Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying cite an extremely low quality pre-print analysis of VAERS data by Scott McLachlan that will definitely be withdrawn or retracted
how can I be so sure that the Scott McLachlan paper is bogus?
the first red flag is that the preprint of the initial results has a large rant about how people are mean to Tucker Carlson. it's the section with the most words, and includes footnotes to tweets that made them mad
here is the primary author of the study Bret Weinstein cited suggesting that universal masking is causing bacterial pneumonia
here is primary author Scott McLachlan tagging his co-authors and insisting that unused swabs are testing positive for covid-19
here is Scott McLachlan, primary author of VAERS paper cited by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, suggesting that Greta Thunberg kill herself
here is McLachlan paper co-author Norman Fenton suggesting that the covid lockdowns were just a precursor for climate lockdowns
keep in mind all i'm doing here is actually reading the paper and then searching the names of primary authors.
I did the same with the Walach paper and predicted the retraction correctly that time as well
to fans of 'intellectual dark web', this is Sam Harris asking challenging questions and demanding evidence.
to me, it's Sam showing that he's a dumb trust fund kid that clearly never learned how to look shit up. it now makes sense why he's constantly kissing Charles Murray's ass
theory: @BretWeinstein & @HeatherEHeying have refused to complete the written response to @Quillette that they promised to produce in this episode because they are embarrassed to admit in writing that their rebuttal episode relied entirely on @Dr_ScottMc
never forget that Heather Heying sunk so low as to say that Scott McLachlan did an 'extraordinary job' on this preprint only because she very quickly wanted to make @ClaireBerlinski and @ydeigin look foolish. That was the only reason she opened the PDF
Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying are failed biologists that are relying on the work of failed computer scientists to save their reputations. this has nothing to do with the pandemic anymore
one explanation: Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying are too lazy & stupid to know McLachlan paper is bad
another: they just needed to contain critiques from the 2 Claire's + Yuri long enough to get back to pitching a keto diet to audience for money like Mikhaila Peterson did
Eric Weinstein believes that Bret Weinstein was castrated by Carol Greider
after suggesting that Bret Weinstein's term at Evergreen wasn't enough to meaningfully sow Bret's future-changing intellectual seed, Eric Weinstein mentions that he's teaching his own intellectual children gauge theory in his Discord
Eric Weinstein and Bret Weinstein believe:
- scientific progress has a lineage, transmissible through close contact
- academia isn't selecting the best breeding stock
- they are examples of excellent breeding stock
- academia has been incredibly unfair to both of them
"From a public health perspective it makes no sense to ignore evidence for the effectiveness of Ivermectin"
in Bret Weinstein's fantasyland, vaccine production is always considerably lower and evidence for ivermectin is always considerably higher than it is in reality
once again it's unclear who audience of Bret Weinstein's intervention is. all very online people that are into this sort of thing have likely already taken ivermectin, & many countries used it liberally.
so who is left between this moment & impending 100% mRNA vax availability?
For ivermectin to have a remote possibility of mattering to anyone, you need to be able to produce India-scale doses, convince an India-scale number of people, and then have an *amazing* level of efficacy that would surprise the authors of even the most optimistic studies