Last week Tucker Carlson interviewed evolutionary biologist, Dr. Bret Weinstein. In just under an hour Weinstein told the audience the real story about what has happened over the last four years.
I’m still concerned about the huge issues which were left off the table here.
Notably that the spring 2020 data, especially when N Italy and NYC (chief players in the global pandemic drama) are forensically examined, are incompatible with sudden spread of a novel deadly pathogen.
Looking in depth at this data it is obvious there was no “deadly pandemic”, it was essentially staged.
Whether people could work that out then is moot.
But it’s obvious now.
Whilst I can tolerate some people just not getting it, I’m increasingly concerned about the many who appear to refuse to even look at the narrative surrounding the events of early 2020 with a critical eye.
Yes, the story that Weinstein told is a big step closer to the truth than the story we get in the newspapers. But it is not the big picture, the deep truth. The forces behind the COVID deception were not Big Pharma. They were bigger, badder players on the global stage that exploited the cupidity of Big Pharma for their own purposes. The larger purpose of the plandemic is still being revealed.
Read " Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations" by Joseph P. Farrell. Bear with it, his precepts go to the extremes, but the reasoning is thought provoking and within the realms of possibilities, especially with what is coming to light these days
I understand your frustration but you can’t bring people to consciousness by hitting them over the head with a hammer. Baby steps. There’s a mountain of clear evidence even the most reluctant people can’t dispute before we ask them to accept concepts like depopulation or bioterrorism.
You are right. I just want the baby step of them acknowledging that WE WERE LIED TO. Once you are fully aware of that, the rest comes fairly easily. It did with me.
Please read my book when it comes out, in a few weeks, Jonathan. It covers what happened in terms of the major milestones reached in our knowledge of the disease on one hand and of what was done to us on the other. A description of what happened in N. Italy and NYC is included. Yes. Both were staged but not in the classic sense. Instead in the sense that protocols were put in place by the perpetrators (primarily hospital administrators acting at the behest of the government) who wanted to create the impression that a deadly pandemic was in progress. The reasons for this were many and hard to prove but very easy to speculate about. Until we can prove what the motivations really were, we can only speculate.
There is also an entire section listing who did what, both good and bad.
You answered your question, perhaps inadvertently, Jon. In the classic sense, a staged event would have people appearing to die but not dying (as in a stage play). This was different because people were killed by the protocols instituted- alot based on recommendations coming out of China, such as for ventilator use. What was "staged" was the effort to attribute the deaths to deadly pathogen (that didn't exist). In New York, the staging was even more blatant. They gave the impression that , i.e. "staged", hospitals were being overwhelmed when the truth was, there was no overflow at all. Proof: The White Mercy ships brought to New York Harbor, to handle the overflow treated no one and turned around and left after 2 weeks..
"But what about the refrigerated trucks filled with dead bodies??" Those were iatrogenic deaths from ill-advised ventilator use. They weren't due to Covid.
The presentation of real events was staged in a way to mislead, not merely misappropriated. It was so clever, it's hard to explain. I hope I did an adequate job.
However, notwithstanding that no doubt people were killed through inappropriate treatment, I’m still of the view that - absent proof - the numbers of deaths which it is claimed happened in NYC didn’t happen.
You are absolutely correct. They (Johns Hopkins University, CNN, the CDC, the US government, etc.) wildly exaggerated the deaths counted by Covid I've written extensively about that. Take a read of this post of mine. Dr. Malone reposted it which increased its exposure 10-fold: https://drreidsheftall.substack.com/p/how-many-people-died-in-the-us-during
It is an excerpt from my book and very representative of my approach of the overall . I'd like to know what you think of it.
I agree. I am unable to view the data, studies, etc that I have. They have closed their minds. Do you have the data on N Italy and NYC? I have not seen that. When I saw those videos on mainstream regarding N Italy, I was shocked. However, rather than taking more info from the traditional channels, I started searching for other info right away. What a debacle and serious situation the world is in now.
Good one, Madhava! Like you I couldn't stand to listen/watch Tucker Carlson some years ago. Isn't it funny that now he conducts must see interviews. He really lets Weinstein speak. Think of a main stream DC based news program with its daffy, and way overpaid, talking heads asking questions to someone that must lead to a "gotcha". There is no conversation there, no trying to let someone speak and share some cogent thoughts. Tucker might now have the most valuable current events interview/discussion show. It might be where you have to be in order to be up to date and informed. Even for a coastal liberal elite. Everyone should give Tucker a break! He has a great explosive giggle/laugh. And he is a former alcoholic who chugs Perrier and wears loafers with no sock. My New Years wish is that Tucker Carlson's show becomes a staple of a wide swarth of Americans. That he rises to respected prominence for his sensible interviews. Of course, this would mean the Americans began to question things a bit more, and that is my biggest hope!
The more you know about Tucker the more you like him. He admits his failings & when he’s gotten something wrong. He keeps his ego in check & is actually kind of a dork. But I like dorks. The people that can’t stand Tucker have never given him a chance & watched him. Case in point, I offer to watch/listen to any show of my families or friends for 2 weeks if they will watch Tucker for the same & they all refuse. I have to wonder what they’re afraid of - leaving the cool kids table??
