Bret and Heather 110th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Informed Dissent

Byadmin



In this 110th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of …

source

Similar Posts

22 Comments

  2. @1:00:35– the time for the veil to be lifted (torn in two? Top to bottom?)
    Daniel 11:27 the two kings with their hearts bent on evil will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time
    Need a new structure,, no one on earth knows? I hear you dancing around the ultimate Truth, Creator God has the plan, purpose and power to take His creation forward…

    Reply

  3. Brett is coughing..and his voice is a notch lower..there is a dynamic to this conversation quite novel. The two of you , "in different places", physically and perhaps philosophically, are vital and essential for our society to not succumb to this manipulative measure and the "space" isolating you has offered a very unique freedom to speak as we all want to speak. I hope Brett goes to heather and holds her dearly, closely and breathes gently, "we are in this together". .Dr Michael Yeadon is worth a hearing for another wise one.

    Reply

  4. Appreciate the continuing conversation.. confused at to how bedroom/ Brett's space is supportive when shared air has already occurred. I do pray regenerating is quickly attained as "fearfully and wonderfully made" is the design.

    Reply

  5. Being in Canada, I've had to wear a cloth mask for awhile now,and I haven't been this healthy,in years. No yearly cold or flu. I deal with many people a day. Is it just coincidence? I got my two shots, because I wanted to travel, and my own selfish reasons. Can the boosters contribute to the creation of new variants?

    Reply

  7. I've been with you guys for the last few years, agreeing on pretty much all your points, maybe drawing different conclusions now and then but still respecting that difference. But over the last couple months you've gone to a place that I can't respect. You used to treat Covid seriously, talking about the unseen dangers of infection that may or may not manifest until later in life, even with mild acute symptoms. Now you are talking about willingly contracting the disease based on anecdotes of it being "not so bad" in the short term. Never mind that the anecdotes/prelim data are largely based on people with prior vaccine/covid exposure, of which you have none. I still plan on watching your videos, only now it will be out of morbid curiosity. I don't know what brought on this change, but looking back on it, it's been a slow build up to this tipping point. If I had to submit a theory, I'd say the binary politicization of everything (which I naively considered you to be above) has defined your audience and that in turn has influenced your own thinking in the form of unconscious bias. The reductive images that our supporters and critics hold of us will bleed into our identities whether we like it or not. As our critics repulse and push us away in broad strokes, claiming more and more gray territory in the name of black or white, we ironically become closer to the monochrome caricatures they paint us as, and consequentially we attract praise and friendship from people who identify with that crude caricature. Positive and negative reinforcement continue to condition us in this pattern until we are deformed over time by the crushing magnetic field of the extreme tribal poles that define this culture. Heavy media attention no doubt accelerates that effect. Even the most independent-thinking people such are yourselves circa 2017 are not immune. I certainly wouldn't be.

    Reply

  8. Heather is on fire! Laying it all out there on this Podcast. You said what I've been saying for years when I look at the state of the world … we are all to be cogs in the machine. And this pandemic has made that clearer than it has ever been. Great episode! 👏 👏 👏

    Reply

  9. I really love you both. You are the only Patreon I support. Your podcast makes my week. Finally, people that have reasonable opinions that are backed by experience and science.

    Reply

  11. Clearly you know biology, but you are not experts in government (as your discussion of liquid democracy demonstrates). You are not historians, you are not political scientists, and neither are you economists nor lawyers, or hold any other expertise on government. Yet you make observations that are definitive on government without recognising the weakness of your position and your lack of knowledge of the subject. And some of those definitive positions are scary, unsubstantiated and incorrect. They are but opinions, and, of course, you are entitled to hold and present them; but you should also recognise that your expertise does not allow you to make the definitive and extreme statements you make – without also recognising that you have little basis to make those statements. Examples of the questionable and incorrect statements that you make are:

    ‘Public health authorities are not free of corruption, enough … – not even close’. (In every country??)

    It is conceivable that you could have a governmental structure good enough to be entrusted with the question of mandate in sufficiently serious situation.

    But you ‘do not believe that that government has ever existed’. (Anywhere and at any time!! How did you form this view??)

    And it is ‘a fact of history’ that we do not have such governments and we do or don’t have one now’. And ‘none of the governments, none of the human architected governmental structures has been up to that challenge’. (Again, where did this come from? Where is the data for this bizarre and extreme conclusion?)

    ‘In the present, stuck with the governments structures that we have, the … governmental structures are not up to the challenge of mandating and overriding bodily autonomy. Not up to that challenge’.

    And ‘nothing can be done to them to make them up to that challenge’.

    By saying this, based on your limited exposure to one public health system in one country at one time – you have rejected all efforts in government from the beginning of time. It has all been a failure – from the US experiment, the UK system of responsible government, as well as the various other democracies in Western Europe that have operated successfully at least since the war. All of them are, on your definitive assessment, failures, and all are incapable of requiring a Covid mandate. This simply nonsense!

    But having formed that problematic view, you are of the view that we ‘Need a new structure of government’. However, you don’t know what it is, but you are capable of working it out, using, in some way, evolution (and, it seems, the remarkably vague concepts that you list in Ch 13 of your book). But until you work it out, existing governments are not capable of requiring Covid mandate. All they can do is to seek by convincing the electorate, not obliging it to comply

    But what are you saying here? Is it a constitutional argument – or a moral/principle one? If the latter – fine, you can and should argue that governments should not have that power, or if they do, that it should not exercised – but you need to distinguish between what governments can do and what they should be able to do. However, you seem not to recognise the difference between moral and constitutional arguments.

    Because if you believe that it is a constitutional argument – well, give it a try in the Supreme Court and see the result!

    I am concerned that you seem to not know what you are discussing – in your criticisms of government. That is, you start with your discussion with your criticism of public health systems from the particular perspective of that system in USA, a subject that I agree that you have some knowledge; but you expand that very limited scope to a much broader and unsubstantiated conclusion – of all other government systems, in all other countries and in all history – entire government failure. And you do that because you simply have no knowledge of the subject that you are discussing.

    Concentrate on what you know – biology and recognise the limitations on your exercise in other fields.

    Reply

  12. Do you guys have somewhere you post show notes including sources? In particular, I've been looking around for papers supporting the hypothesis that mismatched boosters make you more susceptible to Omicron, and I'm having a hard time finding any

    Reply

  15. INDIAN COUNTY USA – gov. hard to get our tribal council to believe in us and our people. There are smart natives out here, I agree with you both. very hard to make people understand,, then again cant bit the hand that feeds.

    Reply

  16. Hmmm

    So the mass vaccination of children removes their ability to develop natural immunity to the virus, thus making them more suspectable to varients later on in life

    Wow, what a way to secure future customers

    Reply

  19. Canadian here – I had to go on leave from my PhD program at the University of Toronto because I chose not to get vaccinated. Ironically, my thesis was on Boccaccio and the plague of 1348.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *