I agree with your general point. Censorship is not the answer. I think aging rockers, though, can ask for their own music not to be associated with an outlet they think actively promotes falsehoods, though. Up to them. If I have a product and some unsavory group wants to make money by selling it, I'm within bounds to say "no thanks."
All your points are true, especially about forbidden fruit. But the fringe liars are going to complain about censorship either way. It's all part of the vast government conspiracy against them. Unless Robert Malone is embraced by the CDC and FDA and President Biden, and given a platform to spout his false and misleading and emotionally manipulative information, he's going to drone on about how he's being censored and persecuted. Blah blah blah.
And yet we still have a problem, when people like Malone are given free rein to spout un-fact-checked claims, and someone as influential and credulous as Rogan promotes him. Rogan is sharp and asks good questions, but he doesn't have the scientific background to understand or check up on the answers. So he's basically at this hustler's mercy. And then so is his audience of bazillions, most of whom also don't have the scientific background to understand or fact-check his claims.
I tried to respond in my own newsletter to the recent Rogan episode with Malone, and I found just how true Brandolini’s Law is: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.” After 7000 words, I'd barely scratched the surface of what was misleading and untrue. I wore out.
And then of course his fans say "what about this this and this." It's like a football field full of dandelions. You'll never get them all.
This I completely agree with. One of the most frustrating aspects of "science" the past two years has been the reluctance for scientists to engage with each other, dig into where they disagree, and see if they can find some better answers.
Instead, everyone isolates into their little twitter worlds, blocking anyone who disagrees with them or questions their assertations. We have a thousand different substackers and not one dialectic. Eric Topol doesn't even allow comments on his substack after he got "ratio'ed" after his first piece, despite having the ability to limit comments to paying subscribers.
Point out something Eric Feigl-Ding got wrong on Twitter? Block.
I would love Michael Shermer to lead a dialectic, gather up dissenting scientists and hash it out.
As far as I know Michael Shermer has never blocked or censored any comment to anything he has written, and he sometimes responds to them. In Skeptic magazine, which he edits, he has even allowed essays dissenting to his own opinions. When vaccines and medicines are reviewed and either rejected or approved, dissenting opinions among scientists are allowed and encouraged, and consensus is pursued. This is not possible for every scientific issue, although it is approached through peer reviewed journals.
There is a strong scientific consensus that the Covid vaccines are mostly or highly safe and effective.
Dr Kory of the FLCCC group and others have offered to debate anytime, anywhere but no one in government, the pharmaceutical industry or doctors pushing the one size fits all vaccine approach will take them up on the offer. Why not? I think they owe the American people a full, open, robust defense of decisions which have led questionable policies that have had wide reaching ramifications.
Proper sentence structure is not your forte. Your reference to "one size fits all" is incorrect. Children are given lower doses than adults. The American people have access to the records of the agencies approving the vaccines. The fact remains -- the vaccines have a high degree of safety and effectiveness. Don't be a Vaccine Denier.
That would be cool. One problem is that the Malone crowd thinks in very simplistic terms. They think that the “opposite” of Malone is Fauci, and not an actual scientist or vaccine expert (like, a Paul Offit).
Great! And while I have your attention, would love if you cross posted some articles from Skeptic to your substack. Would be nice to use this space as a place to engage with the community and maybe gain visibility for the magazine too.
I’d enjoy seeing thoughts from your readers on Havana Syndrome for example without having to go to Twitter.
Unless they’re a forum on skeptic.com I’ve somehow missed all these years…
" I think aging rockers, though, can ask for their own music not to be associated with an outlet they think actively promotes falsehoods, though."
I mean, Neil Young actively promotes falsehoods on GMOs.
And while many are cheering Neil Young for being "brave", they seem to be unaware that he cashed out on the rights to his catalogue 2 weeks ago to the tune of 150 million. (He gave 50% ownership to an investment firm which expect(ed) to recoup the investment by having streaming royalties).
Easy to take a stand when you have already cashed out a century's worth of royalties you'd never live to see anyway.
The topic at hand was prompted by Neil Young demanding Spotify either remove Rogan or Neil Young. It seems pretty pertinent to the discussion by pointing out the hypocrisy both intellectually and financially by Neil Young as he is no stranger to "misinformation" and has little monetary stake at the point who hosts his music, he already got paid in advance.
The thing is that Malone and doctors like him WERE embraced by the CDC before this pandemic, before it got political, before it ceased the be about “the science.” It’s not like Malone was some quack out in left field that showed up when this hit. He’s been working with the government for years. It was only when he went against the narrative that his name was pulled through the mud.
Maybe there are Social Scientists and Psychologists who are Flat Earthers but I doubt you'll find Astronomers or Geologists who are Flat Earthers... your witty statement ignores the fact that scientists are not experts outside of their fields.
You are making a straw man argument. I didn't say anything about social scientists, psychologists, astronomers, or geologists. I spoke of "scientists."
I want to emphasize (as I mentioned in my own post about Malone) yes: He works for the government.
It is not the case that he simply “went against the narrative.” I’m very friendly to / open to anyone who comes forward with information or looks at information in new ways and “goes against the prevailing narrative.”
I’m no fan of the CDC and Fauci in this, by the way. They’ve been atrocious. The US response has been so atrocious that we have higher death rates than everywhere in the world except a few countries in South America and Eastern Europe. The amount of trust that had been shattered will not soon be regained.
The bulk of Malone’s career has been as a consultant, promoting various “products” as he described on Rogan.
Malone works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), part of the Department of Defense, which describes itself as “the only Department of Defense organization focused exclusively on countering and deterring weapons of mass destruction and emerging threats.” He describes the DTRA as “one of my favorite clients.” He adds “I work with the chem biodefense group… I've got many friends in the intelligence community, so I'm kind of a pretty deep insider in terms of the government.”
He is also a consultant for RelCovax, which is a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being developed for Reliance Life Sciences, part of Reliance Industries, India’s largest company and 10th largest employer.
He’s got a conflict of interest a mile high, which he tends not to mention.
He also spouts literal falsehoods, such as the government’s failure to promote “early treatments” (HCQ and IVM) has killed half a million people, a number he refers to as “very well documented”— although I defy you to find that well documented number in any reputable source.
And he uses lot of emotionally manipulative language— instilling fear in his followers and leading them to believe the government is out to get them. But who can they trust, according to Malone? Himself. He’s so grossly manipulative that I have a hard time seeing how he’s snowed so many otherwise intelligent people— but he has.
It's obvious that you've got a real problem with Malone, and it's also obvious that he has far more qualifications in the field of vaccinations than you do. That of course doesn't make him right and you wrong, but your attacks on him make you seem intellectually insecure. Rather than calling him a conflicted liar and a fraud just relax and point to the evidence that you think shows he's in error. You come across as shrill.
I had no idea whether you were a man or a woman and of course it doesn't matter, but your oversensitive response suggests you're now imputing some kind of sexism into my comment where none existed. This is consistent with my criticism of your over-the-top criticism of Malone. People will take you more seriously if you took it down a notch and focussed on your subject's arguments rather making non-sequiter ad hominem attacks. Just an opinion.
Those guys are making a lot of money selling prescriptions to people, and they ignore the published data. It's pointless to debate someone who ignores the evidence and makes money doing so. No thanks.
Corporate censorship is not illegal. But it should be. We live in a republic. We can give ourselves these rights.
Cigarettes cannot be advertised. Food companies have to list ingredients. Private companies have to make cakes for weddings that are against their religion.
So let's make it illegal for Google, Twitter, Facebook to be arbitrars of what is authoritative and what is misinformation... Spotify has a good policy on this that is clear and without judgement or reliance on captured government agencies.
Spotify is a private platform, as is Google, Twitter and Facebook. They have a TOS and can kick off whomever they want. I don't agree with their decisions always, but unless you want to make them public companies, you cannot force them to do anything.
Michael, your first point about low expectations, and the compulsion some people have to curate information for others, would seem to deny one of the foundational justifications for broad participation in democracy: that our governance improves when everyone has a say in the process. (The other justification, that we are more inclined to accept the outcomes of the democratic process when we think we had an equal say in a fair process is also undermined by current partisan efforts.)
But if we claim that some people can't handle "bad" information, with specific references to politics and campaigns, then how can we justify universal democratic participation? Of course, this assumes that people who make these claims are being honest, and not simply using rhetoric to disenfranchise people they don't like.
"Of course, this assumes that people who make these claims are being honest, and not simply using rhetoric to disenfranchise people they don't like."
Yes, "Of course." And this assumption, I think, goes to the heart of the problem with Joe and his discussions with his guests. I would add that rhetoric that disenfranchises one group can at the same time be used to enfranchise another targeted group.
In a deadly Covid pandemic world of 11 million rational, logical and reasonable young males who listen to Joe Rogan what you state would make sense. However, even if this were true for just 5% of Rogan's audience that leaves many millions who are likely to believe that he knows what he's talking about when discounts how deadly Covid is, how vaccines against Covid are worthless and dangerous and unproven harmful psuedo-remedies are better. Michael, is this really the time and subject to argue the issue of censorship and the cause of "two-sides" to every issue when the stakes are so deadly? I'm a huge fan of yours and I get what you're point, but in this case it borders on the magical thinking you have done so much to dispel. 270 doctors, virologists and immunologists just agree that is let alone ICU nurses and morticians.
Serious mistakes have been made and incorrect information has been put out by all sides, including the recognized authorities over the course of this maddeningly complicated and unpredictable pandemic. "Science" has offered no clear and uncomplicated "Truth," and even if it did, that would not easily or automatically translate into practical and effective public policy. No one has been consistently right. The answer is not to brush all this aside, censor those who have different ideas and think you have solved the problem rather than making it worse. This is exactly when it's most important to have an open and free discussion so that the truth can emerge. The current efforts to censor and suppress is making it ever harder to reach a sound consensus and have it credited and accepted by most people. Efforts to censor and suppress are only polluting our public life and making it even harder to find and act on any actual truth that does does emerge. As one example, read this article by Vinay Prasad, MD, a perceptive observer also here on Substack. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/weathervanes-harmful-covid19-pundits?r=2bto5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
A year ago, if you told me that Israel would be seeing cases hitting 100,000/day despite giving their 4th dose of the vaccine, I would have thought "huh, I guess they didn't work after all". (prior to vaccinations, their highest peaks were 8,000/day)
I disagree that science has offered a clear uncomplicated truth that has been consistently right on the vaccines let alone much of anything else the last two years. I don't mind. Science, that is, the process of science, is slow moving. The error correction doesn't happen automatically. It takes time. We need to allow for dead-end paths. We need to be humble and realistic on what it can achieve.
Gary, I was referring to comments you made (albeit to another person) like these:
GW: "Science has offered this clear and uncomplicated truth -- the vaccines are mostly safe and effective. This is consistently right."
GW: "We should be using one mandate – If you are going to interact with others in public, then you must be fully vaccinated."
GW: "Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection"
GW: "Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection."
____________________________
As you said, you don't wish to debate (with Guy at least), so I won't get into it further, but these quotes you made don't line up with what we are observing across the world. They feel like things we would be saying in maybe July or August of 2021, but the premise that these vaccines stop transmission in any meaningful way has failed to materialize.
(Note - if you see two "deleted" posts it's because for some reason this single post repeated... not sure why)
I'm triple-vaxed because I'm over 70 but I also keep a supply of ivermectin pills, which are legal where I live and there is no clear evidence that they don't work and lots of epidemiological evidence outside the US that they are safe and may, in fact, work, even if the FDA mocks the drug even without valid or convincing evidence.
On vaccines, I obviously agree that for me, and probably for most people over 30, they represent the best tradeoff. (Read Dr. Prasad and tell me that the scientific case for vaccinating children under 18 is so clear and uncomplicated.)
As for effectiveness, vaccines are unfortunately not turning out to be the 100% virus-stopping miracle we were hoping for but are still well worth pursuing for most adults. Should we be using blanket mandates instead of persuasion? "The Science" does not give us that answer. At least in the USA, they don't seem to be working and have helped create and expand a hard core of contrarian resisters. This is creating political and social tensions that I believe are extremely dangerous to our democracy right now. So dangerous that I believe continued insistence on such enforcing such mandates is more dangerous to our people and society than any extra Covid deaths that might be avoided through mandates. (This may well also be true of the rampant suppression of speech now being normalized.)
Finally, please tell me how, if the science is that vaccines are mostly safe and mostly effective, it is following "The Science" for the US government (and most of the European Union) to continue to restrict the wide distribution of low-cost vaccines to the bulk of the world's population in order to keep boosting already vaccinated people in wealthy countries while protecting already excessive and government-funded drug company profits.
Unfortunately, the credibility of "Science" has been badly compromised (squandered) by those commercial interests who produce, control and profit most from it. This is a self-inflicted wound for America and a huge loss for humanity. We will all feel this loss when the next pandemic hits.
G2: Guy, most of your comment is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is “freedom of speech and censorship.” Nevertheless, I will respond to some of your points.
G2: I also keep a supply of ivermectin pills, which are legal where I live and there is no clear evidence that they don't work and lots of epidemiological evidence outside the US that they are safe and may, in fact, work, even if the FDA mocks the drug even without valid or convincing evidence.
GW2: There is insufficient evidence or authorization for the use of those invermectin pills for the prevention or treatment of Covid. Use of them for this purpose would be irrational.
G2: On vaccines, I obviously agree that for me, and probably for most people over 30, they represent the best tradeoff.
GW2: Of course they are!
G2: As for effectiveness, vaccines are unfortunately not turning out to be the 100% virus-stopping miracle we were hoping for but are still well worth pursuing for most adults.
GW2: Oh come on, Guy, any expectation that any vaccine or medicine will be 100% effective is unrealistic.
G2: Should we be using blanket mandates instead of persuasion?
GW2: We should be using one mandate – If you are going to interact with others in public, then you must be fully vaccinated.
G2: At least in the USA, they don't seem to be working...
GW2: That is nonsense. It depends on the mandate, but the one requiring health care workers to be vaccinated has been effective.
G2: So dangerous that I believe continued insistence on such enforcing such mandates is more dangerous to our people and society than any extra Covid deaths that might be avoided through mandates.
GW2: Nobody has a right to the freedom to endanger others. If you are interacting with people in public and you are not vaccinated, then you are endangering others. You should not do that and government at all levels should ban it.
GW2: I didn’t find any of your statements worthy of censorship, just opposition.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer and perhaps encouraging people to get vaccinated and requiring it in some specific and clearly high risk situations was justified when they were introduced. I still think that's justifiable for masks. I normally wear a mask (N-95) indoors or when with high-risk individuals. I don't see it as an unjustifiable intrusion on my freedom. Small price to pay. But vaccines are more complicated and less effective as originally thought, as scientists have learned over the almost 12 months since they were introduced. They don't confer full immunity, even with multiple boosters, and I can still get Covid and pass it on to others even if I'm triple-vaxed. Being vaxed likely protects me from more severe illness, but it doesn't protect others. Maybe I can recover more quickly but if being vaxed causes me to be less cautious about other things like social distancing, mask use, hand washing, etc., that will likely negate any reduction in my danger to others. If such protection is needed, it's far more rational and effective to require negative test results as is done on planes flying to the US or in some job situations. And tests are not only more effective than vaccines in protecting others, they are less invasive and have much less, almost zero, risk of injury. In addition, scientists are learning also that natural immunity is very close in effectiveness to vaccine immunity. In addition, at this point it is a more significant factor because a much larger percentage of the population has it now then when vaccines were first introduced. The case for mandates just keep getting weaker as the enforcement becomes more insistent and punitive. (Job loss is no small thing, nor is injury or death for the small but non-negligible number of people who suffer significant adverse reactions.)
Beyond that, you are ignoring the serious damage to the country's already fraying social and political fabric. Like it or not, many people are taking this seriously. You may think they are deluded, irrational, selfish, bumpkins who spend too much time on Facebook and YouTube and as a result they don't have your trust in "Science" and you may even be right in many cases. But they are not going to go away. It's probably too late to save the situation, but continuing to poke and insult them with mandates and shaming is only going make things worse. Covid will go away (or become background noise) a long time before they do, but the damage will remain. You think your are helping and doing the right thing, but step back, look at the larger picture, realize we are in a dynamic situation, and do some needed course correction. I'm not saying it's easy. Just necessary.
Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection. I disagree with much of your comment here, but I don't want to debate with you about it here anymore because this is more about freedom of speech vs. censorship than about Covid, vaccines, etc. You have gone off on a tangent.
There are over 17,000 medical doctors, signatures third party verified, that take issue with your statement especially with vaccines for children. The science is not clear and good science demands transparent rigorous debate.
- This is a global pandemic. There's over 10 million doctors in the world. 17,000 is less than half of one percent of them. In other words, over 99.5% of the entire world's medical community feels the vaccines are the best and safest bet against Covid.
- Second point. I may be wrong. You may be right. Do you believe there's a chance that you're wrong?
17,000 is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Many are afraid to go public because of reprisals they’ve seen with those that have been vocal. Cancellation culture is a fact and government officials have been caught being part of it - witness the leaked emails from Drs Collins snd Fauci against The Great Barrington Declaration. That is why I am pushing so hard for open public debate amongst a wide variety of well credentialed “experts” with full disclosure as to their industry ties. Those 17,000 + doctors deserve to be heard as they’ve been on the front lines treating patients unlike those in the FDA, CDC, etc.
To your second point, of course I might be wrong and anyone not answering that question in the affirmative is probably not worth listening to. That is why Dr Fauci has lost credibility - when he stood up and said if you question him then you are questioning science and yet he won’t listen to or debate doctors and scientists with opposing viewpoints - folks stopped listening to him.
What if those pushing the vaccines are wrong? History is replete with stories of majorities being wrong. The medical community has been wrong numerous times - the swine flu vaccine, the high carb fiasco, thalidomide babies, the opioid crises - need I go on?
The data coming out of Israel is another case in point — the vaccine is not sterile and we have no idea what else might be coming down the pike from them. Do you find it at all concerning that over 200 young healthy athletes in Europe are experiencing heart issues and several have keeled over on the playing field and died? That is not a normal occurrence - coincidental that it starting occurring after these vaccines were instituted?
I will concede that they offer some protection but at what cost? Until safety concerns are answered I would never give a child a covid vaccine when their risk of serious illness/death is so low. Steve Kirsch has done a risk benefit analysis on this which you might find interesting - I find it disturbing. It’s my understanding that he has offered a large sum of money to debate his views vs the prevailing wisdom - where are the 99.5% of the world’s doctors and scientists that could take him on? I think the lack of willingness to debate is quite telling.
I could rant on but I’m sure you are sick of me by now. I will end with the fact that I’m 71 years old and I’ve seen too many shenanigans to take anything at face value. Question, question, question and hold government accountable.
First, present a link to this purported evidence. Secondly, most doctors are not researchers in the effectiveness of vaccines, and so their opinions may be irrelevant. Thirdly, there are more doctors who support the vaccines than oppose them. I stand by my statement -- " the vaccines are mostly safe and effective."
I like Vinay and follow him on Twitter. But this whole micocardia whatever is really a red hering. Even if Vinay & Rogan are right it's still such a SMALL difference. And it's only men (biological men, HA!) 18 -24 or something. Right? I'm sure if you did the numbers the deaths caused by us as a country not being as vaccinated as we should be outweigh the danger of these heart issues to this small subset of young men.
Yes. The vaccines aren't perfect. I bet the next varriant will escape them even more. We may never stop Covid. We may all die. There may be WW3 tomorrow. And tidal waves. Hurricanes!! Run to the basement!! Cover everything. The sky is falling!!!
Sorry. Anti-vaxxers are as hysterical as the "mask in your sleep" people.
Just listen tot the doctors. Stop doing your own research none of us are smart enough. Get the shots the doctor tells you to get. Wear a mask indoors (until they tell us something else, it might change). Open the window a crack, then get on with your life. I'm sick of all the Covid screamers.
Do you think if Rogan gets thrown off Spotify that would save even one life? I was FOR Trump being thrown off twitter. But do you think if they threw Trump off before January 6th it would have done anything? I don't think so. There's an argument to be made that Trump and the anti-vaxers are more popular now BECAUSE he was thrown off.
In fact, Rogan had very pro-vax Josh Zseps on right after the anti-vaxx doctor. Josh is just another talking head, but he pushed back deeply on a lot of Joe's points. Rogan has had Bernie & Andrew Yang as well as people like Michael here. Fox news is a much bigger problem than Joe Rogan.
Again, Joe Rogan is too big to cancel. He could sell his podcast directly and reach almost as many people as he does now. The cat's out of the bag. We just need to make better arguments. "Canceling" people or getting them thrown off of platforms HELPS their brand. Old hippies waggin' a finger at him makes Joe look MORE legit. Not less.
Is throwing Rogan off Spotify the only way to punish false and harmful remarks? No. Other possibilities are fines, law suits, or even requiring him to provide a competent counter view on the same program.
Punishing speech instead of disputing it and refuting it through more speech only shows weakness and makes your counter-arguments less credible and persuasive. Please don't call yourself a progressive. Maybe "ex-progressive" is a better choice.
BTW, Rogan provides a platform for a wide range of views and models the idea of being open and ready to change his opinion as the situation evolves - but not when he is attacked by would-be bullies.
G1: Punishing speech instead of disputing it and refuting it through more speech only shows weakness and makes your counter-arguments less credible and persuasive.
GW1: Instead? Straw man and false dichotomy there. Always dispute and refute, but punish when necessary.
G1: Please don't call yourself a progressive. Maybe "ex-progressive" is a better choice.
GW1: I am a progressive, currently. To be more precise, I am progressive on about 80% of the issues, and conservative on the other 20%.
G1: BTW, Rogan provides a platform for a wide range of views and models the idea of being open and ready to change his opinion as the situation evolves - but not when he is attacked by would-be bullies.
GW1: I am not certain Rogan is the problem. I think some of his guests are the problem. This is all based on what I have heard since I don’t listen to the program.
GW1: Let me ask you this. If some person X says on a public forum “Kill Guy now!” do you think that speech should be punished or not? If punished, then by whom?
This "censorious protesting" is evidently unproductive for the reasons you say and more.
If anything, it can only increase support for Rogan & co. This is evident.
But in today's world many people have a problem with live-and-let-live (and therefore I have a problem with them), and many people are more interested in pointless virtue signaling than in actual outcomes.
At the end of the day, it is not Rogan who tried to force Spotify to cancel Young. It is the other way around, and that is enough for me to side with Rogan and Spotify.
I have listened to only a few Rogan episodes, and I have never been a fan. But I'm a fan now. I followed him on Twitter etc. as a statement of support.
Straw man. You're accusing Young and Mitchell of censorious behavior. It's not.
They're behavior is both saying their moral foundation precludes their occupying the same channel as JRE. That's it. It's their right. I know you agree with that.
Ultimately this whole thing is a public good, a lesson in individual decisionmaking, in this case both Spotify's and its talent.
