Episode 1740: Jocko Willink
Introduction
Episode 1740 of the Joe Rogan Experience, featuring retired Navy SEAL commander Jocko Willink, aired on November 26, 2021. While Willink is a highly credentialed military veteran, bestselling author, and leadership consultant who appeared to promote his novel Final Spin, significant portions of this three-hour episode were dominated by Joe Rogan spreading COVID-19 misinformation about ivermectin, promoting conspiracy theories about a “deep state,” and making sweeping claims about media-government collusion that conflated legitimate media criticism with unfounded conspiratorial thinking.
This episode is notable because much of the problematic content originates from Rogan himself rather than his guest. Rogan used the conversation as a vehicle to relitigate his personal ivermectin controversy, repeat debunked claims about the drug’s effectiveness against COVID-19, and declare conspiracy theories as established fact, while Willink largely agreed rather than pushing back.
The Guest’s Background
Jocko Willink is a decorated retired Navy SEAL lieutenant commander who served 20 years in the SEAL Teams. He commanded SEAL Team Three’s Task Unit Bruiser during the Battle of Ramadi, which became the most highly decorated Special Operations unit of the Iraq War. He received the Silver Star and Bronze Star Medal for his service. After retiring, he co-founded the leadership consulting firm Echelon Front and hosts The Jocko Podcast. He is the author of multiple bestselling books including Extreme Ownership and The Dichotomy of Leadership.
Willink’s credentials in military leadership, discipline, and organizational management are well-established. However, he has no medical or scientific expertise relevant to the COVID-19 and ivermectin claims discussed extensively during this episode.
Key Problematic Claims
Claim: Ivermectin Is an Effective COVID-19 Treatment
During the episode, Rogan continued his pattern of defending ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, citing its long safety record of being administered “more than 4 billion times” with minimal adverse reactions. He also referenced claims about ivermectin’s supposed success in Uttar Pradesh, India and Japan.
Fact-Check: While ivermectin has indeed been safely administered billions of times for its approved use against parasitic diseases like river blindness and lymphatic filariasis, this safety record is irrelevant to its efficacy against COVID-19. Multiple large, rigorous clinical trials have found ivermectin is not effective as a COVID-19 treatment:
- The NIH-funded ACTIV-6 randomized controlled trial found no significant benefit of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.
- The WHO, FDA, and major medical organizations have recommended against using ivermectin for COVID-19.
- Many early studies claiming ivermectin’s effectiveness were found to be flawed, misleading, or fraudulent. A key meta-analysis by Dr. Andrew Hill was later found to rely heavily on studies with fabricated data.
- Laboratory studies showing ivermectin could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication required concentrations far exceeding what is safely achievable in humans.
Source: FactCheck.org - Ivermectin Archives; Science Feedback - Ivermectin and COVID-19
Claim: Ivermectin Drove COVID-19 Declines in Uttar Pradesh, India
Rogan referenced the narrative that the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh successfully used ivermectin to control COVID-19.
Fact-Check: This claim has been thoroughly debunked by multiple fact-checking organizations. PolitiFact found “no scientific basis for claims of ivermectin’s success in Uttar Pradesh.” Science Feedback concluded there is “no evidence [that] suggests a causal link between ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases” in the state. The decline in cases coincided with multiple factors including lockdowns, increased testing, natural immunity from prior waves, and eventually vaccination, none of which were controlled for in the ivermectin narrative.
Source: PolitiFact - No scientific basis for claims of ivermectin’s success in Uttar Pradesh; Poynter - There is no scientific basis for claims of ivermectin’s success in Uttar Pradesh
Claim: Japan Adopted Ivermectin as a COVID-19 Treatment
Rogan referenced claims that Japan had turned to ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.
Fact-Check: This claim is false. Japan has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment and never stopped its vaccination program in favor of ivermectin. FactCheck.org reported that “Japan continues to use vaccines, not ivermectin, to fight COVID-19.” The Japanese government itself issued statements contradicting these claims. PolitiFact confirmed that “Japan has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, and it’s still using Moderna vaccine.”
Source: FactCheck.org - Japan Continues to Use Vaccines, Not Ivermectin, to Fight COVID-19; PolitiFact - Japan has not approved ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment
Claim: “The Deep State Is 100% Real”
Rogan declared that “the deep state is 100% real” and that “the swamp is real” and “they’re real monsters.” He presented this not as political commentary or opinion but as established fact, framing unelected government officials and media organizations as participants in a coordinated conspiracy.
Fact-Check: The term “deep state” as used in this context implies a coordinated, secretive conspiracy within government institutions to undermine democratic governance. While legitimate concerns exist about bureaucratic inertia, institutional bias, and the influence of career officials on policy, presenting the “deep state” as a monolithic, coordinated conspiracy is a conspiracy theory that lacks supporting evidence. Political scientists distinguish between the mundane reality of bureaucratic politics and the conspiratorial framing that suggests shadowy coordination. Rogan’s presentation blurred this distinction entirely, treating conspiracy as proven fact.
Claim: Systematic Media-Government Collusion
Rogan stated: “The collusion between the media and the government is pretty apparent. Especially the left-wing media and the left-wing government.” He presented this as a one-directional, ideologically motivated conspiracy rather than a complex media ecosystem with biases across the political spectrum.
Context: While media bias is a legitimate and well-studied phenomenon, and there are valid criticisms of how major outlets covered stories like the Hunter Biden laptop and the Russia investigation, Rogan’s framing omitted important nuance. The Russia investigation did result in criminal charges and convictions of multiple Trump associates, and the Special Counsel’s report documented extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election while noting it did not establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Presenting the entire investigation as a “fabrication” oversimplifies a complex story. Similarly, while some media coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story was overly cautious, characterizing all mainstream media as engaged in coordinated suppression conflates editorial judgment with conspiracy.
Joe Rogan’s Role
This episode is a particularly clear example of Rogan himself being the primary source of misinformation rather than simply platforming a problematic guest:
- Rogan drove the ivermectin discussion, using the episode to relitigate his personal COVID-19 treatment controversy and repeat debunked claims about the drug’s effectiveness in various countries.
- Rogan declared conspiracy theories as established fact, stating the deep state is “100% real” without qualification or evidence, lending his massive platform to conspiratorial thinking.
- Rogan made sweeping claims about media collusion that mixed legitimate media criticism with unfounded conspiracy theories, presenting a one-sided narrative while ignoring complexity and nuance.
- Willink largely agreed with Rogan’s claims rather than challenging them, but the problematic content originated primarily from Rogan. When Willink stated that “three and a half years the American public was getting beat down with the Russia collusion thing,” he was echoing and reinforcing Rogan’s conspiratorial framing.
- Neither host nor guest has medical expertise, yet Rogan spoke with conviction about ivermectin’s efficacy, the safety profile of the drug, and the supposed suppression of effective COVID treatments, presenting medical misinformation to millions of listeners.
Real-World Harm
This episode aired during a critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic, just weeks before the Omicron variant would cause a massive global surge in cases. By November 2021:
- Ivermectin misinformation was causing direct harm: Poison control centers across the United States reported significant increases in ivermectin-related calls, with the CDC issuing a health advisory in August 2021 about increased ivermectin prescriptions and poisonings.
- Vaccine hesitancy remained a significant public health challenge: Episodes like this one, which promoted unproven alternatives while casting doubt on institutional trustworthiness, contributed to the information environment that discouraged vaccination.
- “Deep state” conspiracy theories have been linked to declining public trust in democratic institutions, with real consequences for governance and public health compliance.
The Rogan podcast’s enormous audience, estimated at over 11 million listeners per episode at the time, meant these claims reached a massive audience and were amplified further through social media clips and coverage by outlets sympathetic to the narrative.
Conclusion
While Jocko Willink is a respected military leader and author with legitimate expertise in leadership and discipline, JRE episode 1740 is problematic primarily because of Joe Rogan’s own contributions. Rogan used the conversation to spread debunked COVID-19 misinformation about ivermectin, declare conspiracy theories about the “deep state” as established fact, and present a one-sided narrative about media-government collusion. The episode mixed legitimate discussion of Willink’s work and valid media criticism with unfounded conspiratorial claims and medical misinformation, making it difficult for listeners to distinguish between the two.