Bret Weinstein on Covid

[Glacier]

Bret Weinstein is one of the best sources out there. Yes, he has his biases, just as I do and just as CBC does and just as Silverstarqueen does.

BUT Bret is more credible than the CBC because he readily admits to his bias. Also, he has a PhD so knows a thing or two more about viruses than Johnny at the CBC with his journalism degree. Bret uses FACTS instead of the appeals to authority the supposed "real news" tends to prefer.

This seems to offend the dramaqueens we see posting on Castanet who try to make the data fit their pre-concieved conclusions no matter how many times they have to twist to data to fit it through the hole they have pre-selected.

"Bret is not mainstream" is not an argument. The only purpose of such a character assassination is the shut down the argument.

[Merry]

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!

SSQ, you are making the incorrect assumption that all alternative media sources are providing misinformation, because all the authors of their articles are either poorly educated, or quacks. And you also incorrectly assume that our main stream media provide only reliable information gleaned from “experts” in the field.

But you’re wrong on both counts.

While it’s true that there are a lot of unreliable alternate media sources, that spout mainly rubbish, it’s also true that, for those who look for it, there are many videos and websites sharing views expressed by folks who are widely considered to be experts in their field. Yet, because these folks questioned some of the views espoused by the “officially sanctioned” line during the pandemic, they were rarely, if ever, given the opportunity to present their alternative views via our mainstream media. And, in some cases, they were outright demonized, and had their reputations ruined.

Our mainstream media, on the other hand, didn’t always do a good job of checking the information they were being fed, prior to publicizing it. And some of the “experts” they presented to back up their stories, were not always experts in the appropriate field of science.

[Silverstarqueen]

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!

SSQ, you are making the incorrect assumption that all alternative media sources are providing misinformation, because all the authors of their articles are either poorly educated, or quacks. And you also incorrectly assume that our main stream media provide only reliable information gleaned from “experts” in the field.

But you’re wrong on both counts.

While it’s true that there are a lot of unreliable alternate media sources, that spout mainly rubbish, it’s also true that, for those who look for it, there are many videos and websites sharing views expressed by folks who are widely considered to be experts in their field. Yet, because these folks questioned some of the views espoused by the “officially sanctioned” line during the pandemic, they were rarely, if ever, given the opportunity to present their alternative views via our mainstream media. And, in some cases, they were outright demonized, and had their reputations ruined.

Our mainstream media, on the other hand, didn’t always do a good job of checking the information they were being fed, prior to publicizing it. And some of the “experts” they presented to back up their stories, were not always experts in the appropriate field of science.

I said "some" not "all". So you are starting with the incorrect assumption about what I said, and about me being wrong.
I did not say they were poorly educated, certainly "Doctor" Wannabe Campbell is well enough educated he should know better. I referred to professors and doctors, and I have said some were well enough educated they also should know better. Never used the word quack or hack either. You are making this up as you go along. You are making more assumptions about stuff I never said. but I do support your right to say whatever more misinformation about what I said, just pile it on.

Certainly if you would ever like to quote some mainstream media, and point out why their expert is not an expert, or debatee what they say with some real information, I'd be happy to discuss.

If some of these talking heads want to do some actual research, there are a number of journals which will publish and review their studies. There is no suppression of that, it's all out in the open, even some pre-print articles are available these days. So the idea that some of these guys couldn't get their information out is complete bumkiss. Oh we were suppressed! No their garbage was posted online and viewed by many, and reposted, otherwise how would anyone be talking about all these guys on these threads? Each news organization gets to pick and choose whom they cover, from Trump to Zelenski. So too bad if someone doesn't get chosen as "Man of the Year" or esteemed guest.

Maybe guys with degrees in evolutionary biology don't know that the SARS coronavirus is not a retrovirus, then they shouldn't say so. Maybe guys who are not medical doctors, but actually are nurses and educators, should not make big sad faces about others who are not medical doctors, but are hired for important jobs because they have educations and backgrounds in Infectious diseases, or microbiology.

Doctors and researchers don't really get ostracized for having unusual ideas, They might have to come up with some evidence to get traction in a journal or a serious discussion. They do get the cold shoulder if they deliberately take on and bad mouth the College of physicians in two provinces, or their University where they are employed, lying about what they did in the process.

[rustled]

Bret Weinstein is one of the best sources out there. Yes, he has his biases, just as I do and just as CBC does and just as Silverstarqueen does.

BUT Bret is more credible than the CBC because he readily admits to his bias. Also, he has a PhD so knows a thing or two more about viruses than Johnny at the CBC with his journalism degree. Bret uses FACTS instead of the appeals to authority the supposed "real news" tends to prefer.

This seems to offend the dramaqueens we see posting on Castanet who try to make the data fit their pre-concieved conclusions no matter how many times they have to twist to data to fit it through the hole they have pre-selected.

"Bret is not mainstream" is not an argument. The only purpose of such a character assassination is the shut down the argument.

Very good points, Glacier.

[VaxisSafe]

Bret has made a slew of incorrect statements and David Gorski called him:

A COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation", and "one of the foremost purveyors of COVID-19 disinformation

Eric Tool, professor of molecular medicine had this to say about Bret's stance on MRNA vaccines:

totally irresponsible. It's reckless. It's sick. It's predatory. It's really sad

Neuroscientist Sam Harris said that Brett's advocacy is quote, "dangerous."

Hmm...I think I'm going to side with the MDs, professors of molecular medicine, and neuroscientists who think Bret is a wackjob. Just because he's proposing "alternative views" doesn't mean those views hold any kind of validity.

[Jonrox]

BUT Bret is more credible than the CBC because he readily admits to his bias. Also, he has a PhD so knows a thing or two more about viruses than Johnny at the CBC with his journalism degree. Bret uses FACTS instead of the appeals to authority the supposed "real news" tends to prefer.

I'm slightly intrigued to listen to him... how do you find his admitted bias affects his reporting of facts?

It seems to me that a bias, whether admitted or not, skews what the facts might actually be are or how they're interpreted. I'm not sure it's all that much better to trust someone who admits to a bias over someone who doesn't. Neither one is being completely honest or objective.

[Merry]

BUT Bret is more credible than the CBC because he readily admits to his bias. Also, he has a PhD so knows a thing or two more about viruses than Johnny at the CBC with his journalism degree. Bret uses FACTS instead of the appeals to authority the supposed "real news" tends to prefer.

I'm slightly intrigued to listen to him... how do you find his admitted bias affects his reporting of facts?

It seems to me that a bias, whether admitted or not, skews what the facts might actually be are or how they're interpreted. I'm not sure it's all that much better to trust someone who admits to a bias over someone who doesn't. Neither one is being completely honest or objective.

I doubt ANYONE can honestly say they are totally without bias. But, as I said earlier, it’s a matter of degree. To what degree does the person allow his, or her, preconceived bias affect their comments?

But we also have to consider the preconceived bias of the listener. To what degree does his, or her, preconceived bias affect how they perceive what is being said?

My point is, bias goes BOTH ways.

[Silverstarqueen]

BUT Bret is more credible than the CBC because he readily admits to his bias. Also, he has a PhD so knows a thing or two more about viruses than Johnny at the CBC with his journalism degree. Bret uses FACTS instead of the appeals to authority the supposed "real news" tends to prefer.

I'm slightly intrigued to listen to him... how do you find his admitted bias affects his reporting of facts?

It seems to me that a bias, whether admitted or not, skews what the facts might actually be are or how they're interpreted. I'm not sure it's all that much better to trust someone who admits to a bias over someone who doesn't. Neither one is being completely honest or objective.

I thought Weinstein was mainstream? He's on Youtube isn't he? Just like doctor John? That's pretty mainstream. I mean there's a few people that are two sandwiches short of a picnic, but not these two.
Weinstein's first podcast with Andy Ngo. Not exactly Weinstein's area of expertise which is evolutionary biology, but hey.
D

[Jonrox]

I'm slightly intrigued to listen to him... how do you find his admitted bias affects his reporting of facts?

It seems to me that a bias, whether admitted or not, skews what the facts might actually be are or how they're interpreted. I'm not sure it's all that much better to trust someone who admits to a bias over someone who doesn't. Neither one is being completely honest or objective.

I doubt ANYONE can honestly say they are totally without bias. But, as I said earlier, it’s a matter of degree. To what degree does the person allow his, or her, preconceived bias affect their comments?

I agree. Having never seen or listened to him, that's why I was asking how folks see his bias influencing his interpretation and reporting of facts (or what he sees as being facts).