PVS: Post Vaccination Syndrome (1 Viewer)

[dkp993]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

 

[Scoresman]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

 

[dkp993]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

Fully agree, but that’s not his problem. Or his responsibility.

I’m not a fan of disinformation, especially those self proclaimed experts promoting it. But if we truly want free speech, we have to be comfortable with the things that we don’t like as well. It’s baked into the notion of it. And if we ever actually tried the slippery slope of regulating it, we certainly shouldn’t start with the entertainment industry. There’s about 150 other places I would start first.

 

[Scoresman]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

Fully agree, but that’s not his problem. Or his responsibility.

I’m not a fan of disinformation, especially those self proclaimed experts promoting it. But if we truly want free speech, we have to be comfortable with the things that we don’t like as well. It’s baked into the notion of it. And if we ever actually tried the slippery slope of regulating it, we certainly shouldn’t start with the entertainment industry. There’s about 150 other places I would start first.

I don't think anyone is supportive of regulating podcasts like Rogan.

But if he is setting these up as equal discussions, there is a bit of irresponsibility on his part. I'm talking about things that have been objectively debunked, not things that are still debatable.

But ultimately it's up to the listeners to use their brain to weed out the disinformation.

 

[Gally]

I'm talking about things that have been objectively debunked

But for something like the flat earth people........it is very interesting to me to actually see what makes them think they are correct. It is so obviously wrong it is interesting to get the viewpoint of someone that believes it. What is it that makes them really think they are correct? It's not about giving it validity. It's about seeing what could possibly lead them to that conclusion that is so obviously wrong.

 

[TheAristocrat]

"I'm not a fan of disinformation but I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe."

Ok.

 

[Scoresman]

"I'm not a fan of disinformation but I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe."

Ok.

I mean, I find it entertaining too to hear flat earthers try and proove their case. But at the same time I dont like it because there's a significant portion of the population that believes that crap and that's how misinformation spreads. And these people are allowed to vote.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Just my opinion, but when your platform gets big enough, you have a responsibility to vett the information a little more closely.

Rogan know that more people listen when his guests are the Andrew Wakefields of the world than someone who is boring and qualified in their field.

 

[Gally]

But at the same time I dont like it because there's a significant portion of the population that believes that crap

I have never met anyone that believes the earth is flat. How big of percentage actually believe it? I tried a quick google and the first one showed 10% of those surveyed believe the earth is flat and 9% are unsure. WTF?

 

[Scoresman]

But at the same time I dont like it because there's a significant portion of the population that believes that crap

I have never met anyone that believes the earth is flat. How big of percentage actually believe it? I tried a quick google and the first one showed 10% of those surveyed believe the earth is flat and 9% are unsure. WTF?

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

 

[Gally]

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

I believe that was a world wide survey.......not just USA

ETA: a quick first search for USA put it at about 2% (back in 2018)

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

Rogan takes the taboo out of discussing topics, and yes it's entertainment
If anyone ever listens to his 2-3 hour shows, it's not wall to wall chaos, in fact many times I put him on later evening when I want to fall asleep, do the same with "Club Random"
Mrs likes when i run the Poker Go commentary on whatever they are promoting, the sound of the chips and low voices/table chatter, she falls right to sleep

Art Bell was a late night pioneer that had all kinds of crazy folks that called into his show, Rogan modernized a lot of that and cleaned it up for larger audiences to digest and enjoy
I don't think Rogan as a stand up comedian is all that funny but I enjoy what he has put together in the podcast world.

 

[Joe Schmo]

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

I believe that was a world wide survey.......not just USA

ETA: a quick first search for USA put it at about 2% (back in 2018)

Based on 340 million population that amounts to 6,800,000 people walking around convinced we live on a saucer. oof, disheartening

 

[BlackCrowes]

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

I believe that was a world wide survey.......not just USA

ETA: a quick first search for USA put it at about 2% (back in 2018)

Based on 340 million population that amounts to 6,800,000 people walking around convinced we live on a saucer. oof, disheartening

you should watch the youtube video where a bunch of them take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24-hour sun circle them.

 

[Joe Schmo]

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

I believe that was a world wide survey.......not just USA

ETA: a quick first search for USA put it at about 2% (back in 2018)

Based on 340 million population that amounts to 6,800,000 people walking around convinced we live on a saucer. oof, disheartening

you should watch the youtube video where a bunch of them take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24-hour sun circle them.

Am I gonna laugh or cry?

 

[Harry Manback]

I'm talking about things that have been objectively debunked

But for something like the flat earth people........it is very interesting to me to actually see what makes them think they are correct. It is so obviously wrong it is interesting to get the viewpoint of someone that believes it. What is it that makes them really think they are correct? It's not about giving it validity. It's about seeing what could possibly lead them to that conclusion that is so obviously wrong.

They are either incapable or unwilling of acknowledging the very rudimentary scientific principles that disprove their "theories". They resort to conspiracy or a gross misunderstanding of science to back them up.

I saw someone say that the curvature of the earth has never been measured. Ignoring boats disappearing over the horizon, or simple tests with people on a ladder with a flashlight and simply walking X number of meters away and being unable to see the light anymore. It's willful ignorance mostly.

 

[BlackCrowes]

That's nuts. 10% is significant when you realize these people also vote.

I believe that was a world wide survey.......not just USA

ETA: a quick first search for USA put it at about 2% (back in 2018)

Based on 340 million population that amounts to 6,800,000 people walking around convinced we live on a saucer. oof, disheartening

you should watch the youtube video where a bunch of them take a trip to Antarctica to see the 24-hour sun circle them.

Am I gonna laugh or cry?

one of them was actually convinced. can't remember the name but he was a "famous" youtube flat-earther. bit of a shockwave in their little community.

 

[Scoresman]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

What debunked ideas does this group believe? You’ve gone off the deep end from people questioning doctors regarding their own health to obsessing about flat earth and trying to link the two.

This was a side tangent about misinformation and bringing it to the table for legitimate discussion. I am not trying to link it to anything about flat earth theories nor do I think I've questioned anyone's doctor.

As for what people believe here in regards to vaccines? I'm not sure. I do see a whole lot of anecdotal experiences and bad science posted when there are pages and pages of peer reviewed studies on the internet continually demonstrating the benefits of them. But it seems like for a lot of people, this is ignored in place of finding that one potential " A ha!" that in their mind carries much more weight and validates their preconceived beliefs.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

What debunked ideas does this group believe? You’ve gone off the deep end from people questioning doctors regarding their own health to obsessing about flat earth and trying to link the two.

This was a side tangent about misinformation and bringing it to the table for legitimate discussion. I am not trying to link it to anything about flat earth theories nor do I think I've questioned anyone's doctor.

As for what people believe here in regards to vaccines? I'm not sure. I do see a whole lot of anecdotal experiences and bad science posted when there are pages and pages of peer reviewed studies on the internet continually demonstrating the benefits of them. But it seems like for a lot of people, this is ignored in place of finding that one potential " A ha!" that in their mind carries much more weight and validates their preconceived beliefs.

Questioning one’s doctor isn’t just about vaccines but you can harp on that I guess.

I don’t take all vaccines but am not against all of them. I don’t think the earth is flat. I understand science defines a man vs woman but everyone doesn’t get that. Not sure what any of this has to do with doing your own research on health.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Ugh.....VAERS again? We went over this extensively in the COVID thread. All cases classified "serious" and above are independently verified. They aren't close to having reviewed all those much less the more minor ones.

It is relatively meaning less to use that system for much of anything other than patterning and/or roughly tracking spread while an event is ongoing.

 

[warpig33]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

I gotta admit I just popped in here. But seeing someone use Grok as a reference makes me chuckle. An AI platform that can be manipulated and "force fed" by its developers. I feel sorry for the younger generation and their AI fascination. "Hey Grok, do my job for me".

Carry on...

Using AI blindly when things deserve a researched and personalized response is indeed bad.

When someone is parroting a long since disproven narrative, that does not deserve the time required to craft a response.

In those situations, an AI response covering a very well understood bit of misinformation is sufficient.

Unless you take issue with anything Grok said. If so by all means feel free to share your correction and source,

I believe I am on your side when it comes to the pandemic fiasco. However, I do still want to add evidence to my claim that AI can be "guided":

Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, goes on antisemitic tirade

Grok AI chatbot shared antisemitic content on X, referencing Hitler and conspiracy theories about Jews, prompting xAI to restrict its capabilities.

www.foxbusiness.com

You can't trust ANYTHING other than your own eyes and ears. But with these AI created fakes, it appears you can't trust your eyes anymore either. And the sheeple out there are all too willing to eat up anything AI generated.

 

[rockaction]

I just tried to figure out how they figured out the earth was round. Eratosthanes apparently figured it out (proved it in the best way) by using sticks in Egypt and measuring the comparative angles of the shadows of the sun in the 3rd century BC. Interesting stuff.

eta* Others had speculated up through Aristotle, but Eratosthanes was the first to do it by measurement, I think.

 

[rockaction]

Rogan takes the taboo out of discussing topics, and yes it's entertainment

There was a guy here (whose name I won't divulge) that was talking about an historian with admiration that Rogan had had on. This particular historian was on a Rogan segment where he had argued that Churchill was almost as responsible for WWII as Hitler and that the two were both nearly equally morally ambiguous. He caviled and said he wasn't going that far, but they found his writings on his own (blog or whatever) turf where he had said so.

Rogan does a massive disservice by platforming individuals that have no reputable or reasonable arguments on their side and giving those ideas airspace. The problem is very, very complicated. I understand the role of allowing dissenting opinions and free speech, but there are certain things that are just gobsmacking that are allowed and given the imprimatur of an approved side of the debate.

I think he either knows that it's a crock (which is cynical and awful), or he's not the person to be having these discussions to the tune of millions of listeners. It is probably as unseemly as hundreds of millions of dollars will make it, and it's not so much about free speech (though free speech is, to paraphrase Stanley Fish, the first and most stalwart amendment of the scoundrel—and yes, I know it's not a state actor issue or a government one, thanks) as people would have you believe.

I just—I felt a little sunk when I saw that somebody here earnestly bought the guy as an historian.

I'm limiting this to Rogan and not getting political with the vaccine stuff, by the way.

 

[[icon]]

Interesting study published by the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS).

View of Association Between COVID-19 Vaccination and Neuropsychiatric Conditions

ijirms.in

Abstract
Introduction: This study explores the potential associations between COVID-19 vaccination and neuropsychiatric conditions.
Methods: Data were collected from the CDC and FDA. The VAERS database was queried from January 1, 1990, to December 27, 2024, for adverse events (AEs) involving neuropsychiatric complications following COVID-19 vaccination. The timeframe included 420 months for all vaccines except COVID-19 vaccines which have been available to the public for only 48 months. Proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) were calculated by time comparing AEs after COVID-19 vaccination to those after influenza vaccination and to those after all other vaccines. The CDC/FDA stipulates a safety concern if a PRR is ≥ 2.

Results: Comparing COVID-19 vaccination to influenza vaccinations, the CDC/FDA’s safety signals (PRR, 95% confidence interval, p-value, Z-score) were breached for the following combinations: 47 AEs associated with cognitive impairment (PRR: 118, 95% CI: 87.2-160, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.9); 28 AEs associated with general psychiatric illness (PRR: 115, 95% CI: 85.1-156, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 30.8); and 11 AEs associated with suicide/homicide (PRR: 80.1, 95% CI: 57.3-112, p < 0.0001, Z-score: 25.7)
Conclusions: There are alarming safety signals regarding neuropsychiatric conditions following COVID-19 vaccination, compared to the influenza vaccinations and to all other vaccinations combined.

The only thing interesting about that “study” Is how people still bite the stinky bait that is VAERS misuse as a backbone of a poorly structured “study”

The study used the government's own data to show the CDC/FDA's own "red flag" criteria was crossed. Yet here we still are pretending like all risks are too minimal to care about. It deserved a closer look or potentially a pause in vaccination.

The FDA just reviewed the myocarditis risk associated with the vaccine and are making the manufacturers post updated warning labels for 12-24 year old males. Once the data (not vears) was stratified for age it showed that demographic is at an elevated risk. Sadly before this change the data (risk) was lumped into everyone 0-64 years old which made it appear to be less of a risk than it actually was to certain groups.

Part of the reason the US is changing its vaccine strategy. We have a better understanding of risk vs benefit.

If you view VAERS as some sort of official government data, you’re making it clear from jump that you don’t belong in this conversation.

