Majority of ‘270 doctors’ who signed letter to Spotify take action against Rogan not medical doctors

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Most of the 270 who signed anti-Joe Rogan letter demanding Spotify take action not actually doctors | Daily Mail Online

- Only 87 were actual medical doctors
- Some of the other medical professions represented include a veterinarian, a dentist, a social worker, and several psychologists
- Some of the other members of the medical academic field featured include physicians' assistants, a biochemist and nearly 100 Ph.Ds and Ph.D candidates

While I disagree with a lot of what was espoused in the "controversial podcasts" that sparked this whole thing (Malone and McCullough were the ones that got him some heat)

I think people need to hit the pause button and do a little deep diving before immediately trying to "de-platform" someone.

Apart from the obvious fact that "270" doctors isn't a huge number (even if they all were Medical Doctors...there are 900,000 Medical doctors in the US).

Seems to me that if there is that much of a concern that his podcast messaging could undermine the entire institution, that would be more of a concern about their messaging and not his. If I were them, I'd be trying to figure out "why is my messaging not resonating as well as his?"...seems like more of a them problem than a him problem.

With 900,000 of them in the US, there has to at least be a few hundred who are charismatic speakers, who can have conversations that hold peoples' attention, and convey messaging in a way that resonates with people.

Unless people are willing to believe that the entire medical institution is so flimsy in our country, that it can be toppled by a pot-enthusiast UFC announcer who likes to talk about karate kicks and elk meat and has a guy named Jamie google things for him.
 

Captain Ahab

Active Member
Aug 7, 2020
93
126
Southeast
✟6,976.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Everybody is a medical doctor these days, so long as they are fighting tooth and nail on behalf of the authorized narrative. A Remote Human Resources employee, a vape shop clerk, an unemployed stoner, a Starbucks barista, an alcoholic pizza delivery boy, a youtube sensation who specializes in videos of her 9 cats scratching at stuff, an anime inappropriate content addict, and some soy boy with a man bun who sells vegan friendly protein shakes are just a few of the seasoned professionals who were kind enough to bless me with their sage medical advice. They all must have gone to the same med school because they all hold the same line of thought: ‘mUh VaCcInE wOnT wOrK uNlEsS u GeT vAcCiNaTeD tOo!’ Which makes perfect sense. I notice that my umbrella never keeps me dry during a rainstorm unless everybody else on the sidewalk has theirs open as well. My home security system won’t work unless my neighbor gets one too. This is definitely the Age of Enlightenment Pt. II we are currently living in.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How did Joe Rogan become a centerpiece in this mess? He's an actor, comedian, MMA announcer with a podcast that reaches lots of folks. Still, I'm not understanding why his opinion ranks as merit for critique? Did he get covid and smoke a joint with Elon Musk while eating horse pills? We're truly a stupid species.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,592
71
Bondi
✟248,703.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Rogan comment from last April: 'I’m not a doctor, I’m a xxx moron, and I’m a cage fighting commentator… I’m not a respected source of information.”

At least he comes out with something that we can all agree on now and then.





 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,740.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Most of the 270 who signed anti-Joe Rogan letter demanding Spotify take action not actually doctors | Daily Mail Online

- Only 87 were actual medical doctors
- Some of the other medical professions represented include a veterinarian, a dentist, a social worker, and several psychologists
- Some of the other members of the medical academic field featured include physicians' assistants, a biochemist and nearly 100 Ph.Ds and Ph.D candidates

This is a pretty dumb article. Public health != Clinical medicine. Experts in public health don't necessarily have M.D.'s. In fact, at some top universities (e.g. Harvard & Johns Hopkins), the school of public health is entirely separate from the medical school.

Epidemiology - Wikipedia
Few universities have offered epidemiology as a course of study at the undergraduate level. One notable undergraduate program exists at Johns Hopkins University, where students who major in public health can take graduate level courses, including epidemiology, during their senior year at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.[62]

Although epidemiologic research is conducted by individuals from diverse disciplines, including clinically trained professionals such as physicians, formal training is available through Masters or Doctoral programs including Master of Public Health (MPH), Master of Science of Epidemiology (MSc.), Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Doctor of Science (ScD). Many other graduate programs, e.g., Doctor of Social Work (DSW), Doctor of Clinical Practice (DClinP), Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM), Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM), Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP), Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT), or for clinically trained physicians, Doctor of Medicine (MD) or Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MBBS or MBChB) and Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), include some training in epidemiologic research or related topics, but this training is generally substantially less than offered in training programs focused on epidemiology or public health. Reflecting the strong historical tie between epidemiology and medicine, formal training programs may be set in either schools of public health and medical schools.

Unless people are willing to believe that the entire medical institution is so flimsy in our country, that it can be toppled by a pot-enthusiast UFC announcer who likes to talk about karate kicks and elk meat and has a guy named Jamie google things for him.

