This article by Bob caused me to belly-up with a subscription. I've always admired his clarity of thought and balance. This is a great example. It is easy to be suspicious of Big Pharma. There are lots of examples of shoddy research and poor process we can point to. I'm personally fond of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That said, Bob's points with respect to Malone's motivations resonate strongly. Real wisdom IMHO. I listened to the entire (!) podcast with Rogan and Malone and it really helped me appreciate how people can buy in to Malone's narrative, but the statement's Bob points out couldn't be overlooked and damaged his credibility with me. Lot's of claims of multitudes of studies that supported his viewpoints as well as credible third parties, but they don't seem to exist when you drill down. I really appreciate Bob's humility and ability to give someone I could easily dismiss the benefit of the doubt that comes with recognizing our common, human biases and failings. Bravo, Bob!
There are strong parallels here to the few (but non-zero) climate change contrarians who are experts, such as Richard Lindzen at MIT. Lindzen is a brilliant scientist who has made major contributions to understanding the climate system yet has repeatedly and publicly downplayed the risks of climate change. He also doesn't believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a conspiratorial aspect to his thinking, in particular he points to group-think among climate scientists, and confirmation bias is also at work in the worry that climate change will prompt greater government control over our lives.
I side with Malone over Wright on this. For me, it boils down to credibility, starting with the lab leak. The lab leak is so obviously true in my view that anyone who fails to see it is not credible, and that's how I see Wright on this issue. It's very risky to go against the big pharma blob, so Bob evades the subject.
On top of this, the authorities were wrong about how the virus is transmitted, and their vaccine and only vaccine approach to prevention and treatment has proven a disaster, as predicted by Bret Weinstein and Malone.
The conventional wisdom, led by those at WHO and CDC and propagated by the mainstream media, has been politicized and horribly wrong -- far outshining any of Malone's inconsistencies. Then there's the censorship. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for correctly pointing out that cloth masks don't work. Facebook was telling people that the lab leak was false and grounds for suspension. The Lancet published a letter by Peter Daszak saying that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Talk about conflict of interest!!!! These outrageous incidents have one thousand times the conflict of interest that Robert imagines within Malone's mind.
I do agree with Robert that Malone is inconsistent in how many lives would have been saved with effective treatment. Good catch! And many of Malone's other observations can be legitimately questioned. But the overwhelming failure here is that of the authorities who are 1) Responsible for creating the virus; 2) Responsible for failing to encourage open discussion and experimentation with various treatments; 3) Politicizing the virus.
So let's talk about the facts and not about who's crazy. I'm with Rogan and Malone more than Wright and Fauci, but the important thing is to stay constructive. For me that means starting with the big picture and what is most important. If Wright disagrees with any of my three points (lab leak origin, treatment options, politicization), then he can argue those points.
Biases and motives are important, as Bob points out in separate posts with which I very much agree. But they are most important in examining our own behavior. In judging others' behavior, we generally have to argue the facts. The facts can include such factors as conflicts of interest. That Malone has no obvious conflicts of interest, unlike the big pharma blob, is of huge import. That Malone may be jealous is not really solid, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for the reporting on RM over the last weeks (inasmuch as this is almost the length of a Glenn Greenwald column, I still hope that Mickey reads it).,
Good piece. A plausible assessment of Malone's personal motives and world view which appears to be quite right wing.
A few things struck me. He says he had an ongoing relationship with senior people at the agencies that he sent the Chinese protocol to. So perhaps he is justified in being surprised at finding himself unusually ignored on such a vital point during a crisis - in the exact area of expertese on which they had been used to consult him? He wasn't just some random guy firing off a few emails that wouldn't be noticed. He does have long and significant experience in the field whatever may be true about the invention of mRNA vaccines. He is quite open about his involvement, in fact, and says that he put a lot of effort into making a SAFE vaccine and could not - which is why he is unconvinced and worried by the claim that these Covid vaccnines are safe. No corona vaccine has ever succeeded - and neither have these ones.