Just stop. Seriously.

Some thoughts from Grok because this doesn’t even merit me taking the time to craft a response.

First off, the claim that a study used “the government’s own data” from VAERS to show that the CDC/FDA’s “red flag” criteria was crossed needs some scrutiny. VAERS, or the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, is a passive surveillance system where anyone—doctors, patients, or even random folks—can report adverse events after vaccination. It’s a valuable tool for detecting potential signals, but it’s not designed to prove causation. The data is raw and unverified, meaning reports aren’t necessarily confirmed as being caused by the vaccine. So, when someone says VAERS data shows a “red flag” was crossed, it’s often a misrepresentation of what VAERS can actually tell us.

Studies or claims relying solely on VAERS without further validation (like clinical studies or epidemiological analysis) are on shaky ground. The CDC and FDA don’t base their “red flag” criteria on unverified VAERS reports alone—they use multiple data sources, including active surveillance systems like V-safe and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, to assess risks.

Now, about the idea that risks are being downplayed or ignored, leading to calls for a “pause in vaccination”—this doesn’t hold up when you look at the broader evidence. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing and rigorous. When signals of potential issues arise, they’re investigated thoroughly.

Take myocarditis, for instance, which you mentioned. The FDA and CDC did identify a rare but elevated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in younger males (12-24 years old) after mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna. This isn’t something that was swept under the rug. Studies, including those published in journals like *JAMA* and *The Lancet*, have quantified this risk, showing it’s higher in that demographic but still very rare—on the order of about 40-70 cases per million doses in young males, depending on the study. Compare that to the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 itself, which is significantly higher, often by a factor of 5-10, even in the same age group. The benefit of vaccination in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and long COVID still outweighs this rare risk for most people, which is why vaccination hasn’t been paused but rather tailored with updated guidance.

You’re right that the FDA has updated warning labels for myocarditis risk in that 12-24 age group, and that’s a good example of the system working. When data showed a clearer picture after stratifying by age, agencies acted by updating labels and informing healthcare providers to monitor for symptoms like chest pain post-vaccination.

The claim that risks were “lumped” into a 0-64 age group to downplay them isn’t accurate, though. Risk assessments have always involved breaking down data by demographics when possible, and early on, the signal for myocarditis in younger males was identified precisely because of this stratification. It wasn’t hidden; it just took time to gather enough data for statistical significance. Public health communication sometimes lags behind the science as they balance clarity with avoiding unnecessary panic, but the data wasn’t manipulated or obscured.

As for the US changing its vaccine strategy due to a better understanding of risk versus benefit, that’s partially true but not in the way the anti-vax take might imply. Strategies evolve as we learn more about who’s most at risk from COVID-19 and who benefits most from vaccination. For example, booster recommendations have been refined to prioritize older adults and immunocompromised individuals over younger, healthy people in some cases, because the risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 is much higher in those groups.

This isn’t about vaccines being “too risky” overall; it’s about optimizing public health resources and tailoring recommendations. The myocarditis risk, while real, hasn’t led to a wholesale rejection of vaccines in younger groups—rather, it’s led to informed consent and monitoring protocols.

The bottom line is that the anti-vax narrative around VAERS often overstates the data’s implications while ignoring the broader context of vaccine safety monitoring and the overwhelming evidence of benefit over risk. VAERS is a starting point for investigation, not a conclusion.

I gotta admit I just popped in here. But seeing someone use Grok as a reference makes me chuckle. An AI platform that can be manipulated and "force fed" by its developers. I feel sorry for the younger generation and their AI fascination. "Hey Grok, do my job for me".

Carry on...

Using AI blindly when things deserve a researched and personalized response is indeed bad.

When someone is parroting a long since disproven narrative, that does not deserve the time required to craft a response.

In those situations, an AI response covering a very well understood bit of misinformation is sufficient.

Unless you take issue with anything Grok said. If so by all means feel free to share your correction and source,

I believe I am on your side when it comes to the pandemic fiasco. However, I do still want to add evidence to my claim that AI can be "guided":

Elon Musk's AI chatbot, Grok, goes on antisemitic tirade

Grok AI chatbot shared antisemitic content on X, referencing Hitler and conspiracy theories about Jews, prompting xAI to restrict its capabilities.

www.foxbusiness.com

You can't trust ANYTHING other than your own eyes and ears. But with these AI created fakes, it appears you can't trust your eyes anymore either. And the sheeple out there are all too willing to eat up anything AI generated.

