Experts agree, Bret Weinstein is WRONG
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Patreon: / drwilsondebunks
Contact me directly with questions and comments:
Email: dr.wilson.debunk@gmail.com
Facebook (direct message): / docwilsondebunks
Previous Bret videos:
• Bret Weinstein respond...
• Will Bret Weinstein ke...
The slide deck that Bret’s friends prepared: www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5vaoou...
Biodistribution studies of mRNA vaccines: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.nature.com/articles/natur...
Nucleocapsid isn’t always detectable in tissues alongside spike: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Mechanism of vaccine-induced myocarditis:
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
LNP “off-target” papers that Bret and company didn’t read:
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas...
www.nature.com/articles/s4157...
Explanation on the radiolabeled lipid experiment:
/ biodistribution-and-sp...
The 2-week thing doesn’t change the conclusion that vaccines work: www.medrxiv.org/content/10.11... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I was 19 at the time of covid vx roll out. My doctor advised me that I was in the age risk of "rare" cardiac events from the vx. He also said that given my age exceptional health, I was statistically at little to no risk from any serious symptoms from covid. I was on the fence until i saw friends getting cardiac complications from the vx. 3 guys on my hockey team alone. One guy is still on medication for it. I said FK that! I didn't end up taking the covid vx and i did get covid. I've had worse hangovers. Way worse. I have no regrets in the decision I made.
"I was on the fence until i saw friends getting cardiac complications from the vx. 3 guys on my hockey team alone. "
AVPS. It's always those who claim they were 'hesitant' of the vaccine who know lots of people who supposedly got cardiac complications - and of course they're all from the vaccination, without any need for evidence. In the meantime, population-wide investigations show that you would have to know 3,000 men in the age range of 12-17 (the highest risk group) to know ONE male who got myocarditis or similar from the vaccination. Of course, you'd need to know some 1,500 men to know one male who got myocarditis or similar FROM THE ACTUAL INFECTION.
That is because most people don't get seriously ill from Covid. What he did not tell you was that getting Covid while unvaccinated was many times more likely to give you "rare" cardiac events than the vaccine would give you.
what cardiac complications? Sorry but the evidence shows that covid is a significantly greater risk than a vaccine... Just because you didn't have any severe symptoms doesn't mean others didn't, the same argument could be applied to the vaccine (I got 3 and barely had any symptoms)
Well, then you belong to a population that has worse COVID-19 related health-outcomes - just letting you know.
@@jimkofron8638 The harms are real and very rare. Provide evidence if you wish to dispute this.
13:27 Genuine question here: is it clear that your statement of "again they found mRNA present in primarily the muscle tissue at the injection site the draining lymph nodes" is in opposition to the statement that the mRNA can be found in the brain and heart, or in opposition to what Bret is claiming?
We should all agree with the simple statement of "mRNA can be found in the brain and heart, not just at the injection site", per your graph at 13:50 right? We can then talk about *how much* is found and say the authors characterize them as "trace amounts", and we can agree that it's orders of magnitude less than what's at the injection site.
However, what I'm missing from this argument for it to be complete, is an explanation of how the amounts found in the brain (that are relatively small in comparison to the injection site), are not a problem. Maybe this is part of the conflict with the disagreement between the two of you, or maybe I don't quite know what Bret has said, or maybe I missed the part where you explained this (maybe the "no measurable levels of antigen" part, not sure what role antigen plays in this argument).
13:50 my septic tank has 5680 shits in it, but if there's 1.82 shits in my bed, calling it "trace amounts by comparison" isn't satisfactory, I'm not sleeping in that bed.
Maybe this is what Cynthia Leifer and Andrea Love address, but honestly a lot of the words and their implications are going over my head, and it's not quite clear to me that there's a 1-to-1 rebuttal here.
It seems that you have made a clear and convincing case that
* mRNA/spike remains *relatively* localized to the injection site / GC (though it's not clear to me why these measurements/levels are considered by their relative proportions, rather than their absolute values)
* that there are multiple mechanisms that degrade or flush mRNA and Spike from perpetually existing in the system (and supporting evidences of that),
* there is no evidence to support the idea that it exists perpetually, and some evidence such as antigen levels to suggest that they don't?
* and the primary mechanism of cell damage caused by the vaccines are at such low levels in "other tissues" like the heart that it's not a problem because of stem cells, and importantly, this mechanism is the same mechanism that Brett claims causes damage (I have heard "the spike protein itself is damaging", which seems like a different claim/mechanism than immune cells killing your own cells)
* The secondary mechanism of cytokines makes for the appearance of damage by the primary mechanism, but it's not.
Do I have some of that right? Or at least a crude abstraction approximating what was said?
I'm still a little confused by the use of the word "mainly" at 18:17, in conjunction with the chart at 13:50, this seems to later conflict with the 18:17 statement "most sensitive assays do not see (at all?)", so I'm certainly not understanding things, though I'm trying.
Because once again you’re glossing over the fact the rats were given a dose that was 300 times larger than the equivalent dose given to humans.
Basically, they tried to inflate those rats like water balloons, by filling them with vaccine. Even having done that, only trace amounts were found to have bio-distributed to other parts of the rats body.
Then compare the size of a rat, to the size of an average human adult. The vaccine doesn’t have far to travel in a rat to reach the heart. And despite injecting the rats in several different places, only trace amounts were found to have bio distributed.
So the researchers can be confident that unless we administer the vaccine with a syringe the size of your arm, it’s going to stay at the injection site
@@steveoxocubeSo, by what mechanism does the vaccine cause Inflammation to the myocardium, subsequently damaging the heart?
@@Carson574Jesus Christ. Already replied to this today. You going to make me repeat myself over and over?
No one knows for certain. The mechanism hasn’t been fully established yet. The best hypothesis so far is that in rare cases the body’s immune system over reacts, causing inflammation throughout the body including the heart.
But what has been ruled out is the idea that spike from the vaccine is being expressed by heart muscle tissue and causing an autoimmune response. This has been ruled out because it’s never, not once, been observed.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Be sure to cite all your sources there’s a good chap
@@steveoxocube So nobody knows how the vaccine damages the heart?
I have to ask, what happens to the lipids after they reach the muscle and liver tissue? Are they metabolized as other lipids are? Do we know?
_"Are they metabolized as other lipids are?"_ Yes.
yes, after they deliver the toxic codes into your cells
@@philo3479 You should get out you waxing kit and fix it Phil
@@Muritaipet @philo3479 Waxing lyrical, not.
@@christopherrobinson7541 LOL. Very funny, I hadn't thought of that.
“I have just staked my reputation…”
That’s not saying much. 😅
Yeah he doesn't have the stellar reputation that big pharma has. 👍
Ad hominem.
