More Comical Vapidity From Jonathan Jarry

I don't have much time for local Skippy from McGill types chirping out second-hand CNN-esque condescending hit pieces. 

Canadians are shamelessly out of their element when it comes to assessing American culture.

Enter Science writer - who I wrote about a while ago rebutting his unremarkable and one-sided piece about VAERS - Jonathan Jarry.

In March, he took on Dr. Geerth Vanden Bossche - who's a vaccinologist and vaccine designer - and his 'doomsday' claim. As it stands, from what I see, Vanden Bossche's ridiculously detailed explanations and claims are panning out and Jarry's reply to him not aging well. But the jury is out and this can reverse itself. 

But the point of the post here is a couple of comments he made on CTV about Joe Rogan. The low hanging fruit for paternalistic pearl clutchers like Jarry.

First off, Rogan has every right to express his opinions. All he did was reveal what he did when he got Covid and how the protocol he used included Ivermectin prescribed by his doctor. He didn't put the protocol together. His doctor did.

It should have ended there but no. The narrative demands you speak not of treatments like Ivermectin. I don't know how effective it really is. I doubt it's as good as claimed and it's definitely not as bad as being claimed by the establishment. The fact the FLCCC Alliance and its top doctors have used it, testified before Senate hearings and catalogue results (along with C19study. com) suggests it's at the very least a safe, useful tool in the arsenal.

Denying its use is odd, but somehow an even more ineffective and dangerous drug like Remdisivir gets a pass? 

Oh, Right. Go look at the price for each. Sorry. My bad.

Jarry seems to think science is not corrupted and about money like any other field. In fact, it's hopelessly corrupted from where I sit.

Next, his claim that Rogan is a libertarian is false. Rogan never claimed he was and voted for Sanders in 2016. I do not know how he voted in 2020. He may have gone third parry. Just speculation. But Jarry, in his usual passive-aggressive style, saw the need to point out Rogan has a largely male audience (about 30% of women listen to Rogan) as if that matters in any meaningful way. It's a factoid but one in which used to point out 'white males' which these days is used as a euphemism for 'white supremacist'.

Wouldn't surprise me, if we dig into Jarry's poltiics, he swallowed whole all the great lies in the last 5 years from Covington to Russia collusion to Rittenhouse to Charlottesville to January .6.

Also, Austin is not a libertarian city and the migration to Texas as a whole involves a wider demographic than libertarians. But why ruin a perfectly good lie to push a narrative?

Libertarians, of all people, are the least susceptible to pseudo-science. There have been studies in the past that looked into the libertarian mind and often it reveals that they're highly literate and excellent debaters with sharp critical thinking skills. Over the last 20 years, I've had the pleasure of being accepted into that realm and the amount of learning I did there was truly appreciated. Far more interesting than the stale, smug messaging from 'from established settled science' ranks.  Libertarians are free thinkers. Not quacks. 

In fact, one can argue all the quacks are in the vaccine and public health ranks. Stripped to its basics, it's easy to view modern medicine as nothing but a drug pushing machine for for the pharma drug cartels.

Jarry talks about pseudoscience of Ivermectin and is part of the 'Rogan has a huge audience and therefore he must be responsible to his vulnerable listeners and toe our authoritarian line'! Except, and this points to the arrogance of attacking Rogan, he built his audience. That's HIS audience. It's not Jarry's place or anyone else's to attempt to tell Rogan what he can and can't say. And if you ever bother to read the comments to Rogan's clips or interviews, it's far from uniform. It displays a wide range of differing opinions. Yes, he has his core fans. But any radio personality of that prominence does. Stern, Carolla, Dore, Hannity, Carlson....they all have a core but the secret of their success is they also attract millions of people who basically like what they do.

Rogan, finally, did an excellent job of exposing the bull shit about CNN in a talk with Gupta. Gupta's responses and body language was telling I'd argue. 

As an aside, I wonder. Are passports and masks not pseudoscience? What about lockdowns and social distancing? And masks? 

Up your game Jarry. Don't forget to fit your amulet right as you show your passport to get a steak at The Keg.

Conclusion: The interview with Mutsumi was contrived, scripted, shallow and condescending.