You mean the UFC announcer with an audience roughly the size of Fox News' top 4 shows combined?
UFC News: Joe Rogan seemingly has millions more listeners than Tucker Carlson, Fox News and CNN
FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How did Joe Rogan become a centerpiece in this mess?

That's really the thing...he shouldn't be.

Nobody should care what an entertainment podcaster says.

The fact that people are implying that his show is a " major source" of anti-vaccine sentiment is laughable.

And if people are claiming that, then they need to explain why a former NewsRadio cast member somehow has more influence on people than actual doctors.

People have to have already "lost faith" in the messaging of those doctors before they'll start looking to him for information.

Which was kind of my point.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You mean the UFC announcer with an audience roughly the size of Fox News' top 4 shows combined?

How did his show get so big?

Clearly he has a formula for that, that actual medical experts need to tap into.

You'd think that people like Sanjay Gupta could take some notes about how to draw a bigger audience.

It's not as if Rogan made his "claim to fame" by pushing medical misinformation and inviting "alternative theory proponents" on his show...the vast majority of his career was simply just interviewing other comedians and other famous people.

He was famous long before covid was even a thing.

Seems that mainstream medicine professionals could learn a thing or two from him with regards to how to build an audience and build trust with the general public.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,052
East Coast
✟830,414.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's really the thing...he shouldn't be.

Nobody should care what an entertainment podcaster says.

The fact that people are implying that his show is a " major source" of anti-vaccine sentiment is laughable.

And if people are claiming that, then they need to explain why a former NewsRadio cast member somehow has more influence on people than actual doctors.

People have to have already "lost faith" in the messaging of those doctors before they'll start looking to him for information.

Which was kind of my point.

I agree, I don't think there is justification for blaming anti-vax tendencies on him. If he's one of them them, then darn the luck, they're everywhere. Making him more influential doesn't solve anything.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,740.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That's really the thing...he shouldn't be.

Nobody should care what an entertainment podcaster says.

The fact that people are implying that his show is a " major source" of anti-vaccine sentiment is laughable.

And if people are claiming that, then they need to explain why a former NewsRadio cast member somehow has more influence on people than actual doctors.

People have to have already "lost faith" in the messaging of those doctors before they'll start looking to him for information.

Which was kind of my point.

How did his show get so big?

Clearly he has a formula for that, that actual medical experts need to tap into.

You'd think that people like Sanjay Gupta could take some notes about how to draw a bigger audience.

It's not as if Rogan made his "claim to fame" by pushing medical misinformation and inviting "alternative theory proponents" on his show...the vast majority of his career was simply just interviewing other comedians and other famous people.

He was famous long before covid was even a thing.

Seems that mainstream medicine professionals could learn a thing or two from him with regards to how to build an audience and build trust with the general public.

I agree that a lot of professionals could do well do figure out how to do media better. But Sanjay Gupta is on CNN and was at least recruited to be Surgeon General. How much bigger can a guy in his position get?

People listen to Rogan because people are stupid and have bad taste. They want stuff that's easy and unchallenging but just sensible enough to make them feel like they're listening to both sides or getting something reasonable or whatever, but still crazy enough that it's entertaining. MoreReasonableThanTuckerCarlson is apparently all it takes for a professional talker to make a gazillion dollars these days. If people wanted truly smart, informed podcasts, there are loads of them out there, but they use big words and talk to subject matter experts who aren't glory hounds. You're basically arguing that salad should do something to be as appealing as cheeseburgers or that The Met should figure out how to be as appealing as inappropriate contenthub. Sure, Salads and The Met could probably up their game, but no amount of tweeting is going to make them more appealing than junk food and inappropriate content.

But hey - while I'm obviously no fan of Rogan's, he's a huge step up from Limbaugh, so I suppose the arc of the moral universe is bending in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bradskii

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
Aug 19, 2018
15,689
10,592
71
Bondi
✟248,703.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I agree that a lot of professionals could do well do figure out how to do media better. But Sanjay Gupta is on CNN and was at least recruited to be Surgeon General. How much bigger can a guy in his position get?

People listen to Rogan because people are stupid and have bad taste. They want stuff that's easy and unchallenging but just sensible enough to make them feel like they're listening to both sides or getting something reasonable or whatever, but still crazy enough that it's entertaining. MoreReasonableThanTuckerCarlson is apparently all it takes for a professional talker to make a gazillion dollars these days. If people wanted truly smart, informed podcasts, there are loads of them out there, but they use big words and talk to subject matter experts who aren't glory hounds. You're basically arguing that salad should do something to be as appealing as cheeseburgers or that The Met should figure out how to be as appealing as inappropriate contenthub. Sure, Salads and The Met could probably up their game, but no amount of tweeting is going to make them more appealing than junk food and inappropriate content.

But hey - while I'm obviously no fan of Rogan's, he's a huge step up from Limbaugh, so I suppose the arc of the moral universe is bending in the right direction.

I've listened to him for a while a few months back. Some of his guests and the discussions he had were entertaining. He had Professor Brian Cox on one time and he was on for 2 1/2 hours. So you get a lot of info from such a smart guy. And Rogan was asking the right sort of layman questions he needed to. But then I listened to an interview he did with the despicable Alex Jones. For over three hours. You can see it on Youtube.

Now Jones's MO is just to talk over anyone who is interviewing him and literally shout out umpteen points he wants to make and he bullies the interviewer. There's no chance at all for a reasonable discussion. So I thought - hey, for three hours, there'll be ample time to get down to what this guy actually believes and call him out for it.

But...nothing. Rogan had him fact-checked live as the podcast went on and tried to correct him on some things. But instead of slowly tearing him down and showing him up for the piece of work he actually is, it turned out to be a platform for Jones to put out all his bat-crazy conspiracy theories. And Rogan just rolled along with it. Not necessarily agreeing, but making no attempt to call him out.

I made it up to the hour mark, but I literally couldn't take any more of it. And further investigation turned up that he though that what some of whay Jones said he agreed with. Plus he recommended that people don't need to get vaccinated if they are 'young and healthy' and even thinks (or thought) that the moon landing was a hoax.

Now I'm not saying that you should only listen to people with whom you agree. Quite the opposite. But if you want someone who goes for a hard hitting, lets-get-to-the-facts type of in-depth interview, then Rogan is not your man. But if you want a long, rambling stoner chat that meanders all over the place, then tune in.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
People listen to Rogan because people are stupid and have bad taste.

If people wanted truly smart, informed podcasts, there are loads of them out there, but they use big words and talk to subject matter experts who aren't glory hounds. You're basically arguing that salad should do something to be as appealing as cheeseburgers or that The Met should figure out how to be as appealing as inappropriate contenthub. Sure, Salads and The Met could probably up their game, but no amount of tweeting is going to make them more appealing than junk food and inappropriate content.

They are out there, and some of those podcasters have even gone on Rogan themselves to expand their own audience and reach. (Sam Harris for instance has a decent podcast, and he's made it a point to be on Rogan's podcast handful of times, wanting to build up his own numbers was probably a portion of the motivation for that)

But it should be noted that many of the other "good ones" out there that interview based, basically copied his formula, which was "long form conversational podcasts with interesting people, who up until then, you'd only been exposed to in 5 minute media spots"

Even if Rogan himself is ignorant on a number of subjects, he clearly understands how to build a successful means of reaching a lot of people.


And that's not even reduced to other podcasters. Politicians have used his show as an "exposure machine" as well.

Andrew Yang went on because Rogan was the only guy who would let the poor dude talk to the public for more than 30 seconds.

Bernie Sanders went on because he wanted to explain the details of his plan and said that his typically media interview only let him scratch the surface.


I'm sure Rogan would be thrilled to have someone like a Fauci on his show...guessing all it would take is a phone call.


And I don't think The Met vs. inappropriate contentHub comparison is the apropos comparison in this situation. I think the difference a "snooty art gallery where everyone looks down at you if you're not a historical art expert" vs. a casual and contemporary art gallery that's approachable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MehGuy
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,678
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And if people are claiming that, then they need to explain why a former NewsRadio cast member somehow has more influence on people than actual doctors.
Hey, NewRadio was a great show -- funniest show ever, in my view. As for your actual question... there is a long history in the US of anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism, sentiments that are often stoked by the cynical for political and financial gain.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,410
15,557
Colorado
✟427,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Hey, NewRadio was a great show -- funniest show ever, in my view. As for your actual question... there is a long history in the US of anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism, sentiments that are often stoked by the cynical for political and financial gain.
"I love the poorly educated!"
 
  • Informative
Reactions: KCfromNC
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bekkilyn

Contemplative Christian
Supporter
Apr 27, 2017
7,612
8,475
USA
✟677,608.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Others
I'm all for anyone providing ways for people to freely speak without being censored suppressed and canceled by the woke liberal religion. It's no mystery to me that Rogan is so popular with so many people. His show represents a free exchange of information that is part of what our country is is supposed to be about rather than the Orwellian Marxist state that the woke liberals are creating and inflicting on everyone...an agenda that is a virus in and of itself. Perhaps we might say that Rogan is part of our vaccine against that which would destroy democracy and free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MehGuy
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hey, NewRadio was a great show -- funniest show ever, in my view. As for your actual question... there is a long history in the US of anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism, sentiments that are often stoked by the cynical for political and financial gain.

It was one of my favorites, but largely due to Phil Hartman.

