Joe Rogan on Neil Young Spotify controversy, allegations of spreading dangerous misinformation

There has been lots of controversy recently on especially two episodes Joe Rogan did with eminent doctors Peter McCullough and Robert Malone respectively. They have highly informed and credible opinions that differ from the main stream narrative. In a healthy society, they would have a chance to express their points of view. The population would be free to listen to it or not, and to make up their own mind.

In this toxic cancel culture, however, any dissenting viewpoint, no matter how science, fact and logic based, is labeled as dangerous medical misinformation based on appeals to authority: "What you say conflicts with what CDC says, therefore you're wrong." This is often combined with ad hominem attacks and pressure to censor the information.

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." ― Richard Feynman

"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." ― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings

Appeals to authority are about as unscientific as can be.

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have recently issued ultimatums that the Spotify remove 'misinformation' presented on the Joe Rogan Experience, or they will remove their music from Spotify. Fortunately, Spotify made the right choice to stand behind freedom of speech with eminent experts.

This video is Joe's response.

One problem with the term 'misformation' is that information that used to be 'misinformation' just a few months ago, is now widely accepted on the main stream media:

- The jabs provide minimal to no (or even negative) protection from infection and transmission
- Cloth masks are useless to protect yourself and others from a respiratory infection
- SARS-CoV-2 may be a human engineered virus that has escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology

NB: Another example is that airborne transmission is likely to not only play a significant role, but may explain 95% or more of infections.

This information was discussed openly by McCullough and Malone many months ago, and they have been completely right. However, a part of society keeps giving credibility to the institutions that have a dismal track record of being WRONG about basically everything (and having profit and ideology as its highest priorities, not public health), while at the same time not giving credibility to the people who have been CORRECT about basically everything.

Joe mentions not being a doctor or a scientist. This is irrelevant, because non-doctors and non-scientists in many cases have not only better points of view, but also often have less conflicts of interest. Doctors and scientists tend to stick to the 'consensus' (equivalent to the flat earth theory or the earth being the center of the universe) and tend to have conflicts of interest. They may get rewarded by pharmaceutical companies or may be dependent on funding by Anthony Fauci. If they say or do anything that Fauci doesn't like, it's career suicide for them.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing is opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ― Max Planck, Nobel Laureate

The essence of science and free society is the clash of multiple perspectives. Joe invites people with differing perspectives on this show and if it turns out his opinions, he will happily update with this new viewpoint and admit that he was wrong. This is what real scientists do. They live in a scientific way, while fake scientists point to their job or education, but live in an unscientific way. You are what you do consistently, not what your job description or diploma says.

As a remedy, Joe agrees with a disclaimer that you should speak to your own doctor (who is likely to lose his license if he says anything negative about the jab or anything positive about early treatment). The disclaimer can also say that what is discussed in this episode may be different from the official narrative. People might come to their own conclusion that the official narrative is or could be wrong.

Furthermore, he agrees with having more main stream experts on after having on controversial ones.

Rhetorical question: How many times did the main stream media allow experts with opposing points of view on?

Taking the last remedy a step further, why is there never a debate between the main stream experts and a team of elite dissenting experts? The reason is incredibly simple: the main stream experts know for a fact that they don't stand a chance, because they don't have the facts and logic to back up their position, while the dissenting experts do.

Truth does not mind being questions. A lie does not like being challenged.

Joe thinking out loud what his mistakes have been and what he could do better is laudable, but a trap is thinking that because there's controversy, he must have done something wrong. Perhaps he did almost everything right, and we just live in a profoundly sick society where a group prefers to listen to a 'scientific' pope rather than gather their own information and think for themselves.

The can be a toxic balance between blame shifters (who always blame OTHERS) and blame absorber (who always tend to accept the blame, even if it's not warranted).

An example is Joe's apology, "If I pissed you off, I'm sorry." He also could've said, "If you're pissed off even though I did nothing wrong, then that's YOUR problem. YOU are responsible for YOUR emotions, not me."

Joe ends with how haters can be useful. Haters gonna hate, no matter what you do, but sometimes haters also have useful criticism which you can incorporate to do a better job next time.