People don’t think statistically. He’s asking questions about covid and how anecdotes relate like normal people. You state he’s a conspiracy theorist but the result of him being cured of covid in a few days isn’t evidence enough for you that bis bro science isn’t wrong? You can argue theory all day but he lives the way he preaches, the reality of his actions isn’t enough?
Too bad everyone else living the way they did who died of Covid didn’t live Joe Rogan’s reality and ended up a statistic instead.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at here. He can’t be judged because he seems to be consistent in his actions? That doesn’t make them inherently valid.
His recovery method give him credibility, unless you think most unvaccinated people recover in 3 days and nothing he did helped his recovery. Mainstream news say nothing he used including ivermectin works while anyone with a brain will look at the results of his recovery and say the mainstream news has no relevance, its like seeing 1+5=6 then some overpaid group of talking heads in makeup and dressed to present random factoids they don't care about or have any interest in are paid to say its not right, and they state the math is wrong. They are deluded if they think they have any credibility left vs real results. Why are the people denying it valid by that standard?
I'd like to believe that "anyone with a brain" won't take one anecdote as gospel and base everything on it and throw out all the other data.
Even if Ivermectin is some Covid miracle treatment (It isn't), Joe Rogan's experience isn't typical or expected and it doesn't mean that pumping Vitamin D and Ivermectin will yield similar results for you or anyone else. Additionally, the Ivermectin narrative (I'll leave the question of if it has any benefit open for the sake of argument) is one that positions it as an alternative for vaccinations which is inherently dangerous.
Also we have actual treatments (Remdesivir, Monoclonal antibodies) that have documented clinical results for active infections, we don't need to gamble on bullshit.
To add one other thing, because I think we can get on the same page about this probably: Just because someone says something and they're in authority/credentialled doesn't mean you should believe them unconditionally. It is important to have a healthy skepticism of information, regardless of its source. But the outright rejection of any "authoritative" information and latching on to whatever counter-narrative (read: misinformation) that happens to be popular is just as naive and stupid, but it seems like that's where we're at these days.
He used monoclonal antibodies too. I am not stating Ivermectin is all that helped (I am not sure its that useful personally, I think its probably his healthy lifestyle, steroids, the non missing nutrients and minerals that helped him as well as monoclonal antibodies he used), his "conspiracy theory" treatment had a 3 day recovery, yet hes dismissed because some talking heads online were paid to hes wrong about everything despite his quick recovery.
I think I would disagree about the last part. I think whatever the CDC announces I think the opposite since they have been wrong about everything. I am glad I ignored Faucci about masks at the beginning, or how it wasn't contagious or whatever else they told the public. Public trust is at an all time low, and they will need to earn my trust again, and so far there isn't any reason to believe these so called experts who are more intent on silencing disagreement than giving useful content. I have to read papers on my own since the talking heads and publicists often make misleading/false statements based on snipped quotes so I won't listen to any statements they make and just read papers on my own, authority exists, but its not some political talking head, its the scientists who publish their findings and have their papers turned into propaganda by people who unfortunately use them for political reasons.
