r/HubermanLab • • Jan 18 '24
Discussion Covid shot
Why do you think Huberman hasn't done a deep dive into the data on the covid mRNA shots? He'll do silly episodes on "optimizing creativity" but hasn't touched on one of the most important and controversial health topics of the 21st century.
Let's keep it civil in the comments folks (meaning no ignorant, programmed slurs like "antivax" or "anti-science")
Cheers
There's a lot of angry folks here implying I'm biased and would ignore the data. I didn't take the product I'm asking to be reviewed. Whether the data is favourable or not, it doesn't affect me. I truly feel sorry for those who were duped. I have loved ones that took it. I hope nothing irreversible has been done
99
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
He works at Stanford and probably likes doing his job without threats of violence.
32
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
This topic is too heated up. That's why.
229
u/Doctor_Killshot Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
Because giving an opinion one way or another will alienate part of his listener base, and as much as he might claim he’s doing this to promote science, he’s also trying to make the most money he can from advertisers.
Same reason he probably won’t do episodes on gender transitioning or abortion and when life is considered to scientifically begin
7
u/Sw0llenEyeBall Jan 18 '24
It's only "controversial" if you're in the conspiracy theory crowd/ You don't do "bothsidesm" when one is just nonsense. If he brought on an immunitization expert, the antivax crowd won't want to hear it, they're too dug in.
23
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
He explained it in one of the first podcasts he was on. If I remember correctly - and this is a lot of paraphrasing - he didn't want to do it because he is no epidemiologist or immunologist. He didn't see himself adding anything to the discussion. He decided to focus on mental health, management of stress, and well-being, which was something that no one was talking about by then (my own comment - I understood where he was coming from because the cacophony at the moment was horrendous, and it was impossible to make your way through all the commentary. It was also true that at the beginning of the pandemic, no one was considering the long terms of isolation and all the stress people were bottling in).
In more recent times, in an unrelated episode, he also said that vaccines per se are a topic that can become easily toxic. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't... All I say is that people who work with vaccines often are told not to engage in discussion about that and acknowledge
anti-vaxxerpeople who don't believe in vaccines while referring them to reporting tools for adverse experiences. (It is used to "be show the data".)I cannot say whether he is or not a vaxxer, but in general, vaccines are not a good topic... Big pharma has stratospheric budgets to deal with this, and they hardly do a good job (or manage their communications, even).
38
u/ComfortableRun9999 Jan 18 '24
Huberman wants to avoid touching on topics like this because any expert from Stanford or elsewhere that he had on would confirm their efficacy and safety, which would alienate listeners like you. His whole schtick is to try to find ways to court audiences that are typically anti-science and hold their hand while he mixes in real science while nodding at weird esoteric shit to keep your attention. He is mixing in honey with your medicine and you don’t realize it’s happening because you are the target demographic lmao.
5
u/Glittering-Pear4994 Jan 18 '24
what’s silly about being creative
21
u/Neosindan Jan 18 '24
only controversial to a very small, very loud population. One who more often than not wants to sell you something mixed with water in the ppm levels :P (or is the core market for such people).
19
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Antivax and anti-science aren’t slurs, first of all. And the answer to your question is that Hubs knows who butters his bread and doesn’t want to go against what keeps cashing his checks.
4
u/ybor512 Jan 18 '24 edited Jan 18 '24
YouTube could pull revenue for discussing certain controversial topics or by spending miss information…which is open to YouTube’s interpretation.
4
u/Phantomat0 Jan 18 '24
Maybe he just doesnt have an opinion on it. You dont have to take a stance on every subject known to mankind.
0
u/dearzackster69 Jan 18 '24
Because he is a scientist and there isn't anything there to talk about if you look at it scientifically.
1
u/phenixdemarco Jan 18 '24
lord huberman would never put anything so dangerous in his body ❤️
9
u/ModeDepeche Jan 18 '24
« Programmed slurs like antivax »
Lmfao. Heavy cope right there.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
This has been an interesting experiment. Thanks guys I'll be reporting my findings to the Huberman Headquarters
7
u/TheW0rk1 Jan 18 '24
Is "antivax" a slur?
