Read on Twitter
For old times sake, a thread on Sam Harris' latest: "a postmortem on my response to COVID".
I believe this one is not out on YouTube yet, but I will try to produce a transcript and/or audio clips if need be.
Gods be with me, here we go. 🧵
I believe this one is not out on YouTube yet, but I will try to produce a transcript and/or audio clips if need be.
Gods be with me, here we go. 🧵
As always, I will attempt to do some fact checking and as always I will cite my sources so you don't have to trust me.
Sam will inevitably claim that the clips make him sound bad, but I really want to make sure people have access to the underlying sources of my claims, so 🤷♂️
Sam will inevitably claim that the clips make him sound bad, but I really want to make sure people have access to the underlying sources of my claims, so 🤷♂️
Ah, from the get go, Sam is talking about how social media clips take him out of context, and how they are deliberately constructed to do so.
He has accused me personally of such malice before, but never said what I left out which would have changed the result.
He has accused me personally of such malice before, but never said what I left out which would have changed the result.
The next point he makes is fair: he says that while during COVID he came down on the side of the establishment, he has gone against it many times and at personal cost. I can certainly accept this as true.
He says that COVID is different because it required collective action: lockdowns, vaccines, etc, all required cooperation of everyone.
(Sorry for slowness, working on getting a transcript since not everyone has access to this)
(Sorry for slowness, working on getting a transcript since not everyone has access to this)
Good idea, while we're waiting, make your predictions as a reply to this post, and we can see how we did by the end.
https://twitter.com/knowclarified/status/1705351069038231582?t=KDjcxJXS3qKwZ0vimeqryg&s=19
Ok, finally, transcript is here.
Here's the first thing he said, obviously about me, which is so misleading as to be in essence a lie:
"People have edited videos to make it seem like I wish that more kids had died during the pandemic so that I could have been proven right about how scary COVID was or something like that. Some people who I used to consider friends have shared those videos and dunked on them to produce click bait for their podcasts."
Here's the first thing he said, obviously about me, which is so misleading as to be in essence a lie:
"People have edited videos to make it seem like I wish that more kids had died during the pandemic so that I could have been proven right about how scary COVID was or something like that. Some people who I used to consider friends have shared those videos and dunked on them to produce click bait for their podcasts."
The obvious meaning of "edited" is that there was some montage. This is false, and Sam should know. I only use whole clips, always as long as necessary to be logically coherent, never cut short to make a point.
Here's the post in question:
Here's the post in question:
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1614292007463313411?t=50y3jSwQotm1WTZTWgDn0g&s=19
This particular clip was 5:29, in a thread followed by several more long clips.
The first line in that tweet was to say "these dead kid metaphors keep getting him in really messed up logical knots, why does he keep making them?"
The second sentence was his own words. Nobody, to this day, has been able to explain to me what he meant by "in some sense we were unlucky" (that more kids didn't die).
After lots of listening back, I think I now understand what he was trying to say, but it doesn't make him look very good either.
Which is why I cut long clips. My interpretation is what it is, but I try to make sure people have a way to draw their own conclusions. Many people disagreed with my interpretation. That's totally ok.
The first line in that tweet was to say "these dead kid metaphors keep getting him in really messed up logical knots, why does he keep making them?"
The second sentence was his own words. Nobody, to this day, has been able to explain to me what he meant by "in some sense we were unlucky" (that more kids didn't die).
After lots of listening back, I think I now understand what he was trying to say, but it doesn't make him look very good either.
Which is why I cut long clips. My interpretation is what it is, but I try to make sure people have a way to draw their own conclusions. Many people disagreed with my interpretation. That's totally ok.
By the way, Sam used to know that I put a lot of context in my clips. In this particularly remarkable conversation with Megyn Kelly, he basically admits that the clip had a lot of context, but somehow he makes it sound like a failure on my part. 🤷♂️
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1690164338173317120?t=50y3jSwQotm1WTZTWgDn0g&s=19
While complaining that multi-minute clips take him out of context, in the same podcast with @JohnRWoodJr he invented the accusation that @BretWeinstein claimed that millions would die from the COVID vaccines, which were the crime of the century.
