He has stated clearly that he invites guests based on what he is interested in at that moment or that phase of his life.
So yes, sometimes some weeks the guests are very biased and towards a certain kind of beliefs, some(experts) are just his friends now at this point who like the platform he gives so millions(?) would listen.
I am not going argue he asks the best questions but you can often see that the way he is not an expert but a knowledge seeker, the guests are free to speak what they want and leads to interesting discussions. His personal knowledge is limited to his curiosity and interest but when the guest starts speaking of topics he isn't aware of he keeps asking good questions which are vague most of the time.
I do not listen to all episodes but only when the guests are interesting and/or the topics they cover are interesting or very new to me.
Do you consider the approach he takes to "seek knowledge" is perhaps tainted by bias? For example, the information he seeks out, he may seek out in a way that confirms his pre-existing biases rather than seeking to test them? For example, his reliance on VAERS reports when talking about vaccines.
He's a human being, not a robot. He's trying the best he can and he's being completely honest about it. I'm not sure what you're expecting from him, but he's not perfect nor does he claim to ever be. He's trying to be honest and open-minded more than anyone else in media so I appreciate that immensely.
Are you saying the VAERS reports are useless or biased?
Essentially yes, as laymen VARES is useless. VARES reports are useful for scientist to identify things to study. The useful data comes out of the peer reviewed studies that the VARES report spawn, not the reports themselves. They're simply datapoints that need to be taken in conjunction with the rest of the inputs to the study and you can not extract meaningful conclusions from them alone.
They're as useful as looking at only 1-star product reviews that don't even verify the submitter owns the product.
> Moreover, the CDC and FDA do not restrict what people can report, as long as it happened at some point following a vaccination. That means events that happen even years later and have no obvious connection to a vaccine, such as feelings of anger, end up reported in the system
So yes, sometimes some weeks the guests are very biased and towards a certain kind of beliefs, some(experts) are just his friends now at this point who like the platform he gives so millions(?) would listen.
I am not going argue he asks the best questions but you can often see that the way he is not an expert but a knowledge seeker, the guests are free to speak what they want and leads to interesting discussions. His personal knowledge is limited to his curiosity and interest but when the guest starts speaking of topics he isn't aware of he keeps asking good questions which are vague most of the time.
I do not listen to all episodes but only when the guests are interesting and/or the topics they cover are interesting or very new to me.