After reading some of the comments about the complexities and misunderstandings of many scientific findings, it occurred to me that virtually every news article about science contains flaws or misrepresentations (I know some researchers who refuse to speak to Journalists after being misquoted once too often).
These articles and interviews aren't "All or Nothing" - they usually contain a lot of truth and some falsehoods. From the very best to the very worst: they pretty much all contain a mix of truth and falsehood - and on top of that, they have a mix of clear statements and confusing statements (which makes it harder to determine if it is a falsehood or just a poorly worded truth).
What is the falsehood threshold to trigger censorship? 50% 25% 5% 0.01% (Also, how the heck can we determine these percentages?)
If we took a "Zero Tolerance" approach to scientific falsehoods online, then Youtube would have to remove a helluva lot of educational videos...
I have enjoyed your appearances on Joe's podcast. I think he is a capable interviewer. still - Working with the people coming into the hospital suffering from the results of following the advice of Joe's misinformation spreading guests makes me a bit less moved by the "soft bigotry of low expectations" argument. Humans are easily misled by ideas that confirm their biases, and offering up these ideas without vetting is not just free speech - it is irresponsible of Joe . Spotify couldn't vet his material without delaying broadcasts long enough to do a good job. "I'll just let anyone come on and say anything to my large audience", is just irresponsible. There are not two equivalent sides to every argument - this is a falsehood that has led to much of the trouble we have had in concurring this virus (as well as many of the other goers of our society), pretending all opinions are equally valuable is simply wrong and misleading. Any responsible interviewer should know that.
That's sounds all very reasonable, but for anyone with a large platform audience (say > 100/500K), some fact checking is needed on certain topics (especially medical) where misinformation can definitely lead to very bad outcomes. A lot of people can't think critically (enough) to filter out misinformation, thus warning labels similar to how Facebook tags content, should be utilised.
Settled Science are scientific laws, which are beyond doubt. If someone wishes to voice their opinion which may reach a very large audience and that opinion conflicts with the scientific consensus on a subject that if presented with inaccurate information could lead to harm, then a warning label needs to be placed on such content. Thus content consumers can learn why an opinion maybe suspect and what the consensus is. During the pandemic there have been far too many people in positions of trust sprouting nonsense and Facebook / YouTube spreads it across the impressionable world leading to real harm.
A few centuries ago it was settled science that the earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was severely punished. Scientific consensus is not always correct, and when there is an underlying motivation to "bend" the science, the situation gets worse. Freedom of speech is the only protection against a closed mind.
Agree Richard - sunshine is the best disinfectant. What was labeled disinformation a few months ago is now considered valid. It takes a long, long time for science to become settled and considered scientific law — so until then credentialed doctors and scientists have every right, and I would venture to say a duty, to speak out. Those who disagree with what’s being said need to debate the data and stop the personal attacks and the censoring. Suggest some of this thread would benefit from reading a little from Hannah Arendt and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
A few centuries ago, we were pretty clueless & rather less civilised. Obviously scientific theories will change with evidence, but it takes a *lot* to overturn the consensus. My comments have nothing against free speech, just labelling potential BS on any content that has the potential to harm people in a large audience, similar to how FB does it now.
"The solution? Looking to pacify both sides of the free speech vs. harmful misinformation debate, Spotify will add a disclaimer to any podcast episode that addresses COVID-19. "This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 Hub, a resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources." Spotify also published platform rules that will govern what content is and isn't allowed on its service, which will be updated regularly to reflect the changing safety landscape.
Rogan is a fan. He likes the advisory instead of a 'misinformation' ban, saying it would allow users to decide their opinion, even if it goes against the current consensus of medical experts. "The problem I have with the term 'misinformation,' is that many of the things we thought of as misinformation a short while ago are now accepted as fact. For instance, eight months ago, if you said 'if you get vaccinated you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID' - they would ban you from certain platforms. Now, that's accepted as fact. If you said, 'I don't think cloth masks work' - you'd be banned from social media. Now, that's openly stated on CNN. If you said, 'I think it's possible that COVID-19 came from a lab' - you'd also be banned. Now, that's on the cover of Newsweek."
I would take some issue with Joe's examples of "supposed" misinformation but in general I think that his willingness to encourage investigation and questioning of "supposed" facts shows that Mr. Shermer's assessment of him and his show is supported.
Withdrawal of your music is not censoring. Make a choice -Rogan's Malone podcast or my music. Your arguments provide the reason why no youtube antivax or holocaust denier rubbish should be censored. Many informed experts would disagree. You are too pally with the likeable Rogan. It's clouding your judgement.
Should we petition Apple music to take off Neil Young for spreading misinformation on GMOs which have reduced greenhouse emissions, cut reliance on pesticides, and offer help for the more than 800 malnourished people in the world?
GW: As usual, Michael, you have presented a well articulated and thoughtful essay. I do, however, disagree on a few points.
MS: To be clear, this is not a First Amendment free speech issue. The government has nothing to say in the matter. Spotify can do what it wants,...
GW: Yes, Spotify is a private company and can censor or not censor on its platform. It can exercise its property rights. However, this does not mean the government has nothing to say in the matter. Some citizens may say on Spotify things so egregious that the government may need to act to protect the public. “Kill all the white people now!” would be an obvious example of this.
MS: Why should some team of censors (or computer algorithms) dictate what I can and cannot consume? I’ll do my own thinking, thank you.
GW: All people are not like you and cannot or will not do their own thinking or do not possess critical thinking skills or a skeptical attitude. The government may need to protect some people from bad products. Note the analogy of taking poisoned meat off the market.
MS: Forbidden fruit: a natural response many people have to being told that they can’t have something is to want it even more.
GW: I don’t think this is a good argument against censorship. Robbing banks is also forbidden fruit, but we still make laws against robbing banks.
MS: “It was all for that one terrible sin, the first crime ever recorded in the history of humanity—a thought crime no less...
GW: But you then cite two ACTS (not just thoughts) of Eve – “partaking of the fruit” and “inveigled the first man.” So, it was not merely a thought crime.
MS: I’ve devoted a career to studying fringe groups and marginalized beliefs, and I can tell you that they thrive on censorship—literally: membership rolls expand and donations swell whenever their peripheral claims are censored,...
GW: I agree with your claim here, but that is not a sufficient reason to never censor.
MS: Who decides which speech and thought is acceptable and which is unacceptable?
GW: Well, historically, the courts have decided this. But it could also be a government authorized panel of experts in reason, science, law, and debate. Aren’t there some things which should not be said to the general public? Should there be no limits on free speech at all?
MS: The control of speech is how dictatorships and autocracies rule.
GW: Yes, they go too far to one extreme. But as with most things, moderation is possible, even in censorship.
MS: What criteria are used to censor certain speech?
GW: All sorts of criteria, good and bad, HAVE BEEN USED, but the more important question is “what criteria SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be used to censor certain speech?” I think we need to study and do research on this question. It is just another area of morality.
MS: What criteria are used to censor certain speech?...Thoughts that differ from your thoughts?
GW: No, that category is too broad. I have been censored three times on different forums because my thoughts differed from the moderator’s or the majority’s. The issues involved abortion, the existence of God, and the verdict in the Rittenhouse case. This censorship was wrong, but I COULD HAVE said things which should be censored. Censorship is not always wrong and not always right. It depends.
MS: When colleges deplatform speakers or students succeed in silencing a speaker through the heckler’s veto, the right of the audience to hear the speaker’s ideas are violated.
GW: I have never seen a justified instance of this. Colleges are for the open discussion of ideas, for goodness sake!
MS: We might be completely wrong, so hearing criticism or counterpoint gives us the opportunity to change our minds and improve our thinking. No one is infallible.
GW: True. On the other hand, some ideas are blatantly false and others are harmful. Should they ALWAYS be allowed?
MS: To overcome it we must listen to our critics.
GW: Really? Always? Must we listen to our critics who say: “The Covid vaccines don’t work.” “Trump won the 2020 election.” “Jews are an inferior race.” “Kill all white people!” “There’s a fire. Run!” in a crowded theater with no fire.
MS: ...tell others about your beliefs so that they may be tested in the marketplace of ideas...
GW: That’s a great idea from the start, but might censorship be valuable or necessary AFTER the testing has been done and an idea has been PROVEN to be false or harmful?
MS: If I censor you, why shouldn’t you censor me?
GW: No, that’s not how it should work. Parties in disputes should not censor each other! If there is any censorship, it should be by an independent, low-biased or neutral, reasonable third party.
MS: Once customs and laws are in place to silence someone on one topic, what’s to stop people from silencing anyone on any topic that deviates from the accepted canon?
GW: Good question and the answer is “nothing.” The cannon needs to be correct and enforced by the right expert panel! Also, the cannon should be tweaked over time. There is already a cannon on this which has been established by the SCOTUS, but it could be better.
GW: I have not listened to the Joe Rogan podcast, but I have heard rumors that he has expressed opinions about the pandemic or vaccines that are false and/or harmful. I’d have to hear specifics before I would render an opinion on censorship of him
GW: Michael, I agree with you in general. Free speech should be the default. However, I don’t think it, like any right, should be absolute. I think there should be regulations, restrictions, and limitations on speech. I think the government should have the power of censorship in rare, limited, and reasonable circumstances. As you have correctly said, however, we need to be careful to guard against tyranny and dictatorship. We ought not go down the slippery slope.
Your essay did not mention the almost 6 million dead worldwide from Covid-19. That number is resonant with us. Most countries in the civilized world, other than the US, reacted to the Holocaust with limitations on hate speech. We have to balance our desire for a free society with our need to be safe and alive. I agree with limitations on hate speech. Hate speech is unique in that its purpose is not to generate discussion, but to arouse animus. Similarly, the purpose of pseudoscientific discussions is to keep people from being vaccinated, and to provide peer-group virtue as a motivation to harm others (by becoming vehicles to spread and incubate new variants). The flag they wave is Freedom as they tramp over the bodies of the 6 million dead.
So all six million Covid deaths worldwide now represent blood on the hands of those spreading "misinformation" not in accordance with officially approved information and none are on the hands of, first, Mother Nature, which is responsible for the virus and all other pandemics, and, second, delays, mistakes and miscalculations and even conflicts of interest from politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, doctors, drug company executives, media executives and all the others who have "managed" or "mismanaged" this nasty global challenge
Almost 6 million are dead. We have tools like multiple vaccination and herd immunity that can prevent more deaths. Those that use misinformation to try to justify not using those tools and rallying people against their use are causing needless death and suffering.
I don't know anyone skipping the vaccine because of Rogan. They are skeptical because they see every highly vaccinated state or country that was cited as "doing it right" explode with Covid cases. Israel, Denmark, Spain, Portugal... all blew up regardless of hitting the highest vaccination rates in the world (and just before several fawning new stories circulated about "How _____________ beat Covid").
The vaccine was over promised and now it underdelivered. And we get articles like this trying to explain why:
"There’s another factor at play that could help explain why Vermont, in particular, has seen such high case counts in recent weeks: Only a small proportion of residents have had a COVID infection. That’s not the case across the country."
It's ok, we have struggled for 80 years to make an effective flu shot, perhaps the same challenges for vaccinating against influenza are what stopped our Covid vaccines from having the immunity we hoped.
What we really need to be talking about is how _China_ beat covid, and how well they've done returning to normal living, while the rest of us struggle, fight among ourselves, and die. If you search on YouTube for various "day in the life" videos of Americans living abroad in China, you can see the stark difference. And yet the NYT had that ridiculous opinion piece last week about how China's zero-covid policy is untenable. Whatever you call their policy, people seem to be enjoying normal lives over there.
