Ben Shapiro and Russell Brand's Natural Immunity Claims
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2023
- An interesting video today where we talk briefly about natural vs vaccinated immunity, and the context behind the scientific research revolving this field.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • Russell Brand WRECKS B...
Further Reading:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34383...
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/w...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
The number of times since 2020 that I have had to tell people that natural immunity is also called getting the disease is annoying. You do NOT have natural immunity if you haven't been infected.
"I never got COVID because I have natural immunity!" That's not how natural immunity works! Now, there are some genes and other factors that impact how sick we get from certain diseases, but that is a natural resistance. My brother and sister had chicken pox pretty bad when we were kids, I was infected around the same time and was barely impacted by it to the same extent. I wasn't "immune" to Chicken pox, just I was less effected than my siblings.
Jesus I didn't think people were that dumb... I figured even anti-vax morons understood that you need to have been infected first.
Next time my dad tells me about natural immunity I'm going to test his natural immunity to baseball bats.
Chicken Pox is a great example, there was an outbreak here in the UK in the mid 90s, and I got it, as did a colleague from work. I got a bit of a breakout on my skin, although not much, he got almost none, but had a massive fever and collapsed walking up stairs to his office. If he hadn't collapsed he'd not have gone to see the Dr and never known he had Chicken Pox, and would have attributed his symptoms to something else. Drs are better at diagnoses than people, who'd have thunk it?
They seem to think "natural immunity" is like "naturally curly hair" or something.
I haven't gotten covid, but I've gotten the vaccine. However I live alone and did delivery during the height of covid. My human exposure was minimized. Maybe I have an immunity, or maybe I was just smart enough to keep exposure minimal before getting the vaccine. I would rather not do a comparison where I get the virus. I won't however assume I'm naturally immune.
I think there was a time when Russell Brand was on the polar opposite side of Ben, but he went up his ass so much that he just dropped on the other side.
It's scary how fast a hippie can be turned into a conservative through conspiracy theories. Mostly anti-semitic ones.
I really want to see a actual educated person go on Russell Brand and Joe Rogan and Call them on their bullshit.
Specifically to get them to admit they don't know something.
Clearly don’t want Joe Rogan. He’s had so many. Both for and against COVID. Including people who had major parts in the development of the mRNA vaccines.
never gonna happen, that would make those two look bad, and we cant have that...
It wouldn't end as well as you think. Likely the host would gish gallop his way through the conversation. Whenever the guest makes a valid point the host will incredulously wink at the camera and insinuate the gust is just repeating a script or ask some kind of leading question forcing the gust to respond favorably for them. If the guest is on to this the host will just dismiss them as "rude" and send them away. The host will always come off looking like they intellectually trumped the guest if that's what the host wants. Always.
They do
sounds masochistic tbh
I think this might be my first time hearing ben shapiro. does he always sound like someone recorded his voice and then played it back at 1.5x speed?
Yes
He literally sounds like the 🤓
“No one’s doing research into natural immunity” has to be one of the most ignorant statements ever!
What about "lab leak theory is a conspiracy"
Russel said "science is a subset of big pharma" . Uh. Science is older than big pharma. Science is a process, not a product. Science exists in more fields than medicine. Russel's sentence is so not right that it's not even wrong.
Can you not understand that what he is really saying is that "the science" that everyone is so keen to trust in this case has been corrupted by profits. Science in it's purest form using reason and logic isn't really what they are doing when they are trying to get approval to sell/mandate your product on masse.
We have countries in Europe that spent billions on 5 year contracts to provide jabs for populations that now are not taking them ndo you think the companies will still put in the invoice for the unused jabs?
Science has a definition yes but that doesn't always mean that science is pure, science is easily and regularly corrupted for certain purposes of profit and control if you, if you think that science is always pure and perfectly executed then you need to find a new religion.
On its face yes, but Russel is referring to his belief that science is bought and paid for, so the science related to us is filtered in a way that is bias toward a preferential outcome. This is something that's actually been proven occasionally with such examples as oxycodone. It's literally the same drug as oxycotoin except with a coating to delay its absorption, that in studies was reported to have less addictive qualities. Abusers learned very quickly that if they crushed it then they could get the same high, and the whole promise that got it through FDA approval was essentially a lie for the purpose of getting approval.
Yes Russel is a bit far out into left field, but a broken clock can be right twice per day.
I understand ppl automatically being sceptical of the claims of those not involved in the thing they are criticizing, but that on its own doesn't make them wrong or crazy. Sometimes a crazy person just happens to be right and discounting them just because they are crazy is itself a prejudice ppl often accuse him of.
Immunity to facts, learning and compassion more like it
Now those are things he really does have natural immunity to.
“It’s amazing how you can miss things out there if you don’t look for them “. 😂😂😂
Yes I agree with you!
this doctor stick dont know what is talking about, hes just saying complicated words like "prootein" and "celular molecules" just to look inteligent...
hes probably not even a real doctor
@@Reth_Hardif you think protein and cellular molecules are complicated phrases people only use to sound smart you probably are missing many things.
@@Reth_Hard 🥴 da scribble man say pooteen an i dun no wut dat is
@@zenaku666
What do you mean?