 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,740.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
They are out there, and some of those podcasters have even gone on Rogan themselves to expand their own audience and reach. (Sam Harris for instance has a decent podcast, and he's made it a point to be on Rogan's podcast handful of times, wanting to build up his own numbers was probably a portion of the motivation for that)

But it should be noted that many of the other "good ones" out there that interview based, basically copied his formula, which was "long form conversational podcasts with interesting people, who up until then, you'd only been exposed to in 5 minute media spots"

That format hardly originated with Rogan. Terry Gross, Charlie Rose, and James Lipton were all doing it long before he was.

Even if Rogan himself is ignorant on a number of subjects, he clearly understands how to build a successful means of reaching a lot of people.

IMO, his ignorance is part of the problem. You can't ask thoughtful probing questions if you don't understand the subject matter to at least some degree.

And I don't think The Met vs. inappropriate contentHub comparison is the apropos comparison in this situation. I think the difference a "snooty art gallery where everyone looks down at you if you're not a historical art expert" vs. a casual and contemporary art gallery that's approachable.

IME, that's a pretty good description of The Met. It's MOMA and other modern art museums that have all the pretentious nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,525
Here
✟1,196,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That format hardly originated with Rogan. Terry Gross, Charlie Rose, and James Lipton were all doing it long before he was.

That's why, if you noticed in my post, I specified "podcast" and didn't just say "interviewer"

IMO, his ignorance is part of the problem. You can't ask thoughtful probing questions if you don't understand the subject matter to at least some degree.

Before Covid was a thing, I've seen him have decent conversations with other Doctors and PhDs. It's not as if he just sticks with "fringe figures" out there, he's had Michael Osterholm on there as well.

Pretty sure Rogan is also pretty ignorant (as is most of the population) on astrophysics. But Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been on their 4 times.

Tyson seems like a "pull no punches, straight shooter" type, so if Rogan's questions to him were so ignorant that it was a waste of his time, I can't imagine he would've gone back for 3 more.



I provide the same kind of defenses (but on a different premise) for him that I used to provide for guys like Howard Stern or Opie & Anthony.

When someone is disliked by many or "controversial", people will try to downplay their success and chalk it up to some trivial attribute...

Like in Rogan's case, I've heard the "it's just because frat bros want an echo chamber"
In the case of Stern and O&A, it was the "oh, well it's just because a bunch of immature men want to hear potty humor"

Or, in other words, implying that "they don't have any that's special and unique that makes them a success, it's just because everyone else is stupid and likes to listen to them"


If it was as easy to make Stern's money simply by telling crass jokes, and any old person could do it because everyone else is so dumb they'll eat it right up, I can tell a few dirty jokes, where can I send my demo tape so I can start making that $90 million like he has?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,026
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,740.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Before Covid was a thing, I've seen him have decent conversations with other Doctors and PhDs. It's not as if he just sticks with "fringe figures" out there, he's had Michael Osterholm on there as well.

Pretty sure Rogan is also pretty ignorant (as is most of the population) on astrophysics. But Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been on their 4 times.

Tyson seems like a "pull no punches, straight shooter" type, so if Rogan's questions to him were so ignorant that it was a waste of his time, I can't imagine he would've gone back for 3 more.

Tyson is a media hound who hasn't done research in 25 years. You said yourself people go on Rogan's show to boost their own profile.

I provide the same kind of defenses (but on a different premise) for him that I used to provide for guys like Howard Stern or Opie & Anthony.

When someone is disliked by many or "controversial", people will try to downplay their success and chalk it up to some trivial attribute...

Like in Rogan's case, I've heard the "it's just because frat bros want an echo chamber"
In the case of Stern and O&A, it was the "oh, well it's just because a bunch of immature men want to hear potty humor"

Or, in other words, implying that "they don't have any that's special and unique that makes them a success, it's just because everyone else is stupid and likes to listen to them"


If it was as easy to make Stern's money simply by telling crass jokes, and any old person could do it because everyone else is so dumb they'll eat it right up, I can tell a few dirty jokes, where can I send my demo tape so I can start making that $90 million like he has?

We might be talking past each other.

I freely admit that being a professional talker and building a large audience is a skill. I hate Rush Limbaugh with a passion, but I always conceded that he was skilled at certain parts of his job. I've said similar things about Trump: the guy was an abysmal executive, but he knows how to work a crowd. So, I'm not deriding Rogan's skill in certain areas. But while those talents equate to producing a highly marketable product, I don't think they equate to producing a high quality product.

To make another analogy: McDonald's is obviously very good at making and distributing large quantities of inexpensive hamburgers. That's a significant logistical and food engineering accomplishment and they deserve to be credited for it. But that doesn't mean they should be up for a James Beard award or a Michelin star and pointing out that they continue to serve billions and billions of people doesn't do anything to justify such an award.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatRobGuy
Upvote 0