He is clear too that he has no professional conflict of interest and that he is acting, at this very late stage in his career with no expectation of reward of any kind, but out of concern for what is happening. That doesn't quite come through in your assessment. My understanding of what both he and Dr Peter McCullough have said on Joe Rogan is that neither Ivermectin nor Hydroxy on their own is enough but that administered as part of 'kitchen sink' protocols that include several other treatments (vitamin D and Zinc e.g.) they are proven highly effective - by many doctors in many regions of the world at this stage. They have both been very clear on that point - and also that any protocol needs to be administered as early as possible after contracting the virus. Some of the worst symptoms occur after the virus has passed on so catching it early is important. That people shoud not simply wait around at home to see whether or not they are going to get a bad dose, which - weirdly - is what the official position has been. The focus has solely been on vaccines. Extremely peculiar.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
Hi all, I just got back from an ICU visit (COVID related & a wedding, which is why I'm late to this post. I did watch the whole Rogan/Malone podcast weeks ago. I tend to use my own experience when assessing things and people (as well as published data). Nonzero makes good points regarding 'human nature' & human motivations (self-preservation, status, etc.) driving their agendas.
On the US death stats. On average 3 million people die each year in the US. Most all deaths 'from' COVID occur among old and sick people - people's whose time was about up. We won't know the true effect of COVID for years - meaning did the people who died 'from' COVID increase that total of 3m, to say 3.5m? in years 2020-22? Or does the 3m average hold up?
I've stated this earlier - my brother got COVID in Dec. 2020, was in ICU for 50 days! He's been on oxygen ever since, but 'home'. His wife got it, too. Same time, same strain. No symptoms.
He just collapsed on Jan, 13, 2022 and was unresponsive and put on 'the machine'. The doctors told us when they take him off - he could die within hours, days at most. So far, 12 days later, they're wrong. He's doing well, so far. His lungs are severely damaged, really, really, bad. Hospice has taken over. And they found that the treatment and oxygen supplying machines were WRONG! And that his biggest threat to breathing is anxiety. So they're trying to treat that. (Won't go into all the details and drama.) This jives with the CDC's own data that 'fear and anxiety disorders' are the 2nd highest risk-increasing factor for bad outcomes.
We are, the US population, not a healthy society - in many ways. All of which contributes to bad outcomes. Fear and anxiety have been exploited to the max - for political and professional gains. Unfortunately, that's human nature, too.
I got the COVID from Santa this last Christmas. I'm okay. Was a little scary for a few days. I'm not on any one's stat sheet. The only doctor I see is a Psychologist. WE 'chat'. She urges me to get vaxed. But me and my rowdy friends? - well ... I told y'all my story earlier.
Long story short - my brother's been sick his whole life. Bad luck? Me, healthy. Hospice is taking good care of him.
Great piece, Bob. I would highly recommend listening to Dr. Peter Attia's Drive podcast. If you aren't familiar, he is an MD with a focus on all things longevity and extending health span. He's a brilliant guy, very data driven, and doesn't really get political. He had two Covid related podcasts over the last few weeks with some well known MD's and a Virologist, exploring all aspects of Covid - Efficacy of the vaccines, policy decisions, natural immunity, the role Tribalism has played in the whole thing, and a thorough debunking of Malone. Well worth your time.
Just hopscotching through this article on the history of mRNA vaccine development (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w), one gets a good sense that the development of mRNA vaccines had a bevy of players involved (as is usually the case in scientific research, which rarely proceeds linearly and predictably and sprawls often across several continents).
The piece mentions Malone at the start, but it becomes clear very quickly that although his contribution was important, it doesn't make him the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of setbacks on the way (mRNA is a tricky molecule to work with--it's very unstable and can itself trigger unwanted immune responses), so a lot of fine-tuning and additional breakthroughs (and coaxing of funding agencies) were required to get this medical modality to where it is today.
