Something is VERY WRONG with Joe Rogan
Credibility score: 38/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "Something is VERY WRONG with Joe Rogan" and rated it 38/100 for credibility (a BS score of 62/100 — low credibility), on 2026-06-20. Its weakest claim — "Rogan claims measles deaths only happen to the 'already compromised,' similar to COVID-19." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 7 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 7 claims analyzed: 2 scored under 40, 5 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Setting the stage with a strong emotional hook about Joe Rogan's issues. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
Starting with 'This bums me out' and 'very, very wrong' immediately sets a negative tone before any facts 😬
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language ('bums me out,' 'very, very wrong') right at the outset. This primes the audience to view Joe Rogan's upcoming statements negatively, creating an emotional bias before the actual content is even presented. It's a classic way to frame a narrative.
Original quote: “This bums me out, but something seems to be going very, very wrong with podcaster Joe Rogan, and the latest is a”
Declaring Rogan's rant 'dilapidated' and his facts/conclusions 'wrong' without showing the rant first. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:08
Calling it a 'dilapidated rant' and saying he 'gets the facts wrong' before we even hear it. That's some pre-emptive judging, chief 🚩
Why this score: The speaker confidently asserts that Rogan's rant is 'completely dilapidated' and that he 'gets the facts wrong' and the 'conclusion wrong' without providing any of Rogan's actual statements or evidence at this point. This is a strong, definitive judgment presented as fact before the audience has any opportunity to evaluate the claims themselves, relying solely on the speaker's authority.
Original quote: “completely dilapidated rant about measles. Rogan gets the facts wrong, and therefore he gets the conclusion wrong,”
Generalizing about 'anti-vax and pseudoscience rhetoric' and its bad inputs/outputs. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:15
Lumping 'anti-vax and pseudoscience rhetoric' together with a 'bad inputs, bad outputs' generalization. Painting with a broad brush there, eh? 🎨
Why this score: The speaker uses the loaded terms 'anti-vax and pseudoscience rhetoric' to categorize a broad range of viewpoints, then applies a general principle ('if your inputs are bad, your outputs are likely to also be bad'). While the principle itself is logical, applying it to these specific, emotionally charged categories without presenting the 'bad inputs' first is a rhetorical move to discredit the entire category of thought before any specific claims are analyzed. It's a pre-emptive dismissal.
Original quote: “and one of the things that is a feature or a bug, I would argue, of some of this anti Vax and pseudoscience rhetoric is that if your inputs are bad, your outputs are likely to also be bad.”
Rogan claims measles deaths only happen to the 'already compromised,' similar to COVID-19. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 0:30
Comparing measles deaths to COVID deaths based on 'compromised' status is a wild leap — different diseases, different risks, different eras 🤡
Why this score: He's drawing a false equivalence between measles and COVID-19, implying similar risk profiles and outcomes, which isn't accurate. Measles can be severe even in otherwise healthy individuals, and the '90% with comorbidities' for COVID is often misrepresented.
Original quote: “And they're making it look like everyone's dying from measles. Like, no, if you're dying from measles, you're sick, you're already compromised, which is exactly what happened with covid, where 90 fucking plus percent of the people who died at four plus comorbidities. Yeah.”
Contrasting casual treatment of measles with its severe historical impact. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:30
Highlighting the severity of measles pre-vaccine, but framing it as a 'misleading' memory rather than a lack of historical knowledge. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker correctly points out the serious historical impact of measles, which is important context. However, by labeling Rogan's potential memory as 'misleading framing,' they imply intent or a deliberate misrepresentation, when it could simply be a lack of awareness of pre-vaccine realities or a genuine confusion with chickenpox, as the speaker themselves suggested earlier. It's a slight shift from empathetic understanding to a more critical accusation of 'framing.'
Original quote: “I
don't know. I looked and I wasn't able to find any evidence that measles was treated as this harmless
childhood rite of passage, where we would, you would you try to get everybody to get measles,
to get over it? Before widespread vaccination, it was hospitalizing 10s of 1000s of Americans…”
Suggesting Rogan might be confusing measles with chickenpox, which was treated casually. — Straw Man (20/100)
At 2:30
Posing a 'possibility' to explain Rogan's stance, but it's a bit of a reach. Building a straw man out of a guess. 🐔
Why this score: The speaker introduces the idea that Rogan might be confusing measles with chickenpox, then describes how chickenpox was often treated casually (e.g., 'chickenpox parties'). While presented as a 'possibility,' this sets up a hypothetical misinterpretation by Rogan that the speaker can then easily dismantle, rather than directly addressing Rogan's actual stated claims about measles. It's a speculative 'what if' that serves to undermine Rogan's credibility by suggesting a basic factual error.
Original quote: “Now, the other possibility is, is Rogan confused between measles and chicken pox?
I don't, I'm not. I'm just not sure chicken pox was really common in the 70s and 80s,
and that often was treated really casually, people would do chicken pox parties. You get a kid with
chicken pox, you get a bunch…”
Calling infection a 'natural, low-cost alternative' ignores public health reasons 🤦♂️ — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:30
Dismissing public health efforts by calling infection 'natural' skips the whole point of vaccines. Convenient, huh? 🙄
Why this score: The speaker points out that presenting natural infection as a 'low-cost alternative' completely omits the context of why public health initiatives, like vaccination campaigns, exist. It ignores the risks and societal costs of widespread infection that vaccines aim to prevent.
Original quote: “infection as he does, as this kind of natural, low cost alternative just ignores why public health”
See the full analysis with timestamps →