The vaccine doesn't promise to keep one from getting Covid-19, it only promises to make the disease milder in vaccinated people. It delivers well on that promise. Case rates increase with awareness and testing.
>"The vaccine doesn't promise to keep one from getting Covid-19, it only promises to make the disease milder in vaccinated people."
Respectfully, Haidtophile (+1 for the username), That's not how it was promoted, and that seems to stray from the conventional definition of a vaccine. Would we say that of polio, smallpox, or diphtheria vaccines? When we rolled out those sterilizing vaccines, the viruses were reduced in correlation with the vaccine uptake rates (and eventually almost entirely eliminated). We didn't see, for example, chicken pox explode in the early nineties as we started rolling out the varicella vaccines.
We were told the vaccines would stop us from Covid 90-95% of the time, and "breakthrough" cases would be rare. That was the sales pitch. We have it on record. Selected "throwback" quotes:
"Ugur Sahin, whose company developed the first widely approved shot against COVID-19 with U.S. partner Pfizer... cited studies from Israel, which shares medical data on its vaccination campaign with Pfizer, showing that people who have been immunized rarely fall seriously ill and are significantly less likely to transmit the virus to others"
"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, don’t get sick and that it’s not just in clinical trials, but it’s also in real world data,” - Rochelle Walensky to Rachel Maddow
"Well, I don't think we should be that concerned right now about how long they're effective. I think they will be effective long enough that we will get to the point where we are not going to be necessarily worrying about a surge." Anthony Fauci
"Latest data analysis finds unvaccinated individuals were 44 times more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19" - Pfizer Press release from success in Israel
"Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status" - CDC MMWR
It's only after cases started rising again, first in Israel and then the UK, before everywhere else in the world, did the messaging get shifted to the vaccines being only intended to reduce chance of death and serious illness. I'm sorry, but that seems to be a direct "goal post shift". No?
I'm happy to continue with good-faith discussion on this, because it is fascinating to me, and I love hearing different opinions, but at the same time I don't want to derail the comments section of this post.
When I wrote my last novel, I spent 4 years researching virology. I know how much I don't know, and have a great deal of humility about my profound ignorance. I listen carefully to what Fauci says and what the statistics say. I know that "vaccines" can be designed to accomplish any of a number of goals (e.g., there are cancer vaccines that do not purport to cure or prevent cancers). From the beginning, I understood that Covid19 vaccines (1) were not perfect -- on a world pop. of 7 billion, 10% breakthrough amounts to 700 million cases and (2) would prevent hospitalization, not infection. Many people filter the messages through their own preconceived and erroneous beliefs. I also understand that the goal is herd immunity, not prevention. Herd immunity can only happen if we all do this together. We are responsible for one another.
Excellent analysis. I Differ on this particular topic regarding Rogan’s guests because they are not outlandish or Shocking. The guests are exposing the disinformation and misinformation coming from government and Corporate Collaborators who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths through fear porn And lies regarding alternative treatments that could’ve saved up to 85% of the deaths while the CDC & Pharma spewed lies about the safety & effectiveness of these mRNA novel experimental pathogens. RFK Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci” brilliant analysis has more controversy in it, but a hell of a lot documented evidence the censors simply cannot tolerate for fear of mass murder charges and admitting to the massive deaths and economic destruction these Govt & Corporate homicidal maniacs have caused. Speaking of mass murder charges: https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/gates-fauci-and-daszak-charged-with-genocide-in-court-filing/article_76c6081c-61b8-11ec-ae59-7718e6d063ed.html
The vaccines aren't perfect but they've saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Were it not for people like Brett Weinstein many more would be saved. I don't think Rogan should be thrown off Spotify and I won't cancel it. I'm pretty much a free speech purist. Like Michael said, you have to answer bad arguments with good ones.
I'm not gonna' send you links. I'm just gonna' say this. The medical consensus in almost every country on earth (with the possible exception of barbarians like The Taliban) agree that the vaccines are our best weapon against the virus.
Every. Medical. Community. On. Earth.
Are there doctors who disagree? Of course. Maybe thousands. They might be right. I might be wrong. But that's a tiny fraction of the total of medical doctors around the planet.
Has cable news & twitter exaggerated the threat of the pandemic. I think so. Have the doctors & scientist gotten stuff wrong? Of course. It's a novel virus. We still don't know much about it. But if you dig deep into seriously non-partisan sources you'll see that the science on the vaccines is clearly one that makes it the best probable choice.
Think of our fellow heterodox people. Like Michael here. Or Sam Harris. Dawkins. Pinker. Scott Alexander. None of whom are part of the political establishment. They're all hated by both MAGA and WOKE. (Which is a good sign in my opinon). All the serious, honest thinkers seem to agree. Vaccines are the best option at the moment.
I'm not gonna' do my own research. I'm not a doctor or a scientist. I can't begin to understand how vaccines work. I will go with the consensus. Not because they're the "authority". Just because that's the best bet if you go with the probabilities.
We're all gonna' die someday. We make choices every day by consciously or unconsciously weighing the probabilities. There's a chance your & crazy RFK (he's been nuts for years, sorry) or the Weinstein brothers or random doctors on Joe Rogan are right and the hundreds of thousands of a-political doctors and scientists the world over are all wrong.
But it's a tiny probability. Like God existing, or the earth being flat. Or the Jets having a winning season. All possible. None probable. Don't put your money on any of that stuff.
I'll end by saying what I say to woke idiots. Is there a chance you're wrong & I (along with millions of medical experts the world over) are right? I've admitted I may be wrong. Can you admit as much? If not then again, the probability is that you've been ideologically captured.
I'll try & keep it short w/o links as well...but you would benefit immensely. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. Nor do I deny these illegal mRNA jabs didn't save the lives of millions w/ co-morbidities. Quarantining seniors & the most vulnerable was the standard practice. Fauci & the Pharma nutjobs decided to upend decades of established standards. The young & healthy most certainly didn't need the jabs, as evidence makes clear.
However, it's the censoring & banning of proven life-saving therapeutics like ivermectin that is an incontrovertible fact. I'm convinced Dr. McCullough and Dr. Kory are correct because the real world evidence is overwhelming. Early treatment & life-saving over the counter therapeutics would have saved up to 85% of the lives lost, and even likely those who took the jab based on information at the time.
I've been inoculated more times than there are countries on this planet. Lumping people who object to this jab (now proven ineffective) is a slur for those who otherwise don't object to traditional vaccines. I'm against illegally lab-produced bio-weapons produced in sub-standard facilities that the NIH & CDC are accountable for. No amount of bureaucratic subterfuge & MSM misinformation will make the facts go away. Dr. David Martin can go into scrupulous detail on how this was done. Use duckduckgo to search him out and listen to his interviews. Much of his research is getting used at the Hague where genocide & war crimes are filed right now.
As for RFK Jr.'s alleged nutery, I don't care. Alex Jones has said outrageously idiotic & factually wrong opinions in the past, but I don't kill the messenger when their content checks out with other reliable sources. RFK Jr. has damn good reliable sources...and over 2200 footnotes to back much of it up. If you want solid proof of war crimes, just go to pages 47-53 for a documented zoom call between Dr. Hill from the W.H.O. & the most respected meta-analyst in the world and decide for yourself. If you come to some other conclusion other than Pharma's complete capture of virtually every major corporate institution funded or controlled by Pharma's power & capture of Govt public health regulators, then I can't help you. But if you have the open mind you suggest you have, then read RFK Jr.'s book with an open mind to see just how much damage & destruction these sociopaths have committed & will continue to do if we let them. If the book is too long & painful to read, try the intro, pgs. 47-53, and the last chapter 12d. That pretty much summarizes the remarkable damage these Govt agencies (including DARPA & intel services) have done, in collaboration with Pharma, Big Tech, and other corporate entities that couldn't pass up the $$$ or threats posed by Pharma's enormous financial powers granted to them by an agency regulator that weaponized them.
False. They are extremely effective against hospitalization and death. And also quite effective against infection. (Less so with each new variant.)
Anecdotal, but my wife, vaxxed & boosted. Got Covid two weeks ago. Our 16 year old and me, also vaxxed & boosted, didn't catch it from her. Despite sharing a bathroom. Without the vaccines she would have been in the hospital and the rest of us would have gotten sick. I'd put money on that.
Again, I could be wrong. Is there a chance you're wrong? Or are you sure you're right?
CB Miller, that is an excellent statement, and I agree with almost all of it. Although I think free speech should be the default, still I think there should be some limitations on it. When statements are false and harmful, I'd draw the line. But I haven't listened to Joe Rogan and his guests on the pandemic and vaccines, so I can't identify any statements of his or his guest's which should be censored. Maybe I'd think none. Not sure.
Depends on verifiable harm & independent and competent authorities to verify it. But what happens when those authorities are no longer reliable and have been captured by pseudoscience fanatics bent on mass murder?
I agree with your general point. Censorship is not the answer. I think aging rockers, though, can ask for their own music not to be associated with an outlet they think actively promotes falsehoods, though. Up to them. If I have a product and some unsavory group wants to make money by selling it, I'm within bounds to say "no thanks."
All your points are true, especially about forbidden fruit. But the fringe liars are going to complain about censorship either way. It's all part of the vast government conspiracy against them. Unless Robert Malone is embraced by the CDC and FDA and President Biden, and given a platform to spout his false and misleading and emotionally manipulative information, he's going to drone on about how he's being censored and persecuted. Blah blah blah.
And yet we still have a problem, when people like Malone are given free rein to spout un-fact-checked claims, and someone as influential and credulous as Rogan promotes him. Rogan is sharp and asks good questions, but he doesn't have the scientific background to understand or check up on the answers. So he's basically at this hustler's mercy. And then so is his audience of bazillions, most of whom also don't have the scientific background to understand or fact-check his claims.
I tried to respond in my own newsletter to the recent Rogan episode with Malone, and I found just how true Brandolini’s Law is: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it.” After 7000 words, I'd barely scratched the surface of what was misleading and untrue. I wore out.
And then of course his fans say "what about this this and this." It's like a football field full of dandelions. You'll never get them all.
Rogan should have a worthy opponent to Malone on his show at the same time!
This I completely agree with. One of the most frustrating aspects of "science" the past two years has been the reluctance for scientists to engage with each other, dig into where they disagree, and see if they can find some better answers.
Instead, everyone isolates into their little twitter worlds, blocking anyone who disagrees with them or questions their assertations. We have a thousand different substackers and not one dialectic. Eric Topol doesn't even allow comments on his substack after he got "ratio'ed" after his first piece, despite having the ability to limit comments to paying subscribers.
Point out something Eric Feigl-Ding got wrong on Twitter? Block.
I would love Michael Shermer to lead a dialectic, gather up dissenting scientists and hash it out.
As far as I know Michael Shermer has never blocked or censored any comment to anything he has written, and he sometimes responds to them. In Skeptic magazine, which he edits, he has even allowed essays dissenting to his own opinions. When vaccines and medicines are reviewed and either rejected or approved, dissenting opinions among scientists are allowed and encouraged, and consensus is pursued. This is not possible for every scientific issue, although it is approached through peer reviewed journals.
There is a strong scientific consensus that the Covid vaccines are mostly or highly safe and effective.
"allowed essays dissenting to his own opinions"? Hell, I encourage it and am always looking for more. Bring it on!
The doctors I thought since the beginning of the pandemic have begged for open panels with the CDC, FDA, etc — all they get in return is crickets.
That sentence is poorly constructed. Please clarify what you mean.
Spell check is not my friend 😝
Dr Kory of the FLCCC group and others have offered to debate anytime, anywhere but no one in government, the pharmaceutical industry or doctors pushing the one size fits all vaccine approach will take them up on the offer. Why not? I think they owe the American people a full, open, robust defense of decisions which have led questionable policies that have had wide reaching ramifications.
Proper sentence structure is not your forte. Your reference to "one size fits all" is incorrect. Children are given lower doses than adults. The American people have access to the records of the agencies approving the vaccines. The fact remains -- the vaccines have a high degree of safety and effectiveness. Don't be a Vaccine Denier.
That would be cool. One problem is that the Malone crowd thinks in very simplistic terms. They think that the “opposite” of Malone is Fauci, and not an actual scientist or vaccine expert (like, a Paul Offit).
I’d be there for Malone vs Offit.
Offit is outstanding, not only as a clinician and scientist, but also as a communicator. Yes, I'd be there for that debate.
Michael Shermer. When I signed up as a “founding member” I was promised a book, a back issue of skeptic, and response to comments.
Well, I got the book. I got the back issue (a duplicate I had, but that was to be expected), now I’m calling for #3
Reply to this comment and promise you are going to try and arrange Offit vs Malone.
Rogan can provide color commentary.
Okay, Michael, that's a very good idea. I know Offit but not Malone. I'll see if I can arrange such a debate on my podcast.
Great! And while I have your attention, would love if you cross posted some articles from Skeptic to your substack. Would be nice to use this space as a place to engage with the community and maybe gain visibility for the magazine too.
I’d enjoy seeing thoughts from your readers on Havana Syndrome for example without having to go to Twitter.
Unless they’re a forum on skeptic.com I’ve somehow missed all these years…
An excellent idea Michael. I shall do that.
" I think aging rockers, though, can ask for their own music not to be associated with an outlet they think actively promotes falsehoods, though."
I mean, Neil Young actively promotes falsehoods on GMOs.
And while many are cheering Neil Young for being "brave", they seem to be unaware that he cashed out on the rights to his catalogue 2 weeks ago to the tune of 150 million. (He gave 50% ownership to an investment firm which expect(ed) to recoup the investment by having streaming royalties).
Easy to take a stand when you have already cashed out a century's worth of royalties you'd never live to see anyway.
I don't think that is pertinent to this discussion. You are going way off topic.
The topic at hand was prompted by Neil Young demanding Spotify either remove Rogan or Neil Young. It seems pretty pertinent to the discussion by pointing out the hypocrisy both intellectually and financially by Neil Young as he is no stranger to "misinformation" and has little monetary stake at the point who hosts his music, he already got paid in advance.
It would be helpful if you would name specific things you believe Dr Malone is in error on. When you just call him names you lose all credibility.
You can read my post for specifics if you want.
https://bprice.substack.com/p/robert-malone-is-full-of-shit
You can also read this long and detailed Twitter thread by an ER doctor:
https://twitter.com/grahamwalker/status/1489429245520580608
Just reading the title is enough to prevent me from opening. Have a good day.
The thing is that Malone and doctors like him WERE embraced by the CDC before this pandemic, before it got political, before it ceased the be about “the science.” It’s not like Malone was some quack out in left field that showed up when this hit. He’s been working with the government for years. It was only when he went against the narrative that his name was pulled through the mud.
And there are scientists who are Flat Earthers too.
Maybe there are Social Scientists and Psychologists who are Flat Earthers but I doubt you'll find Astronomers or Geologists who are Flat Earthers... your witty statement ignores the fact that scientists are not experts outside of their fields.
You are making a straw man argument. I didn't say anything about social scientists, psychologists, astronomers, or geologists. I spoke of "scientists."
I want to emphasize (as I mentioned in my own post about Malone) yes: He works for the government.
It is not the case that he simply “went against the narrative.” I’m very friendly to / open to anyone who comes forward with information or looks at information in new ways and “goes against the prevailing narrative.”
I’m no fan of the CDC and Fauci in this, by the way. They’ve been atrocious. The US response has been so atrocious that we have higher death rates than everywhere in the world except a few countries in South America and Eastern Europe. The amount of trust that had been shattered will not soon be regained.
The bulk of Malone’s career has been as a consultant, promoting various “products” as he described on Rogan.
Malone works closely with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), part of the Department of Defense, which describes itself as “the only Department of Defense organization focused exclusively on countering and deterring weapons of mass destruction and emerging threats.” He describes the DTRA as “one of my favorite clients.” He adds “I work with the chem biodefense group… I've got many friends in the intelligence community, so I'm kind of a pretty deep insider in terms of the government.”
He is also a consultant for RelCovax, which is a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine being developed for Reliance Life Sciences, part of Reliance Industries, India’s largest company and 10th largest employer.
He’s got a conflict of interest a mile high, which he tends not to mention.
He also spouts literal falsehoods, such as the government’s failure to promote “early treatments” (HCQ and IVM) has killed half a million people, a number he refers to as “very well documented”— although I defy you to find that well documented number in any reputable source.
And he uses lot of emotionally manipulative language— instilling fear in his followers and leading them to believe the government is out to get them. But who can they trust, according to Malone? Himself. He’s so grossly manipulative that I have a hard time seeing how he’s snowed so many otherwise intelligent people— but he has.
It's obvious that you've got a real problem with Malone, and it's also obvious that he has far more qualifications in the field of vaccinations than you do. That of course doesn't make him right and you wrong, but your attacks on him make you seem intellectually insecure. Rather than calling him a conflicted liar and a fraud just relax and point to the evidence that you think shows he's in error. You come across as shrill.
Insecure. Shrill. Lol. (Have you ever called a man “shrill”?) I wrote a whole post on Malone if you care to read it; but you probably don’t.
I had no idea whether you were a man or a woman and of course it doesn't matter, but your oversensitive response suggests you're now imputing some kind of sexism into my comment where none existed. This is consistent with my criticism of your over-the-top criticism of Malone. People will take you more seriously if you took it down a notch and focussed on your subject's arguments rather making non-sequiter ad hominem attacks. Just an opinion.
A shrill opinion lol
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ You’ll find the data here. I know Dr. Kory and other doctors in the FLCCC Group would be happy to debate
Those guys are making a lot of money selling prescriptions to people, and they ignore the published data. It's pointless to debate someone who ignores the evidence and makes money doing so. No thanks.
Corporate censorship is not illegal. But it should be. We live in a republic. We can give ourselves these rights.
Cigarettes cannot be advertised. Food companies have to list ingredients. Private companies have to make cakes for weddings that are against their religion.
So let's make it illegal for Google, Twitter, Facebook to be arbitrars of what is authoritative and what is misinformation... Spotify has a good policy on this that is clear and without judgement or reliance on captured government agencies.
What? You claim corporate censorship should be illegal? Spotify has property rights over its own platform. You would abolish those rights?
Spotify is a private platform, as is Google, Twitter and Facebook. They have a TOS and can kick off whomever they want. I don't agree with their decisions always, but unless you want to make them public companies, you cannot force them to do anything.
Well. a law could. Or the Supreme Court could. Private companies cannot do ANYTHING they wish.
Michael, your first point about low expectations, and the compulsion some people have to curate information for others, would seem to deny one of the foundational justifications for broad participation in democracy: that our governance improves when everyone has a say in the process. (The other justification, that we are more inclined to accept the outcomes of the democratic process when we think we had an equal say in a fair process is also undermined by current partisan efforts.)
But if we claim that some people can't handle "bad" information, with specific references to politics and campaigns, then how can we justify universal democratic participation? Of course, this assumes that people who make these claims are being honest, and not simply using rhetoric to disenfranchise people they don't like.
"Of course, this assumes that people who make these claims are being honest, and not simply using rhetoric to disenfranchise people they don't like."
Yes, "Of course." And this assumption, I think, goes to the heart of the problem with Joe and his discussions with his guests. I would add that rhetoric that disenfranchises one group can at the same time be used to enfranchise another targeted group.
But Michael says the opposite. He's not for removing Rogan. He agrees that people SHOULD be able to handle "misinformation" and figure it out. No?
In a deadly Covid pandemic world of 11 million rational, logical and reasonable young males who listen to Joe Rogan what you state would make sense. However, even if this were true for just 5% of Rogan's audience that leaves many millions who are likely to believe that he knows what he's talking about when discounts how deadly Covid is, how vaccines against Covid are worthless and dangerous and unproven harmful psuedo-remedies are better. Michael, is this really the time and subject to argue the issue of censorship and the cause of "two-sides" to every issue when the stakes are so deadly? I'm a huge fan of yours and I get what you're point, but in this case it borders on the magical thinking you have done so much to dispel. 270 doctors, virologists and immunologists just agree that is let alone ICU nurses and morticians.
Serious mistakes have been made and incorrect information has been put out by all sides, including the recognized authorities over the course of this maddeningly complicated and unpredictable pandemic. "Science" has offered no clear and uncomplicated "Truth," and even if it did, that would not easily or automatically translate into practical and effective public policy. No one has been consistently right. The answer is not to brush all this aside, censor those who have different ideas and think you have solved the problem rather than making it worse. This is exactly when it's most important to have an open and free discussion so that the truth can emerge. The current efforts to censor and suppress is making it ever harder to reach a sound consensus and have it credited and accepted by most people. Efforts to censor and suppress are only polluting our public life and making it even harder to find and act on any actual truth that does does emerge. As one example, read this article by Vinay Prasad, MD, a perceptive observer also here on Substack. https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/weathervanes-harmful-covid19-pundits?r=2bto5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I disagree. Science has offered this clear and uncomplicated truth -- the vaccines are mostly safe and effective. This is consistently right.
Gary,
A year ago, if you told me that Israel would be seeing cases hitting 100,000/day despite giving their 4th dose of the vaccine, I would have thought "huh, I guess they didn't work after all". (prior to vaccinations, their highest peaks were 8,000/day)
I disagree that science has offered a clear uncomplicated truth that has been consistently right on the vaccines let alone much of anything else the last two years. I don't mind. Science, that is, the process of science, is slow moving. The error correction doesn't happen automatically. It takes time. We need to allow for dead-end paths. We need to be humble and realistic on what it can achieve.
What does that have to do with the issue of censorship and free speech which was the original topic? You are going off on tangents.
Gary, I was referring to comments you made (albeit to another person) like these:
GW: "Science has offered this clear and uncomplicated truth -- the vaccines are mostly safe and effective. This is consistently right."
GW: "We should be using one mandate – If you are going to interact with others in public, then you must be fully vaccinated."
GW: "Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection"
GW: "Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection."
____________________________
As you said, you don't wish to debate (with Guy at least), so I won't get into it further, but these quotes you made don't line up with what we are observing across the world. They feel like things we would be saying in maybe July or August of 2021, but the premise that these vaccines stop transmission in any meaningful way has failed to materialize.
(Note - if you see two "deleted" posts it's because for some reason this single post repeated... not sure why)
Did the vaccines work as well as hoped? No.
Did they save lives? Hundreds of thousands.
Do the vaccines still save lives? Over 90% if you're boosted.
Do they still stop infection? Yes. But less with each variant.
What causes the variants? Vaccine hesitancy is a big part of that.
Is there a better treatment than vaccines? No.
Do we need more than vaccines? Yes. Paxlovid and others.
Is all this info subject to change? Yes. With evidence & research.
Michael, tell me what you disagree with in my answers above?
I'm triple-vaxed because I'm over 70 but I also keep a supply of ivermectin pills, which are legal where I live and there is no clear evidence that they don't work and lots of epidemiological evidence outside the US that they are safe and may, in fact, work, even if the FDA mocks the drug even without valid or convincing evidence.
On vaccines, I obviously agree that for me, and probably for most people over 30, they represent the best tradeoff. (Read Dr. Prasad and tell me that the scientific case for vaccinating children under 18 is so clear and uncomplicated.)
As for effectiveness, vaccines are unfortunately not turning out to be the 100% virus-stopping miracle we were hoping for but are still well worth pursuing for most adults. Should we be using blanket mandates instead of persuasion? "The Science" does not give us that answer. At least in the USA, they don't seem to be working and have helped create and expand a hard core of contrarian resisters. This is creating political and social tensions that I believe are extremely dangerous to our democracy right now. So dangerous that I believe continued insistence on such enforcing such mandates is more dangerous to our people and society than any extra Covid deaths that might be avoided through mandates. (This may well also be true of the rampant suppression of speech now being normalized.)
Finally, please tell me how, if the science is that vaccines are mostly safe and mostly effective, it is following "The Science" for the US government (and most of the European Union) to continue to restrict the wide distribution of low-cost vaccines to the bulk of the world's population in order to keep boosting already vaccinated people in wealthy countries while protecting already excessive and government-funded drug company profits.
Unfortunately, the credibility of "Science" has been badly compromised (squandered) by those commercial interests who produce, control and profit most from it. This is a self-inflicted wound for America and a huge loss for humanity. We will all feel this loss when the next pandemic hits.
G2: Guy, most of your comment is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is “freedom of speech and censorship.” Nevertheless, I will respond to some of your points.
G2: I also keep a supply of ivermectin pills, which are legal where I live and there is no clear evidence that they don't work and lots of epidemiological evidence outside the US that they are safe and may, in fact, work, even if the FDA mocks the drug even without valid or convincing evidence.
GW2: There is insufficient evidence or authorization for the use of those invermectin pills for the prevention or treatment of Covid. Use of them for this purpose would be irrational.
G2: On vaccines, I obviously agree that for me, and probably for most people over 30, they represent the best tradeoff.
GW2: Of course they are!
G2: As for effectiveness, vaccines are unfortunately not turning out to be the 100% virus-stopping miracle we were hoping for but are still well worth pursuing for most adults.
GW2: Oh come on, Guy, any expectation that any vaccine or medicine will be 100% effective is unrealistic.
G2: Should we be using blanket mandates instead of persuasion?
GW2: We should be using one mandate – If you are going to interact with others in public, then you must be fully vaccinated.
G2: At least in the USA, they don't seem to be working...
GW2: That is nonsense. It depends on the mandate, but the one requiring health care workers to be vaccinated has been effective.
G2: So dangerous that I believe continued insistence on such enforcing such mandates is more dangerous to our people and society than any extra Covid deaths that might be avoided through mandates.
GW2: Nobody has a right to the freedom to endanger others. If you are interacting with people in public and you are not vaccinated, then you are endangering others. You should not do that and government at all levels should ban it.
GW2: I didn’t find any of your statements worthy of censorship, just opposition.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer and perhaps encouraging people to get vaccinated and requiring it in some specific and clearly high risk situations was justified when they were introduced. I still think that's justifiable for masks. I normally wear a mask (N-95) indoors or when with high-risk individuals. I don't see it as an unjustifiable intrusion on my freedom. Small price to pay. But vaccines are more complicated and less effective as originally thought, as scientists have learned over the almost 12 months since they were introduced. They don't confer full immunity, even with multiple boosters, and I can still get Covid and pass it on to others even if I'm triple-vaxed. Being vaxed likely protects me from more severe illness, but it doesn't protect others. Maybe I can recover more quickly but if being vaxed causes me to be less cautious about other things like social distancing, mask use, hand washing, etc., that will likely negate any reduction in my danger to others. If such protection is needed, it's far more rational and effective to require negative test results as is done on planes flying to the US or in some job situations. And tests are not only more effective than vaccines in protecting others, they are less invasive and have much less, almost zero, risk of injury. In addition, scientists are learning also that natural immunity is very close in effectiveness to vaccine immunity. In addition, at this point it is a more significant factor because a much larger percentage of the population has it now then when vaccines were first introduced. The case for mandates just keep getting weaker as the enforcement becomes more insistent and punitive. (Job loss is no small thing, nor is injury or death for the small but non-negligible number of people who suffer significant adverse reactions.)
Beyond that, you are ignoring the serious damage to the country's already fraying social and political fabric. Like it or not, many people are taking this seriously. You may think they are deluded, irrational, selfish, bumpkins who spend too much time on Facebook and YouTube and as a result they don't have your trust in "Science" and you may even be right in many cases. But they are not going to go away. It's probably too late to save the situation, but continuing to poke and insult them with mandates and shaming is only going make things worse. Covid will go away (or become background noise) a long time before they do, but the damage will remain. You think your are helping and doing the right thing, but step back, look at the larger picture, realize we are in a dynamic situation, and do some needed course correction. I'm not saying it's easy. Just necessary.
Your very high expectations for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines are ridiculous. You ought not expect perfection. I disagree with much of your comment here, but I don't want to debate with you about it here anymore because this is more about freedom of speech vs. censorship than about Covid, vaccines, etc. You have gone off on a tangent.
There are over 17,000 medical doctors, signatures third party verified, that take issue with your statement especially with vaccines for children. The science is not clear and good science demands transparent rigorous debate.
Susan. A couple points.
- This is a global pandemic. There's over 10 million doctors in the world. 17,000 is less than half of one percent of them. In other words, over 99.5% of the entire world's medical community feels the vaccines are the best and safest bet against Covid.
- Second point. I may be wrong. You may be right. Do you believe there's a chance that you're wrong?
Hi CB -
17,000 is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Many are afraid to go public because of reprisals they’ve seen with those that have been vocal. Cancellation culture is a fact and government officials have been caught being part of it - witness the leaked emails from Drs Collins snd Fauci against The Great Barrington Declaration. That is why I am pushing so hard for open public debate amongst a wide variety of well credentialed “experts” with full disclosure as to their industry ties. Those 17,000 + doctors deserve to be heard as they’ve been on the front lines treating patients unlike those in the FDA, CDC, etc.
To your second point, of course I might be wrong and anyone not answering that question in the affirmative is probably not worth listening to. That is why Dr Fauci has lost credibility - when he stood up and said if you question him then you are questioning science and yet he won’t listen to or debate doctors and scientists with opposing viewpoints - folks stopped listening to him.
What if those pushing the vaccines are wrong? History is replete with stories of majorities being wrong. The medical community has been wrong numerous times - the swine flu vaccine, the high carb fiasco, thalidomide babies, the opioid crises - need I go on?
The data coming out of Israel is another case in point — the vaccine is not sterile and we have no idea what else might be coming down the pike from them. Do you find it at all concerning that over 200 young healthy athletes in Europe are experiencing heart issues and several have keeled over on the playing field and died? That is not a normal occurrence - coincidental that it starting occurring after these vaccines were instituted?
I will concede that they offer some protection but at what cost? Until safety concerns are answered I would never give a child a covid vaccine when their risk of serious illness/death is so low. Steve Kirsch has done a risk benefit analysis on this which you might find interesting - I find it disturbing. It’s my understanding that he has offered a large sum of money to debate his views vs the prevailing wisdom - where are the 99.5% of the world’s doctors and scientists that could take him on? I think the lack of willingness to debate is quite telling.
I could rant on but I’m sure you are sick of me by now. I will end with the fact that I’m 71 years old and I’ve seen too many shenanigans to take anything at face value. Question, question, question and hold government accountable.
"...of course I might be wrong and anyone not answering that question in the affirmative is probably not worth listening to."
That's one thing we can 100% agree on! Thanks for answering that directly. I don't trust people who dodge it.
More later. (Cleaning up the kitchen.)
First, present a link to this purported evidence. Secondly, most doctors are not researchers in the effectiveness of vaccines, and so their opinions may be irrelevant. Thirdly, there are more doctors who support the vaccines than oppose them. I stand by my statement -- " the vaccines are mostly safe and effective."
☝🏻 this
I like Vinay and follow him on Twitter. But this whole micocardia whatever is really a red hering. Even if Vinay & Rogan are right it's still such a SMALL difference. And it's only men (biological men, HA!) 18 -24 or something. Right? I'm sure if you did the numbers the deaths caused by us as a country not being as vaccinated as we should be outweigh the danger of these heart issues to this small subset of young men.
Yes. The vaccines aren't perfect. I bet the next varriant will escape them even more. We may never stop Covid. We may all die. There may be WW3 tomorrow. And tidal waves. Hurricanes!! Run to the basement!! Cover everything. The sky is falling!!!
Sorry. Anti-vaxxers are as hysterical as the "mask in your sleep" people.
Just listen tot the doctors. Stop doing your own research none of us are smart enough. Get the shots the doctor tells you to get. Wear a mask indoors (until they tell us something else, it might change). Open the window a crack, then get on with your life. I'm sick of all the Covid screamers.
Mic drop. ;)
Do you think if Rogan gets thrown off Spotify that would save even one life? I was FOR Trump being thrown off twitter. But do you think if they threw Trump off before January 6th it would have done anything? I don't think so. There's an argument to be made that Trump and the anti-vaxers are more popular now BECAUSE he was thrown off.
In fact, Rogan had very pro-vax Josh Zseps on right after the anti-vaxx doctor. Josh is just another talking head, but he pushed back deeply on a lot of Joe's points. Rogan has had Bernie & Andrew Yang as well as people like Michael here. Fox news is a much bigger problem than Joe Rogan.
Again, Joe Rogan is too big to cancel. He could sell his podcast directly and reach almost as many people as he does now. The cat's out of the bag. We just need to make better arguments. "Canceling" people or getting them thrown off of platforms HELPS their brand. Old hippies waggin' a finger at him makes Joe look MORE legit. Not less.
Is throwing Rogan off Spotify the only way to punish false and harmful remarks? No. Other possibilities are fines, law suits, or even requiring him to provide a competent counter view on the same program.
Just fact check what guests say for critical topics (e.g: medical, vaccines)
But that doesn't affect the behavior of Rogan or his guests.
Punishing speech instead of disputing it and refuting it through more speech only shows weakness and makes your counter-arguments less credible and persuasive. Please don't call yourself a progressive. Maybe "ex-progressive" is a better choice.
BTW, Rogan provides a platform for a wide range of views and models the idea of being open and ready to change his opinion as the situation evolves - but not when he is attacked by would-be bullies.
G1: Punishing speech instead of disputing it and refuting it through more speech only shows weakness and makes your counter-arguments less credible and persuasive.
GW1: Instead? Straw man and false dichotomy there. Always dispute and refute, but punish when necessary.
G1: Please don't call yourself a progressive. Maybe "ex-progressive" is a better choice.
GW1: I am a progressive, currently. To be more precise, I am progressive on about 80% of the issues, and conservative on the other 20%.
G1: BTW, Rogan provides a platform for a wide range of views and models the idea of being open and ready to change his opinion as the situation evolves - but not when he is attacked by would-be bullies.
GW1: I am not certain Rogan is the problem. I think some of his guests are the problem. This is all based on what I have heard since I don’t listen to the program.
GW1: Let me ask you this. If some person X says on a public forum “Kill Guy now!” do you think that speech should be punished or not? If punished, then by whom?
I think it is a very good time to discuss the issue of censorship.
This "censorious protesting" is evidently unproductive for the reasons you say and more.
If anything, it can only increase support for Rogan & co. This is evident.
But in today's world many people have a problem with live-and-let-live (and therefore I have a problem with them), and many people are more interested in pointless virtue signaling than in actual outcomes.
At the end of the day, it is not Rogan who tried to force Spotify to cancel Young. It is the other way around, and that is enough for me to side with Rogan and Spotify.
