Will Bret Weinstein keep his word? Let's find out!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Patreon: / drwilsondebunks
I rarely read UA-cam comments these days, so if you want me to see your comment, here is how you can contact me directly and I will be glad to respond to you when I can: Email: dr.wilson.debunk@gmail.com
Facebook (direct message): / docwilsondebunks
Immune podcast co-hosted by Cindy Leifer: www.microbe.tv/immune/
Marc Veldhoen lab: imm.medicina.ulisboa.pt/inves...
Edward Nirenberg’s Deplatform Disease: www.deplatformdisease.com
The basics of autoimmunity: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...
B-cell memory review: www.cell.com/trends/immunolog...
Immunopathology of myocarditis: www.science.org/doi/full/10.1...
COVID infection is much riskier than vaccination: covid19.nih.gov/news-and-stor...
mRNA vaccines are, in fact, vaccines: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/s...
mRNA vaccines are mostly targeted toward dendritic and cells: www.cell.com/molecular-therap...
COVID vaccines induce a robust germinal center response: www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0...
Dosing interval modification can reduce risk of myocarditis: jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
Increased risk of autoimmune disease after COVID infection:
www.thelancet.com/action/show...
www.thelancet.com/action/show...
www.nature.com/articles/s4159...
www.nature.com/articles/s4158...
No increased risk of autoimmune disease after COVID vaccine: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
Summary on the biodistribution data showing the vaccine stays mainly in the arm and only non-functional pieces are found in trace amounts in circulation: scientistabe.wordpress.com/20...
American College of Rheumatology assessment on COVID vaccine safety for those with autoimmune diseases: assets.contentstack.io/v3/ass...
More evidence that COVID vaccines are safe for those with autoimmune diseases: academic.oup.com/rheumatology...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...
Thank you! I tweeted it out today. -Michael Shermer
Fair play to Michael Shermer. It'll be interesting to see what Weinstein comes back with, if anything.
Not smart, not skeptical, Shermer; Dr Wilson lied to you about what Bret said at 15 seconds in.He never said "if told by experts" nonsense.
You are extremely easily taken in by cheaters so long as you believe they are experts in the field,
A real chump to be set up with a simple lie, followed by a volume of supposed evidence.
Is there evidence for what Brett is claiming? No.
But his claim is clever because it's basically impossible to falsify. He is picking his words carefully, "I want to be *proven wrong.*" He is setting a bar for being debunked that is higher than the bar he is setting for evidence in favor of his own claim.
This is a warning sign to look for when someone is passionately pleading their case to you in a way that sounds reasonable. They may hold this idea firmly, not because they have evidence, but because they have no perfect falsification of their own idea.
To the layperson, the stance *appears* to be reasonable. "Well if he's wrong, why can't the scientists just say he's wrong and find proof?"
But, epistemologically, there's so many problems with this.
1. An experimentally unfalsifiable hypothesis is, by definition, unscientific
2. Completely falsifying a well-defined hypothesis is still incredibly difficult and possible only to within degrees of certainty.
3. The preponderance of data must drive the scientific consensus until better data is made available which supports a different consensus.
Real scientists who respect the methods of their profession know this, and will never publish a paper that says, "I have no evidence for this, but I bet you can't prove I'm wrong with your own time, money, and effort."
That is what Brett is asking to be done here, and you can be certain that no level of effort will ever satisfy his conditions for changing his mind. He has denied the onus of building evidence for his claim, and now placed the burden on a profession who's medical literature he is entirely ignorant of or purposefully ignoring. This drives real scientists insane, but plays very well to those who are, "just asking questions."
The problem with Michael Shermer and other Science communicators is that they don't familiarize themselves with this grab bag of rhetorical tricks. They find themselves sheepishly nodding along when a "reasonable sounding" conjecture is put forward by those like Brett Weinstein.
Really well put. Thank you.
That is a brilliant comment. Especially the part about publishing a paper where you make a claim, present no data and conclude it is for others in the field to prove you wrong. (At their expense) It is so obvious that that is not how science is done. So how good a scientist is Weinstein then having used such flawed logic/philosophy/technique. What a grifter he is.
Thank you!
This comment should be on top of the entire comment section. 👍
I also posted this video as a comment in one of the Shermer's Skeptic last podcasts (I think it is called "disinformation")
Michael Shermer is surely familiar with all the main fallacies including argument from ignorance; he might not have had the readiness and/or biology background to spot the fallacy in real time?
What is the actual claim btw, that the antibodies would attack all the other cells in the body? Wouldn't it be possible to prove disprove it with some in vitro experiment, therefore making the claim (in principle!) falsifiable?
(It sounds like one fake questions by conspiracy theorists, for some reason,😂 but I _really_ don't know)
Be sure to check out the full debate with Michael Shermer here: ua-cam.com/video/7C7Q9UF3PRE/v-deo.html
Thank you for the educated response to Bret's question. Looking forward to more educated responses to the other evidence and questions raised during the debate!
I really hope they can just sit down face to face. Or maybe that’s not enough and they should do a QPARQ
Why does megyn Kelly never name this vague autoimmune issue? I am unfamiliar with any “test” that you can have at your annual physical that detects “autoimmune” disease of any kind. These things are usually diagnosed by following a pattern and progression of symptoms and using many different tests to rule out other things.
Maybe she had a C reactive protein test that showed she had inflammation but I am baffled at her claim. That could be caused by anything.
I developed an “auto immune issue” long before Covid and long before I started vaccinating annually for flu (after no vaxxing as an adult for decades) so who can I claim gave me this problem?
