To me it's obvious that the "evolutionary biologist" was and remains clueless on the ramifications of lockdowns against a respiratory virus old or novel.
This is the reason I have been weary of "experts" for the last 4 years from the Western hemisphere.
Poor me was publicly speaking out as aloud as possible against lockdowns in India (as far back as March 2020) because they seemed pointless ( this did turn out to be the case) but worse did substantial fiscal damage to nation states, and immense psychological injury both to the young and old.
There’s another absolutely critical point here - which is why I find Weinstein’s position so suspect given that he’s supposed to be a biologist - and this is that RNA viruses (like SARS-CoV2) are incapable of driving any sort of deadly global pandemic. They simply don’t have the replication fidelity to do so. JJ Couey has repeatedly pointed this out and so have those august guardians of evidence-based medicine, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson - https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/smokescreens-part-8
One also has to question his understanding of evolutionary biology if he imagines that in such an exquisitely evolved and interdependent system such as life on Earth, something like a deadly global pandemic - in any species - would ever make evolutionary sense. A ‘pandemic’ is nothing but a mind virus of a species so disconnected from its natural origins that it’s convinced itself the living system of which it’s part is hostile to its existence.
More concerning to me than his stand on lockdowns, is a comment BW made in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson. He said:
"Let's face it, we have a large global population. MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO USEFUL ROLE, through no fault of their own. They have not been given an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute."
That sounds an awful lot like he's calling most people "useless eaters". If that's an instance of his underlying belief system bubbling to the surface, the rest of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt, imo.
Bret's inability to think clearly has become more obvious over time.
The dumb brother.
The idea that "lockdowns" are for any other purpose than imprisonment torture, and the known psychological effects of same, demonstrates incompetence.
The idea that "testing" via I imagine, what is known as PCR, is laughably stupid and indicates a lack of comprehension.
1 PCR is not a test and never was, and Christian Drosten is an outright fraudster.
2 Test for what? an imaginary microbe? There is not a single instance or paper proving Isolation, infection, transmission, and so on of this claimed 'virus' or any other claimed 'virus'.
A problem with Bret (whom I love)'s thinking is that it leaves open a window of "under certain circumstances it would be allowable and it would work"... and then what, in your imagination, is a super lofty, super unlikely bar to attain to, suddenly becomes a slightly lower, more attainable bar when influenced by the fear-thinking that inevitably accompanies a novel threat. That's why all of our guidelines of what to do in an emergency, meant nothing during this pandemic. Why our inalienable rights became alienable! Fear made people think that they had to make exceptions to the lessons learned over time. "This time is different!"
Martin, your point about communism is exactly analogous! Spot On!
Brett knows or should know that at least in relation to acute respiratory illnesses that contagion has never been demonstrated.
You may find this difficult to believe.
Go & find the papers that demonstrate that a symptomatic person can readily transfer their symptoms to a well person. There aren’t any. That’s because this isn’t how it works.
Therefore, lockdowns would never succeed.
If you wish to adhere to the false idea of contagion, ok. Now consider who is the best source of contagion.
As a biologist, you will know it’s the flagrantly sick. Easily identifiable. You don’t need a test. We’ve had one, forever.
You cannot be apparently well yet be a good source of infection. The reason is that if you’re carrying a high load of pathogen you simply cannot be free of symptoms. In this incorrect model, the pathogen is attaching your airways and your immune system is fighting back. That the source of symptoms.
Free of symptoms? Give them a hug.
You NEVER need lockdowns.
The sick involuntarily withdraw from social circulation.
If you’ve ever had flu, you’ll know this.
No government is needed to “lock you down”. You’ll have withdrawn already.
Here’s the unavoidable conclusion that I believe you simply must know, or at least now know that I’ve laid it out.
Lockdown must only cause the well & notionally non-contagious to remain home, to the benefit of no one.
He's throwing out a rather silly hypothetical that should have been couched as such and dropped. He dug a deeper hole by positing some hypothetical super pathogen that somehow, hypothetically, might be controlled with hypothetically perfect lockdown and testing. In other words, it would never never ever ever work. Drop the dumb thought experiment.
I recall clearly the day, early in 2020, when I made my mind up to oppose lockdowns (and masks and, subsequently, hastily produced, incompletely tested experimental injectables). It was after watching the slapstick videos coming out of China of actors clumsily falling over in the street and being rushed away by other actors in hazmat suits. I compared them carefully to my observation that no-one was falling over in the street here in Scotland, and concluded that I couldn't trust a word the authorities were telling me about the lethality of this respiratiory infection. Everything followed from that moment.
My reasoning didn't emerge, like Weinstein's, from some nuanced understanding of biology. I have a couple of advanced degrees, but none in life sciences. But it appears that Gladwell's "Blink" phenomenon functioned perfectly well.
Lockdowns are tyranny tools. What Bret Weinstein and everyone else should focus on are the existing legal frameworks that permit tyrannical measures such as lockdowns, medical intervention mandates, coerced toxic injections, censorship, abrogation of personal freedoms. If you don’t know what these dangerous and anti-democratic legal frameworks governing us are, seek out the eye-opening, need-to-know Substacks written by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova.
