This week on Callin we’ve got Nancy Rommelmann stopping by on Wednesday 8 pm PST. Then we’ve got Wosny Lambre stopping by Thursday 8 pm PST for House of Sport.
As a long-time admirer of your work, I have been tossing up whether to pay for your substack Ethan, and at this point I have to say I'm not going to. While I respect your intellect and non-mainstream take, your lazy attitude to some important arguments is concerning. What am I talking about? Peer-reviewed science, mostly. In the Matt Taibi pod he raised Ivermectin, listed a bunch of positive furphies about it which had nothing to do with its effect on covid, then ended with "why not?" And you went along with it. Really? That is acceptable to you? So the vaccines have to go through exhaustive peer-reviewed stage 1-4 trials, but we can accept some half-baked lab experiments and specious pre-publications for Ivermectin? No. They have to be held to the same scientific standard. And what is the harm from not doing this, and from saying "why not"? The harm is that you and Matt are people of influence supporting a quack cure - or at the very least a medicine with the flimsiest evidence behind it to treat covid (the reason medical authorities are yet to recommend it) - and this supports in the minds of some the idea that they don't need a vaccine, or that vaccines and ivermectin are equivalent when they clearly are not. Ivermectin poisonings have also risen dramatically this year, and grifters have moved in to take money off frightened people. So yeah, when people like Rogan and Taibi start saying "why not?" to unproven medicine, there is a consequence, and it's a bit disturbing to me that an honest and intelligent commentator like you did not at least sound a note of caution on that. There is an Oxford study of Ivermectin and covid involving 5000 people that will be published in the coming months which should shed more light on it, but without that caution needs to be applied when discussing what is at this point snake oil. This is just one example of a trend in your pods - that of being agreeable when perhaps your more skeptical and contrarian side should be poking out its head. Peer-reviewed science needs to be treated with respect, or what is the point of it? If it isn't we may as well all just make up our own reality... and we've all seen where that leads.
Anyone know of a way non-Apple folks can access these?
Would love Callin-ers to House of Sports to give their best conspiracy theory behind Kenny Atkinson's disappearance.
As a long-time admirer of your work, I have been tossing up whether to pay for your substack Ethan, and at this point I have to say I'm not going to. While I respect your intellect and non-mainstream take, your lazy attitude to some important arguments is concerning. What am I talking about? Peer-reviewed science, mostly. In the Matt Taibi pod he raised Ivermectin, listed a bunch of positive furphies about it which had nothing to do with its effect on covid, then ended with "why not?" And you went along with it. Really? That is acceptable to you? So the vaccines have to go through exhaustive peer-reviewed stage 1-4 trials, but we can accept some half-baked lab experiments and specious pre-publications for Ivermectin? No. They have to be held to the same scientific standard. And what is the harm from not doing this, and from saying "why not"? The harm is that you and Matt are people of influence supporting a quack cure - or at the very least a medicine with the flimsiest evidence behind it to treat covid (the reason medical authorities are yet to recommend it) - and this supports in the minds of some the idea that they don't need a vaccine, or that vaccines and ivermectin are equivalent when they clearly are not. Ivermectin poisonings have also risen dramatically this year, and grifters have moved in to take money off frightened people. So yeah, when people like Rogan and Taibi start saying "why not?" to unproven medicine, there is a consequence, and it's a bit disturbing to me that an honest and intelligent commentator like you did not at least sound a note of caution on that. There is an Oxford study of Ivermectin and covid involving 5000 people that will be published in the coming months which should shed more light on it, but without that caution needs to be applied when discussing what is at this point snake oil. This is just one example of a trend in your pods - that of being agreeable when perhaps your more skeptical and contrarian side should be poking out its head. Peer-reviewed science needs to be treated with respect, or what is the point of it? If it isn't we may as well all just make up our own reality... and we've all seen where that leads.
Would love Wos’s take on my Catholic question from last week. Does Woj operate the way he does because he unburdens his sins in confession every week?