5 ms·

I love Joe Rogan and his podcast, but be aware that we live in such a complex world, any representation will be a mis-representation to some extend. How much o

I love Joe Rogan and his podcast, but be aware that we live in such a complex world, any representation will be a mis-representation to some extend. How much of a mis-representation is extremely hard to judge, because often it's not done deliberately. Wikipedia says about Peter McCullough: "During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough promoted misinformation and falsehoods about COVID-19, the COVID-19 vaccine, and COVID-19 treatments." That's definitely concern to be very skeptical.

jcbrand 5y ago
It's good to be skeptical, and yet I hope you have an open enough mind to listen to the interview.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  An open mind definitely, likely not the time to do it though. I've gone down similar rabbit holes for a number of related issues, and every single time what started as a disagreement with the scientific consensus in say, issue A, turned into a disagreement also with B, C, D, E, F and so on. What remained was the disagreement with the scientific consensus. How likely is that? If it's any helpful, that's my heuristic to spot valid criticism.
pbaka 5y ago
Are you really a skeptic ? You just used an easiy disproved oblique ad-hominem to lessen his credibility without even having actually researched the man. It sounded like a "sources have indicated" TV hit piece. He developped part of the early treatment protocols Covid everybody is using in Spring 2020. Before that, he was one of the foremost authorities in clinical cardiology in the US, full Professor at a major university (Texas A&M), Masters in public health, also editor of two journals, and is in the five most cited researchers in the US. He was "the man" in his field, and people around the world can thank his discoveries for having survived Covid. Yet, he somehow started being a misinformer and losing credit the moment he talked about the vaccines in a less than flattering way. The "talk" page tab of the same wikipedia page you are citing is quite revealing in that regard.
zpeti 5y ago
I'm not saying trust McCullough, because I listened to some of that podcast and some of what he said I really think is bullshit and wrong... BUT... I also seriously don't trust any tech platform on covid information at this point. It's clear there is something along the lines of massive regulatory capture of tech platforms by the official FDA, CDC, NIH lines and they hardly ever allow dissent. Time and time again it's been proved that the censorship has been too much. Lab leak hypothesis, vaccine safety, vaccine stopping the spread to name a few. It's clear that the black and white censorship that's happened (it's not a lab leak, vaccines are safe), is just not true. Both those things are pretty gray areas, as this study shows. The vaccine is basically turning into a personal trolley problem for everyone. Do I take the vaccine and make an active decision and take a small risk, or do I not take action and take a slightly bigger risk? It's clear there isn't a risk free option, which is what vaccines were sold as. So, tldr, I think taking that sentence from wikipedia as some sort of indicator is not a good idea.
- icoder 5y ago
  I find it interesting how your (assumed) US based 'feel' is different from my Netherlands based one, which could be a difference between us, our countries, or both. We've been getting - in my opinion - rather fair and unbiased information, including when and where they simply did not know, were uncertain or disagreed (that's not to say I agree with all decisions or lack thereof). I see the 'it's not a lab leak' as China's narrative, which, well, by definition I can not see as black and white. It has never been communicated or pushed as a 'fact' here either, as far as I can remember. As for vaccine safety, possibly side effects have always been taken seriously here, halting vaccination when there was doubt (astra I believe) and giving certain vaccines (not) to certain age groups. Also, I personally think vaccines are safe. No, there's no flat out 100% guarantee that you will NOT have any side effects, but chances are so small and they are often temporary. I still call that safe. Yes, there's a chance you're that very unlucky one. It's something you can say to yourself throughout the entire day, when you get in the car, get on a plane, ride your bike, walk through the city at night, eat food, enjoy nature, or even sneeze. Yet we don't, we just go and live our lives. I do understand it feels different when it's a conscious choice you have to make, but that doesn't change the numbers.

jcbrand 5y ago

It's good to be skeptical, and yet I hope you have an open enough mind to listen to the interview.

Pyramus 5y ago
An open mind definitely, likely not the time to do it though. I've gone down similar rabbit holes for a number of related issues, and every single time what started as a disagreement with the scientific consensus in say, issue A, turned into a disagreement also with B, C, D, E, F and so on. What remained was the disagreement with the scientific consensus. How likely is that? If it's any helpful, that's my heuristic to spot valid criticism.

pbaka 5y ago

Are you really a skeptic ? You just used an easiy disproved oblique ad-hominem to lessen his credibility without even having actually researched the man. It sounded like a "sources have indicated" TV hit piece. He developped part of the early treatment protocols Covid everybody is using in Spring 2020. Before that, he was one of the foremost authorities in clinical cardiology in the US, full Professor at a major university (Texas A&M), Masters in public health, also editor of two journals, and is in the five most cited researchers in the US. He was "the man" in his field, and people around the world can thank his discoveries for having survived Covid. Yet, he somehow started being a misinformer and losing credit the moment he talked about the vaccines in a less than flattering way. The "talk" page tab of the same wikipedia page you are citing is quite revealing in that regard.

zpeti 5y ago

I'm not saying trust McCullough, because I listened to some of that podcast and some of what he said I really think is bullshit and wrong... BUT... I also seriously don't trust any tech platform on covid information at this point. It's clear there is something along the lines of massive regulatory capture of tech platforms by the official FDA, CDC, NIH lines and they hardly ever allow dissent. Time and time again it's been proved that the censorship has been too much. Lab leak hypothesis, vaccine safety, vaccine stopping the spread to name a few. It's clear that the black and white censorship that's happened (it's not a lab leak, vaccines are safe), is just not true. Both those things are pretty gray areas, as this study shows. The vaccine is basically turning into a personal trolley problem for everyone. Do I take the vaccine and make an active decision and take a small risk, or do I not take action and take a slightly bigger risk? It's clear there isn't a risk free option, which is what vaccines were sold as. So, tldr, I think taking that sentence from wikipedia as some sort of indicator is not a good idea.

icoder 5y ago
I find it interesting how your (assumed) US based 'feel' is different from my Netherlands based one, which could be a difference between us, our countries, or both. We've been getting - in my opinion - rather fair and unbiased information, including when and where they simply did not know, were uncertain or disagreed (that's not to say I agree with all decisions or lack thereof). I see the 'it's not a lab leak' as China's narrative, which, well, by definition I can not see as black and white. It has never been communicated or pushed as a 'fact' here either, as far as I can remember. As for vaccine safety, possibly side effects have always been taken seriously here, halting vaccination when there was doubt (astra I believe) and giving certain vaccines (not) to certain age groups. Also, I personally think vaccines are safe. No, there's no flat out 100% guarantee that you will NOT have any side effects, but chances are so small and they are often temporary. I still call that safe. Yes, there's a chance you're that very unlucky one. It's something you can say to yourself throughout the entire day, when you get in the car, get on a plane, ride your bike, walk through the city at night, eat food, enjoy nature, or even sneeze. Yet we don't, we just go and live our lives. I do understand it feels different when it's a conscious choice you have to make, but that doesn't change the numbers.