He [Dr. Malone] used "mass formation psychosis" to describe the observed generality of what is happening and mentioned the historical effects learned from the Nuremberg trials to put it into a relatable context.
The discussion with Dr. Malone is quite fascinating. I would encourage everyone to watch the entire interview and be ready to take notes. There is a lot of information packed into this interview.
I will probably start by reviewing some of the papers he mentions. Then I will reach out to my friends in the scientific community. I'm sure they will be totally thrilled to answer all my dumb questions. Then when the dust settles I might reach out to one of the people he mentions who happens to be a friend of an acquaintance. Whatever questions remain might end up on StackExchange. [1][2][3] Oh and I might ask some questions here.
Gonna put it out there .. number of citations != real science. People are aware of the value of number of citations as a proxy metric and game the system for it.
He obviously is a real scientist. Still, plenty of individual scientists go off the deep end w.r.t. various subtopics. "Science" is the output of a community, not individuals.
Did he enter "inventor of <X>" in the area where you are supposed to enter labels of areas of interest?
That's not a good sign.
Seems like he was involved in the research, but he's not the one out of the hundreds of scientists involved that generally get given that title by others, so has to enter it himself in inappropriate places to ensure it shows up in his profile.
On mobile those didn't appear for me (probably something with my ad blocker), but on desktop they now do. They still appear to be 2 minutes and change long.
In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.
Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
He also retweeted claims that the Covid vaccines killed twice as many people as they saved.
Being critical of the vaccine is one thing, but that crosses into an extraordinary and borderline mathematically-infeasible claim that defies virtually all the published data and observations provided by the rest of the scientific and medical community, and requires strong evidence to support it.
> When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
What data supports what claim? You are also aware that anyone can submit reports to VAERS, right?
Until someone actively investigates the case and finds it was indeed caused by the vaccine, the VAERS data does not show anything. Using VAERS as your 'data' in a rhetoric is highly unscientific.
Let's also not forget how the raw VAERS data was used during the autism-vaccine link litigation. We should know better.
What I’m actually more worried about now is the stress on the medical system. I’ve seen reports and heard personally that the medical systems here in the US are pretty close to collapse.
It’s sad to think about, but isn’t the entire economy on the brink of uncertainty? What would give the medical system any exception to that besides the intervention by big brother - the exact intervention which really didn’t work during covid-19.
Our health care system was rotten and had broken incentives well before covid-19, I think the same factors that were keeping that system in the state before are now being stress tested and must either cave or continue to extract value in a self preserving way that would no longer work in this fast pace environment.
It’s not so much whether it’s a shock it’s this way. It’s a critical part of the civilization that once gone will endanger and lead to people dying in large numbers by things they ordinarily wouldn’t have died. There’s no fast way to replace them, too.
Tangent, I’ve seen articles musing about hospitality staff shifting to these positions from hotels, restaurants, and the like. The article I read clearly had no firm grasp on the knowledge and years of training needed to replace a nurse or even a tech.
Exactly. How do we know this wasn’t just copyright protection? And in any case, YouTube is notorious for removing anything controversial with no regard for censorship concerns. It’s what they do.
He's allowed to post short clips from his Spotify episodes on YouTube, these were what was deleted. He hasn't had full episodes on YouTube ever since he moved to Spotify.
The reason he doesn't publish more videos is that if he does Youtube will give him more 'strikes' and eventually delete his channel and all his content
It is strategically better to preserve his existing YT presence. And for that it is smart not to publish anything else
I don't know much about this guy, other than my conspiracy-laden mother citing him as reason enough to not take a vaccine. Along with the vaccine giving you the virus, it being dangerous, and so on. She's a polio survivor former alcoholic who has smoked a pack a day for most of the past 40 years - the hypocrisy and blindness hurts me.
So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.
Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.
At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.
Trying to find and capture politicians during the process of certifying a national election in the United States is rebellion, not protest. The people who did that may have thought they were saving the country from a stolen election, but they were on the wrong side of history and reality.
None of the college students in your videos were trying to murder the prime minister or bash law enforcement in the head with a fire extinguisher.
To make this reply relevant to the discussion, my point is that the incumbent loser of an election told lies in order to rally his followers to violent protest/riot. That is a rare example of a justified ban from all social media for a public figure.
If you honestly think the protestors tried to overthrow the government, how come not one of them brought an assault rifle along and the large majority was totally unarmed? Worst coup attempt ever.
How did Trump rally the protesters when he explicitly told them to stay peaceful before and after they walked into the capitol building?
Fallacy of armed plot being required to destabilize (or otherwise drastically change) civil society.
