[mojzu]

I used to listen to Rogan quite a bit until I realised what his format was, if he has reasonable guests on he'll find something to challenge them over (great), if he has 'controversial' guests on he'll let them mostly talk unchallenged. I used to think that was because he was easily redirected by bullshit artists, but after the anti-vaccine/ivermectin reporting I think it's more likely he just agrees with them and wants them to have a bigger platform

Again I'm not arguing he should be censored or that any differences in opinion should be excised from the public domain. But giving people equal platforms lends them equal credibility to laypeople and the general public, which is why I think a good faith effort to interview controversial subjects would include a lot of disclaimers/warnings/replies from experts which Rogan makes no attempt to do

[jonhohle]

And so what if he does believe it? Is it so hard to believe that the continually moving efficacy or risk profile of a novel medical treatment is emergent? Less then a year ago fully vaccinated meant 90% efficacy. Today you need two more boosters and the scheduling is being changed to avoid heart inflammation. In the spring Rogan was taking horse dewormer, today there are several studies showing positive outcomes from ivermectin. I’m not sure Rogan is responsible for any more disinformation than mainstream sources and I’d argue _if_ his guests are misinformed, their suggestions are less dangerous than other, louder sources.