My sense is that precisely because there were legions of researchers involved in developing this vaccine technology, it wasn't particularly hard to get one in front of microphones claiming to have made seminal contributions to it and to use that appropriated prestige to offer byzantine narratives about how the "real truth" (e.g., about alternative treatments with worm medicines) is being suppressed by nefarious players. It would make for some modest entertainment if there weren't so many lives at stake.
One worrisome and telling line (a quote from a researcher who studies misinformation) is at the end:
"We're not talking about fringe ideas," she said. "These are the most popular podcasts in the United States."
This goes a long way towards explaining why public health efforts to increase vaccination rates and masking are failing. Without a concerted push to put much tighter reins on podcasting platforms to reduce the spread of misinformation, most explanations and appeals by public health officials will evaporate in the hot air these platforms are generating.
This is a fascinating analysis. It's definitely difficult to say what constitutes "crazy" and what is just "saying ridiculous things to further one's own ends."
I want to emphasize the point that Bob made that monoclonal antibody drug shipments had been curtailed after it was found that they were ineffective against omicron. That is, Biden stopped supplying drugs that DON'T WORK in our present situation and couldn't be used. Oh, what a diabolical plot! Not.
For Malone to insist that somehow this does indicate heinous motivations on Biden's part, in the face of very obvious facts that are so easy for a scientist or medical professional to understand-- that does seem crazy to me. If he believes what he's saying, then at best he is willfully deluding himself. Delusion is considered part of some mental illness conditions, so we could be justified in calling that craziness.
(Whereas Rogan probably just wants money and attention, I suppose.)
The fact that the disease we're dealing with is new and we are all learning as we go along, the famous "building the plane while flying it," has made it all the easier for misinformation to get a foothold. Most people are going to be confused at any moment, including health care professionals like me, so if someone sounds authoritative and convincing their message can get through even if it is crazy.
Speaking of delusion, I'm saddened to see people still pushing ivermectin here. Bob gave a pretty good summary in his end note about why that doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already written extensively about that and related matters on my own blog, so I won't repeat myself here. These folks may be comforted, though, to hear that there is still some research on ivermectin going on, as well as studies of some other common drugs that have shown possible activity against COVID, such as fluvoxamine. They might not be game-changers, but researchers are still chasing down anything that might help. At least that was the case a couple of months ago, an eternity in pandemic time.
(By the way, colchicine is a hard no. It just hasn't been shown to help at all.)
This is old, from back in the day when conspiracy "hypothesists" were so big on HCQ, but the general concepts are still relevant:
Malone certainly sounds a bit crazy to me. People who start claiming to have friends in the secret services often are a bit bonkers and indeed people who work for secret services often become quite paranoid and are themselves nuts. Has anyone noticed that rogan has the same peculiar orange skin colour as ex presidente trump? One can well imagine what bizarre conclusions rogan and malone might draw from some striking similarity in appearance between Biden and someone else they wanted to disparage. .
Bret Weinstein published a paper in 2002 with a discovery about telomeres that he claims he never received appropriate recognition for (thanks to the DISC or Distributed Idea Suppression Complex). Bret claimed his discovery implies that we should be much much more cautious when evaluating the safety of new drugs.
Bret consistently acts like he's a knowledgable expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology like virology, sociology, leftist debates about race and identity, or American politics. He doesn't seriously read works by other people, he just says what he thinks and blames the establishment in scientific academia for not taking him more seriously.
I think this is human nature, especially when you feel like you've made a groundbreaking discovery but people never gave you appropriate credit. There are scientists who really believe smoking doesn't cause cancer who aren't grifters getting paid by tobacco companies.
You see this on the left with extremely marginalized figures like Angela Davis in the 1960s and 1970s. Davis adopted "conspiracy-theory-like" beliefs to justify support for the USSR and the Peoples' Temple. Her support was totally unjustified and caused a great deal of harm because it led to some people taking atrocity reports less seriously when there were viable options to help people other than going to war, like countering prejudice against Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees.
