Fact-Checking CNN on Whether Joe Rogan Got "Fact-Checked" By a Guest on Myocarditis
The question was risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccination vs. from COVID. Spoiler alert: CNN faceplants. Badly.
CNN’s “New Day” misrepresents Joe Rogan’s classic double-checking himself on a matter brought up in a conversation with a guest with his guest “Fact-Checking” Rogan on the relative risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection vs. COVID-19 vaccines.
CNN’s failed attempt to reposition public health as a bastion of virtue and a ministry of truth flops again when the guest on New Day is asked to comment. After seeing Rogan check his own understanding, and then question the source of information that countered what he had seen previously, the guest should have said “it’s great to see someone like Joe who is willing to challenge his understanding. But the reference Jamie found for him was for Pfizer vaccines only, and the reason why he was uncertain of the information he was reading now, and what he read before was that there is a much higher risk of myocarditis following the second dose of Moderna compared to Pfizer.”
Instead, the CNN guest follows the anchor’s leading first question to speak in general terms on what’s wrong with the Joe Rogan effect, and grandstands about how Joe is contributing to fewer people receiving the vaccine. As if Joe’s sharing his thoughts, double-checking them, and showing the world that one can update their position on new information, is a bad thing.
The anchor then reads a quote allegedly signed by 250 medical professionals - but it’s already been established that most of the 250 “medical professionals” are not medical experts.
The anchor then asks the epidemiologist to comment on Joe’s questioning the quality of the source of the information on the risk of myocarditis following the Pfizer vaccine - and she says it’s ‘concerning’ because Joe is an entertainer, not a public health or medical professional. The entire position by the guest is a logical flaw known as an “appeal to authority” - the very authority Joe and so many of us have been questioning has failed. The guest never addresses the fact that Joe Rogan checked his own understanding, live, something CNN anchors never do. They just ask experts their opinions.
The news media used to be about reporting the news, not constructing the narrative, but those times are long gone. They don’t even pretend anymore. Nevertheless, the segment amounts to nothing more than another “I’m the authority here”, and yet the epidemiologist wasted an opportunity. First and foremost, she could have shared that steroids can be helpful in reducing the severity of COVID-19 related myocarditis. Second, she was not forthright about other important factors, such as circumstances that can impact the outcome of myocarditis following vaccination. For example, strenuous exercise can lead to serious health consequences in individuals with vaccine-induced myocarditis; therefore, athletes who vaccinate might benefit from a prolonged “recovery” period following vaccination.
If the concern is public health, then the epidemiologists should have used the CNN platform (as dwindling as it is) to demonstrate such sheer objectivity. But she can’t. She’s not allowed to say anything that might throw shade on vaccines. So athletes will drop, and she’s left them at risk of dropping. This failure to address vaccine risk, of course, does more to spread vaccine risk aversion than Joe Rogan’s segment.
Husby et al., BMJ Nov 2021 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-068665
And CNN misses a very, very important point in all of this: Joe self-checking based on a challenge from a guest is healthy. It’s what everyone should do. People are trying to form an opinion in an era in which “public health” has not only been wrong about nearly every single issue related COVID-19: they’ve been caught lying, they’ve admitted to lying.
Joe scooped CNN on the fact that he’s not a medical professional. From 2019:
Joe’s self-effacing is something public health can never do. But it’s part of what gives him appeal to the masses. When he makes a mistake, he reminds people it is their duty to figure things out for themselves, as well as they can. When he questioned the quality of the source of information, something the CNN host calls “moving the goalpost”, he was modeling behavior every person interested in getting to the truth should do. Was the study independent of Pfizer and Moderna? Was it funded or conducted by anyone associated with NIAID or CDC? Does it use data from the VSD, which in June was used to report zero serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, two days prior to FDA issuing the first warning on myocarditis?
It turns out that the source was a preprint, not peer-reviewed, yet it is listed in Pubmed as part of NIH’s Preprint Pilot program. I suspect the NIH allowed this study into its preprint distribution given its favorable result.
Some Current Data
The current updated risk of myocarditis in teen males from the Pfizer vaccine is, btw, now updated to 8.09 per 100K, according to a new study from Israeli adolescents out the New England Journal of Medicine.
It’s important to keep in mind that myocarditis from mRNA vaccines and myocarditis from COVID-19 likely involve distinct mechanisms - and the risk of diagnosis is not the ultimate arbiter. There’s the risk of hospitalization.
There’s a study (not peer-reviewed yet) that found that
“For boys 12-15 without medical comorbidities receiving their second mRNA vaccination dose, the rate of CAE is 3.7 to 6.1 times higher than their 120-day COVID-19 hospitalization risk”.
That’s all hospitalization related to COVID-19, not just myocarditis.
A final thought - the CNN interview smacks of desperation. CNN has lost a massive amount of the market - to people who provide objective, in-depth and thoughtful analyses.
Like Joe Rogan.
The difference? He does not represent his opinion as fact.
Totally fab smack down and reality check with bullet proof sourcing, big time kudos & thanks! :~)
"Does it use data from the VSD, which in June was used to report zero serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, two days prior to FDA issuing the first warning on myocarditis?
It turns out that the source was a preprint, not peer-reviewed, yet it is listed in Pubmed as part of NIH’s Preprint Pilot program. I suspect the NIH allowed this study into its preprint distribution given its favorable result."
My career had a healthy stint inside the DC Mafia where putting loopholes into America's security blanket and Enron accounting were highly prized skills. Some of the old adages have stayed with me as priceless reminders what the game is on the inside looking out. :~)
"An ounce of facade is worth a pound of substance."
The pre-print cited in the article Rogan's found during the podcast also over estimated the number of unreported cases of myocarditis due to infection as well as under estimated the overall number of cases of infection. So, this pre-print's myocarditis case rate from infection per number of infections was a completely contrived over guestimate based on being 2 times over in the numerator and probably 3 to 5 times under in the denominator. If that wasn't bad enough, the pre-print used an under estimated number for the myocarditis case rate from vaccinations without any adjustment for unreported cases. Or, in other words, the methodology was complete nonsense as I noted in this blog post: https://beyondspin.wordpress.com/2022/01/17/myocarditis-from-infections-vs-vaccinations/