Except this is completely and entirely false. I know because I paid out of pocket for a professional transcript of the podcast in question.
I have raised it with John, and I know Sam has been told about this, but he is yet to apologize for such a brazen act of slander. But he has the nerve to constantly complain (I believe he's called me an "antivax lunatic" and "effectively a psychopath") about having his own words shared here on social media, at length.
Except this is completely and entirely false. I know because I paid out of pocket for a professional transcript of the podcast in question.
I have raised it with John, and I know Sam has been told about this, but he is yet to apologize for such a brazen act of slander. But he has the nerve to constantly complain (I believe he's called me an "antivax lunatic" and "effectively a psychopath") about having his own words shared here on social media, at length.
Back to the original podcast, Sam explains that things like Islamic terrorism and police violence are simple, while COVID was complex and required experts.
Automated Transcript of that part, around minute 7:
"To many of you, I sounded just like the suits on CNN. Crucially, I didn't forcefully push back against specific policies like vaccine mandates that many of you considered unjust. Well, I'll get into more detail about what I did and didn't think or say about COVID in a minute. But I just want to point out that there are important differences among these various topics, and they explain why, in some cases, I'm content to do my own research, and in others, it feels irresponsible not to run with whatever consensus among qualified experts we can find.
The first difference is that COVID was a public health emergency, around which there was tremendous uncertainty. There were several collective action problems that we had to solve. If we were going to lock down, we had to do that together. We could only meaningfully practice social distancing and flatten the curve together. When vaccines arrived, we could only achieve herd immunity and protect people who really couldn't get vaccinated together. And in every instance, the clock was ticking. Covid was also a moving target. There was no point at which all the facts were in. They're still not all in. Given this situation, the most responsible thing to do, in my view, was to defer to whatever consensus we could find among experts until that consensus changed. This was not the situation with jihadism or the data on crime and police violence in the US. These were not moving targets. These are fairly static objects. We've got 1,400 years of data about Islam, and the relevant information is very easy to access. I've read the Quran cover to cover. If you want to know why jihadists do what they do, they will tell you. The data on crime and police violence are also very simple to parse."
Automated Transcript of that part, around minute 7:
"To many of you, I sounded just like the suits on CNN. Crucially, I didn't forcefully push back against specific policies like vaccine mandates that many of you considered unjust. Well, I'll get into more detail about what I did and didn't think or say about COVID in a minute. But I just want to point out that there are important differences among these various topics, and they explain why, in some cases, I'm content to do my own research, and in others, it feels irresponsible not to run with whatever consensus among qualified experts we can find.
The first difference is that COVID was a public health emergency, around which there was tremendous uncertainty. There were several collective action problems that we had to solve. If we were going to lock down, we had to do that together. We could only meaningfully practice social distancing and flatten the curve together. When vaccines arrived, we could only achieve herd immunity and protect people who really couldn't get vaccinated together. And in every instance, the clock was ticking. Covid was also a moving target. There was no point at which all the facts were in. They're still not all in. Given this situation, the most responsible thing to do, in my view, was to defer to whatever consensus we could find among experts until that consensus changed. This was not the situation with jihadism or the data on crime and police violence in the US. These were not moving targets. These are fairly static objects. We've got 1,400 years of data about Islam, and the relevant information is very easy to access. I've read the Quran cover to cover. If you want to know why jihadists do what they do, they will tell you. The data on crime and police violence are also very simple to parse."
Next up, he takes issue with this exchange between Bret and @jgreenhall. He seems quite outraged and derisive that even the idea that he is somehow compromised would even be talked about.
This is after he has been calling people sociopaths and psychopaths for the last couple of years....
This is after he has been calling people sociopaths and psychopaths for the last couple of years....
@jgreenhall In that particular conversation, I tried to defend Sam's honor -- I really don't think blackmail explains what we saw -- but I suppose he didn't see my post :)
I suppose this is where things get completely and entirely ridiculous.
