Rogan is providing his guests with a massive platform that can be used to disseminate information, so I think he has a responsibility to make sure his guests aren't spreading misinformation. Imagine if a popular influencer with a young fanbase had a guest on that swore eating Tide Pods was good for your health. Would you think a simple "wow" would be enough to absolve that influencer of responsibility for the message being disseminated?

> I personally don't know enough about mRNA to have a say, but what I can safely assume is that Malone knows more about mRNA than most people who are saying he is wrong.

From what I can find he contributed one building block 30 years ago. There's been 3 decades of research and development involving hundreds or thousands of people since then. Was he involved in the space at all in the last 2 decades prior to Covid? I tried to find if he kept up with the field, but search results are saturated with the latest controversy.

The best I could do for myself to understand his claims was a fact check website that references the sources that Malone was citing on Rogan's podcast [1]. The thing that really jumps out at me is that he's willing to use preprint sources that haven't been peer reviewed, so they haven't undergone any scrutiny or survived any criticism. Some of the authors of the sources even say he's misinterpreting or misrepresenting the results.

Malone:

> “[T]here is signs in some data […] from Denmark, among other places of negative efficacy against Omicron as a function of the number of vaccinations up to three”

vs:

> The first author of the preprint, medical statistician and epidemiologist Christian Holm Hansen, explained to Health Feedback that the claim misrepresented their results. He said that this effect often arises due to biases, which “are quite common in VE estimation from observational studies based on population data.” These biases include potential differences in detection, testing, or behavior between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

So am I supposed to believe Malone or the author of the paper that Malone is citing? One of them is actively working on the topic as their day job / career and the other is touring around doing talk shows like a celebrity. Do you think Malone knows more about a paper written by Christian Holm Hansen than Christian Holm Hansen does?

Malone isn't doing any original research from what I could find, so if the author of work he's citing refutes him, I think that's adequate to call it misinformation or misrepresentation. And I think that harsh label is warranted because he never comes back around to correct the record. If Malone was concerned about his long term credibility and corrected himself then I would call it a misunderstanding.

I've seen Malone giving information compared to Fauci giving information and that's not a reasonable comparison IMO. At best Malone is a small cog in a big machine while Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Malone is presenting an individual opinion while Fauci is presenting a consensus opinion that's expected to be the aggregate of the entire industry.

Also, Rogan calling Malone "the inventor of mRNA" is a bit of an embellishment. That's like having Tim Paterson on a podcast and calling him "the inventor of MS Azure" because he wrote DOS 30 years prior.

I'll finish by saying I think the politicization is terrible for us long term. In Canada we have some provinces with strict lockdown measures and some with none. The ones with strict measures are collecting detailed stats to substantiate their viewpoint and some of the provinces without are planning to de-emphasize stat collection.

That's a big loss for everyone because we're going to miss out on an opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of strict social restrictions vs none. The problem is that it's a political death sentence for the anti-lockdown choice if the data says they were wrong, so the solution is to hide the truth even if it could end up supporting that position.

We're also at risk of losing out on the highest value health related incident post-mortem in the history of mankind because the politicization will prevent everyone involved from being honest and upfront about things that worked, things that didn't work, mistakes that were made, improvements that could be made in the future, etc..

So, in the context of politicizing the topic, I think entertainers like Rogan are doing a quite a bit of harm.

1. https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/robert-malone-mislead...

"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.

Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.

Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone:

"In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w

So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

More than anything, this is what I generally promote - focus on the actual claims. I personally try really hard to ignore someone's character and address their core points instead. I think this is generally a good principle. Although it can be exhausting on random non-HN internet discussion boards, where nuanced replies and principle of charity are drowned by zero effort parroting.

That is unfortunately a common theme with most reporting I've seen of this drama. The stories contain vague statements like "misinformation about covid" but no actual claims are pointed out and then refuted. It's like these outlets are so afraid of this misinformation that they think even mentioning these claims would be harmful. The less charitable interpretation would of course be that most outlet reporters haven't even watched the podcast.

> there is an exclusive focus on individual personalities, appeals to authority and storytelling

This is a strategy heavily promoted by pro-vax tribes. Don't listen to random influencers, listen to doctors. It's also something that has been used heavily against Joe Rogan. Criticism that he has non-experts on the show talking outside of their expertise. Now when Joe Rogan got an actual MD on his show, whose life work has extreme relevance to covid - well the appeal to authority story has suddenly vanished. Most coverage of this drama doesn't list Malone's achievements at all, probably because then they couldn't get away with just handwaving away what he says. Most stories focus on Joe Rogan personally, as if he's the one making the statements.