I have listened to only a few Rogan episodes, and I have never been a fan. But I'm a fan now. I followed him on Twitter etc. as a statement of support.
Straw man. You're accusing Young and Mitchell of censorious behavior. It's not.
They're behavior is both saying their moral foundation precludes their occupying the same channel as JRE. That's it. It's their right. I know you agree with that.
Ultimately this whole thing is a public good, a lesson in individual decisionmaking, in this case both Spotify's and its talent.
After reading some of the comments about the complexities and misunderstandings of many scientific findings, it occurred to me that virtually every news article about science contains flaws or misrepresentations (I know some researchers who refuse to speak to Journalists after being misquoted once too often).
These articles and interviews aren't "All or Nothing" - they usually contain a lot of truth and some falsehoods. From the very best to the very worst: they pretty much all contain a mix of truth and falsehood - and on top of that, they have a mix of clear statements and confusing statements (which makes it harder to determine if it is a falsehood or just a poorly worded truth).
What is the falsehood threshold to trigger censorship? 50% 25% 5% 0.01% (Also, how the heck can we determine these percentages?)
If we took a "Zero Tolerance" approach to scientific falsehoods online, then Youtube would have to remove a helluva lot of educational videos...
I have enjoyed your appearances on Joe's podcast. I think he is a capable interviewer. still - Working with the people coming into the hospital suffering from the results of following the advice of Joe's misinformation spreading guests makes me a bit less moved by the "soft bigotry of low expectations" argument. Humans are easily misled by ideas that confirm their biases, and offering up these ideas without vetting is not just free speech - it is irresponsible of Joe . Spotify couldn't vet his material without delaying broadcasts long enough to do a good job. "I'll just let anyone come on and say anything to my large audience", is just irresponsible. There are not two equivalent sides to every argument - this is a falsehood that has led to much of the trouble we have had in concurring this virus (as well as many of the other goers of our society), pretending all opinions are equally valuable is simply wrong and misleading. Any responsible interviewer should know that.
That's sounds all very reasonable, but for anyone with a large platform audience (say > 100/500K), some fact checking is needed on certain topics (especially medical) where misinformation can definitely lead to very bad outcomes. A lot of people can't think critically (enough) to filter out misinformation, thus warning labels similar to how Facebook tags content, should be utilised.
Are you saying there is such a thing as "settled science" and anyone who has a different opinion should be silenced?
Settled Science are scientific laws, which are beyond doubt. If someone wishes to voice their opinion which may reach a very large audience and that opinion conflicts with the scientific consensus on a subject that if presented with inaccurate information could lead to harm, then a warning label needs to be placed on such content. Thus content consumers can learn why an opinion maybe suspect and what the consensus is. During the pandemic there have been far too many people in positions of trust sprouting nonsense and Facebook / YouTube spreads it across the impressionable world leading to real harm.
A few centuries ago it was settled science that the earth was flat and anyone who said otherwise was severely punished. Scientific consensus is not always correct, and when there is an underlying motivation to "bend" the science, the situation gets worse. Freedom of speech is the only protection against a closed mind.
Agree Richard - sunshine is the best disinfectant. What was labeled disinformation a few months ago is now considered valid. It takes a long, long time for science to become settled and considered scientific law — so until then credentialed doctors and scientists have every right, and I would venture to say a duty, to speak out. Those who disagree with what’s being said need to debate the data and stop the personal attacks and the censoring. Suggest some of this thread would benefit from reading a little from Hannah Arendt and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
A few centuries ago, we were pretty clueless & rather less civilised. Obviously scientific theories will change with evidence, but it takes a *lot* to overturn the consensus. My comments have nothing against free speech, just labelling potential BS on any content that has the potential to harm people in a large audience, similar to how FB does it now.
I say yea to Spotify,
From a Market morning update at Seeking Alpha.
"The solution? Looking to pacify both sides of the free speech vs. harmful misinformation debate, Spotify will add a disclaimer to any podcast episode that addresses COVID-19. "This advisory will direct listeners to our dedicated COVID-19 Hub, a resource that provides easy access to data-driven facts, up-to-date information as shared by scientists, physicians, academics and public health authorities around the world, as well as links to trusted sources." Spotify also published platform rules that will govern what content is and isn't allowed on its service, which will be updated regularly to reflect the changing safety landscape.
Rogan is a fan. He likes the advisory instead of a 'misinformation' ban, saying it would allow users to decide their opinion, even if it goes against the current consensus of medical experts. "The problem I have with the term 'misinformation,' is that many of the things we thought of as misinformation a short while ago are now accepted as fact. For instance, eight months ago, if you said 'if you get vaccinated you can still catch COVID and you can still spread COVID' - they would ban you from certain platforms. Now, that's accepted as fact. If you said, 'I don't think cloth masks work' - you'd be banned from social media. Now, that's openly stated on CNN. If you said, 'I think it's possible that COVID-19 came from a lab' - you'd also be banned. Now, that's on the cover of Newsweek."
I would take some issue with Joe's examples of "supposed" misinformation but in general I think that his willingness to encourage investigation and questioning of "supposed" facts shows that Mr. Shermer's assessment of him and his show is supported.
Very well said sir
Was ready to ‘thumbs down’ due to the tautological title, but after reading , I concur – very good read.
Here is an example of the kind of discussion about Covid policy tradeoffs that is endangered under the current censorship atmosphere. Please tell me we would be better off without such nuanced (but increasingly endangered) public dialogue. It's not hard to imagine this discussion - and comments on it - being flagged by some big tech "fact-checker" if it was on Facebook or Twitter instead a "respectable online newsletter for health professionals. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/96926?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2022-01-29&eun=g870924d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%20Top%20Cat%20HeC%20%202022-01-29&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_dual-gmail-definition
Withdrawal of your music is not censoring. Make a choice -Rogan's Malone podcast or my music. Your arguments provide the reason why no youtube antivax or holocaust denier rubbish should be censored. Many informed experts would disagree. You are too pally with the likeable Rogan. It's clouding your judgement.
Neil Young wanted censorship, he didn't get it.
Should we petition Apple music to take off Neil Young for spreading misinformation on GMOs which have reduced greenhouse emissions, cut reliance on pesticides, and offer help for the more than 800 malnourished people in the world?
GW: As usual, Michael, you have presented a well articulated and thoughtful essay. I do, however, disagree on a few points.
MS: To be clear, this is not a First Amendment free speech issue. The government has nothing to say in the matter. Spotify can do what it wants,...
GW: Yes, Spotify is a private company and can censor or not censor on its platform. It can exercise its property rights. However, this does not mean the government has nothing to say in the matter. Some citizens may say on Spotify things so egregious that the government may need to act to protect the public. “Kill all the white people now!” would be an obvious example of this.
MS: Why should some team of censors (or computer algorithms) dictate what I can and cannot consume? I’ll do my own thinking, thank you.
GW: All people are not like you and cannot or will not do their own thinking or do not possess critical thinking skills or a skeptical attitude. The government may need to protect some people from bad products. Note the analogy of taking poisoned meat off the market.
MS: Forbidden fruit: a natural response many people have to being told that they can’t have something is to want it even more.
GW: I don’t think this is a good argument against censorship. Robbing banks is also forbidden fruit, but we still make laws against robbing banks.
MS: “It was all for that one terrible sin, the first crime ever recorded in the history of humanity—a thought crime no less...
GW: But you then cite two ACTS (not just thoughts) of Eve – “partaking of the fruit” and “inveigled the first man.” So, it was not merely a thought crime.
MS: I’ve devoted a career to studying fringe groups and marginalized beliefs, and I can tell you that they thrive on censorship—literally: membership rolls expand and donations swell whenever their peripheral claims are censored,...
GW: I agree with your claim here, but that is not a sufficient reason to never censor.
MS: Who decides which speech and thought is acceptable and which is unacceptable?
GW: Well, historically, the courts have decided this. But it could also be a government authorized panel of experts in reason, science, law, and debate. Aren’t there some things which should not be said to the general public? Should there be no limits on free speech at all?
MS: The control of speech is how dictatorships and autocracies rule.
GW: Yes, they go too far to one extreme. But as with most things, moderation is possible, even in censorship.
MS: What criteria are used to censor certain speech?
GW: All sorts of criteria, good and bad, HAVE BEEN USED, but the more important question is “what criteria SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be used to censor certain speech?” I think we need to study and do research on this question. It is just another area of morality.
MS: What criteria are used to censor certain speech?...Thoughts that differ from your thoughts?
GW: No, that category is too broad. I have been censored three times on different forums because my thoughts differed from the moderator’s or the majority’s. The issues involved abortion, the existence of God, and the verdict in the Rittenhouse case. This censorship was wrong, but I COULD HAVE said things which should be censored. Censorship is not always wrong and not always right. It depends.
MS: When colleges deplatform speakers or students succeed in silencing a speaker through the heckler’s veto, the right of the audience to hear the speaker’s ideas are violated.
GW: I have never seen a justified instance of this. Colleges are for the open discussion of ideas, for goodness sake!
MS: We might be completely wrong, so hearing criticism or counterpoint gives us the opportunity to change our minds and improve our thinking. No one is infallible.
GW: True. On the other hand, some ideas are blatantly false and others are harmful. Should they ALWAYS be allowed?
MS: To overcome it we must listen to our critics.
GW: Really? Always? Must we listen to our critics who say: “The Covid vaccines don’t work.” “Trump won the 2020 election.” “Jews are an inferior race.” “Kill all white people!” “There’s a fire. Run!” in a crowded theater with no fire.
MS: ...tell others about your beliefs so that they may be tested in the marketplace of ideas...
GW: That’s a great idea from the start, but might censorship be valuable or necessary AFTER the testing has been done and an idea has been PROVEN to be false or harmful?
MS: If I censor you, why shouldn’t you censor me?
GW: No, that’s not how it should work. Parties in disputes should not censor each other! If there is any censorship, it should be by an independent, low-biased or neutral, reasonable third party.
MS: Once customs and laws are in place to silence someone on one topic, what’s to stop people from silencing anyone on any topic that deviates from the accepted canon?
GW: Good question and the answer is “nothing.” The cannon needs to be correct and enforced by the right expert panel! Also, the cannon should be tweaked over time. There is already a cannon on this which has been established by the SCOTUS, but it could be better.
GW: I have not listened to the Joe Rogan podcast, but I have heard rumors that he has expressed opinions about the pandemic or vaccines that are false and/or harmful. I’d have to hear specifics before I would render an opinion on censorship of him
GW: Michael, I agree with you in general. Free speech should be the default. However, I don’t think it, like any right, should be absolute. I think there should be regulations, restrictions, and limitations on speech. I think the government should have the power of censorship in rare, limited, and reasonable circumstances. As you have correctly said, however, we need to be careful to guard against tyranny and dictatorship. We ought not go down the slippery slope.
Your essay did not mention the almost 6 million dead worldwide from Covid-19. That number is resonant with us. Most countries in the civilized world, other than the US, reacted to the Holocaust with limitations on hate speech. We have to balance our desire for a free society with our need to be safe and alive. I agree with limitations on hate speech. Hate speech is unique in that its purpose is not to generate discussion, but to arouse animus. Similarly, the purpose of pseudoscientific discussions is to keep people from being vaccinated, and to provide peer-group virtue as a motivation to harm others (by becoming vehicles to spread and incubate new variants). The flag they wave is Freedom as they tramp over the bodies of the 6 million dead.