SAM HARRIS ATTEMPTS TO DELIVER THE WORST APOLOGY OF ALL TIME. You just have to see text to believe it. Read on because there's context that will make your hair fall off.
[Reminder that the transcription is automated -- thanks @happy_scribe -- so the occasional word may be off]
"(12:40) Perhaps I should clear something up here for Bret in case he listens to this. I believe he was once very offended by my summarizing his views about mRNA vaccines, inaccurately. This was unintentional. Wherever I have discussed them, and it's only been in a few places, I've said that Bret has called our vaccine policy the crime of the century, which he did. He predicted that millions might die as a result of it. But the crime, on his account, has been twofold. It entails our releasing dangerous pseudovaccines on an unsuspecting world. It also entails lying about or otherwise obfuscating the life-saving knowledge of the powers of ivermectin, which on his account was almost perfectly effective as a prophylactic against COVID. Whenever I've mentioned Bret's views, I've generally been careful to describe this two-fold effect. But there have been one or two times where I've said something more abbreviated, either because I was speaking quickly or at least what passes for quickly, if you're me, or I was interrupted. I said something like, Bret thinks our mRNA vaccines are getting people killed and might kill millions. (13:43) Whereas I should have more accurately said, Bret thinks our vaccine policy is getting people killed and might kill millions. I've heard through a back channel that Bret was quite outraged that I gave the impression that he believed that the vaccines by themselves might kill millions. That was a regrettable mistake. Unfortunately, there was no obvious place to correct it on somebody else's podcast. Again, in most contexts, I've been careful to spell out Bret's less-than-defensible medical views in full. As I just did here. At least this is what they were when he embarked on his crusade to convince the world that no one should get mRNA vaccines and they should take Ivermectin instead. Perhaps this slight inaccurate, which does not at all distort his basic message about public health. Perhaps this is what Bret thinks justifies his sharing and dunking on clips of me that he must know were designed to be misleading."
SAM HARRIS ATTEMPTS TO DELIVER THE WORST APOLOGY OF ALL TIME. You just have to see text to believe it. Read on because there's context that will make your hair fall off.
[Reminder that the transcription is automated -- thanks @happy_scribe -- so the occasional word may be off]
"(12:40) Perhaps I should clear something up here for Bret in case he listens to this. I believe he was once very offended by my summarizing his views about mRNA vaccines, inaccurately. This was unintentional. Wherever I have discussed them, and it's only been in a few places, I've said that Bret has called our vaccine policy the crime of the century, which he did. He predicted that millions might die as a result of it. But the crime, on his account, has been twofold. It entails our releasing dangerous pseudovaccines on an unsuspecting world. It also entails lying about or otherwise obfuscating the life-saving knowledge of the powers of ivermectin, which on his account was almost perfectly effective as a prophylactic against COVID. Whenever I've mentioned Bret's views, I've generally been careful to describe this two-fold effect. But there have been one or two times where I've said something more abbreviated, either because I was speaking quickly or at least what passes for quickly, if you're me, or I was interrupted. I said something like, Bret thinks our mRNA vaccines are getting people killed and might kill millions. (13:43) Whereas I should have more accurately said, Bret thinks our vaccine policy is getting people killed and might kill millions. I've heard through a back channel that Bret was quite outraged that I gave the impression that he believed that the vaccines by themselves might kill millions. That was a regrettable mistake. Unfortunately, there was no obvious place to correct it on somebody else's podcast. Again, in most contexts, I've been careful to spell out Bret's less-than-defensible medical views in full. As I just did here. At least this is what they were when he embarked on his crusade to convince the world that no one should get mRNA vaccines and they should take Ivermectin instead. Perhaps this slight inaccurate, which does not at all distort his basic message about public health. Perhaps this is what Bret thinks justifies his sharing and dunking on clips of me that he must know were designed to be misleading."