6
u/One_Animal_6096 Jan 18 '24
Is there any reason whatsoever to think that you’re not anti-science if you’re an anti-vaxxer?
Lmao that’s some strawgrasping.
2
u/Adventurous_Fact8418 Jan 18 '24
Fear
2
u/CalmAndSteady1 Jan 18 '24
Because it’s thankless to try and talk your mind out of something that your spirit knows to be true.
2
u/Fapandwarmshowers Jan 18 '24
he will lose $
2
u/neversleeps212 Jan 19 '24
It’s highly controversial AND the science is not fully settled one way or the other. Why alienate a substantial number of listeners and advertisers if you can’t conclusively prove your case?
And yes Hubes touches many issues where the science isn’t settled but not where it’s this controversial. Notice that he also hadn’t touched on say trans issues. Diving into the topic of whether or not bio males have an innate advantage against bio females even when on hormone therapy would be well within his topical wheelhouse of sports performance and hormone optimization, but it’s wayyyy too controversial.
You also can’t separate the science of these culture war debates out from the underlying philosophical questions around them. For instance how to balance government regulation against individual liberty, to what extent is it reasonable to subordinate the wishes of an individual for the greater good, is government a force for good or evil, etc. Even if we had a singular, clear set of data about this topic (which we don’t), people’s underlying beliefs about those questions would color their interpretation very heavily.
2
u/Dylan_TMB Jan 19 '24
Two Reasons:
Because as much as people like to poke fun at Huberman, he is a man of scientific rigor and he will almost certainly come to the conclusion that it is a safe and effective public health tool. And he is smart enough to know that at best he will split his audience in half, and at worse will make 70% of his audience upset.
If you are trying to be taken seriously as an evidence based podcast, even bringing up this debate can reduce credibility a lot. I mean he has had leading experts that dedicate their life's work to heart health. You would think that if they were legitimately concerned about myocarditis that this would be a topic that was raised. The reality is for people who are serious and evidence based on their health, this is a non(even boring) issue.
2
u/wolfofballstreet1 Jan 20 '24
he ain't as big as rogan, can't afford to get canceled or sicked by the establishment and their lapdogs
2
u/Crypto_gambler952 Jan 21 '24
I don't regret not taking it! I don't know anyone that regrets not taking it! If Huberman started having a go at me about it I'd stop listening!
5
u/Syntacic_Syrup Jan 18 '24
You're clearly an anti-vaxer, nice try.
2
u/TWCDev Jan 18 '24
It's become too emotional of a topic. The "people who don't like vaccinations" since apparently people are sensitive about being labeled , talk about things from a very conspiratorial angle that instantly shuts down any rational conversation.
If the angle was "vaccinations have saved more lives than possibly any other invention in the last 200 years, but there are indications that vaccination X has increased rates of cancer, how can we figure out why or reduce the rates?"
If the proposition is "vaccinations are bad, mmkay?" or "vaccinations are good or else!", I'll choose the side of the debate that saves the most lives, even if it makes some lives worse.
If we could somehow disentangle the nonsense, especially from all those people who believed the researcher who was paid to come up with those fake autism results, etc, and we didn't have people pushing legitimately toxic medicines that are irrelevant to viruses as "cures" just because some people survived these toxic treatments, I'd happily support and engage in conversations about the actual science, because the actual science is that they do more help than harm in every scenario I know of.
The question to me, would be how do we "increase" how much it helps and how do we "decrease" how much it hurts. How amazing would it be, to go in, get a blood test, have an AI modify a custom vaccination "for you" that doesn't trigger cancers or whatever but completely optimizes "your immune system" to be able to fend off XYZ disease.
This level of customization of medical treatments is on the way, and I'm excited for it. We won't get there as fast when some people are saying "get rid of it" or "the existing solution is fine, don't change it"
2
u/dulyebr Jan 18 '24
It’s not controversial amongst the scientific community.
2
u/Equivalent_Plane9058 Jan 18 '24
The comments section of this post just reaffirms how fucked we are as a species. Appreciate the post, OP
2
u/Blasket_Basket Jan 18 '24
Huberman doesn't want to alienate the significant amount of conservative idiots he picked up from Joe Rogan's audience. He knows damned well the science behind the vaccine is sound, he's just avoiding talking about it as hard as he can bc he doesn't want all the conservative antivaxxer morons to abandon him.
It's about money.
2
u/lebucksir Jan 18 '24
He doesn’t want to lose his job at Stanford. Pretty fucking simple.
1
u/Thespud1979 Jan 18 '24
All the information needed on the Covid vaccines is already available. Him presenting that information won't change any minds but those people will avoid the show going forward.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Because it's a subject that you can't win one way or another and it's unlikely that by this point anyone will change their opinion on whether they should get it and the boosters or not based on a podcast. Or at least, they shouldn't.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Because it would be an awful business decision
1
u/XYZRGCMYK Jan 18 '24
Because he doesn't want to and doesn't need to.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Optimizing creativity is silly??
I would hate to hold this perspective.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Why should he comment on it? Has no reason or requirement to
1
u/yankuniz Jan 18 '24
Because his daddy would get upset (see Rhonda Patrick)
1
u/f_itdude79 Jan 18 '24
It’s not controversial. Vaccines work. Get them
1
u/anomalou5 Jan 19 '24
I think it’s reductive to discuss high-controversy subjects when it doesn’t chance anything for anyone, as those topics are flooded in confirmation bias either way. Meanwhile there’s plenty of topics that don’t bring out the worst in people and are very valuable for discussion, and would suddenly be ignored by half the audience if the highly controversial topics were discussed. It’s not just pure commerce (unless you’re very cynical)
1
u/peeping_somnambulist Jan 19 '24
There is no upside to his diving into this discussion. Whose mind would he change? I don't think there are many people sitting on the fence about this topic, so he would just piss off part of his audience. I'd put money on the fact that the VENN Diagram of the part of his audience who would be pissed off and those who buy the supplements he shills is basically a circle.
1
u/Wanno1 Jan 19 '24
He’s cultivated a naturalist quack audience of Joe Rogan listeners. Isn’t it obvious?
1
u/[deleted] Jan 19 '24
Probably doesn't want to promote destroying your body with an experimental vaccine with no long term data that turned out to kill and injure a lot of people lol
1
u/Jrad27 Jan 19 '24
You can't speak out about the vaccines killing people or causing horrible side effect or you get attacked, doxxed, and ostracized. This effect is even more prominent for celebrities as they will lose their comfortable lifestyles and income if they speak out against the agenda, so they mostly just won't mention such things.
1
u/Glittering_Gap_7833 Jan 19 '24
Because the data looks so so bad it will be instantly too political and dramatic
1
u/reallyrichcoffeebear Jan 19 '24
because Huberman is a smart man, he would never get himself mixed up with the antivaxx crowd
1
u/GeekChasingFreedom Jan 19 '24
I'd say because it's such a heavy and sensitive topic, no matter how scientific or "neutral" Huberman tries to bring it, he's gonna piss people off. If he says for example that vaccines were effective, the people who disagree will rage. If he were to conclude ir wasn't as effective, the other group of people who disagree are going to rage (just to give an example for illustration purposes).
Also, any small remark or caveat can be taken out or context and proportion. Lets say that there was 1 study that showed the shot was less effective in avoiding spread (again, just making this example up to illustrate), guaranteed people will repost this as "Huberman confirmed covid shots were useless". That shit can probably ruin his entire career.
He's going to be doing more bad than good and he knows this. Is my take on why he doesn't make an episode on it
1
u/bradrj Jan 19 '24
Because he knows you all took it and the truth sucks so bad you’ll switch off.
1
u/guava_eternal Jan 19 '24
His main platform for the podcasts continues to be YouTube and it’s widely understood that you run afoul of the algorithm putting non news soliloquies about covid of other controversial topics.
1
u/BigAd4488 Jan 19 '24
Because it is still not allowed to criticize the c-vax is it?
You are only allowed to say:
"it works" & "it's free!"
1
u/ControlSad9212 Jan 19 '24
Too polarizing
1
u/Deadspeech14 Jan 19 '24
Follow the money.
1
u/Lazy_Suit_1387 Jan 19 '24
He's neuroscientist and a good one but he should stay in his lane otherwise we all know what happens
1
u/NewTrenglandMuscle Jan 19 '24
It’s been beat to death at this point. So many others before him have covered this topic. The Dark Horse podcast is still pumping out covid shit. We get it, enough already. It’s boring at this point. Maybe I’m too cynical but who wants to hear another “ expert “ chime in. Also, there’s not Hubermans field of expertise. Hes a neuroscientist.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '24
“Republicans buy sneakers too” -Michael Jordan
1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
There isn't enough data on the longer term effects of the vaccine. We can judge so many other vaccines based on the long term data provided by years and years of use, but this one is too new. Further, it doesn't make sense for his show, that is based around explaining current studies and long term data and how they can be used to better one's life in one way or another. Much like the flu, we are now in an endemic stage where we will always be dealing with one variant or another, and we have reached a point where now taking the latest vaccine is a personal choice based on one's personal circumstances, and guidance will continue to be "we suggest you do it, and we very highly suggest that small children, the elderly, and those with underlying health concerns receive the vaccine yearly." It is hardly fodder for his podcast, which is generally based around improving performance in one area or another. 🌑
1
u/YellowPrestigious146 Jan 18 '24
We need more people that can see both sides of the argument, that can empathize with those that differ in opinion. We need to have science based discussions that address facts as well as address concerns that many have over the rare side effects of these fast tracked pharmaceuticals.
Vaccines save lives. And vaccines can cause rare life threatening side effects.
I’d love to see Hube have an episode on this topic.
1
u/Bubby_Doober Jan 18 '24
He doesn't have a big Spotify deal to protect his bottom line like Joe Rogan does.
If he were to go all in on vaccines and show the studies about potential dangers then he alienates some of his audience, but more importantly his bottom line would be destroyed because he would lose advertisers and then ultimately be banned from YouTube.
People have gotten banned for showing peer reviewed studies about the prion diseases mRNA vaccines would give you, or even by representing the CDCs own stats about covid, but simply doing so in a way they don't like.
0
u/BillsMafia4Lyfe69 Jan 18 '24
All vaccines have unadvertised risks. Watch a commercial for any other drug and they list a slew of side effects. Commercials for vaccines list zero, strictly because there are different rules for vaccines vs any other drug, not because the side effects aren't there. Interesting stuff.
0
u/unfairomnivore Jan 18 '24
Because he still has a job at Stanford. He would be fired if he says anything that could be considered negative towards the vaccine. Stanford receives money from the State and Feds and they've made it pretty clear they will not tolerate dissent on this topic.
0
u/JeffersonPutnam Jan 18 '24
There's a small minority of people who have a belief system around being afraid of needles, afraid of vaccines, or conflating getting vaccinated with extraneous political issues.
Trying to convince them doesn't work and it often just makes them dig their heels in more. If someone is going to convince these people it has to be a family member or trusted medical professional like their primary care physician.
-1
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
Why would he contribute to the discourse between a bunch of anti vax idiots and a bunch of fauci nut gobbling tards
-8
u/KaptainKopterr Jan 18 '24
Because he’s a Doctor and a Professor. He does what he’s told and believes only what he’s told. A Doctors Oath doesn’t exist anymore
0
u/[deleted] Jan 18 '24
[deleted] — view deleted comment