@@ivermec-tin666 Actually not, it's an insult. Learn the difference.
@@donaldanderson6578 Wrong. All Ad hominem are insults. They are a particular kind of insult based upon faulty logic and executed with the intention of appealing to emotions. Back at you, bucko.
@@ivermec-tin666
Could you present an example of an Ah (or another name, that isn't an insult and passes as a valid challenge of the individual?
Bret Weinstein is wrong!?! I am shocked, shocked, I tell you.
You're also wrong, so...
🤣🤣
@@SaviorMoney-777 You should to touch some grass. You really decided to click on a video you from someone you inherently disagree with and write nonsense comments like these. You bring nothing to the discussion, you are whining like a child. All you are doing is wasting your time, go get a life lmao
I was an avid follower of his until he went off the rails during the pandemic. I was shocked.
@@SaviorMoney-777 Wrong about what?
But wouldn’t that still be a concern; the lipid nano particles delivering mRNA to liver cells?
No
here is how far we have come: first is stays in the deltoid, to no big deal it's getting into liver cells. The cult minion 🤡's like SDE stevo continue to think the masses are still brainwashed.
@@philo3479 is that you Jasper? If not I will give you ten yes ten points for the 🤡 symbol 👏👏👏👏👏👏
@@samsmith962No, it is PhilO the pedicurist, er I mean "surgeon".
Absolutely.
Thanks for the amazing video! 🖖🏽🤓
Kin-hell Jasper deleted himself again. 😂😂
Thank you!
New to your channel. I appreciate this information.
Where is Rogan to tell Bret he is a chicken for not debating? Bret has had 4 years to study even the tiniest bit of immunology and can't do as well as an undergraduate taking introductory courses
I want to see Rogan have Dr. Wilson on. I remember in the early days of his podcast he used to have on experts to inform and challenge him. For years now though all he's had on are the same cast of pseudo-celebrity insiders playing parrot. Truly disappointing.
There are thousands of very qualified people who agreed with Bret though. The beauty of science! ❤❤❤
Ive sent you an email. Im a specialist on T cell immunology who has specialised in that topic since 2020..Om sorry bret didnt come to interview, so I would be happy to do a live interview to helpfully disciss the fine details of tjis hypothesis. Its a very important topic and as a wcientist I think it is important we have public debate where each scientist has a chance to make sure each claim and counter claim is allowd to be clarified, as opposed to one scientist decribing another persons claim , which is open to strawman and gaslighting tactics. I followed all of dr birkhart, bhakdi and brets progress over the last 3 years, so am more than qualified to discuss this important topic. I noticed the rest of ypur commentors were not actually discussing the science, only attacking bret. I think it is important this central topic is properly investigated the correct way. In public debate.
Cheers.
Will Thomson.
Commander of the killer T cell army (my nickname..its a long story. We could talk about that too) .
@@WillThomson-st6hm Dr Wilson doesn't read comments here. However check the video's Description and you'll find two methods to contact him.
I get the impression that you've read/ watched a lot of material in a personal capacity in those four years, so not sure what the response will be.
@@sg24336 Are you of the belief that the idea with the most "official" supporters is the correct one? You might want to study history if that's your position. Science particularly does not go that way.
(6:00) Except it doesn't say whether these so called "COVID death" subjects were also vaccinated or not
“In situ hybridization (SARS-CoV2 RNA) and immunohistochemistry for viral proteins and the host response were quantified for the samples and compared with qRTPCR and Western blot data.”
They only tested for viral proteins. Spike protein has a different signature to the spike produced by vaccine. There was no need to establish vaccine status, because they were only testing for viral proteins, not vaccine proteins
@@steveoxocube .... ONLY test for viral proteins and NOT look for the toxic jab ones?? This is SceiNcE to the 🤡 cult folks.
@@philo3479Come on Philly. Tell us all why they wouldn’t need to test for vaccine spike? Can you work it out? Or do I need to show you up again? 😂
@@steveoxocube Then why is there the extra check for the presence of the nucleocapsid protein? Isn't is because PCR alone cannot distinguish between viral or vaccine spike protein? Interesting observation though.. i will continue searching pubmed to find where it says qRTPCR can distinguish viral from vaccine spike protein.
@@photoman2004Nucleocapsid wouldn’t be present from the vaccine. The mRNA in the vaccine only encodes for spike.
But the reason they check for both, is because both viral proteins are antigens, that trigger the immune response. Which is the very hypothesis they are researching
Thanks so much for your work! Oh man, if only Brett had grown the balls...or the integrity...or even if his delusional belief in himself allowed it...and he took up your offer for a direct discussion. It would have been a classic.
Love this🥰
thank you for all of your work!
Is Pfizer the sponsor for this podcast?
Now this is an ad hominem. It addresses nothing in the video as being wrong or incorrect or anything else. It's just ad hom.
@@jaykanta4326what experiment are you injecting next Jay?
Would be nice if they'd sponsor fact-based podcasts like this! But they might not be willing to fund someone who works for a competitor...
And what Chrissy the fuckclown did is called "begging the question". It's a very stupid logical fallacy that they've been trying to perfect.
@@jaykanta4326It’s a legit question and would be nice to know the answer.
Thank you for bringing expert work to us in an accessible way.
Thank you
That was excellent. Thank you very much.
At the beginning of the pandemic I was fully on board with the cdc, the who and the Australian health minister etc.
I then got jab injured.
Doctors said not the jab which is totally insane. It would be like going to a seafood restaurant for the first time, you eat a lobster have anaphylactic shock and then the doc tells you it couldn’t possibly be the seafood, it must have been from something else.
The fact is that hardly anything we were told was accurate.
The wet market hypothesis.
Effectiveness of masks.
Vaccine efficacy
Natural immunity
Vaccine side effects
We were all told that if we got the shots it was effectively the end of the pandemic.
Reality is as much as we have discovered about biology, we still know hardly anything.
I’m certainly glad that I am alive now and not in 1824, but everyone of the Covidians continue to act like everything is rock solid indisputable facts and every thing done during the pandemic was executed perfectly.
There is no humility in any of these comments sections.
While humanity will continue forwards and make strides against new diseases and other medical advancements, it really is sobering when you realise how little we really know and how limited most people are when it comes to a host of health ailments.
You only have to google a few different diseases or health conditions to see that often there are no cures or viable treatments.
Personally I just wish all of the wanna be science nerds will get off their high horses and admit that we know a lot, but there’s even more that we don’t now, and finally that this applies to mRNA vaccines. We are still learning, so quit acting like it’s not a possibility that they may be doing things that are totally unexpected.