> So is Malone right [? ...] Do you personally believe these things?

He's probably right about some things like corners being cut against protocol with the Pfizer approval. He's probably wrong about vaccines making infections worse. However I don't really have strong opinions on the points Malone is making. I'm participating in this discussion because of the bigger picture.

What I take issue with is the manufactured and/or sloppy coverage of this. Malone's achievements shouldn't be pushed under the rug. His expertise shouldn't be hidden. If he has gone crazy in old age, so be it. However that case should then be made in strength. Instead the narrative is that Joe Rogan spreads misinformation and Malone is just another garden variety conspiracy nut.

Admission, I've listened to Rogan here and there for a few years, rarely getting to the end of a podcast. I happened to pick one randomly last month, after not listening to any for awhile, and it was the one with the doctor who claims to have invented mRNA vaccines.

I listened with an open mind, but my alarms went off as the guy started injecting more and more hyperbole and FUD into the conversation. There were a lot of things he said that made me go, "well, what about this?" E.g. my gf and my ex both missed their periods the month after the vax. But they came back, and there hasn't been some mass sterilization event that we'd surely be aware of if, as this guy claimed, the vaccine produced spike proteins in sufficient quantities and that those were attracted to and decimating womens' eggs and ovaries. What I heard was a guy trying to use his science degrees and a vague history in immunology to push a long-running antivax fearmongering tactic about women being sterilized, which as a conspiracy theory goes back to the old "great replacement" and antisemitic theory. And I was kinda angry listening to it, because my question to him would be, if it sterilizes people then how come Israel gave it to everyone? I'm pretty sure that Israel is in the business of keeping Jews alive and having (us) reproduce, and avoiding another genocide.

But Rogan didn't ask anything, and I had to turn it off after about an hour and a half, because Rogan kept just saying "oh, wow." and "oh, no really?" Like... give the guy room to talk, sure, but the whole incredulous act and like, really, doctor, you don't say thing... it just struck me as BS. As insincere.

And that episode I randomly listened to turned out to be the one that Neil Young went nuts about, and all that. So I listened to Rogan's apology and thought I'd try one more time tonight; and his newest is with a climate scientist from BP who talks like my dentist and is about as convincing, while Joe keeps going "oh no, really? And they're suppressing you? Omigod!"

At some point you have to just accept that he isn't the openminded bro with no agenda that you want him to be, and he's actually just trolling and platforming trolls. OTOH maybe this is the point where a lot of gullible people kind of realize that (myself included).

Rogan has a long history of false vaccine claims on his show, presented both by him and his guests:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi...

He'll surely challenge a guest when he thinks they're wrong, it's his own mistruths and the ones he ignores that are at issue here.

I like Joe Rogan but when it comes to vaccines he becomes incoherent. I didn't listen to the episode at the center of this but I listened to another one where he was pushing unsubstantiated statistics on the vaccine and myocarditis. The guest had to correct him with official data on multiple occasions.

Belief that opposing viewpoints don't deserve to be protected under free speech (excluding the obvious, like inciting violence).

> Propaganda hae nothing to do with free speech, and hasn't really moved either way (there's as much as there was before).

I don't have any numbers to back it up, but even if it's not more common, it's certainly more impactful with all of the "wrongthink" being silenced.

> Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech

Your second claim is more interesting, because I keep seeing people repeat the claims that Joe Rogan is "antivax & anti-science". Keep in mind, I don't follow his podcast, but I watched the full episode with Robert Malone after the social media outcry started.

The conclusion that I came to is that he's not "anti-science" - that would imply that he doesn't believe in the scientific method. What people really mean when they say that he's anti-science is that he came to different conclusions than they did after considering the evidence (or lack thereof), therefore he's wrong, and since his critics view themselves as "pro-science", Joe must be anti-science.

But whether or not he's wrong, it doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. If you do believe that he's wrong, call him out publicly, write a blog post detailing why he's wrong, record your own podcast and debunk any claims he or his guests made, with evidence. Be the opposing voice and present rational counter-arguments.

Bad research gets published all the time and "science" is not some singular entity that only consists of homogeneous ideas, and that's not even taking into account all of the conflicts of interest that exist for the pharma industry in publishing research that stands to make them $billions.

This is why it's important to allow an open and free discussion of opposing viewpoints, it's the only way of advancing human knowledge and widespread acceptance of your ideas in an open and free society. Censoring someone because you disagree with them is not going to change their (or their viewers') mind.

