Bret Weinstein on Covid

[Silverstarqueen]

So a highly educated, articulate, well spoken gentleman is not capable of doing the research, educating himself and presenting what he finds or or can't find out (do to lack of information and data), you think his thoughts and questions should be thrown away?

Some folks here are presenting him as though he's an expert, however he doesn't even present himself as an expert on the topic.

That's all I'm saying.

B.W. also would not disagree with the list that I mentioned earlier today, regarding "mistakes" which he has previously made re: covid.

[hozzle]

Weinstein was wrong on a number of things.
He thought Sars-2 rna virus was a retrovirus, it wasn't.
He bought into the hydroxychloroquin frenzy as a great treatment for covid, it wasn't.
He thought Ivermectin would be effective against covid, it isn't (at least not at doses that are approved as safe for humans)
He thought masks were effective, then he didn't, but now says n95s are more effective than cloth.
He initially thought vaccines were good, now they are bad.
He now admits that if we had gone with herd immunity that there would have been many many deaths. (Hard to tell how that influences his opinion of the vaccine, because: vaccine is bad.)

This list is not exhaustive, Weinstein is practically paranoic about a lot of things not related to covid, but related to governments, pharmaceutical companies, doctors in general. He is the true christ which is the only science "expert" who has the world's welfare at heart, blah, blah.

Like many anti-vaxxers, his opinions have changed with the wind.
A few of his buddies are also developing vaccines, so he doesn't say much about their vaccines.

Do you have a link to all these claims?

[Merry]

I found the video both interesting and informative.

As a society, if we become unwilling to listen and consider ideas not in synch with our own, we will stagnate and our civilization will erode.

This pandemic really opened my eyes to the willingness of our main stream media, under certain circumstances, to push the “official” narrative, while simultaneously censoring dissent and demonizing the dissenters. And it made me realize just how fragile our democracy really is. Because without a willingness to listen to dissenting voices, democracy is non existent.

I read a meme recently that said something like, “there will always be consensus among scientists, if you silence all those who disagree”, and it really resonated with me. I am of the belief that if you are convinced that something is true, you will be willing to argue your point, safe in the knowledge that you have enough evidence to win the argument. Yet, in the case of Covid and all that surrounded it, serious debate was frequently stifled. And those of us who wanted to hear all sides were driven to less “regular” sources for our information.

It’s ironic that fear of unregulated information from irregular sources, led the “powers that be” to do things that pushed many ordinary folks like me to seek out those very same sources that they were so worried about. It reminds me of an old saying that goes something like “when people are thirsty, they will drink from whatever well they can find”.

Pre pandemic, I was a total news “junkie”, who got most of my information from the mainstream media in Canada and abroad. Now, I seek out many non traditional sources to get the “other side of the story” not reported in the legacy media, and it’s really opened my eyes to how much “propaganda” we’re fed, under the guise of news.

I urge you all to do the same.

[Fancy]

I don't look to mainstream media for all my news either.

[Glacier]

Bret Weinstein is amazing.

I listen to almost all of his podcasts, either on podcast or YouTube or Rumble.

An example: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH ... U3MQ?ep=14

[Silverstarqueen]

Weinstein was wrong on a number of things.
He thought Sars-2 rna virus was a retrovirus, it wasn't.
He bought into the hydroxychloroquin frenzy as a great treatment for covid, it wasn't.
He thought Ivermectin would be effective against covid, it isn't (at least not at doses that are approved as safe for humans)
He thought masks were effective, then he didn't, but now says n95s are more effective than cloth.
He initially thought vaccines were good, now they are bad.
He now admits that if we had gone with herd immunity that there would have been many many deaths. (Hard to tell how that influences his opinion of the vaccine, because: vaccine is bad.)

This list is not exhaustive, Weinstein is practically paranoic about a lot of things not related to covid, but related to governments, pharmaceutical companies, doctors in general. He is the true christ which is the only science "expert" who has the world's welfare at heart, blah, blah.

Like many anti-vaxxers, his opinions have changed with the wind.
A few of his buddies are also developing vaccines, so he doesn't say much about their vaccines.

Do you have a link to all these claims?

Source: B.Weinstein

[Glacier]

Weinstein discusses what he as wrong about here.

Unlike the media and the left (but I repeat myself), he admits when he is wrong. EVERYONE is wrong about a lot of things, but the narcissists can't admit it so just keep being wrong until they die.Admitting when you're wrong is the first step to learning and growing and gaining knowledge.

[Silverstarqueen]

I found the video both interesting and informative.

As a society, if we become unwilling to listen and consider ideas not in synch with our own, we will stagnate and our civilization will erode.

This pandemic really opened my eyes to the willingness of our main stream media, under certain circumstances, to push the “official” narrative, while simultaneously censoring dissent and demonizing the dissenters. And it made me realize just how fragile our democracy really is. Because without a willingness to listen to dissenting voices, democracy is non existent.

I read a meme recently that said something like, “there will always be consensus among scientists, if you silence all those who disagree”, and it really resonated with me. I am of the belief that if you are convinced that something is true, you will be willing to argue your point, safe in the knowledge that you have enough evidence to win the argument. Yet, in the case of Covid and all that surrounded it, serious debate was frequently stifled. And those of us who wanted to hear all sides were driven to less “regular” sources for our information.

It’s ironic that fear of unregulated information from irregular sources, led the “powers that be” to do things that pushed many ordinary folks like me to seek out those very same sources that they were so worried about. It reminds me of an old saying that goes something like “when people are thirsty, they will drink from whatever well they can find”.

Pre pandemic, I was a total news “junkie”, who got most of my information from the mainstream media in Canada and abroad. Now, I seek out many non traditional sources to get the “other side of the story” not reported in the legacy media, and it’s really opened my eyes to how much “propaganda” we’re fed, under the guise of news.

I urge you all to do the same.

Did the "non-traditional " news sources cover these stories?
They were too healthy to bother getting the vaccine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... g-n1274102

More healthy people, didn't think they needed a vaccine.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/unvaccinate ... -1.5755802
Fit guy barely survives covid, needs double lung transplant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... transplant

Unvaccinated family member infects lung transplant recipient.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/unvaccinated- ... 41455.html

[Merry]

WHY do you equate wanting to hear all sides of a debate with being some sort of “anti vaxxer”?

There are plenty of folks who are fully vaccinated who think that our mainstream media were nothing more than Government mouthpieces throughout this pandemic.

Whatever our opinions may be, we should never be afraid to hear and consider alternative points of view.

[Silverstarqueen]

WHY do you equate wanting to hear all sides of a debate with being some sort of “anti vaxxer”?

There are plenty of folks who are fully vaccinated who think that our mainstream media were nothing more than Government mouthpieces throughout this pandemic.

Whatever our opinions may be, we should never be afraid to hear and consider alternative points of view.

I don't at all. and my comment does not refer to anti-vaxxers in particular. My comment referrs to the fact that these alternate sources often ignore the catastrophic effects of not being vaccinated. Several of the people in the stories I posted of tragic health outcomes due to covid were not Anti-vaxxers, so that has nothing to do with it.They are not in the death stats, they lived. I have no idea if the sites you are talking about were Anti-vaxxer sites or not, that is your presumption, not mine.(If theey were, you should be aware they share a lot of misinformation to prove their pointless point) I do know that many sites downplay the seriousness of covid, and pretend it's just old people who were going to die soon anyway, so who cares, eh? Are those sites anti-vaxxer? I don't know, and I don't care. There are many tragic stories of ordinary people, who were as healthy or unhealthy as many other people, who had very serious cases of covid, long hospitalizations, who would not have died, or nearly died, except that they caught covid and were unvaccinated or under-vaccinated.

I have referred to some of the alternate sites, so don't pretend it's just those on one side of the debate, who look to various sources for information. I have frequently referred to fake "doctor" J. Campbell's videos. Is he an anti-vaxxer? I don't know, and I don't care. But I do care if he pretends to be an accomplished health educator, and then puts out misleading and very biased, and sometimes flat out wrong information.
Is Bret Weinstein an anti-vaxxer? I don't know, and I don't care. I think not, because he supports a few of his buddies which are developing their own vaccines. Have I reviewed some of his videos? yes. Does that mean only people on one side of the debate look at alternate sites?

[liisgo]

I found the video both interesting and informative.

As a society, if we become unwilling to listen and consider ideas not in synch with our own, we will stagnate and our civilization will erode.

This pandemic really opened my eyes to the willingness of our main stream media, under certain circumstances, to push the “official” narrative, while simultaneously censoring dissent and demonizing the dissenters. And it made me realize just how fragile our democracy really is. Because without a willingness to listen to dissenting voices, democracy is non existent.

I read a meme recently that said something like, “there will always be consensus among scientists, if you silence all those who disagree”, and it really resonated with me. I am of the belief that if you are convinced that something is true, you will be willing to argue your point, safe in the knowledge that you have enough evidence to win the argument. Yet, in the case of Covid and all that surrounded it, serious debate was frequently stifled. And those of us who wanted to hear all sides were driven to less “regular” sources for our information.

It’s ironic that fear of unregulated information from irregular sources, led the “powers that be” to do things that pushed many ordinary folks like me to seek out those very same sources that they were so worried about. It reminds me of an old saying that goes something like “when people are thirsty, they will drink from whatever well they can find”.

Pre pandemic, I was a total news “junkie”, who got most of my information from the mainstream media in Canada and abroad. Now, I seek out many non traditional sources to get the “other side of the story” not reported in the legacy media, and it’s really opened my eyes to how much “propaganda” we’re fed, under the guise of news.

I urge you all to do the same.

Did the "non-traditional " news sources cover these stories?
They were too healthy to bother getting the vaccine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... g-n1274102

More healthy people, didn't think they needed a vaccine.
https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/unvaccinate ... -1.5755802
Fit guy barely survives covid, needs double lung transplant.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... transplant

Unvaccinated family member infects lung transplant recipient.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/unvaccinated- ... 41455.html

Sq
One minute your basing your arguments on statistics and the next your trying so hard to not include them as to make sure everyone is in the same group of statistics. Do you realize that a young healthy, fit individual has the best possible chance of not having a severe covid issue? So which is it for you. Everyone must be vaccinated to meet your needs or we all get to respect actual science and the data that clearly shows how different every ones predicament actually is.
You, "more healthy people didn't think they needed to be vaccinated".
More importantly, millions of vaccinated didn't think they need to be healthy.

Most people have moved far beyond needing the government and media to decide whats right for them. They are respecting science and figuring out what the government refused to include. If the vaccine is your only belief that's your choice, but others take their lives more seriously You need to support this not try so hard to deny others a better choice.

[Silverstarqueen]

Statistics aren't just about statistics, they are real people who had lives before they caught covid and either recovered, or became seriously ill. They will not be in the statistics of covid deaths. But their suffering is real none the less. These are real world consequences of severe covid. People need to know about them, even if it seems uncomfortable, or doesn't fit with their happy view that just being a good person and being sort of healthy is enough to prevent serious life changing outcomes.

All I "need" is to show real world truth. Many of those who suffered or died had no choice about getting the vaccine or not. Now we have a choice. Which I am happy that we have that choice. Those few "experts" and ordinary people who say "STop the vaccines" are not in favor of choice. They want to take that choice away. I do not support that point of view. I don't care if people agree with me or not, it won't stop me from sharing the truth, or giving my opinion.

Everyone cannot possibly be "in the same group of statistics", a ridiculous concept. Some will get the vaccine, some will not, some wish they had. Everyone has to make a decision. The results of those decisions need to be carefully collated and shared publicly so everyone can make good decisions, whatever that might be. I can't imagine why anyone would not want real experieences and personal outcomes to be shared, so we don't all have to learn the hard way from our own mistakes.

If there are parents who feel strongly that others need to consider vaccinating their child, and are willing, in their grief over their child's illness or death to warn others of what can happen, then we need to hear that and listen, and make a more conscious and informed decision about vaccinating or not vaccinating our children. There's a lot of talk about doctors "pushing" vaccines, well they are doing it because they have seen these children suffering too.

[Jonrox]

Why do people think non-mainstream media sources are somehow unbiased? That's just the vibe I get from a lot of people who criticize MSM. A lot of them seem to blindly trust anything they see as long as it didn't come from a traditional news outlet.

[Silverstarqueen]

Why do people think non-mainstream media sources are somehow unbiased? That's just the vibe I get from a lot of people who criticize MSM. A lot of them seem to blindly trust anything they see as long as it didn't come from a traditional news outlet.

Some of these alternate sources can use tactics that are much more convincing, because they play on peoples suspicions We are being suppressed! We know things your doctors can't possibly know! Your doctors learned nothing in med schoolor from years of experience. But we have learned from online!". Your government shouldn't have been elected to make decisions, ours could have done much better! They can present half truths, and flat out lies, there's nothing to stop them (as long as they follow the accepted narrative). Only perfectly healthy people who die of covid can be counted, no one else really died of covid! and Perfectly healthy people don't die of covid, they only die from vaccines! It's the truth because we say so, and we have these defunct professors and doctors, rejected by their associations and universities, who say so! So they know better than all the other 99% of doctors and professors! Anyone can make a video and claim anything they want to. They can say stupid things like "Nurses can be doctors", or " I find it scandalous that no one is talking about this, you can only hear this here from me, because I have special knowledge that no one else does," If they have a nice voice tone and the gift of gab, they sound reasonable even if no one understands what they are saying, and there's no science to back it up. Or they take a study and completely misinterpret the results and just say it supports their theories.

So regular news organizations have to check their sources, and be careful about their claims, which is why they don't often make claims. They at least know what they don't know. Our doctors are not oppressed, they just would rather work thru regular research channels, have their debates with other scientists not people who can't at least do the research. Their information is available thru many research journals and publications and eventually get reviewed or revised or withdrawn if they can't back up their claims with real data.

[Merry]

Why do people think non-mainstream media sources are somehow unbiased? That's just the vibe I get from a lot of people who criticize MSM. A lot of them seem to blindly trust anything they see as long as it didn't come from a traditional news outlet.

ALL media tends to have some sort of bias, often based on the bias of the author of the article, although sometimes on the bias of the publisher or owner of the newspaper, magazine, or news outlet. And it is up to the reader to recognize that fact, and take it into account when considering the content.

But, as with everything, the level of bias is a matter of degree. During the Pandemic, the majority of our main stream media allowed their level of bias to escalate to the point that they became nothing more than purveyors of Government propaganda. Censorship was rampant, and even expert voices were silenced, or demonized, if they questioned the official Government line.

The ONLY way for those of us who wanted to hear ALL sides of the issue, and then decide for ourselves, was to seek out less traditional media sources. And that’s unfortunate because, as you point out, not all such sources are reliable. However, for the discerning among us, some of those less traditional sources provided very interesting, and invaluable information, that deserved to be considered and discussed by the Public at large. Yet it was suppressed by most of our mainstream media.

Having our Government and media decide what information we should, and should not, hear based on what certain individuals think is “best” for us is anathema to democracy, and ought to be condemned by all. If the authorities are concerned about misinformation from unreliable sources, they should avoid pushing people into seeking out alternative sources of information by ensuring expert alternative views are not suppressed, or unfairly demonized, by our main stream media.