@@Reth_Hard The Dunning-Krueger effect:
Ben Shapiro has to defend unsubstantiated religious beliefs against contradictory evidence. One way to do this is to promote scientific conspiracy theories, as a means to reduce public confidence in science.
What lol Ben’s not against science. He’s against censorship.
@@GJames007 consciously in his head he's probably for science. But he is still damaging public opinion around science
@@GJames007 Right! The climate change denier is very pro science! Good point.
@@collinharris4848 See above
@@GJames007 "What lol Ben’s not against science. He’s against censorship." - So why do he deny biology, chemistry and physics?
Russel "What, me rightwing?" Brand.
When you play to the knucklehead right, you are knucklehead right.
Shapiro and Brand need to learn the difference between experiment and study. And, as Stick said, the idea of intentionally infecting people to determine the effect on them isn't close to being ethical.
...so is it ethical to give a drug to ppl saying it's safe and effective, and hide trial data on clotting or inflammation in the adrenal system?
Is it ethical if one of the proposed treatments helps maintain oxygen saturation levels by having a mechanism to prevent clotting know to exist on a disease, and call it "dangerous misinformation" and "horse dewormer" because it's not specifically an antiviral?
I just kind of want to watch "Cells at Work" now
To this day, it still shocks me that there are people who actually listens to and agrees with Ben Shapiro...
They don't agree with him though that is the frustrating thing. I've spoken to many people who say they agree with Shapiro, crowder and the like. You talk to them and I notice this disconnect between what they think, what they say and what they think the right say. Many of those against socialism and that demonize Marxism are bigger socialists and Marxists than the people they fear.... But yeah the world's pretty shitty and people suck...
Sadly, there are many of the same kind as Ben Shapiro throwing out nonsense and have very loud communities...
Because he has good points in certain subjects, clearly not on biology.
@@HyperionZero who? Brand I agree with on some thing's but Shapiro is just an idiot with megaphone unfortunately 🤣.
@@HyperionZero
He does? Why have I never heard one of these good points from him?
Does Ben always sound like a chipmunk?
Russell Brand is just talking out of his behind. What little brainpower he had got destroyed by his substance abuse.
Totally. He couldn’t reason himself out of a paper bad. I don’t think Brand ever met a conspiracy theory he didn’t buy hook, line, and sinker.
@@PhysicsPolice That just shows you are ignorant you are about him.
'Intelligent' and 'Russell Brand' are not words I ever expected to hear in the same sentence.
”Russel Brand is not very intelligent”
I was subscribed to Brand and after a month of "questions" insinuating conspiracies, It was too much.
You have to deliver the good evidence when making such claims, and he rarely does.
I agree, claims need evidence and the evidence I get from him are often just some news article in line with the predictions of his audience. Ya know, like everyone else.
@@nunyabisnass1141 Cherry picking news articles is not science at all. It's one step above youtube videos.
For the first 30 ish years of my life I was religious. A Jehovah's witness. When. I gradually and mostly unintentionally drifted away religious people (everyone in my life by moving 4000 km away). I'm guessing that knowing this immediately gives you less respect for me, and I get it... but I think it gives me somewhat of a unique look at the world and people's behaviours.
Though I don't call myself an atheist, or announce it, I am and feel embarrassed and ashamed for how I used to think. I have a hard time not to lash out at any religious idea or anyone who says something religious... those ideas, teachings and what causes it all to come about is such a human weakness, I think it's gross and pathetic and I see it in myself. I get the same feeling when I realize that people watch (most) TV programming and idolize public figures. I see it as human weakness that exists in me to some extent ... I haven't owned a TV in over 15 years, but if I'm in a room with a TV, I'm sucked in immediately. It's disgusting.
All of this to say that.... 1. No amount of name calling or confrontation would have made me an atheist. Backing someone into a corner and making them / their beliefs feel under attack is a really good way to cause a person to defend their position. It doesn't matter how right you are, if your approach is aggressive, you're probably only going to push a person further away from the truth. 2. I can only speak for myself, but I really believed (whatever that means) ... When you are surrounded by religion your whole life the idea that there isn't a god (gods) is laughable. Most of these people do not intentionally miss believe or think they are twisting reasoning.
I saw a religious post the other day that was making fun of atheists the other day, and the basic message was something like "science doesn't know everything they can't even answer X" ... and I responded my saying " Yes, we don't know everything. The difference is that when an atheist doesn't know, we say 'I don't know', and then do tests, if there is a way to test it. When religious people don't know something, they say 'GOD'. God keeps hiding in the shadows, but science keeps shining light into dark places. Rest assured, your gods will always have a place to hide, as we can never know everything"
At the time of writing that, I felt good, as though no one could argue with that. But when you believe that an all knowing all powerful being created the universe, that answers everything. For me, it was my own curiosity for science and technology that led to be becoming an atheist. It took several years and it was at a time in my life when no one was attacking my beliefs. I feel like, unless you have been a religious person at some point, it is hard to understand.
It would be fucking insane and stupid for any non-religious person to have less respect for someone who broke away from a literal cult's brainwashing.
Welcome to reality. The more, the merrier.
@@brookejon3695 Your comment gave me an interesting perspective on how I view myself vs how I view others.... I made the comment clearly projecting how I feel about myself, but would never judge anyone else in that way... You are right.
I'm not sure of the definition of "cult", and it is pretty much just semantics, but the J dub cult is one that is not run by any one leader or higher authority.... at least from what I saw / experienced. There is of course an organization, but they strongly reinforce that there is no person in the "church" that is of more power or authority.
My experience wasn't bad, at least from my perspective, however, if you ask my many siblings, at least a few of them would not agree and felt cheated for some time. I think I could look at it as being cheated by life, but there was never any malicious intent.
Strongly recommend looking up Telltale atheist on UA-cam, if I recall he was also part of the JW church most his life growing up so I felt like he would have a good take on things from a similar perspective.
@@Daggoth65 Thanks for the recommendation. If I had lots of free time, I would probably take a look into it. I do, however, have 6 siblings, 4 of them now what I would call atheists. All of us in the same family and all of us went to the same "church"... and we all have different takes on the whole experience.
One of my siblings felt so wronged by it, that when my parents were away to a religious convention, he had a party and told them do destroy the house, took their vehicle and wrote it off. My twin brother...
See I would put my self as an agnostic. I believe a god/s exists out there but I dont think that god would want us acting in accordance to world religions. By that I mean atleast in my opinion god should not be as insecure and require you to pray to him every single day, or require a sacrifice to be appeased, or care about what your sexuality and gender are (because why would it, it is so far above you that why in any world would it care) and it would probably be ambivalent towards good and evil because atleast in some way they helped to create good and evil so they must have a reason. I do believe that we should treat everyone with respect but that is less of a god thing and more of we are all creatures of the world so why go out of your way to be rude to someone. My favorite version of god is god as a scientist where it might have set up like a pteridish somewhere or started a computer algorithm and then went hands off to see the results of what ever they wanted to find. The main reason I say I am agnostic is because I am mostly on the fence like I could believe god is real or I could believe he is fake but I would need some pretty heavy proof to change in either direction.
One thing I hate is the whole idea that science and religion clash because they really do not. Like all throughout history religion has been taught with kind of a grain of salt, its only when it is codified and enforced that this whole schism started. But there is nothing in science which disproves religion and there is nothing in religion which disproves science. Like yeah you got to ignore some certain things like young earth creationism and etc but 70% of devoutly religious do anyways because they know that not everything is written in factual statements. But you can believe in both science and religion without the two clashing because one is about empirical truth and the other is about belief in faith. NEITHER are moral standard though I see that all too often where people use either as excuses to be a good or bad person but I believe that is down to the individual and not their choice of what to believe in. Like I have met some truly god awful devout believers and some truly saintly atheists and vice versa what makes a good person is the person them selves.
An anti-parasitic medicine CAN help the body to fight non-parasitic infection, by killing the parasites that are weakening the body, allowing the body to better use his immune system to more effectively fight the infection.
There is a problem with that natural immunity thing : You may die while acquiring natural immunity. That risk with vaccine immunity is at least 100 times smaller. In the very worst case.
Also, a molecule that happens to kill some parasites might also happen to have activity against some viruses. Drugs can have multiple uses. There was a sound theoretical basis to hypothesize ivermectin might have worked. Turns out it didn’t. But that’s no reason to make bad arguments like Stick did at 2:00.
This is why I don’t get it when Benji’s detractors agree his message is awful but endorse “he is very intelligent, though!”
I mean, is he really? Maybe there’s just no way to dress up a stupid message, but Benji does not strike me as terribly bright; just extremely belligerent and good at talking quickly.
he has enough education to appear smart to those who don't get educated.
Well, since there's really no official definition of intelligence that applies to the broad scheme for how it's often used, yeah I'd say he is intelligent just by not accepting everything being spoon fed to him.
I have been getting totally confused by the talk of 'natural immunity' when compared to vaccines, when it has also been clear to me that the only possible way to develop any 'natural immunity' is to actually survive from an infection in the first place. The daft thing only seems to be in vaccinating people who were NOT in much risk at all of dying from the infection.
if you only vaccinate people who are at risk of dying the chances of them getting the virus from everyone else is way higher
Viruses like COVID can do way worse things than kill you mate. The vaccine can lower the chances of those things happening.
There's also no good reason not to attempt to vaccinate everyone we can as the vaccine has been shown to be as safe and effective as any other vaccine.
Wait, why do we want immunity in the first place? Not getting sick… ohhhhh
I'm no medical professional but I would of thought when making drugs and vaccines during the testing natural immunity would definitely be researched as a control group to be able to actually gauge how affective their new drug/vaccine is
Natural immunity is studied: it's a little hole in the wall fringe field you may have heard of called immunology.
Ben Shapiro is one of the few people that just annoy me hearing him speak
I found my dad agreeing with a video that called teachers with pride flags 'p-word's because lgbt is restrictively a *sexual perspective apparently. He asked me if my teachers does that and I retorted that "No but my classmates wear pride badges, you calling them 'p-word's too?"
Granted as a reply its a really big stretch of logic, at the same time its similar to the logical stretch people like these use for their arguments in the first place. And no better example than Ben Shapiro
Admittedly I worded that incorrectly, I shouldn't have used "people like these" since that implies I consider people who think in this line of logic as some "separate beings" which is not at all the case. I don't believe in the idea of creating a "us and them" that just leads to conflict. Even now I find it hard to use the word 'people' since it sounds derogatory in a way. I sound like I'm saying "oh *people* like these are so..."
A statement like that in itself is a prejudiced and discriminatory if worded incorrectly and is against my moral code of considering others in a different light from mind. And I apologize for seeming that way.
Don't get me wrong, I love my dad. How could I not. Yes you're right he did raise me as the person I am today, and I am forever grateful for it. However that won't stop me from at least criticizing perspective that just doesn't hold up, especially if said perspective actively brings down others. I'm not arguing against *him* like you thought, I'm arguing against the ridiculous viewpoint itself. From a perspective standpoint it is pretty flawed and exists to actively oppose people even if that opposition is unjustified.
Again sorry for sounding like an ungrateful brat, my wording was condescending on my part, but "being a traitor" to my family I'm not. I don't try to oppose my father or even anyone in that matter, but I do oppose one of his ideologies since in itself is an ideology that opposes others.
@Imran Zakhaev
I would argue the person being a bigot is the traitor, not the person not tolerating the bigotry.
If my dad started being super bigoted and hateful, I would be "ungrateful" to. I would call him out on his shit and, if he didn't change... leave. Permanently.
I'm "Russell Brand on BBC radio 2" old. I can't look at him without thinking of his immature radio show being the first ever podcast I listened to.
Russell Brand has a 13 year old's understanding of... pretty much everything he's outspoken about. "Oooo the corporations doing corporationy things that are corporationish woo OOOO"
He's just your garden variety conspiracy theorist. He distrusts the pharmaceutical industry because it prioritizes profit over human suffering, but he has no understanding of *why* that is. He got one step into it and decided a secret society of evil people (who are always described as Jewish) must be controlling it.
These people would have a decent understanding of reality if they knew anything about capitalism, racism, and history. But that takes effort and time and challenging your view of the world (which is uncomfortable), so they're unlikely to do it. It's much easier and pleasant to blame The Illuminati.
13? More likley 7-8
@@freddan6fly Nah, 13 because that's when kids/adolescents typically begin to start questioning everything and develop this sense of knowing that's ironically shallow. Russell Brand never left that developmental phase.
My 13 year old takes offense to this comment :P
The sad thing is that I truly believe Brand *thinks* that he is looking for these studies, but because he's specifically looking for studies that _agree_ with him, he obviously doesn't find any, and stops looking, because he doesn't _want_ to find anything that actively disprove his beliefs.
Ben, on the other hand, absolutely knows these studies exist and go against those same beliefs, but he deliberately dismisses them because they don't reinforce his worldview and because admitting to their existence would alienate his audience.
Basically, Brand is - mostly - just ignorant, while Shapiro is actively lying.
What are you talking about? Studies that show ivermectin is effective if used early? Studies that show natural immunity is equivalent to 1-2 vaccine shots?
@@GJames007
There is no evidence of efficacy for ivermectin and the most recent meta-analysis from this year concludes that natural immunity is no better than the vaccine... and it has a way, way higher risk in getting it.
@@Divianceyup. I like to remind people that study shows natural immunity (A) is the same (in terms of protection) as vaccine induced immunity (B). If A=B then B=A. All else being equal you're better off getting the vaccine. At least you won't be super sick for a long time with the potential for lung damage.
@@zenaku666
Or brain damage. Since that is also a thing for COVID, based on the evidence.
@@GJames007 There aren't any high-powered studies which show Ivermectin is effective as a prophylactic, in the early, mid or late stages either.
You need to have contracted COVID to gain natural immunity. Even then it doesn't mean you won't contract the virus and suffer complications.
Worth mentioning that all immunity is natural.
I take your point but nobody is confused when we use “natural immunity” to refer to immunity as the result of getting sick.
@@PhysicsPolice Perhaps it is a term that has too often been co-opted by the anti-science brigade to misrepresent?
@@cappsie1 don’t know what you mean. I don’t think it has been co-opted. I think they use it correctly. Their conclusions are dead wrong. But I don’t find fault in their use of that word.
@@PhysicsPolice Fair point. I agree with your reasoning.
@@cappsie1 are you saying that the phrase “natural immunity” is compelling to people who irrationally mistake the natural for the good? I can see that, yeah.
i just found your channel. it is amazing,
I’m losing brain cells hearing Ben Shapiro
I see Benny boy is trying to move into the manbaby-with-beard niche left by Crowder
He needn't worry. They'll always have TheQuartering perfectly fitting that hole.
I honestly thought this was parody for how ironic it all is; the pushing of either misleading or false scientific information, claiming literature supports it without actually citing any, and while the science actually overwhelmingly supports the opposite stance, and doing so in a condescending manner… just deliciously funny
The irony of your comment is wasted on you.
To my understanding, there are a few instances when people have survived a failed chute landing. Not sure anyone would like to be amongst those chosen to be pushed from a plan without a parachute to see who does and who doesn't make it. I assume that's the only way you can test for natural immunity; push them out of the metaphorical plan without a chute and see if they survive the landing.
Hey. Saw that crowder is going on Russell Brand tmrw. Would be nice to see you to do a video on it
Sidenote to the preamble... even if natural immunity was totally superior to vaccination, natural immunity REQUIRES GETTING INFECTED.... so, like, duuuuh
I've been infected so I guess I don't need the vaccine, I think everyone's gotten Covid at this point, even people who were vaccinated
There's no profit margin in delivering at cost either, which rips the rug out of this attempt to poison the well or appeal to improper motive.
Now everybody sing with me dumb ways to die. I want to say dumb ways to die?
Does Ben shapiro actually talk like he's on 125% playback or does he edit his videos that way
He actually talks that way. I know, right?
Russel is most insidious. He sounds sooo reasonable.”i am just asking questions”
I have learned most people "just asking questions" are not worth listening to. I'd go as far as to say they are doing the other kind of JAQing off.
@@zenaku666 Elenchus
i have a question. Will Professor Stick ever use "dark mode" for his stickman background?
MY EYES BURN every video he posts.
I tend to spend his videos reading the comments for the same reason.
Yeah so when it comes to a Comedian Vs an Epidemiologist I'll take the latter...Also, Shapiro knows better, His wife is a MD.
I can't believe how much I've liked Russell Brand in the past. He's funny, but utterly nuts and so confidently wrong about health issues.
He should have stuck to comedy.
What exactly was he wrong about here? Professor stick is not correct on natural immunity. 2 million more viewers on Russell Brand since the last time Professor stick attacked him, for, what was it last time? Jealousy?
@@pgtmr2713Brand was incorrect about the existence of trials regarding ivermectin. They have been done and didn't show it worked. He was also wrong to assert science in general is a subset of big pharma. As if all research is done by industry. Get real.
So, what exactly did stick get wrong about natural immunity?
@@pgtmr2713 Right, because the amount of sheep who follow you is relevant to how correct you are... Wait, no. My mistake. That's nonsense.
Russell Brand understands that the pharmaceutical industry is primarily motivated by profit and not the safety and happiness of humans. But, why? Why are corporations like this? Does Russell ever talk about the systems that create and control the profit motive? No. He got one little baby step into reality and gave up, blaming some secret evil hidden group of monsters.
It's a system of belief that gives control to the rich. They keep their spoils while idiots like Russell accidentally create the smoke screen they hide behind.
@@brookejon3695 The number of people matters, not strictly because of popularity as you thought. The more people in your corner, the more likely you are, correct, honest, genuine. People agree with you, after weighing data and the bullshit piped to them for 3 years plus, and they're taking a side, more often lately, switching over to the other side. Why is it that if your side, Stick's side, is correct? People aren't taking the vaccines and booster like they were. The side effects are more dangerous and more likely than Covid. But muh paper says Stick is right! Nobody's ever fabricated a paper before that fooled peers? Remember Fauci was paying people with grant money to say Covid was more likely a natural virus. When the actual evidence shows it came from a lab in Wuhan near where the virus first struck, and where the bats and corona viruses were both being studied and mixed for this exact type of gain of function.
I like the argument against private Healthcare
Was looking for this comment. Shapiro was literally endorsing socialized medicine.
Some people should just never be allowed to speak. Especially if they aren't experts in the field they are discussing or do even the slightest bit of research, apart from what they've heard in a single video or Facebook post.
Even if natural immunity is twice as effective as vax immunity, the risk of death or serious complications is significantly higher so vax still better
Based on what. This virus was nothing compared to the hype. And it's pretty much confirmed as a bio weapon
Natural immunity is more effective than vax immunity
@@donkeyparadise9276 Worst bioweapon ever
Ben Shapiro’s voice and intonation sounds like a character that would be perfectly at home in the Simpsons.
Intelligence and education are not the same thing
❤❤❤❤❤ I missed you!
Russell Brand is suuuper dangerous. He seems so concerned and as if he genuinely wants to help people, yet if you check any study he presents he basically always interprets it incorrectly or misunderstands something fundamental about it. You can literally debunk most of his nonsense in a couple of minutes - if you actually dig for it. I guess most of his followers do not double-check any of his claims though. Sad.
He's a good story teller. And people listen to stories not data. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just a statement of fact. It means if you want to convince people you need to tell a good story that happens to coincide with the truth. And unfortunately most people who understand the truth are terrible story tellers. Maybe we scientists should have taken out English, lit and humanities education more seriously.
Maybe 14th century Europeans should have looked into the effectivity of natural immunity for the plague. It could have saved a lot of people
I mean isn't that how the plague ended?
don't blame Ben Sharpy....his wife is just the Sahara Desert, thats all
This isn't the point but it's time to debunk Ben's beard and mustache too 🤣🤣🤣
But how would you tell him and his sister apart without them?
@@markstyles1246 I can think of one or i guess 2 very BIG diffrences between the two.... 😏
@@markstyles1246
Easiest way to tell the difference is that Ben looks like he sleeps with sex dolls that look like his sister... and his sister looks like a depressed sex doll that Ben just got done with.
@@markstyles1246 The sister's a waste of some nice hair.
You should debunk Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy dore who openly defend RFK Jr's anti-vaccine propaganda.
Brand is so obsessed with the big corporations the he thinks everything is a conspiracy. The guy should be a salesman for tinfoil hats.
Granted he is right about some stuff but then he takes those fact and goes nuts with it.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Make no mistake- he is selling you something already. He gets great satisfaction seeing himself as some kind of populist counterculture firebrand. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback and say how screwed up everything is but not take you own responsibilities seriously. And granted I agree with him that many of things are screwed up, but he has an agenda to push a populist narrative that his new right-wing audience expects because he gets a great deal of validation from them. He isn’t worried about knowing truth- he is more concerned with how he is seen. He doesn’t care which side he fights on so long as he is worshipped by his audience and seen as sexy and dangerous.
are you on rumble
Dumb and Dumber started a podcast?
What makes them dumb
Ben's intro to Russell is a joke - a better joke than most of Russell's. Russell is intelligent? NO.
What!? Ben is pro corporation, if the government did what he said. He would be bitching about it and calling it socialist/communist
well you see, here is where you are making a bad choice, you are assuming these hacks are arguing in good faith, they aren't they are pushing a narrative, and well you know evidence isn't as important as sounding dangerous with word salad
👍👍
he makes the background white so wee come to the comments to save our eyes i bet
Tackling bigger fish this time, i see
The idea that these two chuckle heads are big fish makes me want to die. But yea, you’re right, bigger than usual for this channel.
Of course, the 'natural health' products he's so keen to promote are in no way monetised.
He likes to complain about a lack of research, but then ignores research that's actually out there, apparently because either someone's making a profit from the outcome or he just doesn't like it (e.g. all the studies debunking homeopathy, eh Russ).
So, basically, it's a case of "Don't listen to them, they have a monetary benefit in this game", and 'Listen to me instead, I definitely don't have many millions in the bank purely through monetising my opinions'.
Russell Brand is a person who is unable or unwilling to express himself coherently, yet insists on doing so just the same. To me, he comes across as a barking mad tweaker with a lot of uninformed, unresearched, and unfounded opinions on topics that he is not equipped to comprehend.
I hate conspiracy narratives! (Not "theories"; they don't deserve to be dignified with that term, which would put them on a par with theories of gravity, evolution, germ, etc.)
Scientific theories are specific to science. Outside of science theory generally just means conjecture.
That's why you get people who don't understand science say "evolution is just a theory" as if it isn't the most robust and evidence supported thing in science; they think it's just a guess.
Conspiracy narrative is actually in my opinion a better phrase for it. Because that's what they are: narratives. That's all they've ever been.
I genuinely never thought I'd see a conservative like Ben cheerleading for someone on the left like Russell
how is russell on the left? does he argue for workers owning the means of production? does he promote a $26 minimum wage to keep wages consistent with productivity? does he promote tax funded healthcare? what are his leftist views?
From everything I’ve seen of him over the years, Russell is a contrarian- he doesn’t really have any beliefs, except in the exceptional nature of his own intelligence and selling his idea of populism. Whatever is in vogue he is going to come out against so he and his ilk can see him as some sort of counter-culture firebrand. Just because he dresses like a hippy and does yoga doesn’t mean he has any real leftist positions. If you listen to him speak, he never makes any real claims- he uses the “I’m just asking questions” or “Doesn’t that seem weird? I’m not saying X, but the media wants you to believe Y, so you should take this incredibly uninformed biased set of half-truths I’ve told you and make your own decision.” He’d make a great cult leader.
It’s hilarious to me that if you took your very own argument and put it toward your own video we we have the exact issue. Only difference is, the argument makes sense when applied to your lack luster response.
Good joke.
👏🙂
Ben Sharpio and Russel Brand spreading lies again? Colour me surprised.
38 antivaxxer butts have been *SERIOUSLY HURT* by this video, so far :) .
Still not getting the vaccine
@@bobkane432
So you'd rather die from covid.
Oh well, it is your life, to throw away.
@@CNCmachiningisfun I had Covid so now I have natural immunity
@@bobkane432
Natural immunity to THAT particular strain.
Wait 'til the next one comes along.
@@CNCmachiningisfun I think I had Delta
In their defence, we did manage to overcome the Black Plague with natural immunity.
That's "technically correct". We can defeat almost anything with the power of natural immunity. Like you can take any trench with the attitude of, "Come on, lads! They can't bloody well kill us all!"...
@@markstyles1246 except, of course, when they can kill us all
with a death toll of 30%-60% of all of europe. you've seen what just a 2% mortality rate did. and no, the black plague is still around in places, our species has not overcome it. we were closer to overcoming polio until antivaxxers brought it back.
@@sebcw1204 and we were sooo close to driving a second deadly virus to extinction
@Imran Zakhaev so americans are eating with poop on their hands? polio is rising in AMERICA, as is measles. you know, measles, as in the disease that takes away any immunity you have built up.
nothing changed about the communities that are newly suffering from nearly eradicated disease, other than the rise of politically ideological anti vaccine agendas.
OhLookImma1st
I think the claim they talking about is natural immunity is better at protecting from future strains, whereas vax only covers current strains
that's not how they frame it. they take a conspiracist position of pretending to be anti-corporate. they'll be suspicious of corporations that provide services they disagree with, but wont attach that same conspiratorial thinking to the NRA and gun companies.
Not even. It was only really effective (90%+) against the original strain.
@@GJames007
And it was just as temporary as the vaccine. So you had all of the added risk of the infection, which was very significant, just to get a slightly better temporary immunity to that one strain.
Not an expert, but I believe the choice of tailoring the vaccine to the spike protein was made as much to cover possible future mutations, as well as being the easiest way to prevent the virus from affecting the host.
If I'm wrong, please provide evidence from a respected, peer-reviewed source.
@@Kartissa maybe i misspoke saying vax *only* covers current strain.
When it's moreso that it *mainly* covers the current one, and hopefully the next couple.
Not an expert either, was just trying to steel-man their position
Get on joe Rogan
Joe Rogan would lose any such debate.
The racist antivaccer? Why? To hell with him and his racist fanboys.
Ben, Russell and Joe are not doctors, they should stick to what they know.
Which doesn't appear to be much.
@Imran Zakhaev No, U, lol!
Ben can be both free market libertarian while goes against big pharma interest to persue profit at the same time.
Before libertarian argue that it is the big government that allow big pharma and other monopolies to be exist.
Even without government initiative and money, research on medicine and vaccine are big profit incentive, and will still go on, because market (the population) will pay whatever amount of money it takes to not die. Same as the hospital bill. Government in this equation is just the coffer representing the pharmaceutical industry interest while making the voter has impression that they do something.
Shareholder will be glad to see another black death coming (or even purposefully lab leak the bubonic plague) because fear of death sell well, while fear of mass death sell like crazy.
@@chongjunxiang3002
Without "big government", big pharma would be _way_ bigger and have _way_ more control and be _way_ more dangerous.
Unchecked capitalism is one of the fastest recipes for disaster I can think of.
@@Diviance That is my point. With or without government, big pharma will still exist. As labs and factories will consolidate over time, the barrier of entry will go up as biotechnology become complicate over time.
Stick, you need to post corrections when you make mistakes, and you need to moderate trolls in the comments. This is a great channel, but your reputation is being harmed by as yet uncorrected mistakes and a toxic, intellectually dishonest community.
Such as?
@@Diviance he got upset that people jumped down his throat when he said that ivermectin initially had potential worth investigating. Which is true _but_ ignores the context.
@@williamchamberlain2263 lol where did this happen at?
@@Diviance I’m not talking to you. You’re free to read my comments on this and other videos.
@@williamchamberlain2263 I didn’t ignore any relevant context. Someone did falsely accuse me of ignoring a certain context. Which I did ignore, because it was fucking irrelevant. What Russel Brand does has nothing to do with whether a drug can have multiple uses.
My condolences for having to watch Ben Shapiro in any way at all, but especially here, when he invokes the total lunacy of Russell Brand...put your feet up and have a rest, you deserve to not lose brain cells over this.
You are in a technocratic cult
Prove it. And try it without using your computer or phone which "the cult" gave you to argue online.
Of course Brand is intelligent. It's short-sighted of you to assume he's being transparent. How does he get money? Engagement. How does he get engagement? By being inflammatory. For all we know he's playing a character, one that he's honed throughout his career.
Ah, yes. I see. The "Alex Jones Deflection".
@@digitalboy80the "Tucker Carlson switcheroo"
@@zenaku666 Or that ;). Probably is the safer choice, even, since the mention of AJ seems to trigger UA-cams "Ban Comment"-bot.
simps
@@ApexHerbivore Yes, you are.
Dear Prof, whilst I agree with you on most things, I have to disagree that Russell Brand is not intelligent. I think he is very intelligent but just uneducated. I know that sounds like elitism regarding education but it is an important distinction. Russell shows how without training in critical appraisal skills of datasets/research then your biases are allowed to go wild and down the rabbit hole you go. I think if Russell had conventional training in research, he might actually excel (in the field he had studied in as we all know expertise in one field does not necessarily extrapolate to another). Obviously, none of us are immune from biases. [Edited to add, that actually I can understand one may not think him intelligent if they have only come across him in recent years but although I am an atheist and therefore do not agree with him in his outlook of spirituality/religion, I have however found him to be thought provoking and willing to listen to the other side (search out an interview with physicist Brian Cox for example. It's so disappointing to see him go the way that he has.]
I know that Russell says a lot of stupid things, but I wouldn't go as far as to say he's not intelligent. Lots of really smart and intelligent people say really stupid things. It's easy to get stuck in a conspiracy rabbit hole, especially when you spend all of your time researching conspiracies. Even if only 1% of them are true, that 1% makes it really easy to doubt the truth / facts.
I've stopped watching and listening to anything he does, not on purpose, but just because he doesn't appeal to me / he has gone down the conspiracy path... but I do understand how that happens and that it doesn't mean he's not intelligent.
Think from an academic standpoint (not educational), if he's so intelligent, why doesn't he do the research himself and publish it ? Instead of just attempting to voice and in the process sell his personality to create a cult like every artist does. He's acting like he has the answers to everything - my only question is - how is that possible for any human ?
@@Abhishek_78 You're making the same mistake ... You can be intelligent and lazy, or evil, or mislead, or just have blinders on because you're looking for something and not trying to find the truth... Humans are insane, fragine, pathetic, and easily mislead... even by ourselves.
If you have to ask "how is that possible for any human ?" then you yourself need to do more research about humans, haha... As I said above. We are pathetic creatures, capable of unbelievably idiotic things. Hitler was a person. So was Einstein. Both, likely =, very intelligent.
@@JoelArseneaultUA-cam
Yes, smart people can say dumb things.
But when someone says _only_ dumb things... they probably aren't smart.
@@Diviance That is sort of a throw away , cliche statement ... While it is true, you are implying that Russell only says dumb things ? If you don't like the guy, that's fair, he's a kooky person and in for the past several years he has gotten more and more into conspiracies, but not everything he says is stupid.
I will assume that, if you think he's "dumb", you don't' listen to everything he has said. I'm not saying that you should listen to everything everyone you disagree with says, but it is very easy to get caught up in only watching snippets of stupid things that people say because you don't like them.
I don't know what to say... to me, the guy is obviously smart, and also very intelligent. I don't have to agree with what he is saying to see that.
@@JoelArseneaultUA-cam
"That is sort of a throw away , cliche statement ... While it is true, you are implying that Russell only says dumb things ? If you don't like the guy, that's fair, he's a kooky person and in for the past several years he has gotten more and more into conspiracies, but not everything he says is stupid."
*I would say the overwhelming amount of things he says is either stupid... or accidentally not stupid.*
"I will assume that, if you think he's "dumb", you don't' listen to everything he has said. I'm not saying that you should listen to everything everyone you disagree with says, but it is very easy to get caught up in only watching snippets of stupid things that people say because you don't like them."
*If there is anything accidentally smart he does say... I can hear the same things from people who actually understand why it is smart.*
"I don't know what to say... to me, the guy is obviously smart, and also very intelligent. I don't have to agree with what he is saying to see that."
*And I would disagree with that assessment.*
*A broken clock might be right twice a day but I wouldn't rely on it to tell time.*
Vaccinating our way out of the pandemic was the thinking that led to lockdowns which caused far more harm than the virus. The effectiveness of natural immunity for those who would inevitably catch it, deal with it and move on WITHOUT losing their jobs, businesses, homes and the rest was a missed opportunity. There were many unknowns in the beginning but the money was always a sure thing thanks to the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry and the WHO itself. That’s Russell Brands point.
Lockdowns didn't cause more harms than the virus, quite the contrary as it effectively reduced the harm that the virus could cause. It wasn't a perfect solution of course but a response to an emergency situation. And how could the pharmaceutical industry profits from lockdowns that slow down the whole economic ? That's just nonsensical, just poor ad hoc rationalisation for "vaccine bad!".
@@anomalocaris9069that's something of a straw man. His point wasn't that pharmaceuticals profited from lockdowns, that was a separate point, a nonsequitor. But pharmaceutical companies did profit from the emergency authorization they could only get if no other viable treatment existed, and we did have monoclonal antibodies, not that it matters now.
@@nunyabisnass1141 He was talking about natural immunity and how lockdowns prevented it, so no, he clearly stated that pharmaceutical companies profited from lockdowns.
@@nunyabisnass1141 Monoclonal antibodies are very less convenient for an usage in general population than a vaccine.
@@anomalocaris9069 I didn't say if they were good or ideal, I said it was viable, and hardly anyone knew about it.
What…. they weren’t discussing the debate between natural immunity vs vaccines in “general” you missed the whole context of their discussion buddy. This whole response video is very naive
Care to elaborate? What is the correct context of their discussion?
a species cannot survive by preying on itself.
2:00 This is over-simplistic. A medicine developed for one use can also have another use. There were several biologically plausible reasons why ivermectin might have helped treat COVID-19 (See 10.1186/s40001-022-00645-8). This didn't pan out (10.1001/jama.2022.18590) but that's no reason to deny the initial biological plausibility.
Ok, but pushing it as a miracle cure after it’s been dismissed is rather disturbing. RB is still talking about it as an alternative as we speak.
@@angrydoggy9170 No shit. What inspired you to reply @ me with something so obvious, that has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment?
@@PhysicsPolicebecause you fail to see the bigger picture.
@@zenaku666 if you had a point to make about the science, you’d just make that point. Instead of slinging mud. Clearly you’re the one who doesn’t get the big picture that honesty and scientific rigor matter. What Stick said at 2:00 is wrong. I provided a citation from the scientific literature that backs up this criticism. You trolls can address the science or fuck right off.
@@PhysicsPoliceyou fail to see the bigger picture that Stick actually said ivermectin was thought to have potential and that studies were carried out, and found it to be lacking. That he _agrees_ with you generally: it has some effect, but not a significant one owing to it being the wrong type of medication. You talk about the importance of rigor but clearly lack it if you don't see that. How ironic.