Sam, attempting to apologize, continues to slander, revealing once more that he has absolutely no idea of the facts he's talking about. I'll skip by the many casual falsehoods that Sam keeps repeating, and focus on this one:
"...he embarked on his crusade to convince the world that no one should get mRNA vaccines and they should take Ivermectin instead."
To understand how truly uninformed Sam is, read the snip below, by an article @BretWeinstein and @HeatherEHeying wrote a few weeks after the events in question.
Does it read like they're saying "no one should get mRNA vaccines"?
"...he embarked on his crusade to convince the world that no one should get mRNA vaccines and they should take Ivermectin instead."
To understand how truly uninformed Sam is, read the snip below, by an article @BretWeinstein and @HeatherEHeying wrote a few weeks after the events in question.
Does it read like they're saying "no one should get mRNA vaccines"?
In case Sam is looking for more corrections however, the piece by Heather and Bret above contains a list of errors in his podcast with Topol, which, years later, Sam has not acknowledged, in the slightest.
Ok, deep breath, let's keep going. I don't know if I can get through this whole thing in one sitting, but I'll do my best.
While I work on an audio clip, some midjourney art to keep you entertained.
I call it -- Clutching Pearls, with Sam Harris
I call it -- Clutching Pearls, with Sam Harris
"School closures made sense, until they didn't", he says.
Sam claims that the lethality to children was not immediately obvious, yet again betraying that he simply is incapable of coming in contact with the data.
This was published on , well known forum for virologists (the SARS-CoV-2 genome was first published there too) on February 17th 2020 by an NIH insider.
This was before most of us were even worried about COVID.virological.org
Sam claims that the lethality to children was not immediately obvious, yet again betraying that he simply is incapable of coming in contact with the data.
This was published on , well known forum for virologists (the SARS-CoV-2 genome was first published there too) on February 17th 2020 by an NIH insider.
This was before most of us were even worried about COVID.virological.org
Sam tries to explain one more time what he meant with his dead kids analogy. This actually matches my analysis of the Impact Theory podcast, but I should let y'all decide if you understand and/or art convinced by his argument.
My analysis of his argument is the form he made it on impact theory is here:
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1689430349548531713?s=20
By the way, it must be said that Sam's hallucinating of facts convenient to his preferred narrative is not limited to Bret. Here's a case where @shellenberger
caught him misrepresenting @DrJBhattacharya
to excuse his blacklisting on Twitter.
caught him misrepresenting @DrJBhattacharya
to excuse his blacklisting on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1636919883752685568?t=sfsfVF85QS3nZcP7OCArJw&s=19
@shellenberger @DrJBhattacharya What's worse, is that Sam actually ALSO misremembered what Nicholas Christakis had predicted on Sam's podcast. As a result, he literally inverted their positions at the time.
https://twitter.com/alexandrosM/status/1636920898799407104?t=sfsfVF85QS3nZcP7OCArJw&s=19
Ok, there's little ones that need to get to bed, so unfortunately this will have to go on pause for now.
If nothing else, people should know that collating all this information, making high quality clips, linking to references, etc, takes a lot of time, and I take exception to people like Sam dismissing all this work without even identifying a single actual error of import.
Just because they have a platform, of course, their positions go far and wide. And so long as they refuse to be shown the facts of the matter, they can continue being wrong indefinitely.
If nothing else, people should know that collating all this information, making high quality clips, linking to references, etc, takes a lot of time, and I take exception to people like Sam dismissing all this work without even identifying a single actual error of import.
Just because they have a platform, of course, their positions go far and wide. And so long as they refuse to be shown the facts of the matter, they can continue being wrong indefinitely.
I think I will only be able to pick this up tomorrow, but until then, here's the link from YouTube.
Having heard a bit more of it, this thread feels like an exercise in futility. There is no way I can respond to even 10% of the things Sam gets wrong in the podcast.
Nevertheless, give it a listen, and form your own opinions.
Having heard a bit more of it, this thread feels like an exercise in futility. There is no way I can respond to even 10% of the things Sam gets wrong in the podcast.
Nevertheless, give it a listen, and form your own opinions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
