Oh, I forgot to point out. The university in Japan has nothing to do with Rogan. They're just scientist finding data and don't care about what Rogan says whether he backs them or not. I assume they do care if Rogan uses their data to abuse other people like Rogan has done before... but I dont know them personally and just making an assumption based on what a scientists is meant to do
A Group of 270 Scientists, Doctors, etc. Submit Open Letter to Spotify Regarding Joe Rogan (JRE)
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
What the heck would the phase III even be? I dunno if a drug that is already in use worldwide needs extensive trials anymore. You can just prescribe it off-label and study the results.
Reuters articles that show up in my facebook feed have had a real weird slant, especially in headlines, as if they're sympathetic to anti-vaxxers, while still pretending impartiality.
Phase I is a basic safety study with a small number of subjects. Phase II is an extended safety and basic efficacy trial with a larger number of subjects. Phase III is the main efficacy trial (although safety checks also relevant) with an even larger number of subjects.
Ivermectin is safe, but it still needs an efficacy trial.
You know what I spent the last hour doing? 'Discussing' with someone whether Joe Rogan was neutral. I cannot understand how anyone could call Rogan neutral but clearly they are the same ones who think Reuters is good
Relative to most news sources, Reuters is good on a lot of subjects. It's one of very few which focus on a wide range of international stories and do so pretty dispassionately. This ivermectin thing was a pretty big error, but they corrected it speedily and prominently pointed out the correction.
Joe Rogan is the modern day definition of "moderate". Basically it's code for US style libertarianism.
Mm, not sure that's really true.
I think what has happened is that a lot of people with libertarian inclinations left the Republican Party and became "independent" in terms of party affiliation (but still reliably vote Republican, and hence why independents lean Republican).
However, moderate more means forms of centreists in between conservatism and liberalism, and I think moderates tend to mostly vote Democrat: conservatives are about 40% of the population, moderates about 40% and liberals about 20-25% - thus moderates must lean Democrat, and tend not to be libertarians.
I had moderate in quotations for a reason. I don't actually think that's what a moderate is. It was more aimed at the kind of people who cite Jordan Peterson as anything other than a 100% tradcon and use lack of party affiliatian to mean "centrist" because "both sides are just as bad".
In the midst of a pandemic, it was never right to demonize people for attempting treatments with medicines previously established as safe for human consumption. Both hydroxy chloroquine and ivermectin had reasons they showed promise and have doctors around the world still prescribing them as covid treatment out of belief they work. If a doctor prescribed me medicine, I would take it. I don't see a meaningful difference between the anti-vaxxers and those demonizing attempted treatments.
I don't know if that's true. I think he had the stance because he took Ivermectin when he got Covid and he recovered from Covid in only a couple days. I don't know if ivermectin really helped him that much because Rogan is in INSANE shape physically and is a health nut so his own health probably did a lot of the heavy lifting in kicking Covid. But he was very open about not only taking the drug but taking it because his doctor perscribed it. Then the media (especially CNN who hates him for some reason) dogpiled on him. To the point where he had the "Doctor" from CNN on his not eshow and he called his ass out. The doctor had no good comebacks or defense, because both Rogan and the doctor knew it was a smear campaign. Then that fucking doctor went back to CNN and they continued to talk shit about Rogan like nothing happened.
See i don't know about that. I think doctors WERE studying the drug in regards to this at the time, but tbh the timeline of evidence is really hazy for me. You might be right.
But I'm willing to bet if they prove that ivermectin is a great help in fighting covid, for whatever reason, people will still talk shit about Rogan for it.
You can't trust CNN for a lot of reasons. I don't remember ever citing that insulting Rogan was a big reason for me iirc.
A lot of people got the vaccine and got it pretty damn quickly. At this point we are 75%ish percent fully vaccination and it has done fuck all for the spread of covid. That is what people are upset about, and why many aren't getting the vaccine. Remember when vaccination meant no more masks? Now we need even BETTER masks, AND be vaccinated. But you can still go to a restaurant and not wear a mask at the table? Because covid doesn't get you when you are eat, that's a rule.
Everything around this pandemic has been a fucking shitshow of bullshit and shitty politicians not doing their part to make people understand and curb this.
People like Rogan probably didn't help. But he is far from the only source of bullshit that has prolonged this garbage.
No actually. They actually completely edited the article to remove 90% of what it had said. Which likely was to correct translation errors more than anything, then I immediately found more accurate info from Japan which I posted in the edit.