Mr. Neil - Weinstein is calculated, he calls the jab what it is - transfection. However, he pushes the standard narrative that a Cov could cause a pandemic. In addition, he blames big pharma greed, but doesn't see government as the perpetrator. Perhaps his belief in the state gets in the way?
I don't find Weinstein and the concept of a "Dream Team" particularly fascinating, but the level of pushback against him is a bit puzzling. So what if he or anyone else wants to put themselves forward as a so-called team of experts, no one has to believe everything they say, we're all able to make our own decisions and conclusions and pick what sounds right from Bret and his "team", tossing out the parts we might feel are wrong.
So why the "Anti Dream Team" movement? After all Weinsten is surely only one voice of many, people who basically believe similar things about the Covid fiasco, albeit with variations (which is natural, it's like asking two football fans why their team are losing, you'll get two different reasons, but both coming from the position of wanting their team to win)
I can't help feel we're being played to some extent, but by which side isn't clear (yet)
If viruses come from a zoonotic reservoir of lets say bats, then where did the bats catch it from? And with all animals being connected in a giant food web, which animals are suspicious to be hosts of the pathogen? Isn't vaccination completely pointless If so ? If animals are the zoonotic reservoir which allegedly means natural host which equals immunity, why isn't this a dead end for the virus that needs to replicate all the time? How can it still replicate, not make the host sick, although not alive, and find other hosts? If this missing immunity in animals isn't compareable to the human model, why are still animals used in studies?
Does this mean lockdown by Extra Terrestrial Life Forms? Nothing would surprise me now.
Secondly,I'm watching ' Mr Bates versus The Post Office'; heartbreaking and the fact that it takes a drama to reveal the corruption, incompetence and omerta which ruined thousands of lives and livelihoods, reveals the deplorable state of Broken Britain.
It leads me to hope that eventually, a similar dramatised exposé will reveal the equally scandalous lockdowns and vaccine propaganda.
Professors Neil and Fenton could act as script consultants, along with Dr Clair Craig ,Dr Asif Malhotra, Andrew Bridgen and the three Great Barrington Declaration authors ,to name a few.
To me it's obvious that the "evolutionary biologist" was and remains clueless on the ramifications of lockdowns against a respiratory virus old or novel.
This is the reason I have been weary of "experts" for the last 4 years from the Western hemisphere.
Poor me was publicly speaking out as aloud as possible against lockdowns in India (as far back as March 2020) because they seemed pointless ( this did turn out to be the case) but worse did substantial fiscal damage to nation states, and immense psychological injury both to the young and old.
COVID Operation Executive Summary
The virus held no danger so to fix this flaw the script was flipped to ensure that all of the preventative measures were overflowing with harm:
The masks were designed to devitalize you mentally, physically, & spiritually.
The propaganda was programmed to wreck your mind and install the “virus”.
The lockdowns were enforced to eviscerate your economies, education, and autonomy.
The injections are intended to erase you.
All of this damage is by design: death by a thousand cuts. You're the carbon...
—https://tritorch.substack.com/p/the-gathering-darkness
There’s another absolutely critical point here - which is why I find Weinstein’s position so suspect given that he’s supposed to be a biologist - and this is that RNA viruses (like SARS-CoV2) are incapable of driving any sort of deadly global pandemic. They simply don’t have the replication fidelity to do so. JJ Couey has repeatedly pointed this out and so have those august guardians of evidence-based medicine, Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson - https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/smokescreens-part-8
One also has to question his understanding of evolutionary biology if he imagines that in such an exquisitely evolved and interdependent system such as life on Earth, something like a deadly global pandemic - in any species - would ever make evolutionary sense. A ‘pandemic’ is nothing but a mind virus of a species so disconnected from its natural origins that it’s convinced itself the living system of which it’s part is hostile to its existence.
More concerning to me than his stand on lockdowns, is a comment BW made in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson. He said:
"Let's face it, we have a large global population. MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO USEFUL ROLE, through no fault of their own. They have not been given an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute."
That sounds an awful lot like he's calling most people "useless eaters". If that's an instance of his underlying belief system bubbling to the surface, the rest of what he says should be taken with a grain of salt, imo.
Bret's inability to think clearly has become more obvious over time.
The dumb brother.
The idea that "lockdowns" are for any other purpose than imprisonment torture, and the known psychological effects of same, demonstrates incompetence.
The idea that "testing" via I imagine, what is known as PCR, is laughably stupid and indicates a lack of comprehension.
1 PCR is not a test and never was, and Christian Drosten is an outright fraudster.
2 Test for what? an imaginary microbe? There is not a single instance or paper proving Isolation, infection, transmission, and so on of this claimed 'virus' or any other claimed 'virus'.
A problem with Bret (whom I love)'s thinking is that it leaves open a window of "under certain circumstances it would be allowable and it would work"... and then what, in your imagination, is a super lofty, super unlikely bar to attain to, suddenly becomes a slightly lower, more attainable bar when influenced by the fear-thinking that inevitably accompanies a novel threat. That's why all of our guidelines of what to do in an emergency, meant nothing during this pandemic. Why our inalienable rights became alienable! Fear made people think that they had to make exceptions to the lessons learned over time. "This time is different!"
Martin, your point about communism is exactly analogous! Spot On!
Brett knows or should know that at least in relation to acute respiratory illnesses that contagion has never been demonstrated.
You may find this difficult to believe.
Go & find the papers that demonstrate that a symptomatic person can readily transfer their symptoms to a well person. There aren’t any. That’s because this isn’t how it works.
Therefore, lockdowns would never succeed.
If you wish to adhere to the false idea of contagion, ok. Now consider who is the best source of contagion.
As a biologist, you will know it’s the flagrantly sick. Easily identifiable. You don’t need a test. We’ve had one, forever.
You cannot be apparently well yet be a good source of infection. The reason is that if you’re carrying a high load of pathogen you simply cannot be free of symptoms. In this incorrect model, the pathogen is attaching your airways and your immune system is fighting back. That the source of symptoms.
Free of symptoms? Give them a hug.
You NEVER need lockdowns.
The sick involuntarily withdraw from social circulation.
If you’ve ever had flu, you’ll know this.
No government is needed to “lock you down”. You’ll have withdrawn already.
Here’s the unavoidable conclusion that I believe you simply must know, or at least now know that I’ve laid it out.
Lockdown must only cause the well & notionally non-contagious to remain home, to the benefit of no one.
He's throwing out a rather silly hypothetical that should have been couched as such and dropped. He dug a deeper hole by positing some hypothetical super pathogen that somehow, hypothetically, might be controlled with hypothetically perfect lockdown and testing. In other words, it would never never ever ever work. Drop the dumb thought experiment.
I recall clearly the day, early in 2020, when I made my mind up to oppose lockdowns (and masks and, subsequently, hastily produced, incompletely tested experimental injectables). It was after watching the slapstick videos coming out of China of actors clumsily falling over in the street and being rushed away by other actors in hazmat suits. I compared them carefully to my observation that no-one was falling over in the street here in Scotland, and concluded that I couldn't trust a word the authorities were telling me about the lethality of this respiratiory infection. Everything followed from that moment.
My reasoning didn't emerge, like Weinstein's, from some nuanced understanding of biology. I have a couple of advanced degrees, but none in life sciences. But it appears that Gladwell's "Blink" phenomenon functioned perfectly well.
Lockdowns are tyranny tools. What Bret Weinstein and everyone else should focus on are the existing legal frameworks that permit tyrannical measures such as lockdowns, medical intervention mandates, coerced toxic injections, censorship, abrogation of personal freedoms. If you don’t know what these dangerous and anti-democratic legal frameworks governing us are, seek out the eye-opening, need-to-know Substacks written by Katherine Watt and Sasha Latypova.
Mr. Neil - Weinstein is calculated, he calls the jab what it is - transfection. However, he pushes the standard narrative that a Cov could cause a pandemic. In addition, he blames big pharma greed, but doesn't see government as the perpetrator. Perhaps his belief in the state gets in the way?
I don't find Weinstein and the concept of a "Dream Team" particularly fascinating, but the level of pushback against him is a bit puzzling. So what if he or anyone else wants to put themselves forward as a so-called team of experts, no one has to believe everything they say, we're all able to make our own decisions and conclusions and pick what sounds right from Bret and his "team", tossing out the parts we might feel are wrong.
So why the "Anti Dream Team" movement? After all Weinsten is surely only one voice of many, people who basically believe similar things about the Covid fiasco, albeit with variations (which is natural, it's like asking two football fans why their team are losing, you'll get two different reasons, but both coming from the position of wanting their team to win)
I can't help feel we're being played to some extent, but by which side isn't clear (yet)
Drive a virus to extinction?
Isn't that what the safe & effective wonder jab was sold to do?
If viruses come from a zoonotic reservoir of lets say bats, then where did the bats catch it from? And with all animals being connected in a giant food web, which animals are suspicious to be hosts of the pathogen? Isn't vaccination completely pointless If so ? If animals are the zoonotic reservoir which allegedly means natural host which equals immunity, why isn't this a dead end for the virus that needs to replicate all the time? How can it still replicate, not make the host sick, although not alive, and find other hosts? If this missing immunity in animals isn't compareable to the human model, why are still animals used in studies?
Horseshit. Pure unadulterated horseshit.
Does this mean lockdown by Extra Terrestrial Life Forms? Nothing would surprise me now.
Secondly,I'm watching ' Mr Bates versus The Post Office'; heartbreaking and the fact that it takes a drama to reveal the corruption, incompetence and omerta which ruined thousands of lives and livelihoods, reveals the deplorable state of Broken Britain.
It leads me to hope that eventually, a similar dramatised exposé will reveal the equally scandalous lockdowns and vaccine propaganda.
Professors Neil and Fenton could act as script consultants, along with Dr Clair Craig ,Dr Asif Malhotra, Andrew Bridgen and the three Great Barrington Declaration authors ,to name a few.
I live in hope.