[jmcgough]

There are plenty of bright people who convince themselves of something that's crazy and unsupported by evidence. It's classic confirmation bias.

Linus Pauling was one of the founders of molecular biology and spent part of his later life advocating that people megadose vitamin c to cure heart disease, something that could have very well hurt people who chose that over a more evidence-backed treatment.

Steve Jobs tried treating his cancer through juice cleanses until it became too late-stage to treat conventionally.

Malone really should not be given a platform. We know that being unvaccinated can make covid way more severe and puts you at 14x higher risk of death from covid, and there is a huge body of evidence on covid vaccine efficacy from the literal billions of people worldwide who have been vaccinated.

People will almost certainly die because he lends credibility to anti-vaccination arguments.

[edmcnulty101]

Malone is vaccinated. He's against vaccine mandates.

The surpreme court seems to agree with Malone as well.

Should the surpreme court be deplatformed?

[jmcgough]

Does the supreme court have a justice who gives interviews on hugely popular podcasts about why vaccines are dangerous?

[beerandt]

It doesn't need popularity to make its decrees accepted or even believed: they are by definition the controlling law of the land. Whether you read their opinions or not.

You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?

[edmcnulty101]

Maybe the reason the podcast is so popular is because there's some truth to it.

Your views may not be as accurate as you believe.