it seems like Joe and his backers instead of accepting that he has been 'inadvertently' peddling misinformation is minimizing the scope and extent of it. yes, that is what I took from the video. you took something different which is fine and I am not going to suggest that you ought to think differently.
this is a false equivalency on many levels and part of what/why I found the video objectionable.
in the event I am wrong can you provide an example of someone who, in hindsight, was correct about masking, vaccination, etc. but was 'cancelled' for holding that opinion at the time?
yeah I fully support people being 'attacked' on the basis of the opinions they hold. no issues here. that includes all of us on these here message boards.
if there is evidence of folks being 'banned' for holding opinions that were contrary to the mainstream back in the early pandemic days, I want to see it. but I haven't yet and so find this claim dubious.
again, I think this is an overly reductionist analysis. I think the content in the two particular episodes is the most objectionable, but the whole ivermectin debacle is its own thing and my understanding is extended well beyond just two particular podcasts. and its not like those two episodes stand out as being unique and the only ones dabbling in the realm of covid bullshit.
he had an opportunity to do a full mea culpa and set the record straight. instead he recorded a 9 minute video that starts off with a bullshit false equivalency, and then proceeds to explain/justify where he was coming from while reaffirming he only has good intentions throughout, acknowledging a smidgen of wrongdoing (without addressing the harms it causes or why folks are so up in arms about it), and makes promises to 'do better'.
but, he does manage to appear to be a 'good guy' and pretty down to earth and one of the boys, which I gather is his shtick, so mission accomplished?