Seems straightforward to me.
You don't see the difference between people who come up with conspiracy theories and demonize a proven vaccine which has saved thousands of lives and people who do not consider it ethical for doctors/people to promote medication which has been shown NOT to work? You really don't see it?!
Let's leave aside "demonise" as a loaded, weasel word. "Criticise" is better.
I can get doctors feeling overwhelmed, frustrated and desperate. It is at some level fine that HCQ and ivermectin were doled out in the hope they would do anything useful, and particularly when under intense pressure from patients and governments. Many doctors will have limited knowledge, and be reliant on government guidance, word of mouth, etc. and I can understand many just reading that others were doing it and thought they may as well too.
But on the other hand, medical doctors also have a professional responsibility to pursue good treatment. I cannot help but point out, not least because I teach pharmacology to medical students, that drugs (even "safe" ones) do harm, and there is a basic medical principle to not do harm and limit use of drugs. (That is part of the point of prescriptions, after all.) Elements of HCQ, ivermectin, quercetin etc. were more akin to mass hysteria and bandwagon jumping than the reasoned and evidence-based processes we should expect medicine to be. From a systemic point of view, this was a huge failure in the healthcare sector during covid.
So as individuals I might give a broad pass to many tens of thousands of doctors worldwide who loaded up patients with probably useless drugs.
However, we absolutely can be intensely critical of a select band of physicians whose advancement of unproven and quack remedies was reckless and incompetent. These would be people like Pierre Kory and his buddies in the FLCCC, various authors of poorly designed meta-analyses (who as far as I can see were far from without ideological biases) especially because of their contribution to the rash of ill-founded prescribing across the world. When we then get to "America's Frontline Doctors" it's even worse: people who sold out their professionalism to political ideology in the blink of an eye. All these people richly deserve their place on a rogue's gallery of the medical profession during Covid.
It's not better. "Demonize" is an accurate description when they pretend ivermectin is just a drug for horses and publish studies based on false data claiming hydroxychloroquine actually made more people die. Those things are not criticism. They are, as you say, "selling out their profession to political ideology".
People tried to claim hydroxychloroquine was deadly all and only because Donald Trump said it might work. That's what you aren't seeing.
Who tried to claim that? I have seen people claim it can be deadly to promote useless treatments over useful ones, which is true. Surely you didn't miss the fact those who promote pseudo treatments like hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are usually the same ones who defied anti Covid measures and the vaccines?! Take Trump, he continuously tried to minimize the threat and undermined states with strict anti covid measures while trying to sell unproven treatments. That's dangerous and deadly, yes. But a doctor who missed the latest studies about these treatments and falsely believes they work won't be demonized JUST because he offers those treatments.
Heck some (many?) Hospitals did order and use hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in the early pandemic when it was believed it could have helped and we had nothing better to offer. But once the science has shown the test tube results didn't actually translate into real-use results they stopped using it.
Now that's quite sweet, because I don't think you know much of what you're taking about.
The man you're probably referring to is Sapan Desai MD, who had a substantial history of dubious and grandiose claims, graft and even allegedly malpractice. What was his "political" ideology, precisely? Because I don't think it was ever mentioned. And more to the point, I don't think given his history that it was remotely relevant.
Furthermore, for the record, there are reputable meta-analyses that suggest outcomes for HCQ might have been slightly worse than non-HCQ, although not significant.
What this claim is about is trying to create an equivalence between a few Twitterati overreacting to Trump, and organised movements and bodies attacking verifiable science and medicine. Because apparently they're the same thing. Or something.
At core is also an the stance that Trump can rant, rave, lie, bluster, bullshit and mislead, but the only people who warrant criticism are the people who oppose him with less than perfect information and reasonable tone. Trump never does anything wrong, only the people reacting to him. Trump doesn't have to exercise responsibility, restraint and decency, only his opponents. And thus magically the Republicans are always blameless.
Hydroxychloroquine: Trump's Covid-19 'cure' increases deaths, global study finds
Malaria drug should not be used to treat coronavirus, scientists say, after study shows high death rate
www.theguardian.com
A grifter made up the data to capitalize on the Trump hatred, and people bought into it.
And the many people who bought into it are irrelevant? A grifter correctly identified that a particular political persuasion was vulnerable to his exploitation, the politics of that are not irrelevant.
Let's say that hypothetically does happen. How does that make Rogan anything other than a blind squirrel who accidentally found a nut? He's still a dumb jock and a bullshit artist.