Joe Rogan Interview
In the interview on the podcast AJ makes various claims from toxoplasma in brazil to human pig chimeras being grown in the 60s and that China is growing spider silk using Silkworms, all these claims have a basis of truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii#Risk_factors_for_human_infection https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/human-pig-hybrid-embryo-chimera-organs-health-science/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics
The problem is when you use true facts to bombard people with conspiracy stories or inaccurate terms like "NWO Globalist elite controlling everyone conspiracy", which JR agrees with or that "aborted babies are being harvested for organs in secret wings inside the hospitals". You rational people should look up more stuff :) — Unsigned, by: 188.8.131.52 / talk / contribs
the newest Joe Rogan Experiment dropped and Alex Jones was the guest along with some comedian named Tim Dillon. Someone should update that section. I wrote up notes on my live reactions but I think
(talk) 19:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
UFOs & Aliens
- Seems like due to this ban, and the many dead links that are now on this article, that some heavy editing is going to be required on this page. I don't know the proper procedure, but I'd be happy to remove all the dead YouTube links when I get home from work, but what would one use as a source for all the claims that are currently linking to removed YouTube links? Mikecol05 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Now that I am home from work and available to make good on my offer, I am happy to make an effort at cleaning up these dead YouTube links if that's something that's recommended. Mikecol05 (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think some are redundant and/or not representative enough.
Here are the ones that I think we should remove, as crossed out.Godless Raven talkstalkwalkbalk 🌹 17:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Note on study of atrazine's effects on frogs
This is just a heads up on the source declaring the results on the hermaphroditic properties found in frogs that have been exposed to Atrazine cannot be replicated. When you read the whole source you will find this little gem right at the end: "This research was conducted under the guidance and inspection of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A.H. is employed by Syngenta which is the primary registrant of Atrazine. No other author has a financial interest in Syngenta." With funding from, you guessed it, Syngenta. There has been a not-so publicized conflict of interests between Syngenta and Hayes, the original author of the study of Atrazine's effects on frogs, in which the former paid for search engine ads for a period of time aimed to slander Hayes and his credibility. There have been other studies on Atrazine finding adverse side effects in fish, and mammals, including humans (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100519131126.htm), (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01207.x). Papers debunking the claims that Atrazine poses adverse side effects whatsoever have seemingly all been funded by Syngenta. If you can find some sources providing information from a study not funded by the corporation that makes money off of the chemical in question, be my guest, but so far I can't find any, and I'm not the only one who has trouble finding them either. This, combined with the slander campaign launched against various scientists (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation), I think it's worth noting that Alex Jones, while not technically right, is sort of half-right that there are chemicals in the water turning the frogs, not gay, but hermaphroditic. Also, the argument that frogs and humans are different is uninformed as hell, they're invertebrates and have a history of being used in testing to solve human biological problems, they are surprisingly similar to humans genetically, and a simple search on why we dissect frogs will tell you this (https://www.livescience.com/6379-frogs-surprisingly-humans-genetically-speaking.html). Rats have a better efficacy rate (surprise, there were results of Atrazine negatively affecting lab rats as well), but there is precedence to the popular image of frogs being dissected in labs. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk
- Alex Jones is still full of shit. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- The big problem with this, instead of Alex Jones correctly noting the bullshit that Syngenta tried to pull, Alex Jones' main motif (as this clip shows) is to conspire that the government is concocting a "chemical warfare operation" to "encourage homosexuality" so that "people don't have children". The infamous clip where Alex Jones goes off on frogs first completely misuses a Wikipedia article on a "gay bomb" (scientists aren't immune to bizarre, completely stupid ideas, this was one of them, and it got the "Ig Nobel" it deserved) and then insinuates the *government* is the one putting chemicals in the water "to turn the frogs gay", instead of a bunch of corn farmers who want higher yield for their crops.
- A lot of conspiracy theorists over-reduce the complexity of the word to simplistic good vs. evil motifs. Whereas, the real world is more complex. With atrazine, you have farmers, pesticide companies, environmentalists, and scientists all arguing things out. This argument still goes on today. Since the EPA technically is the one with the final say on atrazine, I suppose in a roundabout way "government putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay" is, if you dial the fuzziness up and add a bunch of paranoia, kind of right. But if that's the case, why is Alex Jones supporting the Donald Trump administration, when they are actually relaxing regulations on the "gay frog water chemical" atrazine? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Tazed in the Butt
This article is the only result on Duck Duck Go for "tazed in the butt by the Thought Police" (with quotes), and the top result on a certain search engine beginning with G. I would like to thank all the contributors who made this possible. Well done, guys! 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)