Fallacy of someone literally saying "don't be hostile" while lying to an angry crowd about something so enraging to their beliefs that it is incredibly likely they will become hostile.
Just because they weren't armed doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection. Republican leadership (McConnell) have used that term to describe it. They disrupted an important session to say something they thought was important, bringing tactical gear that would not be appropriate for a protest. What exactly were they protesting, while milling about in the Capitol building with several in-groups looking for political leaders to capture?
Oh, right - they were protesting a free and fair election that they lost. Their evidence was 100% baseless conspiracy theories - except in the rare case when fraud was found, it was found to be fraud in favor of their ticket (and extraordinarily limited in scope).
JFC, if you can't see that 6Jan was a bad thing for democracy, I don't think there's much more to discuss. I, for one, am excited for every day those assholes spend in prison and believe their coordination should be used as evidence of a coordinated attack on the US' legitimately elected government.
"This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation – not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will."
Clearly Mitch is a CNN plant...
So is Kelly Meggs (of Proud Boys notoriety):
“Then wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection”
I think you are 100% correct he can have his own website with podcast and video on it. He just can’t use private social network when he break their term.
It’s the same as trying to post porn on facebook. They are not tumblr and will not allow it.
The saying may relate to a clock, but it doesn't apply to human being. People who have psychotic tendences will display remarkably consistent wrongness. Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
>Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
because even those with psychotic tendencies tend to express them with a level of consistency.
Example : A paranoid schizophrenic may tell everyone that he's being followed habitually, but that doesn't mean he's wrong -- in fact in some cases the (three letter agencies) may use this trait to their advantage.[0]
How is it a fallacy? Just because someone (and we are really talking about a person here so please excuse the naive analogy) has a questionable past doesn't mean that what they are currently saying is incorrect.
We don’t ask questions like that around here, it induces vaccine hesitancy and sounds like misinformation. And we like to not ask questions that make us look anti mainstream.
Why do people pretend this is some kind of deep philosophical conundrum? In this case Twitter, who hires the fact checkers, and the audience, who comments on what the fact checkers do, or is free to leave the service. Your comment and the article you are commenting on and this very discussion is 'checking the fact-checker'.
Same way accountability in any system with many actors works, in reciprocal fashion.
No one is pretending that it presents a philosophical conundrum -- it is exactly that.
The vast majority of people would appear to miss this conundrum entirely and thereby never consider the fallibility and corruptibility of fact-checkers and/or experts.
If you do not agree with this viewpoint fine, but to try to attribute deceit ("pretending" in your words) to anybody who thinks differently about it from you seems really odd and highly presumptuous to me.
Fact checkers are just a name like antifa, to make it sound like if you are against them, you are anti-fact and therefore a crazy person. Smart play with naming.
I mean, the fact that 1 reputable scientist doesn't approve the vaccine doesn't disqualifies the thousands of reputable scientists that approves it. Scientific consensus is never unanimous.
Malone's been bootstrapping this "cancelled scientist" grift in plain sight since his appearance on Weinstein's podcast.
It's a formula you see over and over again.
1) Say enough shit to get your hand slapped
2) Do the IDW podcast tour to whine about the "establishment" and plug your Patreon and/or supplements.
3) Get bankrolled by Thiel.
Ivermectin is not horse dewormer, characterizing it as such is just lazy propaganda. It's primarily human dewormer. The whole idea of it being a house dewormer came about because the medicine intended for human use sold out around the initial hype, and desperate people bought the doses intended for animals instead.
Many medicines have multiple uses that are not at all related. For example, Botox is used for stretching old skin to look nice but also used to treat migraines. Ketamine is horse tranquilizer but is also used to treat depression, etc
(...much like your comment) It's an anti-parasitic medication. Doses much higher than the maximum approved or safely achievable for use in humans would be required for an antiviral effect.
Research failed to confirm the utility of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. [1] Much of the research indicating otherwise was fraudulent or misleading. [2]
There's no substantial evidence that Ivermectin effectively treats COVID-19 in humans, or that it should be taken as an alternative to being vaccinated.
A worm is a parasite (which Ivermectin effectively treats). A parasite (in this sense) is not a virus. Ivermectin does not treat the COVID-19 virus. The GP was glib and insulting but not entirely off base.
I don't know much about ivermectin (could be useless, don't know or care), but your framing makes as much sense as saying people think injecting mold in their butt will cure syphilis.
It's lazy, but from what I have heard from people I trust (which itself is lazy, since I haven't searched journal articles) is that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that Ivermectin is a useful therapeutic for covid infection.
You are correct that the "horse dewormer" meme was due to desperate people buying industrial amounts, not human amounts, from vet supply shops. It's worth mocking because these people are desperately avoiding mainstream medical advice per se.