This article by Bob caused me to belly-up with a subscription. I've always admired his clarity of thought and balance. This is a great example. It is easy to be suspicious of Big Pharma. There are lots of examples of shoddy research and poor process we can point to. I'm personally fond of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That said, Bob's points with respect to Malone's motivations resonate strongly. Real wisdom IMHO. I listened to the entire (!) podcast with Rogan and Malone and it really helped me appreciate how people can buy in to Malone's narrative, but the statement's Bob points out couldn't be overlooked and damaged his credibility with me. Lot's of claims of multitudes of studies that supported his viewpoints as well as credible third parties, but they don't seem to exist when you drill down. I really appreciate Bob's humility and ability to give someone I could easily dismiss the benefit of the doubt that comes with recognizing our common, human biases and failings. Bravo, Bob!
There are strong parallels here to the few (but non-zero) climate change contrarians who are experts, such as Richard Lindzen at MIT. Lindzen is a brilliant scientist who has made major contributions to understanding the climate system yet has repeatedly and publicly downplayed the risks of climate change. He also doesn't believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a conspiratorial aspect to his thinking, in particular he points to group-think among climate scientists, and confirmation bias is also at work in the worry that climate change will prompt greater government control over our lives.
That was great analysis, thank you!
Great critical review of Malone's thought and behavior based on cognitive biases.
I side with Malone over Wright on this. For me, it boils down to credibility, starting with the lab leak. The lab leak is so obviously true in my view that anyone who fails to see it is not credible, and that's how I see Wright on this issue. It's very risky to go against the big pharma blob, so Bob evades the subject.
On top of this, the authorities were wrong about how the virus is transmitted, and their vaccine and only vaccine approach to prevention and treatment has proven a disaster, as predicted by Bret Weinstein and Malone.
The conventional wisdom, led by those at WHO and CDC and propagated by the mainstream media, has been politicized and horribly wrong -- far outshining any of Malone's inconsistencies. Then there's the censorship. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for correctly pointing out that cloth masks don't work. Facebook was telling people that the lab leak was false and grounds for suspension. The Lancet published a letter by Peter Daszak saying that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Talk about conflict of interest!!!! These outrageous incidents have one thousand times the conflict of interest that Robert imagines within Malone's mind.
I do agree with Robert that Malone is inconsistent in how many lives would have been saved with effective treatment. Good catch! And many of Malone's other observations can be legitimately questioned. But the overwhelming failure here is that of the authorities who are 1) Responsible for creating the virus; 2) Responsible for failing to encourage open discussion and experimentation with various treatments; 3) Politicizing the virus.
So let's talk about the facts and not about who's crazy. I'm with Rogan and Malone more than Wright and Fauci, but the important thing is to stay constructive. For me that means starting with the big picture and what is most important. If Wright disagrees with any of my three points (lab leak origin, treatment options, politicization), then he can argue those points.
Biases and motives are important, as Bob points out in separate posts with which I very much agree. But they are most important in examining our own behavior. In judging others' behavior, we generally have to argue the facts. The facts can include such factors as conflicts of interest. That Malone has no obvious conflicts of interest, unlike the big pharma blob, is of huge import. That Malone may be jealous is not really solid, in my humble opinion.
Excellent! Thank you.
Thanks for the reporting on RM over the last weeks (inasmuch as this is almost the length of a Glenn Greenwald column, I still hope that Mickey reads it).,
Good piece. A plausible assessment of Malone's personal motives and world view which appears to be quite right wing.
A few things struck me. He says he had an ongoing relationship with senior people at the agencies that he sent the Chinese protocol to. So perhaps he is justified in being surprised at finding himself unusually ignored on such a vital point during a crisis - in the exact area of expertese on which they had been used to consult him? He wasn't just some random guy firing off a few emails that wouldn't be noticed. He does have long and significant experience in the field whatever may be true about the invention of mRNA vaccines. He is quite open about his involvement, in fact, and says that he put a lot of effort into making a SAFE vaccine and could not - which is why he is unconvinced and worried by the claim that these Covid vaccnines are safe. No corona vaccine has ever succeeded - and neither have these ones.
He is clear too that he has no professional conflict of interest and that he is acting, at this very late stage in his career with no expectation of reward of any kind, but out of concern for what is happening. That doesn't quite come through in your assessment. My understanding of what both he and Dr Peter McCullough have said on Joe Rogan is that neither Ivermectin nor Hydroxy on their own is enough but that administered as part of 'kitchen sink' protocols that include several other treatments (vitamin D and Zinc e.g.) they are proven highly effective - by many doctors in many regions of the world at this stage. They have both been very clear on that point - and also that any protocol needs to be administered as early as possible after contracting the virus. Some of the worst symptoms occur after the virus has passed on so catching it early is important. That people shoud not simply wait around at home to see whether or not they are going to get a bad dose, which - weirdly - is what the official position has been. The focus has solely been on vaccines. Extremely peculiar.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
Hi all, I just got back from an ICU visit (COVID related & a wedding, which is why I'm late to this post. I did watch the whole Rogan/Malone podcast weeks ago. I tend to use my own experience when assessing things and people (as well as published data). Nonzero makes good points regarding 'human nature' & human motivations (self-preservation, status, etc.) driving their agendas.
On the US death stats. On average 3 million people die each year in the US. Most all deaths 'from' COVID occur among old and sick people - people's whose time was about up. We won't know the true effect of COVID for years - meaning did the people who died 'from' COVID increase that total of 3m, to say 3.5m? in years 2020-22? Or does the 3m average hold up?
I've stated this earlier - my brother got COVID in Dec. 2020, was in ICU for 50 days! He's been on oxygen ever since, but 'home'. His wife got it, too. Same time, same strain. No symptoms.
He just collapsed on Jan, 13, 2022 and was unresponsive and put on 'the machine'. The doctors told us when they take him off - he could die within hours, days at most. So far, 12 days later, they're wrong. He's doing well, so far. His lungs are severely damaged, really, really, bad. Hospice has taken over. And they found that the treatment and oxygen supplying machines were WRONG! And that his biggest threat to breathing is anxiety. So they're trying to treat that. (Won't go into all the details and drama.) This jives with the CDC's own data that 'fear and anxiety disorders' are the 2nd highest risk-increasing factor for bad outcomes.
We are, the US population, not a healthy society - in many ways. All of which contributes to bad outcomes. Fear and anxiety have been exploited to the max - for political and professional gains. Unfortunately, that's human nature, too.
I got the COVID from Santa this last Christmas. I'm okay. Was a little scary for a few days. I'm not on any one's stat sheet. The only doctor I see is a Psychologist. WE 'chat'. She urges me to get vaxed. But me and my rowdy friends? - well ... I told y'all my story earlier.
Long story short - my brother's been sick his whole life. Bad luck? Me, healthy. Hospice is taking good care of him.
Cheers.
Great piece, Bob. I would highly recommend listening to Dr. Peter Attia's Drive podcast. If you aren't familiar, he is an MD with a focus on all things longevity and extending health span. He's a brilliant guy, very data driven, and doesn't really get political. He had two Covid related podcasts over the last few weeks with some well known MD's and a Virologist, exploring all aspects of Covid - Efficacy of the vaccines, policy decisions, natural immunity, the role Tribalism has played in the whole thing, and a thorough debunking of Malone. Well worth your time.
Just hopscotching through this article on the history of mRNA vaccine development (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w), one gets a good sense that the development of mRNA vaccines had a bevy of players involved (as is usually the case in scientific research, which rarely proceeds linearly and predictably and sprawls often across several continents).
The piece mentions Malone at the start, but it becomes clear very quickly that although his contribution was important, it doesn't make him the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of setbacks on the way (mRNA is a tricky molecule to work with--it's very unstable and can itself trigger unwanted immune responses), so a lot of fine-tuning and additional breakthroughs (and coaxing of funding agencies) were required to get this medical modality to where it is today.
My sense is that precisely because there were legions of researchers involved in developing this vaccine technology, it wasn't particularly hard to get one in front of microphones claiming to have made seminal contributions to it and to use that appropriated prestige to offer byzantine narratives about how the "real truth" (e.g., about alternative treatments with worm medicines) is being suppressed by nefarious players. It would make for some modest entertainment if there weren't so many lives at stake.
Today, NPR also scrutinized Joe Rogan's podcast, and the report specifically mentions the recent appearance of Robert Malone on the podcast (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation).
One worrisome and telling line (a quote from a researcher who studies misinformation) is at the end:
"We're not talking about fringe ideas," she said. "These are the most popular podcasts in the United States."
This goes a long way towards explaining why public health efforts to increase vaccination rates and masking are failing. Without a concerted push to put much tighter reins on podcasting platforms to reduce the spread of misinformation, most explanations and appeals by public health officials will evaporate in the hot air these platforms are generating.
This is a fascinating analysis. It's definitely difficult to say what constitutes "crazy" and what is just "saying ridiculous things to further one's own ends."
I want to emphasize the point that Bob made that monoclonal antibody drug shipments had been curtailed after it was found that they were ineffective against omicron. That is, Biden stopped supplying drugs that DON'T WORK in our present situation and couldn't be used. Oh, what a diabolical plot! Not.
For Malone to insist that somehow this does indicate heinous motivations on Biden's part, in the face of very obvious facts that are so easy for a scientist or medical professional to understand-- that does seem crazy to me. If he believes what he's saying, then at best he is willfully deluding himself. Delusion is considered part of some mental illness conditions, so we could be justified in calling that craziness.
(Whereas Rogan probably just wants money and attention, I suppose.)
The fact that the disease we're dealing with is new and we are all learning as we go along, the famous "building the plane while flying it," has made it all the easier for misinformation to get a foothold. Most people are going to be confused at any moment, including health care professionals like me, so if someone sounds authoritative and convincing their message can get through even if it is crazy.
Speaking of delusion, I'm saddened to see people still pushing ivermectin here. Bob gave a pretty good summary in his end note about why that doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already written extensively about that and related matters on my own blog, so I won't repeat myself here. These folks may be comforted, though, to hear that there is still some research on ivermectin going on, as well as studies of some other common drugs that have shown possible activity against COVID, such as fluvoxamine. They might not be game-changers, but researchers are still chasing down anything that might help. At least that was the case a couple of months ago, an eternity in pandemic time.
(By the way, colchicine is a hard no. It just hasn't been shown to help at all.)
This is old, from back in the day when conspiracy "hypothesists" were so big on HCQ, but the general concepts are still relevant:
https://elenedom.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/sorting-medical-fact-from-fiction-part-ii-we-need-therapy/
Malone certainly sounds a bit crazy to me. People who start claiming to have friends in the secret services often are a bit bonkers and indeed people who work for secret services often become quite paranoid and are themselves nuts. Has anyone noticed that rogan has the same peculiar orange skin colour as ex presidente trump? One can well imagine what bizarre conclusions rogan and malone might draw from some striking similarity in appearance between Biden and someone else they wanted to disparage. .
Bret Weinstein published a paper in 2002 with a discovery about telomeres that he claims he never received appropriate recognition for (thanks to the DISC or Distributed Idea Suppression Complex). Bret claimed his discovery implies that we should be much much more cautious when evaluating the safety of new drugs.
Bret consistently acts like he's a knowledgable expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology like virology, sociology, leftist debates about race and identity, or American politics. He doesn't seriously read works by other people, he just says what he thinks and blames the establishment in scientific academia for not taking him more seriously.
I think this is human nature, especially when you feel like you've made a groundbreaking discovery but people never gave you appropriate credit. There are scientists who really believe smoking doesn't cause cancer who aren't grifters getting paid by tobacco companies.
You see this on the left with extremely marginalized figures like Angela Davis in the 1960s and 1970s. Davis adopted "conspiracy-theory-like" beliefs to justify support for the USSR and the Peoples' Temple. Her support was totally unjustified and caused a great deal of harm because it led to some people taking atrocity reports less seriously when there were viable options to help people other than going to war, like countering prejudice against Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees.