[lowkey]

I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?

As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides.

Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.

[AnEro]

> I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?

I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...

>Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.

I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.

[bandyaboot]

Are we to assume you would be willing to stake your life on anything you've ever said?

[lowkey]

Hey if I start spewing misinformation about my opponents while accusing them of not providing sources, all while failing to provide sources for my baseless claims like OP, then you can hold me to account. I never made such statements.

Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations.

I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.

[dekhn]

Instead of watching his episodes, I read descriptions of them on both the NY Times and Fox. By comparing how the two sites pull quotes and interpret them it's pretty clear what rogan does and says on his show. In fact I read a wide range of content. If I watched his show I imagine I'd last about 5 minutes before having to turn it off (I don't like the tone, the attitude, etc. What little I have seen seems to turn my brain off or into some sort of nonthinking being).

I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.

[lowkey]

Instead of getting direct evidence from the source I got all my information from their opponents. I don't need to review the source material. Instead I trust the opponents of the original source material to tell me the truth. Tell me I'm naive without telling me.

[bandyaboot]

Ahh, so it's this specific scenario that requires the staking of ones's life. Got it.

[lowkey]

It’s more about challenging hipocricy. The OP boldly claimed that Joe and his guests were spewing misinformation. OP provided no evidence for their claims, nor did they provide specific criticisms. Instead they spread FUD and misinformation of their own.

Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority?

OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.

[bandyaboot]

I get all of that. None of it changes the fact that asking them if they’d stake their life on it is just downright bizarre.

[lowkey]

The idiom of ‘betting’ or ‘staking’ one’s life on a claim is common where I’m from. To clarify, my intent was to call into question a claim by OP and asking OP to back up their claim or stand down.