And to think a comedy show framed it better than their mainstream counterparts..
Here's Jimmy Dore's [1] segment referencing a WaPo article [2] and Dr. John Campbell's [3] analysis on why "Japan is doing better" because of this stupid "horse dewormer" narrative.
If you got it from your doctor it's for humans. If you're eating out of a tube that say it's for horses with a picture of a horse on it then you're eating horse dewormer paste. If you don't want people saying you're eating horse dewormer go to your damn doctor.
My brother is a farmer and he uses it for his sheep , they also give it to birds to control mosquito's that spreads the West Nile virus and to humans infected with fly larva that causes river blindness.
I think he is rather miffed that he never got the credit he felt he deserved for the initial work he did - he also lost out on money when the early patents was re-assigned to another company.
His words - "They got rich on the products of my mind.”
Too many notable Weinsteins! I think the grandparent comment is actually referring to Bret's brother Eric, the parent is about Bret, and the commenter you're responding to may be confusing them with the unrelated Harvey.
> Malone's been bootstrapping this "cancelled scientist" grift in plain sight since his appearance on Weinstein's podcast.
But he actually was censored.
Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.
And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.
You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.
If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.
There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.
Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.
Context is everything. The life and death ramifications of misinformation on this specific issue make this more than just an abstract disagreement of principles.
Why are YouTube and Twitter considered the bad guys here? Joe Rogan signed an exclusivity deal with Spotify, republishing the content somewhere else without Spotify's consent is copyright infringement and the other platforms are legally obliged to take it down.
119 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadhttps://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
In context this clearly refers to Nazi Germany, I don't believe he used the word. That was added by the far-right tabloid publishing this article.
"How does an educated and intelligent society succumb to and embrace extreme ideas?"
The longer clip is quite interesting to ponder in it's relation to our current issues with tribalism.
[1] - https://biology.stackexchange.com/
[2] - https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/
[3] - https://psychology.stackexchange.com/
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&hl=en
This comment was brought to you by Pfizer.
What’s your point? That pharmacy isn’t gaming it but one man is?
That's not a good sign.
Seems like he was involved in the research, but he's not the one out of the hundreds of scientists involved that generally get given that title by others, so has to enter it himself in inappropriate places to ensure it shows up in his profile.
Article contains embedded video of the entire interview on Twitter.
He has a personal website with some more details on who he is: https://www.rwmalonemd.com/
In his own words, he's a scientist that believes in vaccines, but believe that too many shortcuts has been taken in developing the Covid-vaccines, and that big pharma has too much influence in forcing them onto everyone.
Don't know if this is true or not, but just a quick summary of what his stance seems to be.
Being critical of the vaccine is one thing, but that crosses into an extraordinary and borderline mathematically-infeasible claim that defies virtually all the published data and observations provided by the rest of the scientific and medical community, and requires strong evidence to support it.
There is literally no other data available to you or I. What data are you using to support your claim?
> When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.
What data supports what claim? You are also aware that anyone can submit reports to VAERS, right?
Until someone actively investigates the case and finds it was indeed caused by the vaccine, the VAERS data does not show anything. Using VAERS as your 'data' in a rhetoric is highly unscientific.
Let's also not forget how the raw VAERS data was used during the autism-vaccine link litigation. We should know better.
Our health care system was rotten and had broken incentives well before covid-19, I think the same factors that were keeping that system in the state before are now being stress tested and must either cave or continue to extract value in a self preserving way that would no longer work in this fast pace environment.
Tangent, I’ve seen articles musing about hospitality staff shifting to these positions from hotels, restaurants, and the like. The article I read clearly had no firm grasp on the knowledge and years of training needed to replace a nurse or even a tech.
It is strategically better to preserve his existing YT presence. And for that it is smart not to publish anything else
So I'm inclined, without knowing more, to say this man is at the least an unwilling tool of antivax conspirators. Does that mean it's right to ban him from social media? It was one thing to ban a treasonous president for fomenting an insurrection at the Capitol. It's another to ban scientists who invoke Godwin's law on a discussion regarding vaccine mandates.
Suspending public figures should be a matter of emergency and dire consequence, not a habit. Even if I understand the "private website" perspective, and believe individual websites have a lot of legal leeway to ban as they wish, bans like this will have a backlash effect. Victim-complex people will cry out, and slippery-slope people will cry out.
At least the man can still have a personal website if people wish to listen to him - he is still more accessible today than most people in the world were just 20 years ago.
Funny enough, that's why Dr. Malone isn't against vaccines at all, he's against mandates. (and vaccinating kids, specifically.)
