take the expensive and experimental cures.

I think I of all people understand a massive slice of America is taking sides.  It's what keeps me up at night. It is, in my opinion, the biggest issue facing America today.  Not healthcare, not global warming, not China, not Afghanistan... our divisiveness.  Because, in large part, our divisiveness will prevent us from ever truly getting any consensus or solution - even half-assed compromised solutions - for the rest of those issues.

But as to your point about people doing this stuff, sure, but it is what it is.  I don't agree that we don't talk about things just because someone MIGHT take it to heart.   Look what that's done for our national discussion on race; there is none.  You either buy in to whatever is put on the table, or your a racist, full stop.   I've seen it first hand. I've LIVED it first hand.  I don't accept things just because someone says it, or FEELS it, and as a result, here, I've been called a racist.  If someone is going to inject battery acid in their cock to solve COVID, they are going to do it whether Joe Rogan talks about it or not.   And - and I think you will align with this - if they do, well, they can live with the consequences of what happens. That's called "personal accountability".   And while we're not big on personal accountability in America - signing a student loan document is exactly the same as putting battery acid in your junk from a consequences standpoint - at some point we've got to draw the line.

[Ben_Jamin]

Well bummer you need a subscription to read that WaPo article.

Joe Rogan is a mystery to me. He has some wonderful guests and was one of the first to get ahead of this COVID by interviewing Michael Olsterholm back at the beginning of this mess so he comes across as a man of science and rational. But when he has more controversial guests on, he can easily waffle to the side of his crazier guests. What's ironic is he has talked up building up your immune system so he eats right, exercises and doesn't really drink much alcohol and yet he still gets COVID and as someone wrote earlier, he took so much shit he'll never know what worked. 

Maybe, just maybe, that's an "open mind".    I don't know what you're thinking here, but it's hard to read that paragraph without my thinking you just assume he HAS to reject them as morons or not even have them on the show to begin with.  Not slapping them with a stick is what debate/discussion is.   "Silence is not consent"; we can talk about controversial topics without it being a de facto acceptance or endorsement.   I don't listen to Joe Rogan (though not out of dislike for him; more due to time) but he strikes me as a curious guy who is interested in information, not just information that conforms to his (individual, subjective) worldview.

This is why I keep going back to 'wants'; it's all about what you WANT, and that's irrelevant.   We're worried that one person (or a few, or 1,000; it matters not how many) will hear this nonsense and inject battery acid in their cock to fight COVID.  But just as many people hear "Oh, vaccine solves everything!" and gets the vaccine with the same level of thought - that is to say, NONE - as the "crazies".  You're okay with that lack of scrutiny because they did what you want them to do. For someone like me, who is worried about HOW we get there, it's just as much of a problem.

That's a reason why I find it baffling and sort of risky that people voluntarily, got the vaccine without consulting their doctor before taking the vaccine. They were crazy enough to take their risk and chances at this new technology vaccine.

I think people see someone like Joe Rogan and Cam Newton who take care of themselves and watch what they put in their bodies not willing to take the vaccine but put everything else under the sun into their bodies to avoid taking the vaccine and that makes no sense.  If anyone has ever watched the drug commercials you see all the possible crazy side affects.


That's why people question because they are confused to their thought process.

Which shows that people do not think alike and people do not think the same as you. And people do not place the same values as you do on things that you consider valuable.

It's not confusing when you understand and accept that people are different and won't think like you do. You just have to come to a consensus to agree, disagree, or to agree to disagree, on what both of you think.