Hacker News Reader

Comment by fred_is_fred | Hacker News Reader

Whatever your opinion of Rogan's ideas - I find this to be misleading. Joe is 100% trying to be controversial, it's why he brings these guests on. It gets listeners. Howard Stern followed the same formula.

"I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," Rogan added.

View on HN

I had to search a bit for the right word to explain Rogan. He's being obtuse.

When he says he's not trying to be controversial, he doesn't mean that. It means he appears, exdternally, to not be controversial, but internally, he has an entire viewpoint and goal when he runs his interviews. Part of that is to get more people to believe his viewpoints, and part of that is to make more money by getting more viewers.

We can see through his act of playing dumb and "just letting people say things".

It's pretty interesting to see the same approach on a new format.

Stern did well by promoting sex and pushing the FCC limits which gave him huge notoriety. Rogan obviously capitalized on the new podcast format.

That begs the obvious question of what older enterprises would translate to Internet distribution. Stern -> radio.. Rogan -> podcasts.. Trump -> Twitter..

The line is crossed when, during a global pandemic, you promote a viewpoint (by only selecting vax-questioning guests).

Joe isn't unbiased here, he claimed Ivermectin cured him (doubtful) when he had COVID and remains unvaccinated.

I don't think it's just the Howard Stern formula.

> The line is crossed when, during a global pandemic, you promote a viewpoint (by only selecting vax-questioning guests).

Do Sanjay Gupta and Michael Osterholm fall into that group?

I remember the research being done on Ivermectin and found that the reasons a de-wormer helps fighting against Covid was due in part that many of the places that the study was performed, were in non-Western Europe countries. Places where worms and parasitic diseases are common, where getting one of two fights removed from your body will incredibly help the other fight.

So I either have to picture Joe as someone who's been infected with worms to the point that he needed a dewormer to help him, or he's giving a poor amount of anecdotal evidence. While the first is certainly able to exist, it's highly unlikely given his chances of having the parasitic infections are incredibly reduced in the United States.

I think it would absolutely awesome if somebody on youtube or elsewhere just sort of made up a long video where they explained that Joe got better from COVID because he had worms (possibly). IE, raise the idea in people's heads that Joe is a parasite-infested person. That sounds like absolutely the sort of thing that Joe would be totally OK with.

He thinks monoclonal antibodies made the biggest impact for his recovery. He points out that ivermectin was one of a list of things his doctor prescribed, yet the media and you focus on just one of those items to stir the pot

Right, but he took them in a way that nobody could say for sure what helped and what didn't. The problem is that he's not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong . I think it was a mistake for the press to criticize him for taking "horse pills" but it's fine to criticize him for making pseudoscientific statements about what made him feel better.

Is it natural thing for humans to talk about how their covid went?

Sadly, it's recently been concluded that monoclonals are completely ineffective against Omicron [1]. So if Joe got Delta, and people today believe his take that Regeneron will save them, they're in for a bit of a surprise.

[1] https://www.popsci.com/health/fda-monoclonal-antibody-treatm...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com