I'm also not at all convinced he's the one invoking Godwin's law. If you have 5 minutes, check out the relevant section of the interview: https://odysee.com/@altmedia96:2/dr-robert-malone-joe-rogan-...
None of the college students in your videos were trying to murder the prime minister or bash law enforcement in the head with a fire extinguisher.
To make this reply relevant to the discussion, my point is that the incumbent loser of an election told lies in order to rally his followers to violent protest/riot. That is a rare example of a justified ban from all social media for a public figure.
Fallacy of someone literally saying "don't be hostile" while lying to an angry crowd about something so enraging to their beliefs that it is incredibly likely they will become hostile.
Oh, right - they were protesting a free and fair election that they lost. Their evidence was 100% baseless conspiracy theories - except in the rare case when fraud was found, it was found to be fraud in favor of their ticket (and extraordinarily limited in scope).
JFC, if you can't see that 6Jan was a bad thing for democracy, I don't think there's much more to discuss. I, for one, am excited for every day those assholes spend in prison and believe their coordination should be used as evidence of a coordinated attack on the US' legitimately elected government.
"This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial the task before us is for our republic. Our nation was founded precisely so that the free choice of the American people is what shapes our self-government and determines the destiny of our nation – not fear, not force, but the peaceful expression of the popular will."
Clearly Mitch is a CNN plant...
So is Kelly Meggs (of Proud Boys notoriety): “Then wait for the 6th when we are all in DC to insurrection”
It’s the same as trying to post porn on facebook. They are not tumblr and will not allow it.
A broken clock is correct twice a day. Don't disregard a perspective based on the channel.
The saying may relate to a clock, but it doesn't apply to human being. People who have psychotic tendences will display remarkably consistent wrongness. Why would a person who is broken be right ever? Because a specifically broken type of clock is?
because even those with psychotic tendencies tend to express them with a level of consistency.
Example : A paranoid schizophrenic may tell everyone that he's being followed habitually, but that doesn't mean he's wrong -- in fact in some cases the (three letter agencies) may use this trait to their advantage.[0]
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/family-fbi-knew-oklahoma-bomb-p...
Same way accountability in any system with many actors works, in reciprocal fashion.
The vast majority of people would appear to miss this conundrum entirely and thereby never consider the fallibility and corruptibility of fact-checkers and/or experts.
If you do not agree with this viewpoint fine, but to try to attribute deceit ("pretending" in your words) to anybody who thinks differently about it from you seems really odd and highly presumptuous to me.
The condundrum isn't who, it's whether they're doing a good job.
Fact checkers are just a name like antifa, to make it sound like if you are against them, you are anti-fact and therefore a crazy person. Smart play with naming.
Fact checkers are just "narrative control".
The same Rogan with a Spotify deal? He...is big tech.
https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/
It's a formula you see over and over again. 1) Say enough shit to get your hand slapped 2) Do the IDW podcast tour to whine about the "establishment" and plug your Patreon and/or supplements. 3) Get bankrolled by Thiel.
No need to downplay it by calling it “horse dewormer” now that we know where the correlations come from. “human dewormer” might be more accurate!
Research failed to confirm the utility of Ivermectin for treating COVID-19. [1] Much of the research indicating otherwise was fraudulent or misleading. [2]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809
Statement #2: "This suggested treatment does not have the desired effect in clinical trials. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406455/"
Can you agree that those are entirely different statements? And that one is trolling while the other is informative?
2 is useful information and additive to conversation
1 is just juvenile and belongs to Reddit not hacker news
A worm is a parasite (which Ivermectin effectively treats). A parasite (in this sense) is not a virus. Ivermectin does not treat the COVID-19 virus. The GP was glib and insulting but not entirely off base.
You are correct that the "horse dewormer" meme was due to desperate people buying industrial amounts, not human amounts, from vet supply shops. It's worth mocking because these people are desperately avoiding mainstream medical advice per se.
Here's Jimmy Dore's [1] segment referencing a WaPo article [2] and Dr. John Campbell's [3] analysis on why "Japan is doing better" because of this stupid "horse dewormer" narrative.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S5YG7X52PE
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/22/japan-covid-...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1GF0H9V_1g
Please educate yourself about ivermectin.
https://vetmedbiosci.colostate.edu/vth/services/equine-field...
His words - "They got rich on the products of my mind.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
But I suppose that was just a master plan to cash in on the IDW.
I don't think Weinstein's "exile" was done intentionally, but his arc did establish a career path with a huge audience and wealthy patronage.
But he actually was censored.
Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.
And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.
You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.
If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.
There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.
Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.
That's not censorship at all.