[dekhn]

From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.

[jayspell]

If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.

[dekhn]

"The two guests sound very reasonable". Do you mean Malone? https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jan/06/who-robert-ma... sums it up; he's made numerous statements that are almost certainly false.

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

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

[jayspell]

Can you highlight some of the BS?

[jayspell]

Not a troll, appreciate you taking the time to respond. Believe the thread is too deep to respond directly to you. Another question if you have the time - what makes you trust one source over another? For instance when the WHO and CDC don't agree what makes you trust one source over the other?

[dekhn]

I trust the NIH over the CDC over WHO, generally. But actually my trust model for science is very complex because I was trained as a scientist and know how to interpret what they say, including pseudoscientists and well-meaning but clueless doctors. I also keep a close eye on how mainstream changes over time by reading the blogs of various doctors and watching grand rounds. Most of these things wouldn't make sense to a typical Rogan viewer (and would be super-boring anyway) but they do sort of show how the process of beliefs change over time and how to work within the system to get people to agree with you.

[dekhn]

You want me to... highlight the details from the fact-checking report?

OK. Here's the ones I ignore:

He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here.

False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet.

False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff...

Here are the serious ones:

Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai... "A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said.

Distorted statements about the approval status of vaccines: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor...

I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them.

If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above.

If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted.

If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted.

If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.