So all six million Covid deaths worldwide now represent blood on the hands of those spreading "misinformation" not in accordance with officially approved information and none are on the hands of, first, Mother Nature, which is responsible for the virus and all other pandemics, and, second, delays, mistakes and miscalculations and even conflicts of interest from politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, doctors, drug company executives, media executives and all the others who have "managed" or "mismanaged" this nasty global challenge
Almost 6 million are dead. We have tools like multiple vaccination and herd immunity that can prevent more deaths. Those that use misinformation to try to justify not using those tools and rallying people against their use are causing needless death and suffering.
I don't know anyone skipping the vaccine because of Rogan. They are skeptical because they see every highly vaccinated state or country that was cited as "doing it right" explode with Covid cases. Israel, Denmark, Spain, Portugal... all blew up regardless of hitting the highest vaccination rates in the world (and just before several fawning new stories circulated about "How _____________ beat Covid").
The vaccine was over promised and now it underdelivered. And we get articles like this trying to explain why:
"There’s another factor at play that could help explain why Vermont, in particular, has seen such high case counts in recent weeks: Only a small proportion of residents have had a COVID infection. That’s not the case across the country."
https://www.vpr.org/vpr-news/2021-12-01/why-vermonts-covid-surge-isnt-surprising
It's ok, we have struggled for 80 years to make an effective flu shot, perhaps the same challenges for vaccinating against influenza are what stopped our Covid vaccines from having the immunity we hoped.
What we really need to be talking about is how _China_ beat covid, and how well they've done returning to normal living, while the rest of us struggle, fight among ourselves, and die. If you search on YouTube for various "day in the life" videos of Americans living abroad in China, you can see the stark difference. And yet the NYT had that ridiculous opinion piece last week about how China's zero-covid policy is untenable. Whatever you call their policy, people seem to be enjoying normal lives over there.
The vaccine doesn't promise to keep one from getting Covid-19, it only promises to make the disease milder in vaccinated people. It delivers well on that promise. Case rates increase with awareness and testing.
>"The vaccine doesn't promise to keep one from getting Covid-19, it only promises to make the disease milder in vaccinated people."
Respectfully, Haidtophile (+1 for the username), That's not how it was promoted, and that seems to stray from the conventional definition of a vaccine. Would we say that of polio, smallpox, or diphtheria vaccines? When we rolled out those sterilizing vaccines, the viruses were reduced in correlation with the vaccine uptake rates (and eventually almost entirely eliminated). We didn't see, for example, chicken pox explode in the early nineties as we started rolling out the varicella vaccines.
We were told the vaccines would stop us from Covid 90-95% of the time, and "breakthrough" cases would be rare. That was the sales pitch. We have it on record. Selected "throwback" quotes:
"Ugur Sahin, whose company developed the first widely approved shot against COVID-19 with U.S. partner Pfizer... cited studies from Israel, which shares medical data on its vaccination campaign with Pfizer, showing that people who have been immunized rarely fall seriously ill and are significantly less likely to transmit the virus to others"
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-04-biontech-boss-europe-herd-immunity.html
(Anthony Fauci on why he agrees with the CDC lifting masks for vaccinated) "The risk of getting Covid once vaccinated is extraordinarily low"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVunlvs20qU
"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people don’t carry the virus, don’t get sick and that it’s not just in clinical trials, but it’s also in real world data,” - Rochelle Walensky to Rachel Maddow
https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442
"Well, I don't think we should be that concerned right now about how long they're effective. I think they will be effective long enough that we will get to the point where we are not going to be necessarily worrying about a surge." Anthony Fauci
https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2021/05/20/transcript-coronavirus-leadership-during-crisis-with-anthony-s-fauci-md/ (this whole article is a fascinating read)
"Here are some of the studies cited in CDC guidance that vaccines block transmission" - Monica Ghandi
https://twitter.com/MonicaGandhi9/status/1394301284556017664
(The chart can be found here with links to the studies: https://hividgm.ucsf.edu/sites/hiv.ucsf.edu/files/2021-04/Transmission%20Vaccine%20Table.pdf)
"Data suggest Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine prevents asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection"
"Latest data analysis finds unvaccinated individuals were 44 times more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19" - Pfizer Press release from success in Israel
https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/real-world-evidence-confirms-high-effectiveness-pfizer
"Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (≥14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status" - CDC MMWR
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm
_______________
It's only after cases started rising again, first in Israel and then the UK, before everywhere else in the world, did the messaging get shifted to the vaccines being only intended to reduce chance of death and serious illness. I'm sorry, but that seems to be a direct "goal post shift". No?
I'm happy to continue with good-faith discussion on this, because it is fascinating to me, and I love hearing different opinions, but at the same time I don't want to derail the comments section of this post.
When I wrote my last novel, I spent 4 years researching virology. I know how much I don't know, and have a great deal of humility about my profound ignorance. I listen carefully to what Fauci says and what the statistics say. I know that "vaccines" can be designed to accomplish any of a number of goals (e.g., there are cancer vaccines that do not purport to cure or prevent cancers). From the beginning, I understood that Covid19 vaccines (1) were not perfect -- on a world pop. of 7 billion, 10% breakthrough amounts to 700 million cases and (2) would prevent hospitalization, not infection. Many people filter the messages through their own preconceived and erroneous beliefs. I also understand that the goal is herd immunity, not prevention. Herd immunity can only happen if we all do this together. We are responsible for one another.
Excellent analysis. I Differ on this particular topic regarding Rogan’s guests because they are not outlandish or Shocking. The guests are exposing the disinformation and misinformation coming from government and Corporate Collaborators who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths through fear porn And lies regarding alternative treatments that could’ve saved up to 85% of the deaths while the CDC & Pharma spewed lies about the safety & effectiveness of these mRNA novel experimental pathogens. RFK Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci” brilliant analysis has more controversy in it, but a hell of a lot documented evidence the censors simply cannot tolerate for fear of mass murder charges and admitting to the massive deaths and economic destruction these Govt & Corporate homicidal maniacs have caused. Speaking of mass murder charges: https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/gates-fauci-and-daszak-charged-with-genocide-in-court-filing/article_76c6081c-61b8-11ec-ae59-7718e6d063ed.html
The vaccines aren't perfect but they've saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Were it not for people like Brett Weinstein many more would be saved. I don't think Rogan should be thrown off Spotify and I won't cancel it. I'm pretty much a free speech purist. Like Michael said, you have to answer bad arguments with good ones.
I'm not gonna' send you links. I'm just gonna' say this. The medical consensus in almost every country on earth (with the possible exception of barbarians like The Taliban) agree that the vaccines are our best weapon against the virus.
Every. Medical. Community. On. Earth.
Are there doctors who disagree? Of course. Maybe thousands. They might be right. I might be wrong. But that's a tiny fraction of the total of medical doctors around the planet.
Has cable news & twitter exaggerated the threat of the pandemic. I think so. Have the doctors & scientist gotten stuff wrong? Of course. It's a novel virus. We still don't know much about it. But if you dig deep into seriously non-partisan sources you'll see that the science on the vaccines is clearly one that makes it the best probable choice.
Think of our fellow heterodox people. Like Michael here. Or Sam Harris. Dawkins. Pinker. Scott Alexander. None of whom are part of the political establishment. They're all hated by both MAGA and WOKE. (Which is a good sign in my opinon). All the serious, honest thinkers seem to agree. Vaccines are the best option at the moment.
I'm not gonna' do my own research. I'm not a doctor or a scientist. I can't begin to understand how vaccines work. I will go with the consensus. Not because they're the "authority". Just because that's the best bet if you go with the probabilities.
We're all gonna' die someday. We make choices every day by consciously or unconsciously weighing the probabilities. There's a chance your & crazy RFK (he's been nuts for years, sorry) or the Weinstein brothers or random doctors on Joe Rogan are right and the hundreds of thousands of a-political doctors and scientists the world over are all wrong.
But it's a tiny probability. Like God existing, or the earth being flat. Or the Jets having a winning season. All possible. None probable. Don't put your money on any of that stuff.
I'll end by saying what I say to woke idiots. Is there a chance you're wrong & I (along with millions of medical experts the world over) are right? I've admitted I may be wrong. Can you admit as much? If not then again, the probability is that you've been ideologically captured.
I wish you well regardless.
I'll try & keep it short w/o links as well...but you would benefit immensely. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. Nor do I deny these illegal mRNA jabs didn't save the lives of millions w/ co-morbidities. Quarantining seniors & the most vulnerable was the standard practice. Fauci & the Pharma nutjobs decided to upend decades of established standards. The young & healthy most certainly didn't need the jabs, as evidence makes clear.
However, it's the censoring & banning of proven life-saving therapeutics like ivermectin that is an incontrovertible fact. I'm convinced Dr. McCullough and Dr. Kory are correct because the real world evidence is overwhelming. Early treatment & life-saving over the counter therapeutics would have saved up to 85% of the lives lost, and even likely those who took the jab based on information at the time.
I've been inoculated more times than there are countries on this planet. Lumping people who object to this jab (now proven ineffective) is a slur for those who otherwise don't object to traditional vaccines. I'm against illegally lab-produced bio-weapons produced in sub-standard facilities that the NIH & CDC are accountable for. No amount of bureaucratic subterfuge & MSM misinformation will make the facts go away. Dr. David Martin can go into scrupulous detail on how this was done. Use duckduckgo to search him out and listen to his interviews. Much of his research is getting used at the Hague where genocide & war crimes are filed right now.
As for RFK Jr.'s alleged nutery, I don't care. Alex Jones has said outrageously idiotic & factually wrong opinions in the past, but I don't kill the messenger when their content checks out with other reliable sources. RFK Jr. has damn good reliable sources...and over 2200 footnotes to back much of it up. If you want solid proof of war crimes, just go to pages 47-53 for a documented zoom call between Dr. Hill from the W.H.O. & the most respected meta-analyst in the world and decide for yourself. If you come to some other conclusion other than Pharma's complete capture of virtually every major corporate institution funded or controlled by Pharma's power & capture of Govt public health regulators, then I can't help you. But if you have the open mind you suggest you have, then read RFK Jr.'s book with an open mind to see just how much damage & destruction these sociopaths have committed & will continue to do if we let them. If the book is too long & painful to read, try the intro, pgs. 47-53, and the last chapter 12d. That pretty much summarizes the remarkable damage these Govt agencies (including DARPA & intel services) have done, in collaboration with Pharma, Big Tech, and other corporate entities that couldn't pass up the $$$ or threats posed by Pharma's enormous financial powers granted to them by an agency regulator that weaponized them.
"this jab (now proven ineffective)"
False. They are extremely effective against hospitalization and death. And also quite effective against infection. (Less so with each new variant.)
Anecdotal, but my wife, vaxxed & boosted. Got Covid two weeks ago. Our 16 year old and me, also vaxxed & boosted, didn't catch it from her. Despite sharing a bathroom. Without the vaccines she would have been in the hospital and the rest of us would have gotten sick. I'd put money on that.
Again, I could be wrong. Is there a chance you're wrong? Or are you sure you're right?
CB Miller, that is an excellent statement, and I agree with almost all of it. Although I think free speech should be the default, still I think there should be some limitations on it. When statements are false and harmful, I'd draw the line. But I haven't listened to Joe Rogan and his guests on the pandemic and vaccines, so I can't identify any statements of his or his guest's which should be censored. Maybe I'd think none. Not sure.
That line's too fuzzy.
"False" is not fuzzy. "Harmful" is a little fuzzy, but could be defined more precisely.
And yet some claims are blatantly false and others are obviously harmful. Isn't some censorship justified?
Depends on verifiable harm & independent and competent authorities to verify it. But what happens when those authorities are no longer reliable and have been captured by pseudoscience fanatics bent on mass murder?
Yes, I agree on the need for independent and competent authorities. We must take steps to exclude the biased and incompetent usurpers.