I am sorry for your injury, just a little perspective on the matter. The vaccines have a safety profile of 99.9782. I know this does not help your injury.
@@samsmith962 so that is saying that 9,998 people out of every 10,000 have no side effects? I just don’t believe it. I’ve read multiple times that it’s as high as 1 in 800. As usual the truth is probably somewhere in between the high and low estimates.
Even the CDC gives a figure of 3.8 people getting tinnitus per 10,000 jabs, and I’m sure that’s not even correct. I suspect it’s much higher. Tinnitus is not a good example, as it’s fairly ubiquitous, and Covid also causes it.
Here's very accurate numbers of serious events in NZ. We were 99.997% Comirnaty. ACC (look it up) covers absolutely everyone, they had 1645 claims. Note they pay for any medical, but also time off work if needed. So, serious events.
The 1645 break down to - allergic reactions 386, from a physical cause 392, myo + substance reaction 299, infections + other secondary problems 179, and 389 "other". *So with 4 million people, 12 million shots, about 1 in 2400 people or 1 in 7300 shots.*
There were 4 people lost, so 1 in 1,000,000. With such a large sample size, I can guarantee similar results worldwide.
Taking the physical ones or anything likely caused by the sharp thing, you'd have -571 from the 1645 = 1076 or 1 in 3717
Taking out the allergic ones, mainly peg as a cause I suspect, 1076 - 386 = 690. So 1 in 5797 most likely from the substance.
So the range is (all cause) *1 in 2400 to 1 in 5800* (just from the substance).
We normally get virtually zero except for those caused by physical events. I wouldn't want to replace our old tech with the new one, for the obvious reason. But it was an emergency, and we would have lost 10,000 + without this. In my view it was the right decision.
Sadly for you, you got the bad end of this, which really sucks, and you have my sympathy.
@@Muritaipet good post, thanks.
@@Mark_Jacobson81 No probs.
I’m new to this channel I don’t know if you already made a vid like this but could you make a vid on WHO and how they went about in a wrong way. Which would of lead the right wing to have all there beliefs
As this is a science debunking channel, that might too far outside the core subject. But the quick summary is the WHO is limited by international treaties, that govern it's existence. So they could only act the way they did.
If you are interested, "The International Health Regulations (2005)" are the treaties controlling and governing the WHO.
The report on their failures was by "The Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response" by Ellen Sirleaf and Helen Clark.
The report itself is called "COVID-19: Make it the Last Pandemic"
Whats come from that is the new treaty proposal "Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement"
@@Muritaipet "Whats come from that is the new treaty proposal "Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement""...
which the 'right-wing' is fighting tooth and nails, because you simply cannot have a bureaucratic organization do anything that is good, as it would contradict the right-wing dogma.
@@Marco-it2mr A storm in tea cup, led by the indignation farmers. Hopefully they won't create enough nonsense to delay it. But you never know. There will be enough people out there who will oppose it, with no idea whatsoever what it actually is.
The reality is the WHO is an utterly powerless organisation, and will be kept that way by we the nation states.
Edit: BTW - my friends would consider me a right winger. But these things are always relative of course,
@@Marco-it2mr
Thanks for all the great work!
In the immortal words of Jed Clampett, "pi ti fuuuul. Juuuust pi ti fuuuul!"
I'm glad you take the time and effort to set the record straight. Thank you.
Yup, this was a great video!
😂
Are these bots?
@@baalzebub5000 Yes, you are
@@baalzebub5000 Bot is apparently shorthand for "bootlicker." So, yes.
@skepticmagazine Will you have Brett back on The Michael Shermer Show to ask if he finally realizes he's wrong?
That would take courage.
Thanks for yet another great video and debunking
There's a lot of use of the words "mostly", "primarily", and "mainly" in this video used in defense of the idea that something is NOT happening. This is confusing to me and I feel like this video needs to hammer home the argument that the *relatively* small amounts are not problematic. Just because something is relatively smaller, doesn't mean the absolute amount of the thing (edit: isn't) problematic.
I *think* this might be the argument that is made when Drew Weissman at 18:13 says "not lead to measurable levels of local antigen expression...", but it also confuses me that this statement seems to be in conflict with his statement that it *has indeed* been measured, when he says they "mainly" go to the lymph node, and that he *is indeed* aware of "rare" cases where the LNP's are distributed farther.
I guess I'm asking, is the following statement correct? Parts of this statement are not arguments directly stated in your video, which I think would have been nice to have expressed:
"There certainly *is* reason to believe that antigen is being expressed in the heart, due to the fact that both the mRNA and antigen are found to be present in the heart in studies such as the mice studies. But due to the fact that in humans, these levels are not measurable because they're likely so low, they do not pose a risk. The mechanism of damage that Brett is positing is the immune response caused by antigen expression in the heart. If there *is* an immune response caused by antigen expression in the heart, it is so small that we can't measure it. *And importantly*, we know based on other studies (not shown/mentioned in this video) that below a certain threshold of measurable antigen expression or immune response, that damage is insignificant or not problematic"
Vaccine spike expression in human heart tissue has never been observed. Not once.
You again are missing the crucial point about the dosages in the rat study. The rats were injected with a dose that is equivalent to 300 vaccine doses in an adult human. They had to give these huge amounts to the rats to get barely detectable, trace amounts found in other parts of the body.
If they had given the rats the equivalent dose to that a human receives, the amounts that travelled elsewhere would not have been measurable
@@steveoxocube I'm not missing the crucial point about dosage amounts, I had that in mind when making my comment.
Because something is so small that it's not measurable doesn't mean it doesn't exist at an amount lower than the measurable amount. We should both agree on that statement.
I think you are exactly right. Since we are talking about trillions of mRNA strands per dose, a fraction of a percent going astray will number in the billions. To write these off as unimportant because "the majority" is mopped up by the muscle cells in the arm or the lymphatic system seems extraordinarily cavalier, for someone who's claiming to be rigorous.
@@marcuswest6572Citation required 😂
@@marcuswest6572 "Since we are talking about trillions of mRNA strands per dose"
Pulled that number right out of your arse, eh?
Thank you for your work.
Thanks Dr Wilson Great Video. Saw Brets face on a thumbnail from another you tuber and was curious what he had to say. He mentioned he was having a battle with someone wanting to debate him over covid vaccines. He did not mention Dr Wilson by name but, it sounded like he was referring to him though. This is what he said "I don't want to further engage him because I don't believe that he is actually working forward from evidence to a conclusion I believe he's working backwards from a conclusion and so I don't think it's an honest debate". This statement does not sound like he is correctly referring to Dr Wilson, it seems Bret's statement might be more correct about himself.
Yes, definitely a self-reference. As they say: with antivaxxers "every accusation is an admission".
@notsilly, what is the point in speculating? He is referring to an unnamed party that he regards to be a bad faith actor working backwards from conclusions. That certainly applies to the creator of this video. It also applies to the goons over at TWIV. Who cares? If this video content creator could falsify Bret's hypothesis, then he would have done so. Instead he chose to "debunk" it. Debunking is a propaganda exercise, not a scientific one. QED.
@@ivermec-tin666
Brett Weinstein got FALSIFIED, DEBUNKED, and EVISCERATED by someone half his age!
Get over it, son.
Well, you've convinced me. I now think it's okay if you get yet another booster.
WOW. That is so much deeper, better, more original and more interesting than ANY of the other 1000 booster comments I've read. It's so dynamic, witty and profound. The words fly off the page.
@@Muritaipet For an NPC, I appreciate your comment! You make reading comments as thrilling as bungee jumping, but with better grammar. 😄
@@thomasj7506 Given how you've described your interests, it's good you can find this level of satisfaction. I assume you also "type with one hand", to make this a full experience?
@@Muritaipet his Mummy wrote it for him
@@Muritaipetsomething tells me your interests involve doing things with one hand as well.
Dr. DP is thee last person you wanna piss off 😂
Thank you, Dr Wilson. Having qualified support is very reassuring. Much appreciated.
Feel better about getting played HARD by pharma now? Mission accomplished. 👍
11:49 - they're tracking the location of where the lipids in the LNPs end up... is there anything to say that the lipids are still in the liposome structure at this point? I don't know if there's a way to track when the liposomes are broken up, where that occurs, where mRNA expression is occuring, etc
just being like "the lipids end up in the liver, hence, all the mRNA is being made in the liver!!!" is a bad argument from Bret and co
@hawaiian, that is not Bret's hypothesis.
@@ivermec-tin666 so what's the significance of the lipid distribution data then?
@@hawaiianrobot You tell me. There is no sign of increasing liver failure due to the Spike protein. The real question is how it impacts other organs that are not so capable of regeneration or repair. That is what autopsies would tell you. But, they have been suspended.
The blood routinely carries lipids. Lipids are used everywhere in the body as material for cellular repair and regeneration.
But, nanoparticles of proteins and micronized adjuvants provoke chronic inflammation and the body has no means of efficiently eliminating them, which partially explains why it takes up to 24 months for the Spike protein to clear the body post injection, and why all manner of autoimmune conditions are provoked.
It is known that IVM strongly bonds to spike proteins, rendering them incapable of bonding to cellular membranes. This is the proposed mechanism of action of IVM in relation to C19.
The proposed mechanism of action of these EUA therapeutic drugs apparently is to flood the body with a cocktail of inflammatory agents including spike proteins. It's just nuts. This could not possibly educate the immune system as a traditional vaccine does. And it contributes absolutely nothing to mucosal immunity. It is designed to fail.
GMO’d LNP’s unexpectedly turning up in the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen testes, ovaries, bone marrow & crossing the blood brain barrier. what could plausibly go wrong ??!?!?? 😂
I am so glad you're sticking to Weinstein and holding him accountable. I started following him when he appeared on the scene years ago and really liked his approach and reasoning. Eventually, though, I found him making claims that were a bit controversial, then claims with questionable support, then wholly unsupported by good evidence. He has drunk too deeply from the right-wing fountain of fortune.
"right wing" - low resolution thinker
@@SaviorMoney-777 you have no life
@@GordDomenicAnd no properly-functioning 🧠
@@SaviorMoney-777Sorry, he meant to say Reich Wing, I hope you feel better soon....
@@SaviorMoney-777reality has a left wing bias. That's why you and yours seek to attack scientific research
Right from the get-go this guy is saying "I put my reputation on the line saying X on the internet, if I'm wrong there should be tons of biologists lining up to contradict me" So, biologists don't publish their findings on TH-cam, they publish them in scientific journals. The question that everybody listening to this guy, or anyone else like him, ought to ask them selves is: If he has information that these vaccines are harmful in these various ways, why doesn't he publish these findings in a paper, instead of just *telling* us that they're harmful on a podcast?
Brett will then claim his "research" would be rejected by mainstream science, which is controlled by BiG pHarMa. Or something like that.
I guess you haven't heard of institutional capture. It's rampant at this point.
@@SaviorMoney-777 I have heard of that baseless conspiracy theory that everybody uses when their ideas can't stand up to scrutiny and peer review, yes.
@standin, Bret has addressed the failure of scientific journals in detail in his podcast. If you had been paying attention, you would know that the journals have been captured, and that the editors are incompetent.
I point you to an article published a few years ago about dog rape in a dog park in San Franisco. It was a fictional study that was submitted for publication just to test to see if anyone was actually preforming the editorial function at the journal in question. This study fit the DEI agenda so neatly that it was actually published.
This testing process has been replicated on several occasions in recent years. Publication means nothing anymore. Why? Because the editorial review process is politicized and broken. It is also bought and paid for by big pharma.
We have reached the point where arguably 90% of all published studies cannot be repeated. Why? Because they are fake science.
@@ivermec-tin666 Yes, many people whose ideas can't stand up to the scrutiny of peer review make this argument on their podcasts. Creationists, Flat Earther's, Aids Denialists, Mythicists, etc, etc.
There's no shortage of people who's ideas can't stand up to scrutiny, trying to argue that the scrutiny doesn't work.
Thanks for the clear presentation Dr. Wilson. I'm not going to hold my breath for a response.
Keep getting those boosters, though. They're TOTALLY helping. 😂
@David, more is the pity.
Ludicrous argument from Weinstein regarding N protein...what about degradation rates, tissue specificity, etc. Coronaviruses are real experts at regulating the proportions of various protein products (unlike, say, flaviviruses, which pretty much produce 1:1:1... ratios of all proteins).
This issue was addressed by Dr Susan Oliver, where she cited papers that showed that in all organs (except the lungs) the N protein degraded very quickly and became undetectable after a short period. The absence of the N protein is not evidence of the absence of infection.
The absence of proof, is not proof of absence.
Thank you so much for the hustle on this.
Thank you for putting up with all this nonsense
Always good work Dr. Wilson.
experts agree, this guy is wrong
An ex-spurt is just a drip under pressure.
@@HOTCHIXBRO Not to a plumber.
@@hoptoads just silly again
@@HOTCHIXBRO Well you'd be feeling pretty silly if there were no plumbers to deal with your sh..
@@hoptoads reported
Nicely done.
😂
Thanks for doing this, it's valuable.
Helps you carry on with the delusion? 😉
@@SaviorMoney-777 You can't even name what you're talking about it! You've shown that YOU are the one with delusions! 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you Dr. Wilson and all the Scientists you have brought to Debunk these liars!!! 💙💙💙
Just keep getting those boosters. 😉
@@SaviorMoney-777 Thanks to MAGA Republicans we were the world leader in Deaths and Infections, we will Never Forget!!! 💙 💙 💙
@@SaviorMoney-777If getting a booster gives you hissy fit, I'm all for it 🤣
@saviormoney you should see a therapist, I promise they won't give you a covid vaccine, but you might learn something about yourself.
@@olegregg2857 USA is the world leader in Deaths and Infections due to the MAGA Republicans disinformation!!!
I'm impressed with how consistently Brett manages to be wrong about everything.
It's because he's not trying to be right. His goal is to milk his antivaxx and conspiracy minded audience for views as long as possible.
You are right. But a lot of communist Trumpers, Putin lovers listen to the man.
Yes, the mRna is manna from heaven. You should get 4 more boosters.
@@ztimbo I've already had every booster I could get, and I'm perfectly healthy and have never gotten COVID.
Plus, everyone I know is exactly the same.
mRNA is clearly a major breakthrough in health technology if you judge by the statistics of what's actually happened: the COVID-19 death rate is dramatically higher amongst the unvaccinated, and serious vaccine side effects are extremely rare.
Brett has been a pathetic clown for some time now.
? dum
Thank you for all that you do Dr Wilson.
WillThomson-st6hm, Joined Apr 21, 2023, WilliamThomson-jh1sb Joined Mar 3, 2024, THEWitnessThomson, Joined Feb 11, 2024
*A question of curiousity.*
Most people sign on for YT as kids, so even WillThomson is unlikely the original account. *So three socks here, to hide ...... what exactly?*
Or is it just to like your own replies, as you've been doing?
Excellent observation
Evil insidious world we live in friend
Scroll down. Theres a thread where he has a conversation between 2 accounts and claims to be a scientist
@@steveoxocube Yeah, I saw that. B Coz, Joined Oct 8, 2016. If true, that could make B Coz the original.
When people tell the truth on you tube. Their comments get deleted. Hence the multiple accounts from Will Thomson who has a bitchute channel named, ‘Forestfinder’ perhaps consider going there and learning the truth in science.
Excellent work Dan!
It is a huge red flag when an opportunity for dialogue is refused but this is a very worthy substitute. As we have come to expect.
One thing though (and I am not sure if this would be an objection Weinstein would make) is about the use of animal studies to refute the "off target" hypothesis. Can we be sure that animal studies are reliable in this context? Is there other evidence that could be adduced instead?
No, they are not reliable. They are a starting point for a hypothesis, it allows for plausibility, nothing more.
The fact that they gave the animals 300x per weight that they would give a human invalidates them for drawing human conclusions.
Bret accepts the findings of the animal studies. He’s cited them himself in the past
@@jaykanta4326 Thanks for the confirmation. Why are the studies still done if they are not of predictive value?
@@martifingersOk time to get the crayons out for the learning difficulty crowd.
If you give a rat a dose 300 times bigger than the dose you give to a human, then you only find trace amounts have travelled from the injection site… How much smaller will the trace amounts be when you give a dose 299 times smaller?
Can you work that one out for us Champ? Can you do the maths for us? Good boy
@@martifingers To assist in forming future hypotheses.
Just some advice from people. Do you think bret would be interested in buying shares in Peckham water company?
Has it got a bridge?
Well, you've paved a future for yourself as a prof. at Evergreen.
RIP Professor Burkhardt
My MAGA buddy and I went to a show, we saw an overnight woman stumble on the stairs snd get up with difficulty. My buddy said, ' see i bet that's vaccine related!'. We live in different worlds than our neighbors friends and family.
My liberal buddy and I went to a ball game. I drove, he was wearing 3 masks the entire time. Unfortunately I couldn't hear him a lot of the time due to all his masks. It was nice just to see him finally leave his house.
Anecdotes are very often impossible to verify and are prone to bias.
@trustthescience.🥱😴💤
Yes, I've been shocked to hear one conspiracy believer say that "everything they warned about has come true". These people have been captured by an alternative reality.
@@frusia123 i hear your pain, Trump administration pushed through the vaccine, but it is a communist plot, Trump failed at the COVID response, but had one, yet he is innocent of it being all lies. Contradictory statements and lies are celebrated. It is the end of greatness when a society refuses to believe in facts.
All of you. Set a calendar note to remind yourself to come back and read these comments in 10 years. You might learn something about yourself. You're welcome.
Very well done.
Brilliant
Thank you very much.
Thank you for providing the input from impartial experts who themselves have no vested interest in the evolution of the mRNA tech. products. It is refreshing. It's also great to see that such prestigious individuals took the time to write to a PhD graduate about a TH-camr. Keep it up!
Brett wrong??? That needed a trigger warning I just feel of my dark horse
I’m going to walk around and point at things saying, “as you can see, there are no spermatocytes here!”
@shannond, I am going to make a video with snippets that are completely irrelevant to the hypothesis that I claim to be addressing. If I had video of a bear pooping in the woods, maybe I would include that too.
@@ivermec-tin666 that sounds amazing! I’m in. :)
There’s no evidence supporting the anti-jabbers or jab injuries at all.
Keep getting those boosters folks!
Obvious Straw-Man is obvious.
@@joeylafrond2472no I support his advice. Go out and get those boosters people!
Yes, they are still very safe and effective....
@@thatotheruniverse Agreed
What is Steve Kitsch going on about?
Kitsch is having a midlife crises. And talking bollocks as usual.
Dr. Wilson, is it possible for vaccine mRNA to enter the cell nucleus, and pose genotoxicity risks of any kind ?
See "Messenger RNA (mRNA) Vaccines for COVID-19: How Do They Work?" from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. There are multiple other sources also supporting the conclusion that mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus. You could have easily googled and found the answer yourself.
@@jaykanta4326 Could you please reference any primary scientific papers that specifically address the OP's question:
"is it possible for vaccine mRNA to enter the nucleus, and pose genotoxicity risks of any kind?".
Thanks.
@@Breakofdawn-ws9yx I provided a high level source, so GFY, sockpuppet.
@@jaykanta4326 But you didn't, just like that article, provide any proof. Your primary source is a friggin article then!!!! Lol.
I'll take your pathetic retort to my question as a solid No, No you cannot provide a primary source.
For someone who constantly demands evidence of others, claims to be educated in science, could you not fail any harder when you failed to cite a primary source.
@@Breakofdawn-ws9yxGoogle “The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology”. It’s got thousands of papers going back to 1950’s. It is to biology what relativity is to physics.
If you’ve got a paper that shows it’s possible for naked mRNA to pass through the selectively permeable phospholipid bi layer that makes up the nuclear envelope, then congratulations you’ve just won the Nobel Prize for biology.
Ok over to you Break of dumb. Prove the common dogma of molecular biology wrong 😂
Thanks for doing this!
The name is Bert Winestain
Whinestein, seriously he’s always whining about how much of a misunderstood genious he is
Epic backdrop @ Dark Horse
You mentioned the one rat study with intravenous injection, but many of the others didn't seem to test that. Is there any possibility that a combination of intravenous injection and genetic susceptibility could lead to spike expression in cardiac tissue? Given that the perported vax damage affects relatively few people, I can't help but wonder about combination effects.
It comes as no surprise that Bret was not willing to directly engage with experts on this topic as you offered.
This is a common tactic from him. At all costs, he avoids any conversations where he might be shown to be incorrect as his fragile ego cannot withstand being disputed so that can maintain his conceit that he is the smartest person in any conversation.
He also regularly uses the conspiracy theorists' trick of freely accepting any data without scrutiny as long as it confirms his belief. Alternatively, he disputes any contrary data no matter what the source or credibility.
He will forever remain "unconvinced" by any amount of research that refutes his pre-existing ideas and will always demand that more must be done to prove him wrong.
SO, what's weird here is that Michael Shermer is very pro-vaccine. I'm trying to find the original podcast. I'm fairly certain Shermer would have pushed back on Brett. I'll let you know as soon as I can find it. I think Brett's just after popularity. He's gotta know better.
@@ValleyDragon Probably just another idea he pulled out of his behind to make it appear he had discovered some secret risk factor nobody was smart enough to consider (except him).
@@ValleyDragonWould like to see or hear it if you can find it.
@kcolonel, No. In fact the folks at TWIV have been on a defamation campaign against Bret Weinstein for over a year. And, it is they who refuse to communicate with Bret directly (ostensibly for fear of platforming him, lol). Instead they engage in an endless campaign of slander, very reminiscent of what the mean girls get up to in 8th grade. This video relies largely on those screeds from TWIV for the argumentation and so called evidence.
It is profoundly disingenuous for this proxy for TWIV, who refuse to engage Bret, to claim that Bret is a bad faith actor because he refuses to defend some third parties' work to a TWIV proxy. This is absurd on multiple levels.
Testing the falsifiability of an hypothesis has absolutely nothing to do with popularity. It is the bedrock of the scientific method.
@@ivermec-tin666 Umm...bullsh*t.
Bret has never backed up any of his wild conspiracy theories with any evidence and keeps bringing on non-experts to support him in his grift.
And you know it.
What the whole issue boils down to for me and many many people isn’t the specific nature of how the mRNA gene therapy is supposed to work, it’s about the hiding of the data, the mandating without due diligence by government, the closed mouth pharmaceutical manufacturers not even correcting erroneous statements by reputed experts and government flunkies. Was the therapy effective at preventing infection? No. Was it effective at preventing infecting others? No. Was it proven safe by studies applying methodologies used for actual vaccines? No. Was there enough time spent in studies to determine anything of long term importance or convenience? No.
Given the low mortality and morbidity rate of C after you pull away all the stats that include “with C” as an incidental infection not relevant to actual mortality and morbidity rates there was more time to allow these studies to play out longer, more data could have been collected and published. Safety data and proper information provided for people to make an actual informed personal choice regarding their risk factors and if these therapies were suitable for them.
Am I some medical expert? No. Do I need to be in order to understand and process the points I list? No. People needed to have to have the information that they needed in a publicly consumable format. That was not done. Fear, incentivization, bribery, coercion and mandates were all used to get these products to as many people world wide as possible as fast as possible. It was a atrocious use of social manipulation for, what appears to be, profits and normalization of newly patented therapies foisted upon an uninformed population.
The whole affair made me sick… having said that I will never experience any side effects to these therapeutic shots and I have yet to contract C.
Whether Bret was correct in his hypothesis or not is immaterial to the larger discussion. There are many many pro shot “experts” that are basing their hypothesis’s on flimsier “scientific data” and many politicians who had even less data, if any, who pushed this on their constituents against their best interests. This doesn’t even touch on the crazy lockdowns and mandates over gatherings and social distancing.
Exactly! This guy is just trying to distract people away from the big issues (which are very clear by now) and to trick them into wasting their time on nitpicking minutia.
He also uses excessive jargon to confuse the listener and to sow doubt; he overdoes his "calm and dispassionate scientist" routine to the point where people are in danger of nodding off to sleep while trying to listen to him; he overuses appeals to authority; he also avoids challenging the strongest opponents while targeting somewhat easier opponents--a variant of the "weak man" and Straw Man fallacies.
In this comment: a bunch of propaganda talking points that you were told by your propagandists and are now simply repeating.
@@liebherk besides "ad hominem" which other fallacies do you usually base your arguments on?
very nice synopsis
In New Zealand we delayed our outbreak until 95% of the population was protected. Sorry to ruin your tome.
United States - sick 103,436,829 / 1,187,125 passed away = 1 in 87
New Zealand - sick 2,589,531 / 3,995 passed away = 1 in 648
wow, 2024 and there is still people trying to pretend these things were safe haha. i am flabbergasted. and he actually does it with a straight face.
So 14 billion+ shots, probably 5 billion ish mRNA, 4 billion viral vector, 1.5 billion protein sub unit, the rest normal inactivated virus. They're obviously safe enough, we don't have tens of millions of really bad results. That would turn up in the statistics, and it didn't.
So I'm guessing you don't fully understand risk / benefit analysis.
And you failed to bring any scientific evidence that they aren't safe.
We have evidence, you don't.
@@jaykanta4326 See VAERS.
There is evidence all over that they aren't safe. You have to look for it, since it's censored. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.
@@pisceananarchyvortex7223 LMAO @ "it's censored." You only know about it, because governments around the world told us about it.
Bret should go get an ice pack and some arnica cream - this retort will leave a mark.
Shame he and his followers probably won't see it 😕
Do you have any conflicts of interest Dr Wilson.? Sounds like it to me. And how about your experts? I will go with Weinstein.
Can you tell us which particular part of the expert explanation was incorrect?
@@samsmith962 get banned which means they are correct since their comment is erased must be correct.
@@Think-dont-believeYou get your evidence from deleted TH-cam comments? Fucking lol 😂
@@Think-dont-believe yes
@@steveoxocube Fraudo and Rossi are the same person.
The table 1 chart seems to show a lot of tissues. More than just the liver and spleen.
Yeah, it's a bit hard to read on this small screen, but it seems to show trace amounts in the brain. Does that mean it's able to cross the blood brain barrier?
@@craptacular8282 The problem is when someone is dying the basic mechanisms being to fail and everything goes everywhere.
It crosses the blood brain barrier.
You should never let your cells be raped by a foreign virus particle.
Brett subconsciously (or perhaps consciously) knows that he's only ever been able to monetize controversy. Even if he's aware that he's wrong, he'll still perpetuate his argument indefinitely, as his content-brain is still getting "positive" online reinforcement from nonsense, even more so than from truth. It's a get rich quick formula that can sadly work. No one pays attention to him unless he's got a hot-take contrarian view. So, he forges them in a desperate attempt to fake relevance; measured via clicks. He'll never admit being wrong. Narcissism won't allow him to see it. At best he'll perpetuate the controversy into a fractal of even more content, all to his benefit. Either he's right and he's hailed as a genius ahead of the curve. Or he's wrong, but still cash's out (probably more so) by perpetuating the contrarianism, regardless. It's a win/win for him. Clicks for being right, and even more for being wrong and dragging out the argument.
Sadly, as an "ex fan", you might be right.
@@toby9999 I think Brett got Famous for Evergreen college going superwoke and he quit for his own safety. Do you think that made him just stop believing anything conventional?
Brett has terminally online brain.
See: Him complaining to Elon repeatedly about being suppressed on X
@@ValleyDragon "Evergreen college going superwoke and he quit for his own safety"
Except that never happened.
@@Vhlathanosh he safety was threatened. OR at least thats what he's claimed and others. With all his other crazy ideas I'm wondering if someone else has another explanation. What's your opinion? What am I missing?
What creates more spike proteins? The vaccines, or infection by the virus?
How about the vaccine + infection several months later vs. infection while unvaccinated?
So even if the spike protein is the problem, this problem is worse if you’re not vaccinated than if you are.
Exactly. I’ve never heard any explanation for why the vaccine is uniquely dangerous but Covid is nothing to worry about (“died with Covid, not because of Covid”). I’m sure Covid is careful not to infect any key tissues like those of the heart or brain.
@@Calidastas
I'm more curious about the hypocrisy of antivaxers when it comes to polio and covid. Both:
1) Have a 1% rate in terms of developing paralysis (polio) and severe symptoms/death (covid)
2) are predominantly asymptomatic or have very mild symptoms.
Antivaxers freak over polio and hand wave away Covid. It makes zero sense.
@@Calidastas
nothing to worry about ? Over 20 million lives lost to Covid and tens in f millions of hospitalizations ?
Well any body afraid of spike protein should immediately rush to get vaccinated .
@@terjeoseberg990you forgot the basic purpose of vaccine - to neutralize the spike protein . 😀
Each virus has 29 spike proteins. In an infection you can easily get a trillion copies of virus x 29 spikes .
Vaccine barely gives you a few million upto billion , so yes you get billions of times higher dose. If you get infection after vax the vax counters the spike in two ways does not let the virus make copies unchecked and those made are also neutralized to great extent .
I am amazed by the number of retired scientists or about to retire that suddenly become involved in subjects that is outside their specific field of study.
Maybe contemplating the prospect of increased income is too tempting to some.
I would have an inclination to review everything they've published throughout their career.
Grifter once, always a grifter.
"Maybe contemplating the prospect of increased income is too tempting to some."
Bret's only income these days (apart perhaps from investments he may have) is his podcast. Without it, he would have to find an actual job, and he unlikely can get any - unless a community college is desperate for a biology teacher who isn't very good but at least is available...
Ive sent you an email. Im a specialist on T cell immunology who has specialised in that topic since 2020..Om sorry bret didnt come to interview, so I would be happy to do a live interview to helpfully disciss the fine details of tjis hypothesis. Its a very important topic and as a wcientist I think it is important we have public debate where each scientist has a chance to make sure each claim and counter claim is allowd to be clarified, as opposed to one scientist decribing another persons claim , which is open to strawman and gaslighting tactics. I followed all of dr birkhart, bhakdi and brets progress over the last 3 years, so am more than qualified to discuss this important topic. I noticed the rest of ypur commentors were not actually discussing the science, only attacking bret. I think it is important this central topic is properly investigated the correct way. In public debate.
Cheers.
Will Thomson.
Commander of the killer T cell army (my nickname..its a long story. We could talk about that too) .
@@Marco-it2mr Awww poor thing. You got played hard, and now you have to join the tard chamber to hold on to your delusions. That's so sad for you. I never got the jab, yet I'm fine. IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!!! 😱
@sylvain, I am astonished at the number of people who don't even know what a "grifter" is. The ad hominem logical fallacy is epidemic in this comment section. IME, one logical fallacy is accompanied by a host of others. We have a real deficit in education in systematic or logical thinking.
I can't think of a single retired scientist or physician who has turned a profit by doing what you imagine is occurring. I think you are tilting at windmills.
"Grifter once, always a grifter" said the obvious grifter. So meta!
Thanks
His loyal and more rational brother probably struggles with all of this...
Bret doesn’t have a positive reputation to stake. He is well known to be a clown and a grifter.
Well known by fools like you, maybe.
Ad hominem.
Brett is wrong,so what is the mechanism that's causing rare deaths. That would be interesting as there undoubtedly is one.
Which rare deaths?
You saying there are no rare deaths from vitt etc
@@christopherrobinson7541You lose ALL credibility when you claim to be unaware of ANY rare deaths...
@@ks-hg5voVITT is a (rare) side-effect of the adenovirus vector vax, not the mRNA vax (and is far more common after c19 than after adenovirus-based vax).
@@Carson574 Chris H is once again doing his usual shtick of misrepresenting what people say. Don't you ever get tired of yourself being a total pr!ck?
And exactly what "experts" are you speaking of?
I remember when Michael Shermer was a skeptic and would have challenged a crank/ grifter like Bret Weinstein.
It makes me suspect that Shermer isn't a skeptic but a rebellious cynic with a decent brain, so he can appear as a skeptic, at least for awhile.
Some of his goofball stances jumped out a decade ago and the main group of skeptics (not really a group, but have respect among the individuals for each other) called him on it. I think they thought he would come around and recognize the flaws in his thinking, but he just went rogue/rebellious.
A quick googlin' reminded me of the trigger:
"On August 8, 2013, PZ Myers posted a message on his Pharyngula blog at Freethought Blogs from an unnamed woman later identified as Alison Smith claiming that Michael Shermer had raped her. Smith alleged, "at a conference, Mr. Shermer coerced me into a position where I could not consent, and then had sex with me." She also stated that "I reached out to one organization that was involved in the event at which I was raped, and they refused to take my concerns seriously," that "5 different people have directly told me they did the same to them," and that she was sharing this information in order to warn others. Myers later updated his blog entry with an account from another woman, who claimed that Shermer plied her with drink at an atheist event and "was very flirty.""
Yeah, that would have done it. Supposedly Jerry Coyne has some issues along the same lines. Bigotry, misogyny, transphobic, etc. I'm surprised we haven't seen him doing the rounds with Campbell or Whinestain.
@@jaykanta4326 I recently saw Jerry Coyne "bravely" (according to Richard Dawkins) misrepresenting the biology of human sex and sex differences, so I'm not surprised if he's anti-trans.
@@Grim_Beard Forrest Valkai would, unfortunately, mop the floor with both of them, now. They're stuck in old-thinking and they can't admit it.
It's nice and easy when sex is binary, when only gametes matter, but that's just not the case, and biologists have to be the first ones to admit it. I had to, I had to change, grow and learn, but I'm not a biologist from the 60s. My education is newer, and I have a privilege there that they don't have. But that's not an excuse for their various behaviors, and I gave up lionizing people a long time ago. I enjoyed the Selfish Gene and other books of Dawkins, but no more. I won't enrich his bigotry. Same with Coyne and Shermer.
Even Sam Harris has destroyed all of his credibility, and it didn't take creationists to take down any of those people. They all did it to themselves.
@@jaykanta4326 Forrest is good people.
It fills me with joy to know that you took part in this experiment
These anti long term multiple vaccination people need this type of debunking! Thanks for setting us strait. Also hope you have plans to a new debunking video i
On COVID-19 origins! Looks like those origin kooks are up to their old tricks!
No it's not debunked at all. This is merely a counter argument, quite low on the dispute hierarchy.
500+ comments and not one anti-vaxxer can point to single thing that’s wrong in the video 😂
Do the world a favour and keep getting boosted.
@@onorth5615I live int he UK. Boosters haven’t been available to under 65’s for nearly 2 years 😂
@@onorth5615 Do you call yearly influenza vaccines "boosters", little clown?
@@onorth5615You know instead of whining like a little bitch, you could just tell us all which part of the video is incorrect? 😂
The 'brightness' settings are way to high on this video for a start.
I’m not at all surprised that you were able to debunk him, but I am somewhat surprised at just how little effort WhinyStein put into this enterprise. He clearly didn’t try at all. At this point, he must just assume that his listeners won’t ever check his sources and will take everything he says at face value. He’s probably right about that.
Qeddieharts, don't delude yourself into thinking that you have meme skills. The cute little name perversion game is very Trumpian of you. If you don't like it when Donald Trump does it, then why would you try to do it yourself?
You are welcome to try and falsify Bret's hypothesis. For that matter, so is the creator of this video. Curious that neither of you are willing or able to do that. All you have is name calling, ad hominem, mouse studies, and the ranting of the goons at TWIV. This is a triple failure.
Doubling down on BS is a classic weinsteinian rhetorical technique.
It's actually a classic big pharma tactic. Where have you been?
@@SaviorMoney-777 Nice try at a clumsy change of topic. The Weinsteins (both) bank on their PhD’s and eloquent sounding but factually incorrect explanations fraught with grievance.
A Malazan fan. How can you not love this guy.
Arne Burkhardt found out the hard way, that air was replaced by water...
Thanks Dr Wilson. I know the truth isn’t as popular as sensational scary lies but we appreciate you spending your time on this information. ❤
What is the truth? What truth are we talking about here?
@@Dandan-tg6tj verifiable evidence. As accurate and transparent as we possibly can. Don't be disingenuous.
@@ErnestPiffel Verifiable according to words on a paper? You must not know much about history, and especially pharma history.
@Ernest, We know that neither the scientific method nor logic have anything to do with popularity. That is the purview of entertainment and propaganda; which is the subtext of this video.
One thing I detest about conspiracy theorists is that they often take some of humankind's greatest achievements, the work of many hugely talented, dedicated, good people, and just sh*t on those achievements just so they can get their personal little squirt of dopamine in thinking they are smarter than the experts. "We never landed on the moon! Conspiracy!"...splat! Squirt. "mRNA vaccines were terrible, and a conspiracy!" ...splaaat...squirt....
What i detest about histrionic, gullible fanboys that throw around the term conspiracy theorist is that they have no deep understanding of the kind of skepticism and diligence that created the foundations of science and just latch onto any bandwagon that seems to have a glamorous sales team or media blitz pushing some new brand of snake oil or horse excrement.
So true. In this instance however it is putting lives at risk, and I would like to see them held accountable.
@@markyarbrough5511 I'm betting you're fairly uneducated in science.
@@jaykanta4326 I would wager i know more than most about science or about any topic than your average person. I don't want to assume things about a stranger on the internet, but i do wonder about people that jump instantly to ad hominem attacks or appeals to authority when this kind of tactic shows plainly deficient intelllectual prowess. It is school yard level taunting and devoid of any evidence of cognitive effort. I am betting you are a younger person and with time you might develop more penetrating deductive and rhetorical skills but as things stand it is doubtful you are in my same league, so not interested in a urination contest with you. Have a nice day.
@@markyarbrough5511 yeah, no. Your original comment is now gone. Trying to hide the evidence.
So RFKjr was right lmao
Dude, the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. You're a saint. Thank you for the video's
Excellent projection 😊
@@MrBillkazSo the OP refutes bullshit? Ok.
@@MrBillkazCan you tell us all what is specifically “bullshit” in the video?
Bret Weinstein being wrong is like saying the sky is blue. It's trivially true.
He's way ahead of this guy, and you too apparently.
Funniest 5 seconds in the video. 23:53
Go Dr Wilson!
Brett's beliefs are driven by ego backed by bad politics. I'm not a fan of his brother either.
To sum up: its much easier to spew BS, than to debunk it coz they dont even read most of the stuff and the scientist correcting them has to do all the work. Its a deluge of grift.
Yes, Brandolini's Law
Pharma has grift down to a "science." 😉
It is far easier to deploy a litany of logical falacies in reaction to the statement of an hypothesis than to engage in the hard work of addressing it as a falsification thought experiment. Propagandists are predictable and lazy. But, Popper cannot be dismissed with such chicanery.
That's a good summary of this channel's methods.
@@illarionbykov7401 What did Dr Wilson say that is BS?
everyone should get more vaccines. dude, u got some reach with your 20k subscribers. any other podcaster should feel obligated to go up against you!
Man, Bret's got quite the cult. This is honestly concerning. Especially because no one is refuting the content of the video, so they have to resort to fallacy fallacy.