I was thinking the same as Hashimotos, unless you specifically ask for the antibody test will not show up on a standard TFT blood test.@@yugnok
It is embarrassing to have been a fan of Bret pre-pandemic and worse to see him attempt to tackle immunology without any expertise. In just a little over a couple years of watching microbetv I have catapulted ahead of Bret in basic understanding of the research and it is bewildering to watch him mess up and stick his foot in his mouth over and over since he should technically be capable of better understanding by now. It’s very telling that it is financially beneficial for him to continue spouting nonsense.
Yup me too. I was doing an undergrad (Biochem) when I started enjoying his work 5 years ago. But during the early pandemic it became apparent that he had taken a sharp turn away from evidence based reasoning.
He is still a smart man, and Heather a smart woman, and their conversations can be still enjoyable. But their "alternate" science is like some kind of improv that requires a heavy suspension of epistemology to tolerate.
@@RichardAMorris, seems to be alot of people switching from supporting the "covid" jabs to warning against them. Wonder why that is?
@@RichardAMorris The same happened to me. I really liked the two of them but then, during covid he took a hard right turn into tinfoil hat land. It seemed like he figured out that conspiracy theories sell better than actual science. Just my impression. I don't think either of them is stupid enough to really believe half of what they are peddling but it sure pulls in the clicks.
@@robinbeers6689 Audience capture - it's as simple as that.
@@robinbeers6689 A lot of people who have expertise in one area discover a world of opportunity on the Interweb when they diversify (As an evolutionary scientist, Dr. Weinstein well knows the advantage of diversification.) To recap, Bret was a hero for many due to his firm stand at Evergreen College. Now he's just another bloody "influencer;" what we used to call a know-it-all. Thanks, Dr. Wilson, for responding to Bret's challenge. I look forward to not hearing from Bret on immunology or vaccine topics ever again.
I'm glad I found you on Twitter and UA-cam ... nice to hear some sane person standing up!
So Bert is willing to stake his reputation, he's not risking much.
Well done :)
Bert 🤣
@@smoovjazz8029 Whinestein
Ow!
😅😂
Hope all the naysayers in these comments are intellectually courageous enough to listen to the entirety the podcast Bret just posted in response to this challenge.
They, for the most part, don't even know the subjects or who said what. It's not about facts for them. It's their narratives, by golly, and they're sticking with them.
@@thankmelater1254its the propaganda theyve been fed and the commitment they made to join the experiment
Why should we listen to two complete non-experts, when we can actually read the scientific literature?
@@Marco-it2mr Do you read all applicable "scientific literature" ?
@@thankmelater1254 most.
I graduated from The Evergreen State College, the same college that Brett and his wife taught at. So I was interested in events that led up to him leaving, as I saw many of the same problems when I was there in the 1980's, and so I started following his podcasts.
When Covid hit, Brett was an early adopter of masks, he even always had a bandana around his neck. But then he became an antivaxxer, and while he is an evolutionary biologist, he's not a virologist, microbiologist or epidemiologist.
He quickly went down the antivaxxer rabbit hole. He never had any virologist or infectious disease specialist on his podcast.
I think he found it was more profitable to be an anti vaccine grifter, especially after he and his wife left their positions at Evergreen.
Now he just drinks his own Kool-Aid and lives in the antivax echo chamber, where he rakes in the $$$ from his supporters.
Has he explicitly said he is against all forms of vaccines?
I too watched in those early bandana days, it was sad to watch the slide into Malone/McCullough psychopathy
Another early follower here. You could see the martyr psyche building blocks from the get go. Pity
Brett seems to have a very large chip on his shoulder, maybe from all the infighting at Evergreen. That chip doesn't help his case. as it makes him (to me) hard to take. But, his argument should be treated at face value, as Dan tries to do here.
I understand his frustration with the extreme left woke culture that did him dirty. Now it seems that he is nurturing an anti-woke chip on his shoulder.
It’s cute that Bret thinks a bunch of immunologists are watching him spew bullshit and ready to flood him with corrections. These folks have better things to do than waste time on a dunning Kruger champion like whine-stein.
With that said, thank you for taking the time to address his nonsense. He will certainly ignore it and continue to spread misinformation, because that’s how he gained popularity.
You do realize that they did waste their time on him here though, right?? Lol. Two things, 1) they obviously don't think he's nobody if they spent their time on him. 2) If they were serious about calling him out on being wrong then they would have had him on the video to do it to his face. Lol, you vax-worshippers are hopeless.
@@winnmatthews
^This antivaxxer would love it if science educators didn't spend time correcting the science illiterate nonsense spewed by his antivax pals. Too funny.
@@williamverhoef4349Actually I'd love it if they do spend time correcting Bret in an actual legit way to his face, not this one-sided cowardice lol. You're obviously brainless you couldn't comprehend that.
@@atlasnetwork7855 "
Please learn from history so you don't repeat the same mistakes. History shows that it is a very bad idea to ignore antivax conspiracy theory clowns like Bret Wienstein. The death toll from the pandemic was far worse because there were so many "shruggies" when it came to correcting antivax clowns like him before the pandemic. Some doctors who chose to correct antivax nonsense before the pandemic were actually ridiculed by other doctors for their waste of time dealing with "such minor issues". Of course, most of those doctors became antivaxxers themselves during the pandemic, so perhaps they were really always antivax and this was just a deceitful antivax tactic all along.
Incorrect, he has responded. Go check it out on the Darkhorse Podcast.
I'm noticing how papers cited seem to support the shots unequivocally, but still include little disclaimers (not mentioned here, obviously), like e.g. the one from ACR: "ACR guidance statements are not intended to supersede the judgement of rheumatology care providers nor override the values and perspectives of their patients. Guidance was based on weak and/or indirect evidence and required substantial extrapolation by an expert task force. All statements, therefore, should be considered conditional or provisional.
The rheumatology community lacks important knowledge on how to best maximize vaccine-related benefits".
Wow that sure seems like important information. Certainly dans experts didn't miss that in their thorough reading of the small number of papers they base their CDC and big pharma approved argument on
Will Bret Weinstein keep his word? I doubt it that would severely impact his business model.
🎯
Exactly! Pretty much every promoter of misinformation that challenges someone to prove them wrong ignores the very thing they asked for. Grifters gotta grift.
@@Yanvarsk.0-0. Where, though?? Lol. Vax-promoters *NEVER* actually take them up on proving "antivaxxers" wrong to their face in a live, two-way setting.
He lost the majority of his income after being demonized by UA-cam for holding these positions. How do you imagine this served his business model?
@@AndrewSmith-om2bm Lol, vaxxholes gotta push their nonsense
You're doing the lords work. Godspeed
Can someone please Tweet this to Michael Shermer? I'd love to see him call Brett out on this. It is easy for Brett to ignore Dr. Wilson (with all due respect!) but he might find it harder to ignore a Tweet from Shermer.
Shermer is starting to wake up, he also tweeted to Eric Weinstein inviting him to engage with Tim Nyugen who has written the only serious response to Eric's theories in physics - who Eric refuses to engage with.
Brett PROMISED to CHANGE HIS MIND by the SCIENTISTS who DO THE ACTUAL WORK of investigating molecular biology. Shermer is NOT a scientist. He knows NOTHING.
Rapist Michael Shermer isn't gonna do anything of the sort.
But Dr Wilson did a bait and switch on you. You've been bamboozled. The claim by Dr Wilson is different from what Bret actually said. Very different.
@@thankmelater1254 Can you specify? (I know I'm a month late to the party here). I'm open to all points of view on this.
Your first expert was crystal clear in here explanation. Excellent video. Look forward to a series
She said absolutely 0 of substance that actually debunks or is at odds with anything Bret has claimed.
@@richardlefaive1944 I am guessing you don't know much science then
@stefrozitis8621 You would be incorrect. BaSc and PEng here, who these days specializes in automation of systems and Big Data collection + analysis to drive automation.
@@richardlefaive1944What virology degree do you have?
@@debramccawley1714 not needed at the level of biology and stattistics being discussed in these oresentations. All that is required to be able to discern:
- the truth from falsehood
- a soundly founded scientific presentation, thesis, or paper
Are:
- Good reading comprehension skills ( which I have and have used to read MANY scientif8c papers related to cv19 and the jabs)
- the ability to think critically
- the ability to ask good Qs of your own and then research As
I the case of cv19 and jabs .. it is a bonus to have been raised in a medical industry family environment. My Dad was a big pharma VP of marketing and my mom an RN. So unlike many, there are a lot of fundamental principles of medical ethics and virology that I've heard discusses at depth at the dinner table since I was 10. I was also present at social gatherings with Big Pharma execs throughout my childhood and got to hear them talk "off mic" about how they create markets for their products and arrange for clinical trials.
So nothing about the fact cv19 and the mRNA jabs ultimately turning out to be the biggest boondoggle cash grab of all time has surprised me in the least
It's highly doubtful Bret will keep his word. He just said that to try to make himself seem reasonable. He's not interested in the truth, nor trying to find the truth. He'll find some nonsensical reason to dismiss the three people explaining how he's not even wrong. Similar to how his bother reacted when his "theory of everything" was shown to be not even wrong. Besides, Bret admitting his conspiracy theories are wrong to his followers will result in a loss of income. He's not going to risk that. It's in his financial interests to keep spouting his anti-vaccine grift.
Interesting video. I learned more about how the vaccine functions that I was previously mostly ignorant about it.
You mean "his brother"? Not "his bother". So, BW has some brother who called him out on his BS of a ToE?
@@theultimatereductionist7592 Bret Weinstein has a brother, Eric, who has come with a ToE. It's not been very well received, one physicist noting that some of the predicted particles should already have been seen in the Large Hadron Collider if that ToE had some merit. and they haven't. He's also been rather reluctant to write his theory down, and when he finally did, it was filled with 'disclaimers'.
Maybe you should check out his new video.
@@Dan-xo9ly Unsettling Science - Rebutting the Experts
@@klondike444 expert who ? Bret the obviously stupid clown who targeted the weaker minds like yourself ?
well done. your handlers are so very proud 👍🏽
Dan, this is my favourite video from you ever. I await Bret's humble and measured response to this teachable moment 😉
Puh-lease, if they actually wanted to give Bret a teachable moment they would've invited him on to present their case to his face. That would be a better way to humiliate Bret then, right? But of course, all the coward vaxxers can do is make one-sided videos..
Don't hold your breath on that. He has to keep the grift going, it's his entire career at this point.
@@jschnabes13 Oh yeah, going against the vax narrative and being at risk of his content getting taken down and channel demonetized...that's a great business model. He grifting for sure 🙄
@@jschnabes13 Bret would destroy this midwit
The burden of proof is on you. The so-called refutations, don't even address the correct questions. I would put forth the notion let it highlights even more starkly the notion you all don't even know what the problem is.
I say this is in good faith, as if you'd watched the actual discussion, you would know these so-called answers aren't what was in question
Bret Weinstein just issued a video response & rebuttal to this.
It's not a rebuttal. It's rehashing incorrect stuff.
Weinstein will use any excuse to avoid admitting being wrong. My money's on the classic, 'I'm not going to respond to anything that refutes my position because of all the insults your side throws out, and that proves your side doesn't want to engage in the discourse'.
my money is on him ignoring this video, even though Michael Sheerer tweeted it to him, pretending it never happened and carrying on making the same claims
@@NonFlyiingDutchman
that's also a very likely scenario. There's none so blind as those who will not see....
Like he did to Sam Seder.
@@NonFlyiingDutchman watch the response that he made to this video.
ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
I enjoyed immensely! Thank you!
excellent work as usual exposing these clowns
Do these people think that they’re not constantly being bombarded with foreign immune triggers? Like do they think they live in a sterile environment generally? Why would the bacteria and viruses and allergens we encounter every day not also trigger this autoimmune problem if that is indeed what the trigger is? I can understand not wanting to be vaccinated when you’re in the middle of an autoimmune flare because you feel pretty miserable and you may not know for sure whether it is autoimmune or a real coming down with a cold or whatever.
I don’t think I live in a sterile environment… but I do think the environment is somewhat natural. And I believe humans have lived in natural environments for millennia.
@@Invitational2 - - Humans have died gruesome deaths from disease and suffered appalling maladies for millennia too!
Gee I wonder how humanity or anything else for that matter has managed to survive at all given all the demonic pathogens crawling/slithering/flying about???!!!
@@user-gk4jd1jv4k because of our immune systems , vaccines , antibiotics and few other measures .
Bret Weinstein successfully transitioned from serious intellectual to UA-cam grifter. Happy for him
Truth
@joel6427 Bret wants to make money now. It's sad to see him violate his own ethical principles but it's also not really surprising
According to psyop tools.. brainwashed fools. Brett has more integrity in his crap than you ever had in your entire life. You know this.. choose better
@@joel6427facts hurt for the ignorant
To quote Bob the Science Guy - "There's two types of flat earthers. The ones who believe, and the ones selling them T-shirts"
Edward Nirenberg’s final statement was epic. 🎤 💥 Thank you for creating this very helpful resource. 🙏🏼
Nirenberg is not an expert. Arrogant yes, expert, no.
What are Ed's credentials again? Doctor? Nope. Scientist? Nope? "Vaccine advocate"? Yep. Epic mic drop from the very helpful vaccine propagandist.
The reason a flood of biologists don’t come to correct you Bret, is because they’re out there doing real work, not grifting online.
By "you" I assume you mean "Bret Weinstein", right? Agreed
@@theultimatereductionist7592 Yeah. I’ll edit now to avoid confusion. Don’t want people to think I’m simping for Bret 😂
unlike the guy in this video then
ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
Two common sense reasons Bret is wrong:
* there are far more protein spikes from an infection
* autoimmune responses are against one's own cells - not a viral spike protein.
He would concede the first point, then say, "to the second point, the MRNA makes your cell look like it's another body's cell."
Is there evidence this is happening? No.
But his claim is clever because it's basically impossible to falsify. He is picking his words carefully, "I want to be *proven wrong.*" He is setting a bar for being debunked that is higher than the bar he is setting for evidence in favor of his own claim.
@@roberth9814 Very interesting point.
spike protein is dangerous so is the vaccine one, everytime you take the vac your body manuyfacture a toxic spike protein that makes harm in your tissues. People have been banned on the internet during two years for telling this while people like you laugh. ALso the spike of the vac enters directy on the blood in mass quantities, the infection enters into your nose or mouth, were the body prepare to try to mitigate the infection. Also the configuration of the vac spike is open, so much more dangerous to make endothelial damage than the virus one.
This spike can stay inside monocytes and exosomes for weeks, you when you make exercise they come to the inflamed area, for example the heart tissue, and break there and you got miocarditis. Same can happen in the brain or in other tissues.
Instead of be embarrassed for the biggest censorship of the human history and injecting millions of people toxins, this guys do ridiculous videos like this one while been wrong and censor for more than 2 years.
Your own cells are making the spike proteins. It is a problem when the body is attacking self. How long that lasts after mRNA treatment, no one knows, but could be long enough to cause harm.
If a sequence of amino acids of a protein that is part of the spike corresponds to the amino acid sequence of a body protein (molecular mimicry), then the immune system can turn against this body protein upon vaccination. We haven't sequenced everyone's DNA, so we cannot be sure that this hasn't happened.
Thank you for what you do. Keep on debunking!
I guess that the Nobel Committee didn't have the chance to be set straight by Bret Weinstein's expertise on immunology before they awarded the latest Prize in Physiology and Medicine
I was wondering the same thing. Why award the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for their 50 years long research into the basic technology behind the life-saving mRNA vaccines when the immunology novice, Bret Weinstein, has completely upstaged them in a single UA-cam interview.
Nobel prizes don't represent some arbitrator of absolute scientific truth. For example Einstein's Nobel prize on the photoelectric effect was a political concession where his work on General/Special relativity remained contentious and so they awarded it for something far more benign.
The monumentous work towards understanding immunology and genetic biochemistry was already widely respected, understood and iterated upon. The high quality science already had an overabundance of supporting data that had no need of a prize to lend weight. Additionally the Oxford vaccine and several others were entirely unrelated to mRNA approaches. Unfortunately the general public, particularly anti-vaxers have conflated COVID vaccines with mRNA.
While it feels righteous to use the Nobel Prize as a basis to ridicule anti-vaxxers, it is important to consider the "Nobel disease". The pseudoscience communities latch on to Nobel prize winners spouting egregious claims. They use the prize as an indisputable argument from authority, it holds just as much "proof" as the recent award.
I'm delightfully happy that hard working scientists who dedicated a substantial portion of their lives on this work are being properly recognised. But being awarded a prize has no bearing on modern peer-reviewed science and it even does them a disservice by labelling them the true experts with authority.
@@beardedchimp Isn't it true that the Oxford vaccine isn't being given to anybody any more. Do you know what was the reason for that? I'm genuinely triying to get opinoins from all sides.
@@user-ht6hd8iz1vNovaVax is a non-mRNA Covid vaccine that is authorized for use in the U.S.
@@beardedchimp
I think you might have chosen a better opportunity to vent your thoughts about the Nobel Prize than the occasion of the award of that prize to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman, but there we go.
I was just wondering when youd release a new video. Thanks!
Really interesting video. Weinstein is fascinatingly arrogant on many subjects and it's good to see someone (almost) directly tackle him.
Did you notice that the claim in this video of what Bret said, was not actually shown, because it was not what Bret said?
@@thankmelater1254I just rewatched the video and cannot find evidence of your claim. Your going to have to spell it out for me. I have my suspicions that your trolling, but we'll see from your response....
@@joelonsdale @0:15 right off the bat he lies to you by stating that Bret said if he was shown evidence and told by experts that he was wrong that it would be uncomfortable for him but he would change his mind.
Bret does not say that. This guy is a liar.
@@thankmelater1254 I just checked and he DOES say that... what are you hearing? Clearly state your case.
@@joelonsdale Where did you hear him say that? Time on this video.
People like Bret feed off the attention they get by saying outrageous and ignorant things.
If he said what basically almost every biologist actually knows and is saying, he’d be a nobody.
Yes, so sad that science, and even the most basic of common sense, appear to be too boring for many people.
Bret says outrageous things like what?....
The jabs are "safe and effective" ? 🤣
Feed off ad money and patreon payments.
Dealing risk for profit to the gullible is a business model.
Then they can and should say ORIGINAL and OUTRAGEOUS things, such as put all carnivores/anti-vegans, to death or in prisons for life. Say something that is actually JUSTIFIED.
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 demonetized, striked, and limited from recommended. It’s the best grift on earth :D
I predict that Bret will not keep his word.
Safe bet 😂
ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
Is like when flat earthers ask for evidence of the globe 🌎 they all instantly say Nu uh!
This channel is amazing. Thank you!
It’s used to pacify the sheep who can’t undo their terrible decision. So I guess it is kinda amazing to those people.
If following the evidence convinces people, then good! It keeps us in touch with reality.
No one should be against having a big and highly publicized panel-debate event on this subject !!! Six of the leading mRNA vaccine proponents against six of the leading mRNA vaccine skeptics. That would go a long way towards raising awareness, and the world would be better off for it. If you think a showdown of this sort is unnecessary, you are arrogantly kidding yourselves.
I find debates are rarely useful. Informed respectful
discussion is often helpful.
Oh, I’ve changed my opinion on having a publicized debate. Just let all the lawyers loose in courtrooms now. Let both sides present their evidence.
This video was excellent. Thank you. It is so full of important info, I wonder whether any of your viewers would be able to create captions for it? The auto-generated ones are unlikely to be sufficiently accurate. Again, thank you for this!
Commenting just to boost engagement
You can see his next move here , right?. "Those arent real experts" etc etc .
lol. Or just read the comments section. Oy. 🤦♂️
- these experts are captured / conflict of interest
- they claim to be experts but they overlook [objection bret just came up with that he has no evidence for]
- they don't understand how science is done (science is when you speculate on a podcast)
Nah he’ll probably say they didn’t definitively prove (even though it appears they did) and there’s still reasonable doubt(which I believe there isn’t )
Then he’ll get help from his pals like Robert Malone to cast some hazy doubts that’ll give the RFK jr types just enough fodder to continue to argue
@@dgilbert418 or worse, "do your own research"!!!
Meaning of course, Google it.
@@gbernardwandel4174 Good call. He can always summon up his own experts to boost his confidence. It would be a surprise if he did recant.
I love how Bret thinks he knows more than all the experts from around the world who dedicated their lives to this field. The ego.🤦🏽♂️
If you think Bret has a big ego, you should meet his brother Eric, who has single-handedly come up with a Theory of Everything. Sadly, he can't be bothered to write an article explaining it to other scientists.
And yet none of these experts around the world who dedicated their lives to this field would engage with him to prove him wrong? Crickets? Hahaha
@@winnmatthewswhy engage with a flat earther or someone who denies the existence of atoms?
@@sithwolf8017 As usual, trying to change the subject, yawn
@winnmatthews as usual run away from simple questions. Yawn 🥱
I've been vaxxed four times. Haven't died yet! I also got covid and had literally no symptoms.
You may be at the subclinical phase. As the side effects progress they may progress to the Clinical phase. That's when you might start noticing.
So you contracted a virus that you were supposedly "vaccinated" against? Good thing they literally changed the definition of that word so that it would still technically apply...
You should take at least 7 more boosters
@@edalmeida5989 I don't need to. I took them when they were recommended and now things have calmed down. I'm doing great and I'm not wasteful, just trying to do my part to save the vulnerable. I'm not selfish and paranoid; I try to foster logical thinking and strong community bonds.
Keep taking them boosters
comment for the algorithm. This is important work!
I dont see any addressing of the "stays in the deltoid"
The second speaker said 90% stays in the arm 10% is in liver. Even so for a few days only. hth
@@bobbyologun1517being the liver that would suggest it travels through the blood and all places that goes befor ending up in the liver. ? Maybe it isn't lack of needle aspiration that causing issues?
Bret Weinstien has responded to this video today
This is well considered, at the very least he should explain in response why he's not wrong. I doubt he has the integrity.
Weinstein never provided evidence as to why he was right in the first place, why would he bother to respond? That's how grifters work.
He responded. I wonder why so many of the comments here are just baseless ad hominem.
Unfortunately Bret is way too deep in sunk-cost fallacy, I can't see him backing down with how much his identity is wrapped up in this. I hope one day he'll be willing to let go of what he built, so that he can do the right thing and stop spreading mis-info. In the meantime, I appreciate that people such as yourself are making these videos. This info does help people who are genuine in trying to understand the vaccines!
Yeah, the bro was popping useless pills on camera.
Sorry, the three scientists are misrepresenting what Weinstein actually meant. He was obviously not referring to autoimmunity in the sense that the immune system targets your own antigens, but he was referring to autoimmunity in the sense that it targets the foreign spike antigen attached to your own tissues other than the shoulder muscles (where the injection takes place), since the spike protein does not remain in the shoulder but travels to and accumulates in other body tissues tissues. I am a professor for Geophysics, and I am quite shocked by these scientists' responses, who did not grasp this very simple argument Weinstein was making. Maybe among immunologists, the term "autoimmunity" really has the limited meaning these scientists put forward, but then they are making a semantic argument rather than a scientific one.
@@thomasjr8318 Out of over a thousand comments, I’m not sure why you chose my comment to defend Weinstein, (versus perhaps pointing this out to the creator of the video? I’m just a commenter, I don’t know any of these scientists personally, I feel like I won some kind of lottery, haha).
Let’s say you’re correct, they’re misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he’s saying. Bret did put a challenge out there, “If I am wrong about this…” If he’s making that challenge in good faith, he should respond to the three scientists who made a claim that he was incorrect. He claimed that there would be silence, but there was not silence.
I do hope he does respond, I really do. For me, as someone who once enjoyed Bret and his wife’s podcast, and as someone who found their early advice during the pandemic useful, I feel it would be concerning if he chose not to acknowledge that there are people who think he’s wrong.
@@ctygralight2262 I was merely replying to your comment because it appeared on top. But, yes, I agree with you, he should respond.
@@ctygralight2262 Bret released a video response to this a couple days ago, and it was actually a reply to another comment on this video that alerted me to it.
Greatest episode of Debunk the Funk!
How long have you been a member of the covidian cult?
Money comes to the popular contrarian. He’s at least this smart.
His youtube channel was demonetized for failing to parrot covid orthodoxy.
I love this episode! Great job to everybody for putting this together.
What's to love? Mainstream propaganda acting as if there is nothing to question when we're pushing mandates for a boogieman?
I always wanted to see the internet used in this point-counter point way. Thank you for setting this up. Having watched this and Weinstein's recent response, I will be amazed if you stay in the arena for another round. If you choose to slink silently away, I will understand completely.
Please step up.
Wow great work!
Great stuff!
Thanks for the video :)
I'm a normal guy. I'm not a biologist, virologist, epidemiologist, etc. It seems that some of the arguments here are over semantics/technicalities. Perhaps Bret is incorrect on the language he is using to describe what he's trying to illustrate. It seems to me that his argument is that some amount of this mrna or lipid nanoparticles will end up in places that were not intended and if so, may cause cells that come into contact with the aforementioned to be targeted and destroyed by one's own immune system. In the event that it is heart tissue cells that are targeted for destruction, there is less capacity to repair said tissue than something like a deltoid muscle, which is obviously a less important muscle. Is that not the crux of his argument?
@jshowao-rw1dh OK. I get that. Let me ask you a simple question so that I don't get tied up in the nomenclature. If a bit of rna gets delivered into a human cell, which causes that cell to start producing proteins that are otherwise not part of the normal operations, will that human cell be targeted by the body's immune system for destruction?
@@povertygarage705 yes it will, but this happens to a vastly greater extent with a viral infection. Your body has evolved over millions of years to be able to cope with this
@jshowao-rw1dh right. The spike protein is a given. We know that the body will attack that. I think what Bret is suggesting is that with an mRNA vaccine, the body's cells are being hijacked by the vaccine to produce foreign antibodies that will be targeted by the immune system, but this will ultimately cause the immune system to sacrifice what would have been normally functioning cells. With that said, "autoimmune" is technically the wrong word to apply here, but the point he's trying to make still seems valid. The vaccine is causing the destruction of what would otherwise have been normal healthy cells just like a virus would by way of the same mechanism. It's essentially an artificial virus. My understanding is that conventional vaccines don't do this as they are merely introducing dead antigens that the body can produce antibodies for. One could make the argument that covid19 is more dangerous than the potential side effects of the vaccine, but that's only if no age/health factor stratification is taken into consideration. Perhaps the vaccine is beneficial for a 76 year old diabetic, but the cost/benefit analysis may be upside down for a healthy 14 year old boy.
Love that last guy's explanation! Thanks again!
Very informative. Thanks!
I think that there may have to be an effort to *_show_* Bret this video. He will not see it otherwise. Those who will see it here, already know.
He'll see it ;)
He's seen it and responded today.
He's an absolute fool who is one of the greatest victims of audience capture of all time.
This is awesome thanks so much for your work!
Well here we are folks. Looking forward to the new comments.
My $0.02. If you read the comments below, Bret's critics never seem to acknowledge the huge number of world renowned experts he's spoken with over the years. Some of the most highly cited scientists in their fields. If they had ever watched these experts on Dark Horse they should have noticed that Bret seems to know almost as much as the experts.
The same goes for John Campbell. He's called out for being a lunatic and 'not a proper doctor', yet he cites endless evidence, he speaks to experts regularly and holds his own in every discussion.
In what field are Bret's "experts" supposed experts? He uses two non-experts in the field to supposedly rebut ACTUAL experts in immunology. And it took him six months to find such non-experts!
Speculation, like what Bret and John Campbell do, is not the same as medical drug testing, peer review and consensus. A theory may sound logical in and of itself but that does not hold the same weight as there being a preponderance of evidence for it. Further, if you are going to speculate (for your own edification only I hope and not to give medical advice like these people) You really need to be highly educated and informed in the fields in question to get it right. The trouble also is most of the public doesn't know enough about the science to see through the grifters or even those who are just inaccurate or flat out wrong because they are experts in other fields and not the one in question.
🎯
I want you to know that I found this video very informative and interesting. These were presented in a well organized way that I could follow and gave me a better look at how this vaccine works.
Bret is to medicine what Flat Earthers is to science, and will use the same response to any evidence against them: "Nah, ah, AAaahh".
Bret is a perfect case study for “audience capture”.
It looks to me that this Chanel is a perfect case study of “audience capture “ . You’re all guessing but your hubris gives you more conviction and a stubbornly egoic adamance that your guesses are best . Time will tell .
Great video. Thanks
It's a shame this won't get anywhere near as many views as Weinstein's narcissistic blathering.
Guess we have to spam the comments on his next Dark Horse podcast
It has now he's responded to it.
Thank you for this.
There are many people that this will help.
Thanks Dr. Wilson. I am really looking forward to Bret ceasing to comment on immunology and vaccinology.
What can you possibly say to anyone who thinks that an mRNA vaccine can cause more damage than the actual virus that can multiply by the millions in your body cells? How could anyone be so ignorant of basic science that they can't fathom the obvious. They rival flat earthers in science illiteracy.
Well that was a comprehensive slam dunk. I suspect Weinstein is a just another grifter, we shall see if he amends his position now. He uses the words but doesn't even understand the basics.
Spoken like a true sheep.
Bret Weinstein is a perfect example that just because you have a PhD in one subject, it does not make you an authority in any other field.
His has hardly published in his own field. His dissertation is pretty weak.
Have you read Dr Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
There have been paradigm shifters who had no qualifications within the field. To name a few,
the meteorologist John Dalton who created within the field of chemistry The Law of Multiple Proportions and Atomic Theory. The second is the geologist Charles Darwin with the Theory of Evolution coincidentally an other non-qualified person, Alfred Russel Wallace, independently conceived a similar theory too.
Other non-qualified paradigm-shifters include James Joule (physics - The First Law of Thermodynamics disproving Caloric Theory) Michael Faraday (physics - Faraday's Law of Induction, etc).
@@greamespens1460 And there are even more who have no qualifications--as well as those who have qualifications--who think that are paradigm shifters but are certainly not, and we just don't record them. Yes, there are 'maverick scientists' out there but that is the exception not the rule.
@@greamespens1460the comment you're responding to stated "PhD _doesn't imply_ experience in another field" so you cannot disprove it with counterexamples (mostly very old by the way).
Your counterexamples would disprove another statement: "a PhD makes you categorically and hopelessly ignorant in any other field"😊
Keep up the great work my dude. Has he responded to this debunking?
Just did and he reasonably explained why it was not in fact a "debunking."
With a great 2:39 video shredding this little 20 minutes.
When Bret was first on my radar was when he had those videos about the student protests at his university, and the thing that I thought was a bit off with that whole story was the way that the students involved in the protest were nowhere to be seen. No one was trying to find out what they had to say, not even to talk about their supposed shameful behaviour, and the video just seemed way too carefully edited. Fast forward a year, and I randomly wondered about it so I looked around online and found some articles telling the student's side of the story, and lo and behold, a bunch of stuff he said were either lies or obfuscated the truth in substantial ways. Basically, always look for both sides of a story, folks.
Flood of Biologists + 1 here: Everything he said about a foreign antigen causing autoimmunity is absurd
It's literally right there in the name. Auro means self. Foreign means not self. So the body mounting a response to foreign antigens is not autoimmunity.
Bret looks like he's going full guru, which certainly appeals to his audience.
hm i wonder if there was some podcast that set out to decrypt (maybe some synonym is needed here) these 'guru' figures?
That was a cracker! Excellent. Thank you.
ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
Thank you for the informative video
Please let us know if he responds to this
Fabulous video!
This was so very helpful. Thank you Dr. Wilson.
Amazing! This is about 2 years late, but I'm very happy to hear these responses
Can't wait for Bret Weinstein's follow up video lol
Bret’s response: www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5vaooui2r15zayv1kl2ye/2024-3-23-Dan-Wilson-Response-Slide-Deck.pdf?rlkey=3t5uizv3e0gep2q3vydouwtl7&dl=0
He just released it on his Darkhorse Podcast.
ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
Thank you, sir for sharing this important knowledge. - I hope, Weinstein and the likes, including the infamous John Campbell, will watch this and all your other videos.
@@sallybrookner4158he’ll delete any link just as he deletes any detractors
@@sallybrookner4158 The obvious thing to do, however, having tried multiple times in vain, I’ve noticed, that all conspiracy theorists I have come across, block comments with links. They want to keep on earning money with their trash opinions; and unfortunately, it is trash opinions which attracts viewers.
Maybe other channels that aren’t his, but where he debates? I don’t know. I tried a couple. Trying to figure out how UA-cam comments work with regard to links.
@@mikkibubble4711
What is the conspiracy.
Calling a mRNA gene delivery system a vaccine is far more disinformation than anything anyone has said so far.
There is no vaccine anyone has ever taken that infects your cells
A++ presentation!
Theoretically,If liposoms with mRNA blood spread and melt with miocardial sarcolema and induce Spike,inflamation can theoretically occur even at that level.
Perfect .Thank you
Thanks 🙏
The experts would have to dumb it down a lot for Bret to understand that he was wrong.
Yawn, put him on a debate with these bozos and let's see, quit making excuses
@@winnmatthews
@@williamverhoef4349
@@winnmatthews Bret is the one who won't engage with anyone critical - remind me how many voices critical of him he's had on his podcast?
@@PhilosophyLines I don't follow his podcast. The topic here is Wilson trying to call out Bret. Has Wilson invited Bret to this channel??
Mathematically savvy people will have noticed that this is an unfeasible amount of comments, the bots are becoming more sophisticated, interesting
Did he ever respond? Also great work!
Though I didn't understand all the details of the science discussed, I certainly understood the comclusion. 😅
He’ll just dismiss all this as a personal attack and sure up his crowds victim complex.
No, he made a very good rebuttal video ua-cam.com/video/UJnK9o0GS6s/v-deo.htmlsi=VHdQO113cWrF83tp
Thank you
Thank you 😊
Thanks mate
I’m slightly disappointed with the first speaker showing the graphs of relative risk of myocarditis. It only showed the risk of myocarditis from C 19 if hospitalised; I’d like to have seen the overall risk as well, whether hospitalised or not.
Could this help?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9467278/
How would you end up diagnosed and confirmed to have myocarditis if you were not hospitalized? How would they know how many people that had minor cases that were never treated or hospitalized?
New Zealand can probably answer that. We have almost entirely used Cominaty - 99.997%. We recorded 4 people lost, and 172 cases of "cardiac injury".* 974 cases of Myo/pericarditis were recorded within 28 days of a shot. The expected/background rate is 914 per year.
4,032,039 people,12,666,524 doses. The risk is between 12,666,524/172 = .0000136* (.00136%) and 4,032,039/974 = .000415 (.0415%)
* As well as a unitary health system, where everyone has a unique identifier, NZ has a no fault insurance provider covering any type of injury. The 172 number comes from their July 2023 update, detailing all CV claims.
You say as if facts matter to you . Just google myocarditis from COVID and you will come several large studies that clearly show myocarditis is 8 to 16 times more common with COVID .
@@Muritaipet so taking that approximation as read, that works out to around 24 per 100,000 people experience myo/pericarditis.
And 4.2 out of 100,000 people who were vaccinated experience cardiac injury.
Haven't watched yet, but there's zero chance Bret keeps his word.
Brett Weinstein has failed as an educator
Guess Bret would be better off at this stage if he had recieved all 9 of his "covid" boosters? Lol
@@RabJ208 Keep munching the horse paste, dingus.
@@RabJ208🙄
@@christopherhamilton3621, maybe 10? Lol
@@RabJ208he probably has them, stop being so gullible
Nice video!
Who the F is Bret Weinstein and why should anyone care about Bret's opinion on anything?
You guys seem well-positioned to give hints as I try to research and understand my PASC! What happened (is happening) to me and what do we do now? My first (severe, known) infection was likely delta breakthrough some 5 months after my first booster. I was given Paxlovid as well as a 3rd booster while still symptomatic. That was 18 months ago.
The dominant symptom is impaired/slow recovery from exercise. My sense is that I now require 2.5x recovery time. Recovery seems greatly improved by supplementation with l-arginine and liposomal vitamin C. Next prominent is somnolence. Typically, after a full night's sleep the onset of somnolence is some 8 hours after rousing. I suspect this symptom is also due to impaired recovery. Thirdly I have developed an intense dose-dependent generalized neurological response to ingesting glutamate, apparently. As glutamate should not cross the blood brain barrier this reaction seems to indicate damage to the BBB. Or coincidence. Or noisy data. Because the effect is so intense, and because the effect can be masked by the 2 more dominant symptoms, data about this neurological disruption are difficult to gather.
I seem to be blessed to live in interesting times. 😅
Thank you for this video! I have no expertise in this subject whatsoever, but I'd like to ask if there is anything true to the vaccine causing vaginal bleeding? Thank you.
there are peer reviewed papers in reputable journals such as the Lancet on this subject
It's better to inject it into the arm.
Lot's of reasons and a diverse range of injuries cause by the "covid" jabs. Unfortunately when we express concerns on the their safety - we get vilified and branded with silly names.
Apparently one is an "anti-vaxxer" if they refuse to take of express concerns about the "covid" jab even if they recieve and encourage people to take traditional vaccines like the flu jab for instance.
I wonder if one becomes "anti-cars" when they refuse to drive of express concerns about a vehicle like a Chevrolet even if they drive or encourage others to drive Japanese models like the Toyota which are much safer and more reliable.
I drive a good solid Toyota and often express concerns about other vehicles deemed as unreliable - the Chevrolet Bolt EUV for example I'd advise to steer clear of. So.......am I "anti-cars" ?
So far the evidence is very poor, not an issue.
@@christopherrobinson7541, what advese event data base are you reading to imply the evidence is poor? Lol
[Insert Slow Clap GIF from Citizen Kane]
The jabs are "safe and effective"
[Insert a slow motioned wrinkled forehead GIF for that quote] 🤣
@@RabJ208 Hi Rabby Jabby, how are things in the rabbit hole.
@@williamverhoef4349, I'm on jab number 4 Willy. I'm a changed man. Lol
@@RabJ973
"I'm a changed man."
My apologies. I didn't know you were a trans woman. I'm a defender of people from minority groups.
@@williamverhoef4349, woke Willy? Lol