After some thought over the weekend, I want to address the on-going media campaign and commentary onslaught against Joe Rogan that emerged last week, because it speaks to a larger issue.
This commentary revolves around Joe Rogan’s perceived role in the continued spread of misinformation, his apparent bias, the lack of legitimacy attached to certain guests he’s had on (specifically, McCullough and Malone). We’ve also all seen the continued commentary/praise in response to the group of doctors currently urging Spotify to censor select Joe Rogan Experience episodes, or remove him from the platform altogether. Across social media and within conversations, I'm seeing comments to the tune of:
“This is why we should trust REAL doctors and epidemiologists”
“Follow the science”
“Stop buying into the ridiculous anti-vax narrative”
“Stop going to Joe Rogan for information that he’s entirely unqualified to share”
I’ve also seen countless people share clips from his recent episode with Josh Szeps, a well-known Australian media personality, to further illustrate their opinion that he is misinformed and out of his depth. Regardless of your opinion on the man, what he may or may not represent, his career, and the content of his podcast, I urge you to put personal opinion aside for a second to consider the argument(s) being made here. Rogan is, undoubtedly, an entertainer by trade. But his job as a podcast host is simply to hold space for conversations. That’s what podcasts are – conversations and/or debates.
Whether or not you like him as a person/public personality (or agree with his political opinions etc.), I would argue that it’s incredibly valuable that he routinely invites perspectives and opinions from either “side” onto his show (ex. Josh Szeps and Sanjay Gupta, as well as respected doctors like Peter Attia and Rhonda Patrick who are very pro-vaccine, contrasted by guests like Malone and McCullough who are critical of the vaccine).
If you ask me, this is largely what’s missing from legacy news and other media outlets. Across mainstream channels, there is often no debate or diversity in ideological standing. If you think otherwise, I would urge you to read Hate Inc. By Matt Taibbi, which details the many ways in which legacy press and media organizations have mastered the art of monetizing anger, paranoia, and distrust. It may be easy to cast Rogan aside as being a perpetuator of misinformation, especially when considering the reach and influence of his platform. But, in reality, all he’s doing is having conversations with a wide variety of guests. If you listen to his episodes, you’ll notice he asks open-ended questions that allow each guest the opportunity to present their opinions and, where applicable, qualify those opinions with research etc. In fact, when presented with a potentially inflammatory or 'explosive' opinion or statement during an episode, he specifically asks guests to clarify how they arrived at that conclusion.
During each episode, Rogan isn’t telling his listeners or his guests to think one way or another. He’s simply using his platform (which is, thankfully, exempt from censorship efforts and limitations that plague other platforms) to open the floor to free conversation and respectful debate. If we’re being honest, many (if not most) of us are simply not willing to do this anymore.
Is this really something to condemn and criticize? Or are we simply having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to the availability and consideration of information/opinions that might not coincide or reinforce our individual positioning at a time when feelings of fear, judgement, and anger run rampant? Trusting science and doctors is, of course, unequivocally important – but we also have to recognize that there are doctors and experts on both sides that are each sharing arguably relevant, peer-reviewed (and otherwise credible) sources, research, findings, and opinions. Just a few days ago, I watched someone argue that Malone ‘cherry picked’ a study that had ‘too few’ participants, and contrasted it with his own studies which – it could be argued – were also cherry picked. Realistically, regardless of where you stand on any of this, it’s almost always possible to extrapolate select data and research to support your stance to some degree. And if we’re going to call to question the parameters of study and trial quality, should we not then address the fact that Pfizer’s trials to test the efficacy of vaccines in children have been incredibly small? For children aged 5 to 11, the phase 1 study included a total of 48 children. In the phase 2–3 trial, a total of 2268 children were randomly assigned to receive the vaccine (1517 children) or placebo (751 children). So, if you’re arguing for enhanced trial quality as to not “cherry pick” or extrapolate a small percent of data to fit our accepted opinion/argument, shouldn’t that critical lens apply across the board? Or is it selective and convenient in nature?
And while we are on the topic of perceived credibility and legitimacy, let’s once again dig a bit deeper. What exactly is a “REAL” doctor? Let’s take Peter McCullough, for example, since he has been deemed a highly controversial figure, and has received no shortage of hate/calls for “cancellation”. Personal opinions aside, is McCullough not a “real” doctor in every sense of the word? Not only did he successfully complete med school and earn his license to practice, but he’s one of the most published professionals in his field. To this effect, I am quite certain that if he expressed opinions that aligned with the more popular narrative, his credentials and scope of experience would be widely praised and leveraged as a talking point against those with opposing views. But in the current context, his credentials and scope of experience are, instead, widely dismissed or disregarded.
So, can you see how this assertion of “real” is also a slippery slope? And if we’re really going to be honest here, only 100 of the 270 ‘doctors’ who co-authored that letter demanding censorship of Rogan’s episodes are medical doctors. The letter was reportedly signed by over 50 PhD academics, 60 college professors, 29 nurses, 10 students, 4 medical residents, and a “handful of science podcasters”. Are these the “real” doctors we’re speaking of? Again, if you’re going to make that argument, it can’t be selective.
And on the topic of ‘misinformation’ – well, who decides what is misinformation when we have a number of conflicting studies, research, and varying interpretations of available data? Obviously, fact checking is no small undertaking. But beyond the process itself, who is responsible for fact checking? Are they removed from their bias or conflict of interest(s)?