> which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what

If I risk getting censored, "cancelled", having my livelihood taken away for voicing my opposing views (which aren't violent nor bigoted, just a simple disagreement on the topic of scientific research), I would argue that very much impacts who can criticize what.

That's not really the point but, for some, yes, he does have more influence. That "some" apparently includes you.

>You don't think he gets negative press or death threats?

Again, not the point. You asked why Fauci and others weren't challenged. My response was that, not only is he challenged, but he's also been the target of personal attacks, conspiracy theories, and death threats.

>Rogan has a diverse assortment on his show, and admits he is not an expert

Yet, he continuously pushes a counter-mainstream narrative that you seem to be repeating here.

>However, when bodies of so-called authority or expert credentials make policy you and your family will have to live by

To each his/her own, but I think those credentials are meaningful. We've had expert public health guidance for decades brought to us by the "so-called experts" and it's generally served us well, as evidenced by the fact that you've probably never had polio, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus, etc. And, you're also not likely to die from a case of diarrhea.

>You are free to go after Rogan.

Yes. I know. But, I wasn't going after him, as much as pointing out the reality that people (seemingly yourself included) respect his opinions over those of public health officials.

His anti-vaccine content is a perfect example: He invites actual experts on his show, but then interrupts them and brings up an anecdote about a "guy I know" who had some vague symptoms after getting the vaccine.

The listener is then supposed to believe that the pro-vaccine expert is uninformed and simply parroting the official narrative, whereas Joe Rogan is the smart one who sees the big picture and can "tell it like it is". In this case, Joe Rogan sees that Vitamin D and a healthy diet is all the protection you need from COVID and that the vaccine should be avoided.

But it's often nonsense. Rogan's vaccine opinions are not just unvetted, they're built from the ground up on a foundation of flimsy anecdotes and conspiracy theories with a complete disregard for the science.

He plays the "both sides" card to build up the anecdotes and conspiracy theories while tearing down the well-researched science in order to create an illusion of presenting both sides fairly. But to get there, he has to go out of his way to downplay the most robust information while exaggerating the least trustworthy.

It's not about having different opinions. It's about misrepresenting the robustness of each.

BTW, I just need to repeat that most curious phrase you used that phrase, presumably in reference to Rogan's guests: "domain experts".

And just let it... sit there.

You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular.

> Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines.

Rogan has stated openly many times that his guiding ethos is literally to have people on that he finds interesting or wants to learn more about. I've seen nothing to really contradict this. This likely just intersects with controversial and/or popular in some or many cases, but it's disingenuous to then claim that this was the motive all along.

Rogan posits himself as authoritative and has millions of listeners who take advice from him and shape their worldviews around his. For many people he is more authoritative on health than public health officials like Fauci, even while not having a fraction of the experience or expertise.

>How come people don't push more on the 'experts' like Wolensky or Fauci

There's been no shortage of criticism of Fauci and others, to include character attacks, conspiracy theories and death threats.

And your final line about him being dangerous because he inspires people to have opinions about things they are not qualified to assess... Utter garbage. First of all, you don't know anything about his audience, their qualifications and their opinions and conclusions. Second, this line of thinking would extend to all media. Here, let me give you a contemporary example:

- Masks aren't necessary, just wash your hands

- Wear masks

- Closing schools is good

- Closing schools is bad

- The vaccine stops the spread - Don't need masks if you're vaxxed

- The vaccine was never meant to stop the spread, sorry you interpreted it that way - Fauci's own words (how many people died because we were told that the vaxxed don't have to worry about infecting anyone any more?)

- Wear masks even though you're vaxxed

- Get the Vax to save others even though it doesn't stop the spread

The mainstream media has been a pile of hot garbage and endless contradictions during the pandemic. You're expected to just take everything they say at face value and "trust the science". That right there is what's truly dangerous.

The media and government should be honest and explain that "the science" is far from conclusive, rapidly evolving, and that there are many unknowns. Instead, they of course assume that everyone is a moron and must be told what to do.

The idea that Rogan is dangerous because some morons may do whatever a guest tells them to do is full of hypocrisy. That, and neither Rogan nor his guests actually tell anyone what to do. But they may inspire people to ask questions and dig deeper. And the fact that this is so frowned upon in this day in age, is the tragedy of our time.

It's just Rogan knowing that he can peddle the line and bring in both the skeptics and the opposition and pretend that he is just promoting an open discussion. Or he is just ignorant, but I think the dude is smart enough to know that controversy drives up impressions and increases ad revenue and ultimately the success and dollars from his brand.