Nobody argued that AI couldn’t be guided…. Particularly if you’ve got access to the core LLM.

If you read my response you’d know I wasnt arguing that. If you’re still confused I encourage you to go read my response again.

I also encouraged you to dispute anything in my AI response if you felt it was inaccurate.

 

[dkp993]

I just tried to figure out how they figured out the earth was round. Eratosthanes apparently figured it out (proved it in the best way) by using sticks in Egypt and measuring the comparative angles of the shadows of the sun in the 3rd century BC. Interesting stuff.

eta* Others had speculated up through Aristotle, but Eratosthanes was the first to do it by measurement, I think.

It’s round? That’s not what I heard on Rogan.

 

[rockaction]

It’s round? That’s not what I heard on Rogan.

LOL

Touché

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This thread is the epitome of what I have termed "Roganing"

On Joe Rogan's podcast he platforms "opposing viewpoints" out of a nod to "fairness"

But then he platforms a flat earther next to Neil DeGrasse Tyson and gives each equal credence. It is a true false equivalency and it ends up lending credibility to a many-times-over debunked "theory."

Its how we get a US Secretary of Health and Human Services that *still* believes vaccines cause autism, even though its been debunked over and over.

If we can't call out conspiracy theories for what they are, then we can't have a discussion either.

Feel free to delete this if deemed too political.

So instead of a place where ideas can be discussed openly and allowing the listener to decide what they want to believe you would rather Podcasters independently decide to be the arbiters of truth and not allow people on their shows who might have viewpoints that differ or be considered “conspiracies”?

Well, I’m sure that will work out fantastically and not create a bubble environment at all.

When something that has been debunked many times over like 'flat earth' or 'vaccines cause autism' is still invited to the table as a plausible point of debate, then yeah I do have a problem with that. It's blatant misinformation.

This is not the same thing as discussing ideas openly.

It’s a podcast, it’s entertainment. I personally find it entertaining to hear why people think the Earth is flat, or what leads people to believe any other crazy **** they believe. Podcasts are not required, or expected quite frankly, to be held to a journalistic documentary standard. It’s just people talking. Why should we be afraid of that?

Rogan says it all the time, he just wants to talk to people he finds interesting. He’s an entertainer, not the last word in truth.

I don't listen to Rogan so I'll take your word that he intends it to be entertainment. It's his podcast, he can do what he wants.

But it definitely feeds the "do my own research" crowd when these debunked "ideas" keep getting brought to the table for discussion. Just because Rogan or any other podcaster puts a disclaimer saying it's only entertainment, doesn't mean listeners will consume it that way.

What debunked ideas does this group believe? You’ve gone off the deep end from people questioning doctors regarding their own health to obsessing about flat earth and trying to link the two.

This was a side tangent about misinformation and bringing it to the table for legitimate discussion. I am not trying to link it to anything about flat earth theories nor do I think I've questioned anyone's doctor.

As for what people believe here in regards to vaccines? I'm not sure. I do see a whole lot of anecdotal experiences and bad science posted when there are pages and pages of peer reviewed studies on the internet continually demonstrating the benefits of them. But it seems like for a lot of people, this is ignored in place of finding that one potential " A ha!" that in their mind carries much more weight and validates their preconceived beliefs.

Questioning one’s doctor isn’t just about vaccines but you can harp on that I guess.

I don’t take all vaccines but am not against all of them. I don’t think the earth is flat. I understand science defines a man vs woman but everyone doesn’t get that. Not sure what any of this has to do with doing your own research on health.

I can name several occasions where I go to see a doctor and it gets me nowhere
Starts with just trying to book an appointment and we pay good money for our health insurance plan.
It's a PIA just to get an annual physical and blood work

-I've shared this story a couple times but when i went in for my physical in 2021, I lost 50 lbs and he gained 50 lbs during the pandemic
That's when we had a little talk about what he should and should not be telling me about my health. I joked with him to let me have the stethoscope and hop up on the table for me
"What the hell they feeding you down at the cafeteria, DOC?!"

 

[Sparky Polastri]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com