Let’s take Reuters, for example, which is considered to be a ‘gold standard’ fact checking platform. Did you also know that the chairman of Reuters is also a board member at Pfizer? Have you noticed that many news channels now have “Brought to you by Pfizer” or "Brought to you by Moderna" advertisements attached to them? When you saw headlines circulating about the young boy (a four-year-old leukemia patient) and his family facing potential from the Ronald McDonald House due to their new vaccination policy, did you realize that Pfizer is a current sponsor of that organization? What about Dr. Jessica Malaty Rivera, who led the aforementioned group of doctors calling for Spotify to remove Rogan? Did you know she also works for the Rockefeller Foundation, which has major pharmaceutical ties?
I’m not saying any of these things inherently discredit the vaccine, or mean the likes of McCullough and/or Malone are correct. I simply point this out to make it clear that this is a layered, complicated thing with many conflict(s) of interest informing rhetoric from big players. This is, after all, big business. It’s not conspiracy theory to say that. There is money on the line. So, is it not worth hearing both sides before coming to our own individual conclusions?
And continuing the credibility discussion, what about Pfizer?
Did you know that Pfizer Inc. (and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc.) agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, in 2009? This was because they plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra (an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005) with the intent to defraud or mislead. This is only one example – there are many others.
What about Dr. Anthony Fauci? Did you know that the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts:
(1) The EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City–based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an “unexpected result” of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
(2) EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
This is especially problematic, when we know that Fauci has testified under oath that the National Institutes of Health did not fund so-called “gain-of-function” research into bat-borne coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
If we’re really going to argue the objectivity of science and “facts”, we don’t get to conveniently weaponize subjective opinion. I’m not posing this as a judgement; rather, as a genuine question. Selective reasoning is a very slippery slope. I’m not saying any of this to make any definitive statement for or against the vaccine, or to discredit any of the the subsequent doctors and experts who have expressed their opinion(s) for or against it. But if we are going to constantly criticize and/or potentially cancel those who are touting a potentially unpopular opinion based on the argument of compromised credibility or distrust, shouldn’t we apply that same lens to the likes of Pfizer, Fauci, and other big players and policy makers involved in the pandemic conversation? If not, can you tell me why?
Let’s not forget that, over the course of the pandemic, the 10 richest people in the world more than doubled their wealth, from a collective $700 billion to $1.5 trillion. Moreover, the world’s billionaires have seen their wealth surge by over $5.5 trillion since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, a gain of over 68%. The pandemic has, in many cases, been very good for big corporation business, while small businesses are simultaneously demonized and pushed into extinction.
At the same time, over 200 million people have fallen into poverty, and current findings estimate that the pandemic has cost women around the world at least $800 billion in lost income in 2020 alone. It’s also been noted that 11 people are now dying of hunger and malnutrition each minute, outpacing COVID-19 fatalities. As well, we know that Omicron seemingly isn’t contributing to an influx in hospitalizations/deaths around the world, which is great news despite high transmission rates. We also know that hospitals and the CDC were misreporting data for two years (with respect to the classification of patients hospitalized ‘with’ COVID vs. ‘for’ COVID). Recent reporting indicates that the current overwhelm faced by our healthcare system is due primarily to faulty infrastructure that has resulted in staffing shortages and the absolute (painstaking) exhaustion of healthcare workers.
What then, have we done to address this? With all the money spent in the name of pandemic response over the last 2 years, could we not have invested in strengthening our healthcare system? Canadian healthcare, although free (in that it's funded by tax dollars) and accessible (although it often remains inaccessible due to wait times and testing/treatment delays), has been plagued with capacity issues for years, with headlines dating back to 2013 and earlier expressing 'dangerous overwhelm' and overcrowding during flu season and other peak times.
Why then, do we only have 2,343 adult ICU beds across Ontario (compared to 2,012 pre-pandemic)? Why then, did we fire qualified healthcare workers based on their vaccination status, only to invite COVID-positive (but fully vaccinated) healthcare workers back to work amidst the staffing crisis? Again, I really don’t think this is a matter of being pro or anti vaccine. My opinion on this has remained the same throughout the entirety of this experience: You can believe in vaccines, and simultaneously believe in personal choice and bodily autonomy. You can believe in science, and simultaneously be against passports, mandates, and lockdowns that have proven to not only be ineffective, but incredibly harmful both socially and economically across the population. You can believe in caring for your community, and recognize that the divisive language and practices now encouraged by our political leaders is in direct contradiction to that value. You can also recognize that the separation of society is a long-standing political tactic, with no shortage of frightening historical examples.
Currently, we know that transmission occurs regardless of vaccination status. At the beginning of the V roll-out, countless experts and public figures like Fauci, Bill Gates, the CDC, and mainstream media and news organizations clearly pushed the messaging that the vaccine would “stop the virus in its tracks” and that anyone vaccinated would not catch or transmit the disease. But this was wrong... we know that now. So should the case for vaccine mandates and passport systems (which was based on that initial ideology) not be reconsidered/re-examined? Is it not problematic that we continue to push this narrative forward, when almost 90% of the population is fully vaccinated and we find ourselves in the same position we were 2 years ago? The head of Pfizer has, himself, admitted that the vaccine has little to no efficacy against Omicron. Moreover, the ‘Omicron-specific’ vaccine they are developing won’t be ready until March, at which point most of us will have already caught and recovered from this variant – and will likely be facing a new variant of concern.
So, I ask you, if this is the narrative we are collectively buying into, where and when does it end? Should we really be advocating for a system that trades relative freedom for compliance to a never-ending cycle of variants, new vaccines and lockdowns, at the cost of continued economic destruction, social divide, and the ultimate erosion of our sense of community and humanity? How long will this cycle continue?
Comments