What a surprise. shifty responds to a non-confrontational post like a complete asshat.

Liking Joe Rogan and his podcast is fine. It’s w/e, listen to it if you like it. What’s wild is this need to defend literally anything he says/does. Like, if Ira Glass snaps and starts tossing out racist slurs in the next This American Life, i would say “I enjoy his podcast but that was an unfortunate choice.” I wouldn’t go to the mat defending his behavior. People don’t know how to take an L anymore, that’s the problem.

I don't know what alarms in a prior conversation you are talking about. You can't possibly be referring to your posts about state election officials in GOP states. I specifically stated that I didn't think your comments on that topic were alarmist.

The idea that pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies have too much influence over health care in the United States isn't a fringe view. It's very much a mainstream view. If I could make only one change to the pharma industry in the U.S., it would be to ban advertising for prescription drugs. It's ridiculous that we allow pharma companies to carpet bomb the entire population with ads that encourage people to go badger their doctors for prescriptions of specific drugs.

Mostly this. If I gave Joe Rogan a real listen, I doubt that I would walk away frothing mad. I suspect that my main reaction would be "whatever, not really my bag."

To be fair, they always openly disclose that side effects may include dry mouth or death, and I do plan to consult a physician to see if he/she will give me an advertised drug based on my passive viewing research of all the happy slow motion golden hour stock footage I see the next time I am in the USA.

Not equivalent but also not "completely reasonable". If the drug companies proclaimed it passed the clinical trials and the FDA passed it, Trump hurrying it along would increase the chances that there was a problem with it but not nearly to the point that it would be the correct play to not take it.

It wasn't reasonable. He couldn't unilaterally approve a vaccine before the election just because he wanted to, so it was an asinine comment. It's plainly obvious that a comment like that could reduce confidence in the vaccine, especially since the fact that it was "rushed" was one of the main concerns people had. The message was clear, which is that Trump is rushing out this vaccine for political gain.

You would think so. Except for one thing. Most doctors are not very good. That's partyly why they are now recommending against many mammograms and PSA TESTS. This fact isn't obvious because for most things people don't get a second opinion for typical problems and most things get better by themselves. Plus, for the bad stuff, most doctors refer the patient to somebody who actually is good. I once asked a poker playing Harvard educated doctor what percentage of doctors would be preferable to see compared to an excellent registered nurse. He replied "ten percent" (Forgot his name. Very curly light brown hair with glasses. He also told me to buy vcel several years ago.) I can't prove what I just said but the fact that there is not major pushback from most doctors about those ads is probably evidence I am right. If a patient does some research about his disease, his opinion about what should be done is probably more likely to be right than the typical doctor.

Do you think the timing of the approval shortly after the election was a coincidence or used for political gain?

Can you not see the quoted aritcles I cited as those are cropped from the prior conversations.

And this is not just about influence. This is not about them just buying good press.

This is about the coopting the entire process of research and the data that goes for peer review.

This is a theft of the entire safeguards of the industry in a way NO ONE will be able to counter as they are shutting down any alternative research channels and voices while ghost writing their own results.

If you read my post and could see the links then it speaks volumes about how otherwise rationale people are going to treat this, as if just the normal nothing burger, when the insiders are saying the house is on fire and we are about to lose all control(s).

Could you do me favour and cite a single person claiming anyone is supposed to defend or even like Joe Rogan?

What Trolly did there was the complete opposite. Pure gaslighting, as the only reason we are having this topic is because one issue, Joe's views on who need the vaccine, was labeled as an anti vax position and then in the pile on they jumped to 'look racist'.

So Trolly pretending we are here because some people are demanding he like everything is just garbage, so I am curious why you agree with that?

That's quite an indictment. Too bad you don't have any evidence.

Except for one ting.

Trump had been unilaterally pushing quack treatments from the start. He lied about when the vaccine could be ready for political gain and obviously nothing he says about Covid or anything else can be trusted. This is one of the dumber talking points.

Everybody but Trump was saying that was impossible before the election. Part of the clinical trials is simply waiting 120 days or something to monitor side effects/efficacy. There is no way to rush that and it put the end of trials after the election.

It exists, For instance from Yale Med School:

"While it can depend on the problem and situation, multiple studies make a case for getting additional medical opinions. In 2017, a study showed that 21% of patients who sought a second opinion at the Mayo Clinic left with a completely new diagnosis, and 66% were deemed partly correct, but refined or redefined by the second doctor."

That by itself doesn't fully prove my contention but it"s pretty good evidence. Especially if the great majority of the conflicting opinions that are generally considered correct are those from the better educated and higher IQs doctors.

I don't remember her precise words but I'm pretty sure she was claiming that the seal of approval from the FDA would have been insufficient if Trump was the driving force. Not just concerning, but actually a reason not to get the vaccine. Even, presumably if you were old.

I didn't even understand his comment to be directed at you. Plenty of people in the world are defending Joe Rogan. I took his comment to mean that people don't have to defend everything Joe Rogan does, even if they enjoy listening to Joe Rogan. That seems obvious.

And he didn't accuse you or anyone of demanding that he like Joe Rogan.

Not sure if there are more but

Hard to see anything wrong with that. Note that when she was asked, it was already known that the Pfizer vax, which I believe was the first to begin trials, would not even be done with them until a week and a half after the election. The terms of the trial were already written and known and they simply couldn’t be done before the election. That’s why everyone but Trump was saying first quarter 2021 optimistically.

No it isn't.

This is ridiculous. Would you say the same thing about accountants, tax advisors, plumbers, electricians, civil engineers, etc.?

For fifteen years, I have watched smart non-lawyers on this site throw around ideas about the Supreme Court, trial strategy, and a million other legal topics based on doing their own research. For the most part, they have no idea wtf they are talking about. That isn't because the lawyers in this forum are smarter than the non-lawyers. It's because it is almost impossible to trump years of professional experience by doing two hours of your own research on the internet.

It's true that most doctors are not great. That's true of most members of most professions. But it doesn't follow that, if you or I started practicing medicine without a license tomorrow, we would be better doctors than most practicing physicians.

"Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us."

Given the question she was answering, she quickly realized she went too far but walked it back too tepidly to ensure that the average person wouldn't misconsrtue.

Nope. Of course it would be a huge issue if they changed the terms of an ongoing study to get a vaccine out before an election. She clarified that even in that ludicrous scenario, she would go by what trusted sources say.

I honestly don't know what you are going on about. As I said before, your ideas about the pharma industry strike me as more mainstream than fringe.

My point is that we are in a golden era for the promotion of fringe ideas.

maybe joe will be de-platformed like his bestie Alex Jones

I was talking about knowing the best medicine for a specific disease. There is no analogy in law. But even if you delete my thought about that, it doesn't change the fact that typical doctors are far more likely to make an objectively incorrect decision about the best treatment than a Mayo clinic doctor and are fairly likely to change their mind about the best drug if a patient tells them about the ad they saw (which they then go on to research.) Do you think that Harvard doctor was wrong?