Thank you for amplifying the interview’s importance and highlighting some of Weinstein’s points. It was excellent. The dream team is growing as more voices share and support each other’s findings and then persist in getting the truth out there to the public. I see more and more people gravitating toward independent media.
Yes, the Weinstein-Carlson interview contains a coherent story based on truth. It is powerful for those of us who are already open to that truth. But I think the mainstream of the liberal intelligentsia is holding out as a bloc.
Hitler and Orwell both realized the power of the "Big Lie". If a lie is audacious enough, people are reluctant to believe that anyone could get away with a lie so big.
I shared the Weinstein podcast with a friend who is intelligent, rational, and part of the mainstream. He was kind enough to hear Weinstein out, but concluded, "these are powerful statements but don’t make any sense in my world."
I know where he's coming from. I went through a transition that was deeply disorienting when I realized that the NYTimes and NPR and The Nation and CNN were all telling lies, the SAME LIES, in concert. In my case, I had the context of an immediate personal experience that made this hard to deny. Still, I resisted this information because I didn't know how to absorb it. Where was I to turn? How was I to know what is true?
We humans are tribal and we organize our lives around the tribe's founding mythologies. For the first 55 years of my life, my tribal mythologies came from the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party and from the Science Establishment, and I was encouraged that almost always, these two sources agreed.
We in the resistance movement have lost our tribe. We are seeking to congeal into a new tribe. We need each other as much as we need our skepticism. Eisenstein says we are in the Space Between Stories. It is our burden and our privilege to create a new foundational mythology.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party are the most entrenched in their position because the non scientists in that group trust institutional science. And Most institutional scientists are also liberal dems. Because institutional science is the perpetuator of the disinformation their tribe will be the last to realize it. It’s a small miracle that I escaped myself.
"I went through a transition that was deeply disorienting when I realized that the NYTimes and NPR and The Nation and CNN were all telling lies, the SAME LIES, in concert. In my case, I had the context of an immediate personal experience that made this hard to deny."
Well said. I'm coming to the conclusion that many people have had a similar experience these past 4 years, that their Gell-Mann Amnesia may finally be cured.
Well said Madhava. I just finished a post about why it is so hard for the healthcare workers still in the system to engage with this kind of information. I too am hopeful that this particular interview reaches a broader audience than previously, and it does feel like the time is right for that.
This is the most cogent and reasonable explanation of the dissident position I have heard to date. A masterpiece. With mercifully few words from Tucker! I agree that Bret did us all a huge service with this even handed, exquisitely articulated interview.
I believe that this article contains such solid information (along with that terrific interview from Tucker Carlson) that I'm sharing it as widely as I can. I will also be 'testing the waters' with those who still cling to their covidian beliefs. If they express an openness to alternative information, I'll share it with them as well. They may not watch the video, but the article itself might open minds.
Excellent synopsis of the past 3 years! Yes, I saw all those podcasts - glad I kept searching for people that were questioning from the get go. From March 2020, I knew the whole narrative had leaks - including the jabs. I'm a semi retired government professor - knew very little about ingredients in vaccines etc. What a wake up call. My friends - in the so called vulnerable group - lined up right away for the shot. They could not believe I would not just go do what was told. Since then, my friendships seem pointless to me with those people. They just take in the traditional media's patter and have forgotten how to think for themselves. Our world is in trouble.
I finally had time to watch this about a week ago and now have time to write about it. I disagree with Dr. Setty that is was masterful. Bret is a very eloquent speaker and it all sounds good when he speaks but there is so much incorrect stuff in it that detracts from the message he should have conveyed, I would give him a "gentleman's C" when he probably deserves a 'D'.
A lot of the problem stems from his omissions. It's hard to have any medical perspective when you're not a doctor. He praised the technology over and over and said all they're going to have to do is switch out the code for what protein you make, confirm that it isn't toxic, and everything will be fine. OK , with the same lipid nanoparticles? They are proven toxic. Does he think making a bunch more insulin will cure diabetes? He'd better know why there is a profound lack of it now. Was it auto-immune destruction? Then he named nurse educator John Campbell as an excellent choice to predict the total number deaths from the vaccine!
You also have to wonder why Tucker invited Bret, who was completely fooled by this from the get-go. He endorsed masks, gave the strongest endorsement of lockdowns on the internet and endorsed getting the vaccine until he realized it had serious safety issues..
Bret was a biology teacher before this started who got involved in a woke student riot at an obscure college and threatened during the riot so he took a settlement from the college and resigned. Next thing you know, he's on Rogan multiple times pushing for idiotic policies.(In June, 2020, he told Rogan Covid would be over If we had used a more intense lockdown). Then, he gets invited to Covid Summits all over the world to give speeches and be on expert panels. Now Tucker gives him a long form interview summing up what happened for everyone. Imagine that. A a non-medical person who was wrong on everything being invited on the most coveted platforms- Bill Maher too- to inform the public about this disease!
I do not disagree with you about how Bret was wrong about many things.
I also share your frustration around how people with large followings do not platform those who have a much better grasp of the situation.
The reality is that the value of a person's voice is not defined by merit but more often by how many followers they have to begin with. This leaves little opportunity for those of us who have been far more accurate and far more earlier. I put you in that category. It's unfortunate (and that is a wild understatement), but that is the nature of how things are playing out.
If Tucker did super long interviews giving the guest the opportunity to dissect data sets, put up graphs, cite headlines that were wildly false, etc. you would have been a much better guest. However Tucker's audience, for the most part, is not ready for all that. He's a journalist and journalists seek to tell a story that is the most impactful for the greatest number of people.
That being the case, Bret told a convincing story to those who are just starting to open their eyes for the first time. His message resonated with those who have been fooled because he had been fooled too. It's often much better to hear from someone like that and not from someone who was never duped to begin with.
Waking up from this collectively is going to happen incrementally. There are only a few people on the leading edge of this movement, but there are tens of millions who are starting to understand that there is a whole lot of evidence that proves that we were lied to by the people that were trusted the most. That's the biggest step. Getting twenty million people to realize that is an enormous accomplishment no matter how obvious the evidence is.
The reason why I thought Bret did a masterful job was because he was convincing and he didn't go too far. He made a great case for why we should have known that the public was being lied to from the very beginning. My point being, he used this opportunity to speak to a very big audience in a way that would plant seeds. Ultimately we each, as individuals, need to decide for ourselves what to believe. In order to change one's mind one has to be curious. You certainly can't force someone to be curious. You can only guide someone to the door. They will have to open it for themselves.
Let's say that that interview reaches 10 million people. Let's further say that half of them start to scratch their heads about what is going on. If only 1% of those find their way to your conversations with Harvey Risch or Jay Bhattacharya, your audience will have grown by 50,000 people. That's a pretty good start.
That was a very good explanation and I know you're right. The same thing happened with Dr. Kory who was absolutely 100% wrong on everything - really, you couldn't imagine a better supporter of the Narrative- but somehow finagled himself to be seen as part of the resistance; not just 'a part', an important enough part to be invited to give speeches at meeting after meeting, sit on roundtables, sell books, etc. all while endorsing masks, lockdowns, testing, tracing, ventilators with midazolam in the ICU patients he treated, generally exaggerating the severity of the nothing burger this thing was, etc.. It kind of reminds me of how Dr. Jha or even Dr. B got treated as the go-to source of everything Covid when they didn't have it right- especially Jha. God, he was wrong on everything. Jha pushing the poison concoction in 6 month old babies was the last straw for me.. For a while there it got so ridiculous, roundtables were made up of Kory, Weinstein, Geert Vanden Bosche, and Astrid Stuckelleberger with Dr. Malone there keeping the reins tight on everyone.
Even information vital to the survival of a nation gets delivered subject to the principles of commercialism and it's not crass. It's done that way because it's more effective as you clearly explain (but it does make more money for the production which is more important to them as the creators of this platform and that's fine too.). I get it Maybe next time he will get someone like me or Yeadon or you to pour over his speech with him before he delivers it. When he kept saying 'transcribed' in place of 'translated' at the beginning, I started sweating. After a few more boners, I caught myself holding my breath to help him get through it.
They pulled it off this time but they're not going to be able to nail the real power behind all this without the next group of specialists and I'm not in that group, unfortunately because I don't know how it all works in government and politics. My specialty was the physics and medical basic science that helped me call the "experts" out on everything they tried to get by everyone. No, for the next step, we need Spartacus, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, and a few others with some help from the "Where are the Numbers?" team to take the baton from the STEMs as Sage Hana calls us. I only know Spartacus. He's definitely up to the task. Thank you, Madhava.
It is imperative that all the most intelligently persuasive commentators on the 'bad Covidvaxxes' understand that they are, most often, merely preaching to the choir of their like-minded audience.
Being somewhat physically disabled, I read hundreds of pages of internet information and disinformation most days of the week....
...And, it frustrates me no end to see how little progress is actually being made in convincing 'narrative followers' that they're being lied to.
And believe me, I also know this from experience:
For the first year after the 'covidvaxxes' were rolled out, I was in a constant battle to bring my (not unintelligent) husband on board the truth train! Honestly, I would no sooner start to make some progress, when he'd come in from running errands with the radio tuned to NPR, and I'd have to start all over again!!
It was not until I showed him the evidence (through irrefutable historical sources) that we were being lied to about the war in Ukraine, that my husband was even willing to concede that, in fact, the U.S. government 'could' be lying about 'any given thing' including the covid 'story' and nonvaccines.
This is a Substack article I would love to have 'in my belt' to share with the 'pro-covidvaxxers' in my life....
Unfortunately - in regards Peter Hotez and your point here:
"Only the most conniving Covidians could find a way to rationalize why Hotez should eschew an opportunity to flatten the despised misinformation spreader in front of millions of voters without implying that the public was too stupid to know right from wrong:"
Your link to the Substack "Your Local Epidemiologist" is only going to backfire. Here's the thing:
People like my sister-in-law and her husband (in most respects, highly intelligent people) are absolutely desperate to keep believing that they made the right decision for themselves & their family, so if I send this article, they will read it right up to the point of your link, click on it, and never even come back to your article....Here's why:
Anyone in the state of 'desperation to believe' the narrative is going to be very easily persuaded to agree with everything the "Local Epidemiologists" have written there - because, they do lay out their 'case' in a logical, rational, & seemingly 'factual' way, which "desperation" will make utterly persuasive.
Thus, the people we most need to persuade otherwise, not only won't find that Substack link affirming of your point about "conniving Covidians", but will actually latch onto it as confirmation of their "desperate" beliefs that Peter Hotez is the 'go to' guy for true info.
Hotez's videos & Substack are the ones my sister-in-law replies to our emails with on a point for point basis, which basically closes the argument, until 'next time' we think we've got a winning case maker.
I really hope you see this, because your arguments are vitally on target, unfortunately this isn't the first time I've seen you self-sabotage your excellent thinking...
To that "first time", I'll just say:
You 'had your fellow MIT alumni' with your thorough 'bad Covidvax' reasoning...
....so that was simply not the time to bring up the 911 stuff. You'd have gotten some excellent minds on 'our' side, if you had just held back from talking 'any' other 'supposed conspiracy' until they were fully onboard (thru the furthering of their own research, which you 'had them' on the point of pursuing).
Sorry about all the ellipses, I'm no writer, I can only write the way I talk.
Thank you for the feedback. I do believe that if someone refers to Hotez as the ultimate authority on vaccines there's probably no reaching them with any argument, evidentiary or not. That being said, sharing the Weinstein interview and not this post might work.
Your point about self-sabotaging is something I certainly have considered many times. It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, it can backfire like it did with my MIT classmates. On the other hand sometimes people need to be shown a better example of how they have been misled.
Personally I feel that the 9/11 deception is obvious, certainly more obvious than the pandemic misinformation coming from the CDC. You don't have to understand biases in data, confounders in observational studies, gain of function, vaccine efficacy, etc. If watching those buildings disintegrating in front of your eyes doesn't raise any questions there's probably little chance that you will see that we were lied to about Covid from the beginning.
Bringing up 9/11 at my reunion was a calculated risk. I assumed that as engineers they would have a better grasp of basic kinematics, conservation of energy and laws of motion than the average person. It didn't help, obviously. Their understanding of engineering might be solid, but not as solid as their position that they could never be fooled about something so big.
Nevertheless, I appreciate what you have offered here. Thank you.
Thanks for referring me to the Carlson/Weinstein interview. And I appreciate your defense of Hotez's declining debate -- and your elucidation of the problems of any public scientific debate. For sure, I had been one of those on the playground yelling: "Chicken!"
Weinstein's reference to the deliberate abandonment of normal IM injection technique in the interest of reducing vaxcine hesitancy was priceless, especially in its coming from a non-clinician.
I had observed this peculiarity in every video clip of the shot's administration, corroborated by a friend who -- in giving hundreds of shots while on light duty from an injury -- admitted that the RN's had, in fact, been instructed not to draw back on the syringe. This surely accounts for disparity of effect, even in the same batch of vials. But until this interview, I had not heard mention of it. I recall a reference in the publication by D4CE "mRNA Vacxine Toxicity" to accidental IV administration with normal IM precautions occurring at a rate of something between one and two percent.
Be nice to Tucker -- his elocution has much improved; if his laughter is still a shrill cackle, at least it appears genuine and occurs infrequently. His furrowed taciturnity is not unique to this presentation, and this habit has served to let others tell their story as well.
It was an excellent interview. Those who wish to be open minded will hear it. The closed minded leftists will never ever consider the fact that they were lied to and that their lives are the ones being lost due to this sick desire to lower the population growth without getting caught doing it.
I know Covidians who would refuse to consider this essay or any of the points raised therein. Maybe I'm too cynical, so I'll try to repost the article to see whether I am in fact wrong.
I may be misinterpreting whether Covidian refers to someone who buys in--a fellow Chicken Littler--or someone who recognizes the false panic, and rejects the lies of the government and Pharma.
I’m still concerned about the huge issues which were left off the table here.
Notably that the spring 2020 data, especially when N Italy and NYC (chief players in the global pandemic drama) are forensically examined, are incompatible with sudden spread of a novel deadly pathogen.
Looking in depth at this data it is obvious there was no “deadly pandemic”, it was essentially staged.
Whether people could work that out then is moot.
But it’s obvious now.
Whilst I can tolerate some people just not getting it, I’m increasingly concerned about the many who appear to refuse to even look at the narrative surrounding the events of early 2020 with a critical eye.
Yes, the story that Weinstein told is a big step closer to the truth than the story we get in the newspapers. But it is not the big picture, the deep truth. The forces behind the COVID deception were not Big Pharma. They were bigger, badder players on the global stage that exploited the cupidity of Big Pharma for their own purposes. The larger purpose of the plandemic is still being revealed.
Read " Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations" by Joseph P. Farrell. Bear with it, his precepts go to the extremes, but the reasoning is thought provoking and within the realms of possibilities, especially with what is coming to light these days
Thank you, Doug -- I'm looking into Farrell.
I understand your frustration but you can’t bring people to consciousness by hitting them over the head with a hammer. Baby steps. There’s a mountain of clear evidence even the most reluctant people can’t dispute before we ask them to accept concepts like depopulation or bioterrorism.
You are right. I just want the baby step of them acknowledging that WE WERE LIED TO. Once you are fully aware of that, the rest comes fairly easily. It did with me.
Please read my book when it comes out, in a few weeks, Jonathan. It covers what happened in terms of the major milestones reached in our knowledge of the disease on one hand and of what was done to us on the other. A description of what happened in N. Italy and NYC is included. Yes. Both were staged but not in the classic sense. Instead in the sense that protocols were put in place by the perpetrators (primarily hospital administrators acting at the behest of the government) who wanted to create the impression that a deadly pandemic was in progress. The reasons for this were many and hard to prove but very easy to speculate about. Until we can prove what the motivations really were, we can only speculate.
There is also an entire section listing who did what, both good and bad.
Please read and share it when it comes out.
Thank you.
Isn’t creating “the impression that a deadly pandemic was in progress” staging?
(That’s what I meant by the term. Not that nobody died.)
You answered your question, perhaps inadvertently, Jon. In the classic sense, a staged event would have people appearing to die but not dying (as in a stage play). This was different because people were killed by the protocols instituted- alot based on recommendations coming out of China, such as for ventilator use. What was "staged" was the effort to attribute the deaths to deadly pathogen (that didn't exist). In New York, the staging was even more blatant. They gave the impression that , i.e. "staged", hospitals were being overwhelmed when the truth was, there was no overflow at all. Proof: The White Mercy ships brought to New York Harbor, to handle the overflow treated no one and turned around and left after 2 weeks..
"But what about the refrigerated trucks filled with dead bodies??" Those were iatrogenic deaths from ill-advised ventilator use. They weren't due to Covid.
The presentation of real events was staged in a way to mislead, not merely misappropriated. It was so clever, it's hard to explain. I hope I did an adequate job.
It’s why I used the word “essentially”
However, notwithstanding that no doubt people were killed through inappropriate treatment, I’m still of the view that - absent proof - the numbers of deaths which it is claimed happened in NYC didn’t happen.
https://pandauncut.substack.com/p/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any
You are absolutely correct. They (Johns Hopkins University, CNN, the CDC, the US government, etc.) wildly exaggerated the deaths counted by Covid I've written extensively about that. Take a read of this post of mine. Dr. Malone reposted it which increased its exposure 10-fold: https://drreidsheftall.substack.com/p/how-many-people-died-in-the-us-during
It is an excerpt from my book and very representative of my approach of the overall . I'd like to know what you think of it.
I agree. I am unable to view the data, studies, etc that I have. They have closed their minds. Do you have the data on N Italy and NYC? I have not seen that. When I saw those videos on mainstream regarding N Italy, I was shocked. However, rather than taking more info from the traditional channels, I started searching for other info right away. What a debacle and serious situation the world is in now.
Suggest reading my 2 pieces here on N Italy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/the-lombardy-analysis
https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/were-the-unprecedented-excess-deaths
On NYC (written with others):
https://open.substack.com/pub/pandauncut/p/does-new-york-city-2020-make-any
Podcast by Naomi Wolf with me and Jessica Hockett:
https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/we-think-the-nyc-2020-death-all-cause
Thank you!! Will be doing that shortly
I am replying to my own comment! I meant I am unable to review the data I have with them.
I find myself caught between laughing and crying most days. Between tears, this--however tragic in truth--made me laugh:
"Hotez wanted the public to understand that questions are not a part of science. Hotez would know. He’s a scientist, and he doesn’t have any."
I couldn't have said it better! I'm new to your writing; glad I found your stack!
dry wit is always stylish
Good one, Madhava! Like you I couldn't stand to listen/watch Tucker Carlson some years ago. Isn't it funny that now he conducts must see interviews. He really lets Weinstein speak. Think of a main stream DC based news program with its daffy, and way overpaid, talking heads asking questions to someone that must lead to a "gotcha". There is no conversation there, no trying to let someone speak and share some cogent thoughts. Tucker might now have the most valuable current events interview/discussion show. It might be where you have to be in order to be up to date and informed. Even for a coastal liberal elite. Everyone should give Tucker a break! He has a great explosive giggle/laugh. And he is a former alcoholic who chugs Perrier and wears loafers with no sock. My New Years wish is that Tucker Carlson's show becomes a staple of a wide swarth of Americans. That he rises to respected prominence for his sensible interviews. Of course, this would mean the Americans began to question things a bit more, and that is my biggest hope!
Right there with you Sam
The more you know about Tucker the more you like him. He admits his failings & when he’s gotten something wrong. He keeps his ego in check & is actually kind of a dork. But I like dorks. The people that can’t stand Tucker have never given him a chance & watched him. Case in point, I offer to watch/listen to any show of my families or friends for 2 weeks if they will watch Tucker for the same & they all refuse. I have to wonder what they’re afraid of - leaving the cool kids table??
Brene Brown--the hypocrite--is all about lunch table segregation, so I think you hit the nail on the head. 🙄
We should all find occasion to use ‘daffy’ in our conversation more often!
Thank you for amplifying the interview’s importance and highlighting some of Weinstein’s points. It was excellent. The dream team is growing as more voices share and support each other’s findings and then persist in getting the truth out there to the public. I see more and more people gravitating toward independent media.
Yes, the Weinstein-Carlson interview contains a coherent story based on truth. It is powerful for those of us who are already open to that truth. But I think the mainstream of the liberal intelligentsia is holding out as a bloc.
Hitler and Orwell both realized the power of the "Big Lie". If a lie is audacious enough, people are reluctant to believe that anyone could get away with a lie so big.
I shared the Weinstein podcast with a friend who is intelligent, rational, and part of the mainstream. He was kind enough to hear Weinstein out, but concluded, "these are powerful statements but don’t make any sense in my world."
I know where he's coming from. I went through a transition that was deeply disorienting when I realized that the NYTimes and NPR and The Nation and CNN were all telling lies, the SAME LIES, in concert. In my case, I had the context of an immediate personal experience that made this hard to deny. Still, I resisted this information because I didn't know how to absorb it. Where was I to turn? How was I to know what is true?
We humans are tribal and we organize our lives around the tribe's founding mythologies. For the first 55 years of my life, my tribal mythologies came from the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party and from the Science Establishment, and I was encouraged that almost always, these two sources agreed.
We in the resistance movement have lost our tribe. We are seeking to congeal into a new tribe. We need each other as much as we need our skepticism. Eisenstein says we are in the Space Between Stories. It is our burden and our privilege to create a new foundational mythology.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party are the most entrenched in their position because the non scientists in that group trust institutional science. And Most institutional scientists are also liberal dems. Because institutional science is the perpetuator of the disinformation their tribe will be the last to realize it. It’s a small miracle that I escaped myself.
"I went through a transition that was deeply disorienting when I realized that the NYTimes and NPR and The Nation and CNN were all telling lies, the SAME LIES, in concert. In my case, I had the context of an immediate personal experience that made this hard to deny."
Well said. I'm coming to the conclusion that many people have had a similar experience these past 4 years, that their Gell-Mann Amnesia may finally be cured.
Well said Madhava. I just finished a post about why it is so hard for the healthcare workers still in the system to engage with this kind of information. I too am hopeful that this particular interview reaches a broader audience than previously, and it does feel like the time is right for that.
https://waterbird.substack.com/p/naming-the-problem-for-healthcare
This is the most cogent and reasonable explanation of the dissident position I have heard to date. A masterpiece. With mercifully few words from Tucker! I agree that Bret did us all a huge service with this even handed, exquisitely articulated interview.
He’s freaking amazing. Blows me away every now and then. Thankful to be here walking the planet with these souls.
I believe that this article contains such solid information (along with that terrific interview from Tucker Carlson) that I'm sharing it as widely as I can. I will also be 'testing the waters' with those who still cling to their covidian beliefs. If they express an openness to alternative information, I'll share it with them as well. They may not watch the video, but the article itself might open minds.
Excellent synopsis of the past 3 years! Yes, I saw all those podcasts - glad I kept searching for people that were questioning from the get go. From March 2020, I knew the whole narrative had leaks - including the jabs. I'm a semi retired government professor - knew very little about ingredients in vaccines etc. What a wake up call. My friends - in the so called vulnerable group - lined up right away for the shot. They could not believe I would not just go do what was told. Since then, my friendships seem pointless to me with those people. They just take in the traditional media's patter and have forgotten how to think for themselves. Our world is in trouble.
I finally had time to watch this about a week ago and now have time to write about it. I disagree with Dr. Setty that is was masterful. Bret is a very eloquent speaker and it all sounds good when he speaks but there is so much incorrect stuff in it that detracts from the message he should have conveyed, I would give him a "gentleman's C" when he probably deserves a 'D'.
A lot of the problem stems from his omissions. It's hard to have any medical perspective when you're not a doctor. He praised the technology over and over and said all they're going to have to do is switch out the code for what protein you make, confirm that it isn't toxic, and everything will be fine. OK , with the same lipid nanoparticles? They are proven toxic. Does he think making a bunch more insulin will cure diabetes? He'd better know why there is a profound lack of it now. Was it auto-immune destruction? Then he named nurse educator John Campbell as an excellent choice to predict the total number deaths from the vaccine!
You also have to wonder why Tucker invited Bret, who was completely fooled by this from the get-go. He endorsed masks, gave the strongest endorsement of lockdowns on the internet and endorsed getting the vaccine until he realized it had serious safety issues..
Bret was a biology teacher before this started who got involved in a woke student riot at an obscure college and threatened during the riot so he took a settlement from the college and resigned. Next thing you know, he's on Rogan multiple times pushing for idiotic policies.(In June, 2020, he told Rogan Covid would be over If we had used a more intense lockdown). Then, he gets invited to Covid Summits all over the world to give speeches and be on expert panels. Now Tucker gives him a long form interview summing up what happened for everyone. Imagine that. A a non-medical person who was wrong on everything being invited on the most coveted platforms- Bill Maher too- to inform the public about this disease!
I don't blame Bret. I blame Joe, Tucker and Bill
Thank you for the frank comment Reid.
I do not disagree with you about how Bret was wrong about many things.
I also share your frustration around how people with large followings do not platform those who have a much better grasp of the situation.
The reality is that the value of a person's voice is not defined by merit but more often by how many followers they have to begin with. This leaves little opportunity for those of us who have been far more accurate and far more earlier. I put you in that category. It's unfortunate (and that is a wild understatement), but that is the nature of how things are playing out.
If Tucker did super long interviews giving the guest the opportunity to dissect data sets, put up graphs, cite headlines that were wildly false, etc. you would have been a much better guest. However Tucker's audience, for the most part, is not ready for all that. He's a journalist and journalists seek to tell a story that is the most impactful for the greatest number of people.
That being the case, Bret told a convincing story to those who are just starting to open their eyes for the first time. His message resonated with those who have been fooled because he had been fooled too. It's often much better to hear from someone like that and not from someone who was never duped to begin with.
Waking up from this collectively is going to happen incrementally. There are only a few people on the leading edge of this movement, but there are tens of millions who are starting to understand that there is a whole lot of evidence that proves that we were lied to by the people that were trusted the most. That's the biggest step. Getting twenty million people to realize that is an enormous accomplishment no matter how obvious the evidence is.
The reason why I thought Bret did a masterful job was because he was convincing and he didn't go too far. He made a great case for why we should have known that the public was being lied to from the very beginning. My point being, he used this opportunity to speak to a very big audience in a way that would plant seeds. Ultimately we each, as individuals, need to decide for ourselves what to believe. In order to change one's mind one has to be curious. You certainly can't force someone to be curious. You can only guide someone to the door. They will have to open it for themselves.
Let's say that that interview reaches 10 million people. Let's further say that half of them start to scratch their heads about what is going on. If only 1% of those find their way to your conversations with Harvey Risch or Jay Bhattacharya, your audience will have grown by 50,000 people. That's a pretty good start.
That was a very good explanation and I know you're right. The same thing happened with Dr. Kory who was absolutely 100% wrong on everything - really, you couldn't imagine a better supporter of the Narrative- but somehow finagled himself to be seen as part of the resistance; not just 'a part', an important enough part to be invited to give speeches at meeting after meeting, sit on roundtables, sell books, etc. all while endorsing masks, lockdowns, testing, tracing, ventilators with midazolam in the ICU patients he treated, generally exaggerating the severity of the nothing burger this thing was, etc.. It kind of reminds me of how Dr. Jha or even Dr. B got treated as the go-to source of everything Covid when they didn't have it right- especially Jha. God, he was wrong on everything. Jha pushing the poison concoction in 6 month old babies was the last straw for me.. For a while there it got so ridiculous, roundtables were made up of Kory, Weinstein, Geert Vanden Bosche, and Astrid Stuckelleberger with Dr. Malone there keeping the reins tight on everyone.
Even information vital to the survival of a nation gets delivered subject to the principles of commercialism and it's not crass. It's done that way because it's more effective as you clearly explain (but it does make more money for the production which is more important to them as the creators of this platform and that's fine too.). I get it Maybe next time he will get someone like me or Yeadon or you to pour over his speech with him before he delivers it. When he kept saying 'transcribed' in place of 'translated' at the beginning, I started sweating. After a few more boners, I caught myself holding my breath to help him get through it.
They pulled it off this time but they're not going to be able to nail the real power behind all this without the next group of specialists and I'm not in that group, unfortunately because I don't know how it all works in government and politics. My specialty was the physics and medical basic science that helped me call the "experts" out on everything they tried to get by everyone. No, for the next step, we need Spartacus, Sasha Latypova, Katherine Watt, and a few others with some help from the "Where are the Numbers?" team to take the baton from the STEMs as Sage Hana calls us. I only know Spartacus. He's definitely up to the task. Thank you, Madhava.
Sorry, an addendum to my initial comment:
It is imperative that all the most intelligently persuasive commentators on the 'bad Covidvaxxes' understand that they are, most often, merely preaching to the choir of their like-minded audience.
Being somewhat physically disabled, I read hundreds of pages of internet information and disinformation most days of the week....
...And, it frustrates me no end to see how little progress is actually being made in convincing 'narrative followers' that they're being lied to.
And believe me, I also know this from experience:
For the first year after the 'covidvaxxes' were rolled out, I was in a constant battle to bring my (not unintelligent) husband on board the truth train! Honestly, I would no sooner start to make some progress, when he'd come in from running errands with the radio tuned to NPR, and I'd have to start all over again!!
It was not until I showed him the evidence (through irrefutable historical sources) that we were being lied to about the war in Ukraine, that my husband was even willing to concede that, in fact, the U.S. government 'could' be lying about 'any given thing' including the covid 'story' and nonvaccines.
This is a Substack article I would love to have 'in my belt' to share with the 'pro-covidvaxxers' in my life....
Unfortunately - in regards Peter Hotez and your point here:
"Only the most conniving Covidians could find a way to rationalize why Hotez should eschew an opportunity to flatten the despised misinformation spreader in front of millions of voters without implying that the public was too stupid to know right from wrong:"
Your link to the Substack "Your Local Epidemiologist" is only going to backfire. Here's the thing:
People like my sister-in-law and her husband (in most respects, highly intelligent people) are absolutely desperate to keep believing that they made the right decision for themselves & their family, so if I send this article, they will read it right up to the point of your link, click on it, and never even come back to your article....Here's why:
Anyone in the state of 'desperation to believe' the narrative is going to be very easily persuaded to agree with everything the "Local Epidemiologists" have written there - because, they do lay out their 'case' in a logical, rational, & seemingly 'factual' way, which "desperation" will make utterly persuasive.
Thus, the people we most need to persuade otherwise, not only won't find that Substack link affirming of your point about "conniving Covidians", but will actually latch onto it as confirmation of their "desperate" beliefs that Peter Hotez is the 'go to' guy for true info.
Hotez's videos & Substack are the ones my sister-in-law replies to our emails with on a point for point basis, which basically closes the argument, until 'next time' we think we've got a winning case maker.
I really hope you see this, because your arguments are vitally on target, unfortunately this isn't the first time I've seen you self-sabotage your excellent thinking...
To that "first time", I'll just say:
You 'had your fellow MIT alumni' with your thorough 'bad Covidvax' reasoning...
....so that was simply not the time to bring up the 911 stuff. You'd have gotten some excellent minds on 'our' side, if you had just held back from talking 'any' other 'supposed conspiracy' until they were fully onboard (thru the furthering of their own research, which you 'had them' on the point of pursuing).
Sorry about all the ellipses, I'm no writer, I can only write the way I talk.
Thank you for the feedback. I do believe that if someone refers to Hotez as the ultimate authority on vaccines there's probably no reaching them with any argument, evidentiary or not. That being said, sharing the Weinstein interview and not this post might work.
Your point about self-sabotaging is something I certainly have considered many times. It's a double edged sword. On the one hand, it can backfire like it did with my MIT classmates. On the other hand sometimes people need to be shown a better example of how they have been misled.
Personally I feel that the 9/11 deception is obvious, certainly more obvious than the pandemic misinformation coming from the CDC. You don't have to understand biases in data, confounders in observational studies, gain of function, vaccine efficacy, etc. If watching those buildings disintegrating in front of your eyes doesn't raise any questions there's probably little chance that you will see that we were lied to about Covid from the beginning.
Bringing up 9/11 at my reunion was a calculated risk. I assumed that as engineers they would have a better grasp of basic kinematics, conservation of energy and laws of motion than the average person. It didn't help, obviously. Their understanding of engineering might be solid, but not as solid as their position that they could never be fooled about something so big.
Nevertheless, I appreciate what you have offered here. Thank you.
Thanks for referring me to the Carlson/Weinstein interview. And I appreciate your defense of Hotez's declining debate -- and your elucidation of the problems of any public scientific debate. For sure, I had been one of those on the playground yelling: "Chicken!"
Weinstein's reference to the deliberate abandonment of normal IM injection technique in the interest of reducing vaxcine hesitancy was priceless, especially in its coming from a non-clinician.
I had observed this peculiarity in every video clip of the shot's administration, corroborated by a friend who -- in giving hundreds of shots while on light duty from an injury -- admitted that the RN's had, in fact, been instructed not to draw back on the syringe. This surely accounts for disparity of effect, even in the same batch of vials. But until this interview, I had not heard mention of it. I recall a reference in the publication by D4CE "mRNA Vacxine Toxicity" to accidental IV administration with normal IM precautions occurring at a rate of something between one and two percent.
Be nice to Tucker -- his elocution has much improved; if his laughter is still a shrill cackle, at least it appears genuine and occurs infrequently. His furrowed taciturnity is not unique to this presentation, and this habit has served to let others tell their story as well.
It was an excellent interview. Those who wish to be open minded will hear it. The closed minded leftists will never ever consider the fact that they were lied to and that their lives are the ones being lost due to this sick desire to lower the population growth without getting caught doing it.
I know Covidians who would refuse to consider this essay or any of the points raised therein. Maybe I'm too cynical, so I'll try to repost the article to see whether I am in fact wrong.
I definitely wouldn’t share the article with a covidian. They may be able to swallow the interview
I may be misinterpreting whether Covidian refers to someone who buys in--a fellow Chicken Littler--or someone who recognizes the false panic, and rejects the lies of the government and Pharma.
I took Covidian to mean a Chicken Little.
Yes. That’s what I meant by Covidian
I'm adding that to my Webster's 10th. Thanks.
Thank you so much for this.