The Weinstein Brothers: Nobel-Prize Level Scientists or Self-Aggrandizing Woosters?

angrysoba

Philosophile
angrysoba
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
38,495
Location
Osaka, Japan
Are Bret and Eric Weinstein scientific geniuses who have been deprived of their rightful Nobel Prizes by a Distributed Idea Suppression Complex (DISC) - otherwise known as the Scientific Establishment or are they conspiracy theorists with a massively inflated self-belief peddling dangeruos pseudoscientific nonsense?

SPOILER: they are conspiracy theorists with a massively inflated self-belief peddling dangeruos pseudoscientific nonsense.

Ever since Bret Weinstein got cancelled, the Whinestein Brothers have amassed a growing cult er.... following who regard them as heroes...

Bret Weinstein: 348K subscribers
Eric Weinstein: 261K subscribers

Bret has recently been peddling anti-vax nonsense, making massively inflated claims about ivermectin and his endorsement of the lab leak hypothesis is almost for me enough to think it is probably not true.

Eric believes he has come up with a new form of physics that he feels has been suppressed by the Man. Now he seems to be into UFOs...

Of course, neither of them seem to be actively doing any science at all, and instead they have become broadcasters telling anyone who will listen that they have noticed things that have been missed (or suppressed by the science establishment).

Are they not just a pair of cranks and charlatans? Are they not just well-spoken, less crazed versions of Alex Jones?

Here, by the way, is an article about Bret and his wife, Heather Heying... (I don't remember where I first read it, maybe it was posted on this forum, if so thanks to whomever posted it) and how they seem to be making the Gallileo Gambit. The idea is that they are the geniuses being suppressed by the Orthodoxy:

Dr Heying and her partner Dr Bret Weinstein argue strongly against all of these positions. In a recent episode of their podcast Heather acknowledged that Bret had estimated the likelihood of laboratory origin as greater than 95% (an increase from his original estimate in May 2020 of 90%). They claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous, comparing taking the vaccine to playing Russian Roulette with a loaded gun. They argue in the strongest possible terms in favour of Ivermectin as an entirely safe and highly effective prophylactic and cure. The authorities and experts are described as ‘playing games with people’s lives’, engaging in the ‘crime of the century’, and are accused of neglecting and suppressing these ideas. Thus, although they sometimes portray their views as merely ‘conspiracy hypotheses’, it is hard to regard these caveats as being anything other than a performative tactical disclaimer, given the vehemence and certainty that characterises their split with the scientific consensus.
Click to expand...

Link

Indeed, almost all of Bret and Eric and Heather's conceits seem to be that they have something more important and interesting to say about science and that everyone else is wrong.

Funnily enough Eric also seems to think he speaks for science such as in this megalomaniacal outburst while talking to Michael Shermer (and was then mocked by another conspiracy theorist comedian called Tim Dillon):

https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1406140717903212545?s=21

It's funny because Tim Dillon is doing an Emperor's New Clothes on Eric Weinstein. He's merely pointing out that Eric Weinstein hasn't done any science which has made people's lives better.
 
I have done some listening to Bret and Heather's YouTube channel. I'm a bit less familiar with Eric. I have been a bit put out by their anti-vaccine messaging though, and find myself listening less and less to them. I really don't know what to make of their claims about ivermectin because at the end of the day, I am still just a layman without much in the way of formal education in the scientific methods. What I do know is mostly self taught and I subscribe to Socrates' observation that a wise man is one who knows that he is a fool, and vice versa.

I do think that probably ivermectin should have been studied in a high quality way a long time ago so that we could have a definitive answer by now.

Oh, just en passant, the OP poses a false choice. The true answer probably lies somewhere in between.

And that guy asking whether they had invented anything useful also seems like a cheap shot. They aren't in the gadget-inventing business. One may as well point out that they cannot dunk a basketball or hit a home-run. It's a silly thing to point out about someone who isn't a professional athlete.
 
Puppycow said:
Oh, just en passant, the OP poses a false choice. The true answer probably lies somewhere in between.
Click to expand...

No doubt it is. Not only can you be neither, but you could also be both. Apparently Linus Pauling is an example of someone who won a couple of Nobel Prizes and was also a proponent of megavitamin infusions for preventing or curing cancer, and that has turned out to be garbage (though still apparently promoted on Joe Rogan's channel from time to time because... of course it is!)

Anyway, You Tube have decided to go with the latter and
have demonetized Bret Weinstein's channel, and he has reacted by going all Jordan Petersony about it claiming that just like David and Goliath (with extra ramblings about what might have made Goliath big and some extra pointless details about the myth) they won't die on that hill but take that hill because the hill is too important because people are dying and if he cannot get the message out then Google will be killing people, and also I DON'T HAVE A MARTYRDOM COMPLEX... Sword of Damocles, and we're moving to Odysee and then You Tube is going to be sooooooorrry!

https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1409683806471155712
 
I imagine their recent dalliances with anti-vax and alt-med nonsense is doing a bit of damage to their reputation as principled academics that dare stand up to the loony left.

Probably dropping the mask a bit too much and revealing that the "intellectual dark web" is simply reactionary horse-**** dressed up as contrarian truth-telling.

Any academic willing to trade in their scientific credibility can make a pretty steady living shilling reactionary politics and pseudoscientific woo.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
No doubt it is. Not only can you be neither, but you could also be both. Apparently Linus Pauling is an example of someone who won a couple of Nobel Prizes and was also a proponent of megavitamin infusions for preventing or curing cancer, and that has turned out to be garbage (though still apparently promoted on Joe Rogan's channel from time to time because... of course it is!)

Anyway, You Tube have decided to go with the latter and
have demonetized Bret Weinstein's channel, and he has reacted by going all Jordan Petersony about it claiming that just like David and Goliath (with extra ramblings about what might have made Goliath big and some extra pointless details about the myth) they won't die on that hill but take that hill because the hill is too important because people are dying and if he cannot get the message out then Google will be killing people, and also I DON'T HAVE A MARTYRDOM COMPLEX... Sword of Damocles, and we're moving to Odysee and then You Tube is going to be sooooooorrry!

https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1409683806471155712
Click to expand...

So we got Peterson who nuked his own brain getting a quack cure to his benzo addiction and the Weinsteins shilling alt-med and anti-vax nonsense.

The IDW is draping itself in glory.

The Weinsteins are a pretty obvious case of self-aggrandizement. They were mediocre academics, solidly middle of the pack and un-noteworthy before Brett made his big play for right-wing stardom by hawking a false narrative about race riots at Evergreen and being so obnoxious that the school decided paying him to go away was the least bad option. He's been living off this "cancellation" for years.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Oh, just en passant, the OP poses a false choice. The true answer probably lies somewhere in between.
Click to expand...
What possible claim do either of these kooks have to a Nobel Prize?
They're misogynistic, rightist, conspiratorial truther nutjobs.
 
Hmmmm... the first episode of The Dark Horse was with Andy Ngo. Interesting...

I think Bret was also JAQing off to the idea that Biden stole the election, until he was slapped down by someone he knows for believing moronic ****, although he continued to maintain that these were serious avenues for investigation.

Actually the list of crank positions that he and his brother have taken appears to be almost endless.

Still, now that they are not on You Tube, they have taken their podcast to Odysee run by LBRY.

What is this platform?

As of April 2021, Odysee hosted 10 million videos, the most-viewed of which was a video questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.[7] A May 2021 report by The Guardian found "scores of extremist videos" on the Odysee platform that promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories, glorified Adolf Hitler and other Nazis, shared COVID-19 misinformation, and depicted meetings and rallies by extremist groups including the white nationalist and antisemitic National Justice party and the neo-Nazi Nordic Resistance Movement.[6]
Click to expand...

Wow! That's going to be a...fun ride. Mixing with fellow kooks and conspiracy theorists...but it will be interesting to see what they make of the white supremacist and antisemitic neighbours. :jaw-dropp
 
catsmate said:
What possible claim do either of these kooks have to a Nobel Prize?
They're misogynistic, rightist, conspiratorial truther nutjobs.
Click to expand...

The bit you quoted doesn't suggest that I think they have a claim. I'm pointing out a false dichotomy. And also you're doing an ad hominem.

Let's start with the "misogynistic" accusation. Can you back that one up? I think Bret's wife Heather might disagree with you about that one, and I haven't seen any particular evidence of that myself.
 
Puppycow said:
The bit you quoted doesn't suggest that I think they have a claim. I'm pointing out a false dichotomy. And also you're doing an ad hominem.

Let's start with the "misogynistic" accusation. Can you back that one up? I think Bret's wife Heather might disagree with you about that one, and I haven't seen any particular evidence of that myself.
Click to expand...

This is probably a reference to the scientific misogyny that is common among these "intellectuals". It's a cottage industry of mediocre academics repackaging "men are from mars, women are from venus" tropes with the veneer of evolutionary biology and using that to justify sexist policy.

Good work if you can find it and have no moral compass.
 
Bret Weinstein and the vaccines

IMO Bret Weinstein was wronged regarding Evergreen State. However, I heard him saying that maybe he would take a more traditional vaccine, and I lost a modicum of sympathy. First, there is nothing wrong with the mRNA vaccines. Second, there are more traditional vaccines out there.
 
angrysoba said:
Still, now that they are not on You Tube, they have taken their podcast to Odysee run by LBRY.

What is this platform?



Wow! That's going to be a...fun ride. Mixing with fellow kooks and conspiracy theorists...but it will be interesting to see what they make of the white supremacist and antisemitic neighbours. :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Well the downside of being a free speech platform that doesn't censor content is that you inevitably end up with that sort of stuff.

If someone uses Speaker's Corner in London to say horrible antisemitic things, do we conclude that freedom of speech as a principle is bad and Speaker's Corner should be abolished or only certain people should be allowed to speak there?
 
Puppycow said:
Well the downside of being a free speech platform that doesn't censor content is that you inevitably end up with that sort of stuff.

If someone uses Speaker's Corner in London to say horrible antisemitic things, do we conclude that freedom of speech as a principle is bad and Speaker's Corner should be abolished or only certain people should be allowed to speak there?
Click to expand...

Usually people conclude that kooks screaming from atop soap boxes on street corners are not people to be treated seriously, but rather politely ignored while picking up your walking pace.

The Weinsteins have found themselves among their true peers, you know, conspiracy cranks, overt fascists and racists, and the other dregs of society. I'm sure they'll fit right in.

Now that they're off more mainstream platforms, I would not be surprised if they pivot to being more overt reactionaries and drop all pretense of neutral inquisitiveness.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Well the downside of being a free speech platform that doesn't censor content is that you inevitably end up with that sort of stuff.

If someone uses Speaker's Corner in London to say horrible antisemitic things, do we conclude that freedom of speech as a principle is bad and Speaker's Corner should be abolished or only certain people should be allowed to speak there?
Click to expand...

SuburbanTurkey said:
Usually people conclude that kooks screaming from atop soap boxes on street corners are not people to be treated seriously, but rather politely ignored while picking up your walking pace.

The Weinsteins have found themselves among their true peers, you know, conspiracy cranks, overt fascists and racists, and the other dregs of society. I'm sure they'll fit right in.

Now that they're off more mainstream platforms, I would not be surprised if they pivot to being more overt reactionaries and drop all pretense of neutral inquisitiveness.
Click to expand...

What I would genuinely like is if they asked themselves “what the hell are we doing here with the detritus of the internet? Among the crazies and the whackjobs?” - perhaps rhetorically initially - and then perhaps with a bit of real introspection. Maybe, just maybe something might dawn on them.

It’s interesting how there is a serious belief among many on the right that You Tube owes them a living. Guess what? People get banned from online platforms all the time. Why? For breaching terms of service!

Look, Bret could just as well continued to have his nonsense discussions with Jordan Peterson about the evolutionary Darwinian truths of Jung’s archetypes and how their constant truth telling makes them the dragon slayers against the establishment of oppression (remember there is no systemic racism but there IS systemic oppression of the Intellectual Dark Web - towering intellects like Dave Ideas Rubin), but he wanted to monetize anti-vax and frankly if they really believed that stuff was so important then what is the need to monetize it? Frankly You Tube SHOULD take that stuff down.
 
Inside Higher Ed

Inside Higher Ed covered Professor Weinstein and Evergreen State in 2017. The Chronicle of Higher Education covered a much earlier controversy. My impression is that he is a centrist in the slightly liberal area of the political spectrum.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
Inside Higher Ed covered Professor Weinstein and Evergreen State in 2017. The Chronicle of Higher Education covered a much earlier controversy. My impression is that he is a centrist in the slightly liberal area of the political spectrum.
Click to expand...

Yes, the story Weinstein tells very much centers him and his free speech at the center of a left wing cancel culture brigade.

The truth reveals that he was very much a tertiary character that used platforms like Tucker Carlon's White Power Hour to intentionally ratchet up tensions and elevate himself as some free-speech martyr. He routinely lied about events on campus and made himself out to be a central character in order to pander to far-right media like Tucker Carlson or Breitbart.

He routinely lied about what was happened on campus to gin up white reactionaries. Protests on campus were not about his email or positions on diversity policy, but rather in response to an unrelated arrest of black students that was perceived as racially biased.

After his tour of right wing media, the campus had to close for 3 days after credible terroristic threats, including this one that resulted in a felony arrest:

“I’m on my way to Evergreen University (sic) now with a .44 Magnum,” the caller says in audio obtained by KIRO 7. “I’m going to execute as many people on the campus as I can get ahold of. You have that, what’s going on here, you communist scumbag town?”
Click to expand...

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/new-jersey-man-accused-of-threats-that-closed-evergreen-state-college-last-month/



https://psmag.com/education/the-real-free-speech-story-at-evergreen-college
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
The bit you quoted doesn't suggest that I think they have a claim. I'm pointing out a false dichotomy. And also you're doing an ad hominem.

Let's start with the "misogynistic" accusation. Can you back that one up? I think Bret's wife Heather might disagree with you about that one, and I haven't seen any particular evidence of that myself.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
So you have nothing to support the idea that the Weinsteins are deserving of the Nobel prize, or indeed any recognition for their nutjobbery.
Wrt to misogyny have you listened to Eric's diatribe against the "female Nobel prize winner" he blames for blocking his award? Or his slanders of Carol Greider? Or his (franky creepy) breast fixation and demand thatwomen be reduced to baby factories? Or his specific angst at women with doctorates using the title 'doctor'? Or his complaints about there being "too much feminism"? Or his statements that feminists don't understand biology?

I'm curious why you feel the need to defend these cretinous conspiracy nuts.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
So you have nothing to support the idea that the Weinsteins are deserving of the Nobel prize, or indeed any recognition for their nutjobbery.
Wrt to misogyny have you listened to Eric's diatribe against the "female Nobel prize winner" he blames for blocking his award? Or his slanders of Carol Greider? Or his (franky creepy) breast fixation and demand thatwomen be reduced to baby factories? Or his specific angst at women with doctorates using the title 'doctor'? Or his complaints about there being "too much feminism"? Or his statements that feminists don't understand biology?

I'm curious why you feel the need to defend these cretinous conspiracy nuts.
Click to expand...

Just to nitpick, Eric claims Bret should have won the Nobel Prize that Carol Greider won. I don’t think Bret has specifically claimed it but he didn’t contradict his brother. Eric apparently blames a roomful of people at Harvard for stealing his Nobel Prize in physics.

Now that aliens have arrived, Eric thinks humans are not prepared because they didn’t learn the physics he discovered. Also, Eric thinks his wife should have won a Nobel Prize.

Those Nobel Prizes were stolen by the DISC!
 
the evidence before the public's eye

There is more evidence (see my link upthread to the Chronicle of Higher Education) that Bret Weinstein is a defender of women against exploitation than that he is misogynist.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
There is more evidence (see my link upthread to the Chronicle of Higher Education) that Bret Weinstein is a defender of women against exploitation than that he is misogynist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to be fair I haven't come across any misogyny from them, so I will not comment on that.

The Carol Greider and the Nobel Prize saga, however, is discussed on a podcast called Decoding the Gurus.

The tone of the podcast is mostly pretty whimsical. The hosts are academics from Australia and Northern Ireland, and they don't take their subject too seriously, but essentially they argue that Bret and Eric misunderstand the usual, sometimes frustrating and annoying process of peer review and the failure to persuade colleagues as some kind of Nefarious, Reactive Establisment Structure defending itself against revolutionary ideas.

They spell out the hilarious contradictions that Bret and Eric make such as the way they think the whole process is corrupt while at the same time explaining how they lobbied the editors of Nature magazine with letters from distinguished academics to get Bret's paper published...only for it to be rejected!

Then they seem to argue that Carol Greider herself tried to spike his paper with a negative peer review. (He assumes it was her anyway, although the process is anonymous so he cannot be sure). Then his shock at being left out of her Nobel Prize winning speech which he was watching from his hammock.

The podcast is very long, but I found it quite funny.

Link
 
Chris_Halkides said:
There is more evidence (see my link upthread to the Chronicle of Higher Education) that Bret Weinstein is a defender of women against exploitation than that he is misogynist.
Click to expand...

That's true, the further he goes down the toilet of public respectability, the fewer women that will likely be inflicted on by his horrible personality. His public flouncing from Evergreen alone saved many young women the unpleasant experience of having to share a classroom with him.
 
Anyway, now that Bret's been demonetized by You Tube, it looks like he's raking in the Patreon bucks!

Looks like Cancellation turns out to be lucrative again.


I expect there will be no moral reckoning after all. He'll double and triple down on his charlatanism and fleece his followers.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
So you have nothing to support the idea that the Weinsteins are deserving of the Nobel prize, or indeed any recognition for their nutjobbery.
Click to expand...
Because I never suggested that, why would I need to support it? You're strawmanning me.

Wrt to misogyny have you listened to Eric's diatribe against the "female Nobel prize winner" he blames for blocking his award?
Click to expand...
No, I have not. Of the two Weinstein brothers, the only one I'm really familiar with is Bret from watching some of (a small fraction) the Youtube videos he does with his wife, Heather. In what I saw, I didn't sense anything that would suggest that Bret is a misogynist.


Or his slanders of Carol Greider? Or his (franky creepy) breast fixation and demand that women be reduced to baby factories? Or his specific angst at women with doctorates using the title 'doctor'? Or his complaints about there being "too much feminism"? Or his statements that feminists don't understand biology?
I'm curious why you feel the need to defend these cretinous conspiracy nuts.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am not aware of any of that. Is that all Eric stuff? I sense you lumping them together.
 
angrysoba said:
Anyway, now that Bret's been demonetized by You Tube, it looks like he's raking in the Patreon bucks!

Looks like Cancellation turns out to be lucrative again.


I expect there will be no moral reckoning after all. He'll double and triple down on his charlatanism and fleece his followers.
Click to expand...

I would assume nailing yourself to the cancel culture cross is more lucrative than being a unexceptional professor at a small liberal arts college.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That's true, the further he goes down the toilet of public respectability, the fewer women that will likely be inflicted on by his horrible personality. His public flouncing from Evergreen alone saved many young women the unpleasant experience of having to share a classroom with him.
Click to expand...
:D
 
Now Bret has apparently decided to go on Epoch TV which is where "American Thought Leaders" discuss "Forbidden Questions".


Link

The Epoch Times is a far-right[12] international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong cult.[17] The newspaper, based in New York City, is part of the Epoch Media Group, which also operates New Tang Dynasty (NTD) Television.[18] The Epoch Times has websites in 35 countries but is blocked in mainland China.[19]

The Epoch Times opposes the Chinese Communist Party,[20] promotes far-right politicians in Europe,[3][5] and has backed President Donald Trump in the U.S.;[21] a 2019 report by NBC News showed it to be the second-largest funder of pro-Trump Facebook advertising after the Trump campaign.[18][22][23] The Epoch Media Group's news sites and YouTube channels have spread conspiracy theories such as QAnon and anti-vaccine misinformation.[18][24][25] In 2020, the New York Times called it a "global-scale misinformation machine".[21] The Epoch Times frequently promotes other Falun Gong affiliated groups, such as the performing arts company Shen Yun.[14][26][21]
Click to expand...
 
Now Bret Weinstein is going on Tucker Carlson's program to claim that vaccines cause a selective pressure to make Covid worse.

He truly is an arse, isn't he!

Link
 
Links on evolution and vaccines

Link1
"Why is drug resistance common and vaccine resistance rare? Drugs and vaccines both impose substantial pressure on pathogen populations to evolve resistance and indeed, drug resistance typically emerges soon after the introduction of a drug. But vaccine resistance has only rarely emerged. Using well-established principles of population genetics and evolutionary ecology, we argue that two key differences between vaccines and drugs explain why vaccines have so far proved more robust against evolution than drugs. First, vaccines tend to work prophylactically while drugs tend to work therapeutically. Second, vaccines tend to induce immune responses against multiple targets on a pathogen while drugs tend to target very few. Consequently, pathogen populations generate less variation for vaccine resistance than they do for drug resistance, and selection has fewer opportunities to act on that variation. When vaccine resistance has evolved, these generalities have been violated. With careful forethought, it may be possible to identify vaccines at risk of failure even before they are introduced."

Link2
"When vaccines are in limited supply, expanding the number of people who receive some vaccine, such as by halving doses or increasing the interval between doses, can reduce disease and mortality compared with concentrating available vaccine doses in a subset of the population. A corollary of such dose-sparing strategies is that the vaccinated individuals may have less protective immunity. Concerns have been raised that expanding the fraction of the population with partial immunity to SARS-CoV-2 could increase selection for vaccine-escape variants, ultimately undermining vaccine effectiveness. We argue that, although this is possible, preliminary evidence instead suggests such strategies should slow the rate of viral escape from vaccine or naturally induced immunity. As long as vaccination provides some protection against escape variants, the corresponding reduction in prevalence and incidence should reduce the rate at which new variants are generated and the speed of adaptation. Because there is little evidence of efficient immune selection of SARS-CoV-2 during typical infections, these population-level effects are likely to dominate vaccine-induced evolution."

Evolution is not a topic about which I am particularly well educated. However, I don't think that Weinstein's argument is strong, based upon the information that I have been able to find so far.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
Link1
"Why is drug resistance common and vaccine resistance rare? Drugs and vaccines both impose substantial pressure on pathogen populations to evolve resistance and indeed, drug resistance typically emerges soon after the introduction of a drug. But vaccine resistance has only rarely emerged. Using well-established principles of population genetics and evolutionary ecology, we argue that two key differences between vaccines and drugs explain why vaccines have so far proved more robust against evolution than drugs. First, vaccines tend to work prophylactically while drugs tend to work therapeutically. Second, vaccines tend to induce immune responses against multiple targets on a pathogen while drugs tend to target very few. Consequently, pathogen populations generate less variation for vaccine resistance than they do for drug resistance, and selection has fewer opportunities to act on that variation. When vaccine resistance has evolved, these generalities have been violated. With careful forethought, it may be possible to identify vaccines at risk of failure even before they are introduced."

Link2
"When vaccines are in limited supply, expanding the number of people who receive some vaccine, such as by halving doses or increasing the interval between doses, can reduce disease and mortality compared with concentrating available vaccine doses in a subset of the population. A corollary of such dose-sparing strategies is that the vaccinated individuals may have less protective immunity. Concerns have been raised that expanding the fraction of the population with partial immunity to SARS-CoV-2 could increase selection for vaccine-escape variants, ultimately undermining vaccine effectiveness. We argue that, although this is possible, preliminary evidence instead suggests such strategies should slow the rate of viral escape from vaccine or naturally induced immunity. As long as vaccination provides some protection against escape variants, the corresponding reduction in prevalence and incidence should reduce the rate at which new variants are generated and the speed of adaptation. Because there is little evidence of efficient immune selection of SARS-CoV-2 during typical infections, these population-level effects are likely to dominate vaccine-induced evolution."

Evolution is not a topic about which I am particularly well educated. However, I don't think that Weinstein's argument is strong, based upon the information that I have been able to find so far.
Click to expand...

That's an understatement. He seems to be regurgitating a crank theory (which seems to be his occupation these days) from Geert Vanden Bosche.
 
They will get their Nobel prizes for medicine at the same ceremony where Donald Trump picks up his NobelPeace Prize.
 
angrysoba said:
Now Bret Weinstein is going on Tucker Carlson's program to claim that vaccines cause a selective pressure to make Covid worse.

He truly is an arse, isn't he!

Link
Click to expand...

Surpirsed Fox would ldet Carlson have him on. That could create some legal problems for Fox.
 
"Vocal contrarians"

angrysoba said:
That's an understatement. He seems to be regurgitating a crank theory (which seems to be his occupation these days) from Geert Vanden Bosche.
Click to expand...
Here is a link about Dr. Bossche. "Dr. Bossche’s concern about imperfect vaccines allowing the virus to mutate should be dwarfed by the much larger, evidence-based worry of allowing the virus to mutate inside of unvaccinated people." I will try to listed to the link with Dr. Weinstein to see how closely they compare.
 
Last edited:
SO these Weinstien brs are just as big Alpha Hotels as the other Weinstein brothers, though in a different way?
 
Kind of interesting.

Bret has had a spat with a guy who introduced him to the lab leak hypothesis, Yuri Deigin.

Deigin is a major proponent of the Lab Leak Theory, but Deigin apparently was also concerned with Bret's pushing of ivermectin as an alternative to Covid vaccines by exaggerating what is known about the effectiveness of IVM, and also talking up the dangers of vaccines. Bret will often insert some tepid caveats into his long-winded nonsense, but alt-med and anti-vaxx are his thing now.

Interestingly, Bret also brings up his own theory about telomeres (it's wot shoula won him the Nobble Prize ya know!), and generally rubbishes the entire medical community because they have been doing all the science wrong (peer review and randomized control trials are wrong, you know!), sees corruption everywhere with governments, Big Pharma and Big Tech suppressing him.

Anyway, here is Deigin's critique of Bret's latest podcast episode if you want to get a view of Bret and Heather's world.

Link
 
Bob Wright is an interesting guy, IMO.

This is an over 2 hour video so I don't imagine that many people will have the free time to watch it all, but in case anyone is interested:



The title is "Is Eric Weinstein a Crackpot?"

Oh, if you click through to watch it on YouTube instead of embedded here in the forum, you can find timestamps to skip to different topics as well as background information. I would, however at least start at the beginning so that the participants in the dialog can introduce themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom