Did you lose anyone irreplaceable to COVID? To myocarditis? Have Brain Fog? Lose a year or two of your life? Fail to attend a funeral? Wonder how the vaccines appeared so quickly?
Have your reputation destroyed over conspiracy theorizing? Get called a Sinophobic racist?
I have been asked to reiterate what I just said in a Twitter Space about this.
What we have here is a decision tree with three branches. All three are totally distinct in implication.
The Tree:
Branch A: Project Veritas is completely misrepresenting this video. They get *totally* destroyed for doing so.
Branch B: The video is real but the individual is totally exaggerating to make himself seem like a powerful insider.
Branch C: It’s basically accurate.
In all cases, the cure is hearings. We may need to bury PV. We may need to bury Pfizer. Or we may have a first date type meeting that went wildly out of control as many people exaggerate to create intrigue and drama.
We don’t need to guess. We just hold hearings. It’s simple. 🙏
Also, what I said in the space about Gain Of Function:
Even though the subject says “Directed Evolution” I do not believe a priori that he is technically describing GoF. A better term would be “Directed Selection” because the virus could move laterally on a fitness landscape.
So you could see “Directed Drift”. The relationship between vaccine and virus is similar to the mirroring one sees in Bayesian Mimicry. The model species can move laterally and the mimic then has to move to mirror the phenotype of the model. Do I don’t think this *has* to be GoF.
The virus could be moved laterally and then a new vaccine would be created to move with it like model and mimic respectively.
Bottom line:
1. Pay attention. 2. Call for hearings. 3. Avoid conclusions by being patient. This doesn’t get settled tonight. 4. Accept findings.
Thx.
*Batesian
Autocorrect doesn’t know it apparently.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
No one is arguing that the video is not explosive. What is dividing us is whether it is what James O’Keefe says it is. He is neither always wrong as his critics say nor always correct as supporters claim. And his methods are disturbing & prone to picking up drunken date bragging.
Have you seen materials that fan keep those of us who are confused from speculating?
Specifically:
Is this person EXACTLY who PV claims he is?
Is this a drunken date?
Is this man creating intrigue to seduce?
Etc.
Methods that are nauseating & prone to error are used here.
But James breaks real news as in the Amy Robach hot mic tape just as he also exaggerates and distorts what he has at other times. Are you in a position to say where we are on the PV spectrum? No one can say how real this is without supporting evidence. Are you in that position?
Snark is so much more fun when academics forget their own subjects and need to be reminded of their own history by...checks notes...a podcast host who's not a physicist.
I'm guessing you have no idea of how the stagnation in Quantum Field Theory of 1928-47 was broken.
From the birth of Dirac's Quantum Electrodynamics in 1928, the subject couldn't compute results because infinities infested the calculations. This went on for nearly 20 years as the aging leaders of the field proposed crazy fixes that didn't work. Enter Duncan McInnes.
On January 21 1946, McInnes suggested to Frank Jewett a radical conference based around the UNTESTED young people rather than the failed leaders. As head of the National Academy of Sciences, Jewett allocated a grand total of...wait for it...$1500 for a conference in Long Island.
For the moment, let me entertain a wild idea. Truly wild.
Here goes. What if the problem is our leadership. What if we asked
"Who believe String Theory wouldn't work?"
"Who never claimed LHC SUSY was imminent?"
"Who never said Proton Decay was going to be found?"
Etc.
Said differently, what if our leadership is brilliant but SPECIFICALLY untrustworthy in identifying the path forward. What if 1000 David Gross & Ed Wit1ten Keynotes setting the agenda are the problem? What if Lenny Susskind is not correct sbout non-string people wasting our time.
As for high “clout” podcasts: a good guest remembers who helped them and publicly acknowledges it. The following people really helped me get reach early on.
Another weird thing is that the ideal guest is someone you can help get reach who is NOT a household name. I started The Portal with two monster guests. But my 3rd guest was pretty obscure. Why? Because he is wildly important to me: @timurkuran, a super innovative economist.
You are looking at domesticated Scientists that were bread over almost 60 years from Wild Type scientists.
It’s not that there is no connection. But the difference between a wolf & a poodle can be significant. One is fiercely independent. One needs obedience to be fed regularly.
And inside every domesticated animal lies an unkillable dream of being wild and free again. That’s why occasionally my dog brings me a squirrel or still pees on territory while on a leash.
Your real scientists want to hunt again. They need to be reintroduced into the wild. Now.
Appreciate you Scott, but I don’t think courageously deciding to say one lost, entitles that voice to become the referee for all the various other disputes outstanding.
“Anti-Vaxx” is *not* the winner. And it is not *always* a good idea to distrust big government (e.g. WWII).
The vaccines may well prove to be universally understood to be far more dangerous than advertised over time. Or COVID may prove to have a different and more destructive long term profile than we understand even now. But the parent problem was the official lying and manipulation.
Many of us got that we were being lied to on:
A) Origins
B) Vaxx Safety
C) Treatment
but could not figure out exactly WHY we were being blatantly lied to. EUA? Profit? BWC workaround? Sources & Methods? “Noble Lies”?
So we said what was true: “How can anyone know what to do?”