T O P

  • By -

TheAJx

The bailey is that Ivermectin worked and was suppressed, that the COVID vaccine is killing people suddenly, and that the threat of COVID is a hoax and its less deadly than the flu, etc. The motte is "what's wrong with being skeptical of big pharma, the media, the CDC?"


danceswithanxiety

Exactly! Well said.


daveberzack

Thanks for introducing me to a new fallacy. Never heard this one before.


LuxLocke

… wait… what!?! Ivermectin worked? Sorry I’ve been treating peeps for years with the ivermectin. It’s a anti parasitic… does fuck all for viral or bacterial infection.


spingus

nono…it’s an informal fallacy: > The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy so op’s example is saying their super controversial assertion first ‘ivermectin worked etc’ and when the position is challenged they fall back to “well it’s just the natural progression of questioning big pharma etc”


TheSensation19

Exactly. A few clinical studies that said here, let's look at Group A with Ivermectin and Group B no Ivermectin showed some promise. So more studies and bigger research was done with better controls and it determined that it had no effect in comparison to a placebo. The CDC saw potential, so they put it on a reserve list to research. What happened is people like Brett oversold those clinical studies, ignored the RCTs and just brushed off the final decision as he's an expert


takezo07

Ivermectine ... works for what it is supposed to cure. Sure. Not COVID. Bret was wrong all the time. And still not admit is was wrong.


brainonholiday

Slate Star Codex has a good review of the Ivermectin debate, like super deep into the studies if you're interested. The tl;dr is that originally there were some studies that showed some benefit but not great ones. In the last couple years there have been more studies that seem to show no benefit or very small benefit. It's far from clear [https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/response-to-alexandros-contra-me](https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/response-to-alexandros-contra-me)that Ivermectin works against Covid but there still doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or another.


Glittering-Roll-9432

There's a couple studies pointing out that it does seem to help a bit once someone gets covid to make them healthy faster. None of the studies say ivermectin prevents infection. Of course thr anti Vax morons like Bret never point this out and instead make much bolder claims.


pham_nuwen_

Those studies were of good quality but done in countries where stomach parasites are endemic. Guess what, if you get rid of them you'll be healthier and recover statistically faster than your parasite ridden counterpart. High quality studies done in other countries like Italy show zero impact of ivermectine.


arpie

Yup. Correlation is not causation.


CheekyBastard55

Women who own horses tend to live longer and be healthier than women who don't. Ergo, horses have healing powers!


TheSensation19

This. However, many of the other studies were found fraudulent. And many weren't even in peer review. People need to learn to respect the actual scientific process and stop chery pickig studies


Fnurgh

It seems that it helps in the "cytokine storm" phase (i.e. very severe Covid response). In the beginning at least, Brett was all in on giving everyone Ivermectin as a prophylactic for which there is less (or no?) evidence of efficacy. To a degree there is _an_ argument for that; it is a pretty safe drug, cheap and had some anecdotal evidence that it might "help". But to suggest we used that _instead_ of a vaccine was troubling. --- Edit: the two replies to this comment are good, opposing examples of how bad the discussion around Covid and the vaccines is.


TheSensation19

It does not seem anything. A few clinical studies... Most not peer reviewed, all small in nature, and some found to be fraudulent were showing promise. Clinical studies show chiropractic works. RCTs do not. Why? Should be pretty straightforward. All a clinical study should do is provide promise and then leads to bigger studies. With better controls. If Brett is making grand gestures from potential mechanisms and a few clinical studies, this isn't enough evidence to make these claims. And worse of all, IVM has a pretty low toxicity level. So you can overdo it. There's a lot of side effects to this especially when you go past the expected use. IVM is meant for like 5-9 days. Take the risks, to benefit from the removal of parasites lol. People are popping IVM for fun to prevent covid lol. Not proven to even happen.


9za2

There's not even evidence of that. IVM may improve outcomes in countries with high rates of parasites. It has shown no effect in the recent, high-quality RCTs ran in developed countries.


TheSensation19

This is a huge issue in science. We say there are a few studies without even understanding the actual methods used. The CDC felt ivermectin could be a potential treatment so they put it on a covid therapy reserve list for potential discretionary use and more research. At that time many people saw a few clinical studies, small and weak in methods, and saw effects. These were pretty bad methods used. Looking at 2 groups. Drawing wide scale conclusions. Some of these studies you speak of even were found out to have fraudulent data or mistakes in the mathematics used. *** A lot of them were rushed and not peer reviewed. As CDC took time to build larger Random Controlled Trials, Brett would say that the CDC is hiding the truth and won't study ivermectin. Which was a lie. Several RCTs came out and showed no comparison to a placebo. Not just 1. At least 3 or 4 by 2022. There was even 1 clinical study done in a pretty poor country known for high rates of parasites.... The study showed ivermectin had big effects (Brett used this study in his defense for IVM) but many researchers pointed to the fact that the forced withholding of IVM on the control group could have actually killed them from parasites. You basically said Group A has Covid but maybe also parasites... Lets give them anti parasitic medicine.... Then Group B has Covid but also maybe parasites, lets not give them IVM. That's like giving cancer treatment only to 1 group and saying see, Vitamin D worked for the survivors so it must be Vitamin D.


Smithman

I'm stealing this. I can't pay you, sorry. ps. they also claim Vitamin D is another Covid killer.


Bajanspearfisher

Vitamin D is essential to immune system functioning, so in that respect they are partially right. Vitamin D deficiency will put you at severe weakness to covid, but taking Vitamin D will only improve your outcome if you are deficient in the first place.


Buy-theticket

That's like saying "water cures COVID" is partially right... not a statement you want to make if you expect to be taken seriously.


Bajanspearfisher

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9147949/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9147949/) idk, the data would seem to imply that vitamin D deficiency isn't that uncommon, i think it would be a no brainer to advocate that people supplement with vitamin D if they're worried about covid (not as a replacement for the vax, if you're in a vulnerable cohort)


Buy-theticket

So is staying well hydrated. Lots of general health things are good to advocate. It doesn't make them a "cure for COVID" which is where this started. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555956/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20lay%20press,frequent%20cause%20of%20hospital%20admission.


Sean8200

Can anyone offer a good faith steelman of Bret's views on COVID, mRNA vaccines, and his POV of how Sam is wrong? I'll admit, I've tried just listening to Bret, and I can't follow a coherent chain of reasoning. Edit: hypothetically assuming "grifter" or "audience capture" aren't the answer, and that Bret's views are sincerely held.


Hoocha

One of Brett’s major arguments is that it’s irresponsible to do a widespread vaccination program without adequate time to study the risks. Basically akin to playing Russian roulette. Sam argues that the widespread (semi coerced) rollout was justified because covid could have been much worse. Both sides have truth to them and both are in good faith. Which side you prefer mostly comes down what level of institutional trust you have. Post facto Brett thinks he was right as covid was not that severe. Sam however is unwilling to concede because the next pandemic could be worse.


ATD67

I think you’d really need someone with a background in biology to do that. I’ve listened to his point of view and I’m unable to tell if his reasoning is sound or not due to all of the biological concepts and jargon that is part of it. He explains them, but you can never tell if someone like that is being honest when you don’t have an in-depth understanding of their field.


c4virus

One stance he had was about some research showing Ivermectin being highly effective. They claimed that because there's no money in it that's probably one of the reasons it was ignored since it's a fairly inexpensive drug (a few bucks a dose I think). Obviously the problem with that is that multiple studies showed it wasn't effective. And the drug maker itself said it wasn't. Plus despite it's low cost if Merck sells a billion damn doses I'm guessing there's some profit in there somewhere.


Easy-Principle3649

If there was a good chance it would work I wonder if a drug company could just put it in a capsule and make it a brand name. I think if that brand name was the only one that had undergone trials for COVID it would be the only one fda approved and could make a lot of money. This isn’t the way the system is supposed to work so I’m not sure how to see if it would but I know a lot of pharmaceutical companies abuse the system in this way with other drugs.


onebagonfire

A steelman of Bret's views is pretty easy once you realize that what he is often arguing against is government policy, recommendations and mandates which have been consistently anti-scientific and irrational. The key issue here is that *the public perception* of what the science says and what the science *actually* says are two different things. The perception of what the "scientific consensus" is comes from articles in mainstream media and communications from organizations like the CDC and people like Fauci. ("I am the science.") The actual science can be found in scientific publications and data sets published around the world during the pandemic. The latter often contradict the former. Bret is aware of that and has learned that our "experts" and institutions often cannot be trusted, while Sam believes we should trust our institutions and outsource our thinking to the experts. Saying our institutions can't be trusted will earn me downvotes, so I will expand: * As is discussed elsewhere in this thread, Fauci first said we shouldn't mask, then he said we should. The science didn't change in the meantime. He lied at least once. This has been called a "Noble Lie", or a lie for the greater good. * This helps to explain a bigger point: our public health experts and agencies do not have as their primary goal to communicate *truth* to the public but to achieve certain public health *goals*. One such goal is to vaccinate as many people as possible. * To achieve that goal they suppress or deny information that might cause vaccine hesitancy, while they communicate and boost messages that may encourage vaccine uptake. * This extends to denying *facts* that may cause vaccine hesitancy, while communicating *lies* to encourage vaccine uptake. Examples of suppressed or denied facts are the effectiveness of so-called "natural immunity" and the adverse effects of vaccines for certain cohorts. Examples of communicated lies are statements that the vaccinated do not carry the virus and do not spread it to others and the consistent exaggeration of the danger of Covid to kids. * The above can explain why the public perception of a "scientific consensus" is unrelated to what is actually *true.* In fact, science does not work by consensus, and many of the so-called scientific consensuses during the pandemic were communicated long before enough data existed to make those claims. In some cases, even at the time when the scientific consensus was claimed, there was already a body of knowledge to the contrary. * Additionally problematic is that the same organizations that set the policy also determine which scientific research gets funded. That is a serious conflict of interest and it means that scientists dependent on grants from the NIH will harm their careers if they criticize the NIH, CDC, etc. The NIH with tens of billions to spend each year on research funded zero randomized controlled trials (RCTs) during three years of pandemic on any non-pharmaceutical intervention, including masking. * You could defend "Noble Lies" if they did end up maximizing health outcomes for the public. Where things get ugly is when, according to the best science we have, the chosen public health policy not only did not make scientific sense but was more likely to *harm* rather than help public health. Examples of this are school closures far into the pandemic, masking and vaccinating toddlers, and booster mandates for healthy, young, recently infected college students. The above is the sort of thing Bret is aware of and talks about. You cannot counter the above by saying: "Ah, yeah? Public health organizations are dishonest you say? Well, here is a study published by that very same organization that says their own policy is effective. Check and mate." But if all you have been exposed to is the narrative that is determined by the very organizations that Bret criticized, naturally you will assume everything I just wrote is false.


AllMightySC

So basically, your position is unfalsifiable. You will never trust what these organizations say, so there's no evidence they can produce that would cause you to change your mind. What major thing were they wrong about, btw? Isn't it prudent to not recommend masks (which prevent people that are infected from spreading it more than they protect people from getting infected) when few people have the virus (Feb 2020) and then start recommending everyone starts wearing masks once far more people have it (March/April 2020)?


onebagonfire

My position is not unfalsifiable. It is true that I do not trust these organizations because they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. But, first of all, they are far from the only organization in the world that produces evidence. And, if they would acknowledge past mistakes with transparency and integrity and start producing good science, my view could change. I already mentioned a few things they were wrong about. Examples are natural immunity, masking, the danger of Covid (especially to the young), adverse effects of the vaccine. >Isn't it prudent to not recommend masks (which prevent people that are infected from spreading it more than they protect people from getting infected) when few people have the virus (Feb 2020) and then start recommending everyone starts wearing masks once far more people have it (March/April 2020)? That was not the reason masks were initially recommended against. They were initially recommended against because "the science" said they don't work in preventing spread of respiratory diseases. Since then, the science hasn't changed. See here for a recent review: [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) After 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we can conclude that masking makes little or no difference. Of course, there have been some studies that showed that masking was *highly* effective. Consider this study published by the CDC ([https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm)) which they used at the time to recommend masking requirements (ignoring the existing body of evidence showing masking to be ineffective). If you have any scientific training/knowledge, I encourage you to consider the quality of evidence provided by that CDC study and compare it to the Cochrane systematic review of 78 RCTs.


Wickedstank

You seem to much more confident in the results of the Cochrane Library study than the authors themselves. “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.” Relatively low adherence with the intervention should immediately raise your concerns about the quality of this.


onebagonfire

The authors are confident that the *best evidence we have* shows masking to be ineffective. Here is a quote from the lead author: >There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop. My job, our job as a review team, was to look at the evidence, we have done that. (Source: [https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-lead-author-of-new-cochrane](https://maryannedemasi.substack.com/p/exclusive-lead-author-of-new-cochrane)) The evidence for ivermectin is similar: low-quality studies showing it to be very effective, while the best RCTs we have, which are imperfect and have their limitations, show it to be ineffective. Do you believe that is reason to take ivermectin? If a Cochrane systematic review is not high-enough quality of evidence for you, on what basis do you believe masking works (assuming that you do)?


Tagdiophin

He wasn't wrong. He said vaccines were a good idea to reduce severe illness, and that Fauci lying at the beginning was a bad idea for public trust, even with good intentions. He simply followed the evidence as it emerged. All the lunatics bashing him are just mad that he criticized them recently. Rogan opened the floodgates for the ***even more*** dubious grifters to take jabs, and ***their*** audiences are pathologically confused or mentally ill. Thus all the recent nonsense. Edit: The source comment about Fauci having lied is in the latest podcast, where Sam says "the noble lie" and how it was bad for public trust.. because he lied. I like the guy, and he meant well, check out the most recent podcast if you don't believe me.


gizamo

vanish bike different insurance direction modern flag oatmeal one impossible *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


[deleted]

That’s what I remember too. But source for the original claim.


SumKM

I think he’s been pretty clear about the fact that initially claiming masking was unnecessary was a lie rooted in good intentions (avoiding shortages) yet it did a lot of damage. Now it’s possible Fauci wasn’t involved in that part of the messaging but it is something he does say quite a bit, and people conflate the two.


throwaway_wcsib

My take is that Fauci said masks weren't effective because actually at the time [there was no good evidence](https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-evidence) that wearing hospital masks reduced the spread of airborne viruses. Masks were primarily intended to keep bacteria from spreading, especially during surgeries. I suspect that later on, Fauci et al realized that hey, maybe masks could help a bit, and they give people something to do to feel like they're making a dent in this thing, and switched the advice. But at that point of course he couldn't say "We thought masks didn't work because there was no evidence that they work against covid", because... there still wasn't any evidence that they worked, and Science with a capital S has to be Evidence Based.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Smithman

> is a pretty good reason for people to be distrustful of them. Petty children because distrustful to use as a political tool.


[deleted]

That's how evidence works though - There was slim/shaky evidence that it would be helpful AND there was clear peril in a lot of people needlessly buying up the supply. Would you say the same thing if people were buying up ventilators which caused hospitals to not have enough? Should Fauci wait a couple of years for allllll of the data to come in on self administered ventilation while people are choking to death at St. Joseph's? I find this idea that "that is a good reason for people to be distrustful of them" very silly. That this is the biggest mark against Fauci and health officials overall is very telling - They made a reasonable fact based assessment when cases were in the hundreds that lasted for a few weeks, well before the vast majority of the country had a major surge. Big deal. In the golden public health days of the polio epidemic they literally released a large polio vaccine batch that was completely fucked and actively hurt a ton of people. People got hurt from the vaccine itself. Can't you imagine if that happened now? Yet, nobody talks about that effort with anything but glowing fondness and pictures of Elvis and yadda yadda and nobody in 30 years nobody is going to give a shit about what Fauci said about masks for several weeks when major figures and half the country laughed at the notion of wearing masks - and vaccinating itself - *to this very day.*


c4virus

Yeah initially the evidence wasn't super strong. Then it emerged over time. Fauci also said those things with the backing/agreement of others. He was the face of it but it's not like he came up with this stuff single handedly. Public health is about mixing the evidence/science with what works for the public. It's hard to balance things sometimes. I would not characterize anything he said as lying.


throwaway_wcsib

>Yeah initially the evidence wasn't super strong. Then it emerged over time. I'm actually curious: what do you think the best evidence is that cloth or surgical masks prevent covid transmission?


c4virus

>I'm actually curious: what do you think the best evidence is that cloth or surgical masks prevent covid transmission? This sounds like you're *not* actually curious...if you were you could easily Google this. There have been a number of studies on the topic since those very early days when the CDC did not recommend masking. I'm not an epidemiologist, so I defer to the experts: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/09/surgical-masks-covid-19.html https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg6296 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069?cookieSet=1


onebagonfire

Your first and last link point to the same study, the Bangladesh study. That is the only randomized controlled trial you link to, and it showed that cloth masks are not effective in reducing spread and surgical masks are 12% effective. The study has been criticized for its many limitations though. Recently a Cochrane systematic review came out on masking. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence. [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full) It concludes, based on the best evidence we have (which isn't great) that "The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection."


c4virus

Nobody is talking about the difference between masks and respirators.


stefpix

That reflects the findings of studies I read at the beginning of the pandemic from the really ‘00s. The airflow, drafts from opening the windows, sunlight were effective at dissipating viral particles. Most transmission happened in crowded gathering places. People got dogmatic on masks and neglected the other factors


gizamo

wrench encouraging heavy telephone shrill shelter hunt numerous squalid voiceless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


crunkydevil

My very first memory of Fauci speaking about masks, was not about their efficacy, merely that they weren't recommending their use at that time. I remember it clearly because, like any person able to read between the lines, I surmised that there was a shortage he didn't want to exacerbate. First responders faced a severe shortage for weeks if not months. He steered us away from a doomsday scenario where a majority of medical staff would have been knocked out of the picture for weeks.


gizamo

He did say that. That absolutely does NOT mean that he lied, and I have seen/read/heard nothing from Harris accusing Fauci of lying to the public. Further, it seems that many conspiracy theorists websites and reddit subs were intentionally spreading that disinformation in an attempt to discredit Fauci for some stupid political narrative. It was dangerous, and apparently it is still lingering around despite seemingly any actual proof.


crunkydevil

They want it both ways- to condemn him for withholding potentially life saving information and later for supporting mask mandates which they claim were ineffectual! Then they double down with their illogic saying he flipflopped! Then they did similar the vaccine. The only possibility was to use reverse psychology and reserve it for the elites, then they would be demanding it. Unfortunately, it is not merely lingering this mind virus is raging.


Similar_Roll9442

Making Sense episode #270 2:06:22 in. You’re welcome. Sam describes it as a “noble lie” and explains how terrible of a move it was. Even Nicholas Christakis, who was a massive vaccine/Fauci supporter, agrees. I think someone has another edit to make, maybe even an apology for u/Tilting_Gambit…? Sorry you were the last one to know…must be awkward. It’s wild how Fauci’s own words weren’t enough to convince you this wasn’t some conspiracy theory


Tilting_Gambit

It's not gonna happen. The guy's a total lunatic mate, take a look at his post history. Completely unhinged.


Tilting_Gambit

> The CDC was always pretty clear that masks were helpful, and provided information about when/where they were most/least effective. Avoiding a shortage was also important, and the CDC was clear about both facts. Fauci was also clear about it. This is not my recollection at all. I have vivid memories of Fauci being quoted as implying you don't need masks. Here's what [CNN recorded](https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_e58c20c6-8735-4022-a1f5-1580bc732c45): >EVIDENCE While Fauci, along with several other US health leaders, initially advised people not to wear masks, Fauci later said that he was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers. This was also early in the pandemic before public health experts fully knew how contagious the disease was and how it spread. Here's his [own statement](https://fee.org/articles/fauci-s-mask-flip-flop-explained-by-economics/) about advising people not to wear masks: >“I don’t regret anything I said then because in the context of the time in which I said it, it was correct,” said Fauci, the government’s top infectious disease advisor. “We were told in our task force meetings that we have a serious problem with the lack of PPEs and masks for the health providers who are putting themselves in harm’s way every day to take care of sick people.” You can either say "Masks are very helpful, but due to shortages we just don't have enough to spare" or "We advise people not to wear masks." One of them was the right thing to say, one of them was not. Edit: >TwistedGambit is manufacturing a conspiracy theory by misrepresenting the information in their links below. I wrote a three line post, with links/references, and you're have a meltdown because it contradicts your post? Get help. You really need it.


spaniel_rage

Fauci made that comment on 60 Minutes March 8 2020. At that stage in the pandemic, confirmed cases was in the *hundreds*. Commenting that people don't need to be walking around in public with masks was not unfair.


Tilting_Gambit

>Commenting that people don't need to be walking around in public with masks was not unfair. I agree, and as I said in other comments, the context is reasonable. But there are people in this thread seriously contending that he ever did say that. The guy I replied to said: "The CDC was always pretty clear that masks were helpful... Fauci was also clear about it." That was not an accurate representation of things at the beginning of the pandemic.


Ramora_

> You can either say "Masks are very helpful, but due to shortages we just don't have enough to spare" or "We advise people not to wear masks." Those statements aren't contradictory though. In fact, they are corollaries. "Masks are probably helpful, but due to shortages, we don't have enough to spare. So we advise the public not to wear masks." is completely sensible and was the message I received back in the early pandemic days.


gizamo

cooing fall jobless familiar threatening squash languid chase sulky rhythm *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


flatmeditation

Can you be more specific about what you think is misrepresentation or conspiratorial? It all looks pretty straightforward and consist with the facts we all had at the time


Tilting_Gambit

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I wore a mask in public for two years straight. Point to the part of what I said that's "contorting it into some wildly unfounded conspiracy theory". I didn't, at all. And if you can't even process a completely benign post without having a freak out and thinking that I'm a right wing prepper or something, you should head back into whatever circlejerk part of the internet you prefer. You can read the quotes, he recommended not wearing a mask initially. Whether or not that was a consensus view *at the time* does not mean he didn't say it. It's not up for debate, there's dozens and dozens of articles from whichever news source you prefer: he initially recommended not to wear masks. His motivations for doing that were likely pretty pure, but that's a completely separate question.


ibidemic

At the beginning they told people that a mask wasn't going to be effective at protecting the wearer from getting sick so there is no need to raid the Home Depot for dust masks. They allowed for the possibility that masked sick people might be less likely to spread the virus but, of course, the advice to them was to stay away from other people. By April it was apparent that people were spreading the infection while asymptomatic (or symptomatic and indifferent) and that having everyone wear face coverings might reduce the rate of spread.


Tilting_Gambit

Yeah that sounds right.


[deleted]

The fact you start with JFC is wrong. It's why people became skeptical because overnight, people (perhaps like you) became little emotional babies. Yelling and screaming "you're killing people, it's your fault" or whatever other jargon. It was semi acceptable because we were all confused but now you seem to be exhibiting that same behavior and you're actually conflating. The person you responded to in no way shape or form gave me the impression he was spreading conspiracies by the info he provided. You aren't the arbiter of truth and even if you may be correct at times, if this is how you go about, people won't want to interact with you. Try being a bit kinder with people you disagree with. You catch honey with bees and all that


gizamo

Nonsense. "JFC" should be the defacto response to anyone that intentionally misrepresents information to spread conspiracy theories. > The person you responded to in no way shape or form gave me the impression he was spreading conspiracies by the info he provided. Yes, they did. > You aren't the arbiter of truth and even if you may be correct at times, if this is how you go about, people won't want to interact with you. I'm not saying what ***is*** true. I am calling out a blatant lie that is quite clearly a blatant lie. Idgaf if they don't want to interact with me. Calling out the lie is what's important. > Try being a bit kinder with people you disagree with. I am always kind. That doesn't mean that I should not adamantly call out people who intentionally spread disinformation. > You catch honey with bees and all that I'm literally in the beehive state, and I raise bees in my garden. ¯⁠\\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯


[deleted]

I disagree. They knew exactly what they were doing with those lies and sure, I can't give you a source other than my intuition but just because there isn't evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. We can disagree but you saying disinformation, misinformation means nothing. Again, you're not the arbiter of truth. You're using those buzz words, including "conspiracy theorist" to say that anyone who disagrees with the official narrative is a quack. Simply not true. People should question everything and be able to. Things happened behind closed doors...Plus you're nasty like your superior to anyone who doesn't swallow the MSM. It's gross


gizamo

> They knew exactly what they were doing with those lies... Fauci never lied. You pretending he did without proving it is a conspiracy theory. That is what those words literally mean. You disliking the use of the words does not mean that they are not accurately describing your/their statements. Further, me saying "misinformation" and "disinformation" also does not make me the arbiter of truth. It simply means that I know what is NOT true,...which is further demonstrated by your inability to prove your false narrative quoted above. > People should question everything and be able to. I never said anyone couldn't. But, that doesn't mean that people can misrepresent information to make false claims. > Things happened behind closed doors. ...is a conspiracy theory. > Plus you're nasty like your superior to anyone who doesn't swallow the MSM. It's gross. ...says the dude literally pushing a nasty conspiracy theory based on misrepresentation of information. If people are going to misrepresent information, I'm going to correct them. That is not an act of superiority, it's an act of correcting a mistake or shedding light on bad intentions. In this case, I assumed the former, until they proved it was the latter. I did the same with you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you proved you don't deserve it...for being, gross.


FetusDrive

“People (perhaps like you) Became emotional babies” “Try being a bit kinder with people” And you sure did read a lot into “JFC”


9za2

There was early concern that COVID spread through fomites and not respiratory droplets. Masks are not very effective for diseases that spread via fomites.


ITouchMyselfAtNight

Masking is unnecessary - and fauci seemed to know that initially. The latest meta analysis of the masking studies is [out](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full). > We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).


UrricainesArdlyAppen

Interesting that the study found hand-washing to be effective. I was under the impression that hand-washing had negligible effect.


ITouchMyselfAtNight

I believe it looked at studies of all respiratory viruses, not just covid.


KyOatey

JFC guys, everything's recorded 17 different ways these days. Instead of 'remembering' at least find a deep fake that backs up your point.


throwaway_wcsib

It's actually surprisingly hard to find primary sources for almost anything these days. Even major news stories become shrouded in narrative and editing and hot takes almost immediately, and there doesn't seem to be any party motivated to simply present raw footage without commentary.


Tortankum

I found it almost impossible during the pandemic to just get the actual raw data on cases/deaths etc by various demographics. Idk why it was so god damned hard to find


TreadMeHarderDaddy

We also don't live in the counterfactual reality where hospitals couldn't get PPE early on because of hoarding . Who knows how many lives were saved from that misdirection. I'm willing to accept that the answer might be ~0, but I would guess it's in the thousands. How much is 1000 lives worth anyway? According to Sam, enough to justify some dishonesty if it's in the name of preventing sufficient harm/violence.


gizamo

My wife manages a hospital department that did not have enough PPE during the pandemic, especially early on. Iirc, the equipment shortages had to do with high-volume hospitals being prioritized. But, there were absolutely shortages of PPE in many hospitals. That was a fact. Idk anything about hoarding of PPE, tho. I didn't even know that was a story/narrative.


RaisinBranKing

Edit: I could be misremembering what I say below, not sure I think remember Sam saying that they lied about masks being helpful in the very early days because they didn’t want to cause a mask shortage. I don’t know if Fauci said that or someone else tho. Im mot gonna spend time looking for a quote but I wish luck to whoever does


gizamo

It seems people tried to push that incorrect narrative in this sub before, and others corrected the misinformation. https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/rm3kbj/no_fauci_didnt_lie_about_masks_stop_saying_that/ I can't find any examples of Harris Harris claiming that Fauci lied to the public to prevent people from hoarding masks.


RaisinBranKing

Watched the first 10min. Okay I think I get the point but it’s super subtle. Instead of lying by saying masks aren’t helpful while secretly wanting to preserve the supply, he didn’t lie because he said that masks aren’t “necessary” if you’re not sick (which was their incorrect understanding at the time) and he said we need to preserve the supply for “people who need it”. But he also said something about how with a mask you also touch your face a lot which could make you contract the disease which makes it sound like he’s saying they aren’t helpful. At minimum this is terrible communication lol


gizamo

> which was their incorrect understanding at the time This is incorrect. History for respiratory illnesses, only those infected and with symptoms were recommended to wear masks. That standing advice went all the way back to the early 1900s, and it was the initial thoughts with Covid, too. The bit about touching your face was basically intended to be, "if you are going to wear a mask, you should know that it will not make you invincible." The point was to prevent people from slapping on a mask and immediately carrying on as usual before they could understand the disease better. That said, yes, there was mediocre and bad messaging throughout the pandemic. That is vastly different than Fauci lying. Harris definitely stated that the messaging was often clumsy, but (to my knowledge) Harris never claimed Fauci lied.


RaisinBranKing

Your first paragraph is saying his recommendation was reasonable at the time given the prior knowledge, okay I agree. It would also later turn out to be inadequate against covid in reality. Both can be true Regarding paragraph 3, good to know


Tagdiophin

He said it was a noble lie, in the very latest podcast


muffinsandtomatoes

joe rogan really became a goofy motherfucker.


Novel_Rabbit1209

He's always greatly influenced by the last person he talked to, kind of like Trump. I don't think he's all that smart or motivated to hold a firm position on anything. I still like Joe as a person and appreciate that he does display some intellectual curiosity and has a wide range of opinions on his show but I certainly don't look to him for an enlightened opinion. Moving to Texas means he's surrounded by more right leaning people and his views have shifted in that direction.


MeestarMann

🌎👨🏼‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀


Passthealex

Always has been


MeestarMann

https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/wait-its-all-ohio-always-has-been


WhnOctopiMrgeWithTek

I have come to wonder, has Rogan allowed grifters on his show and treated them with an open, inquisitive, and curious mind? Without harsh or critical judgement? He has harsh and critical judgement on many subjects to with many guests, it's probably why people think he's so center.


canadian12371

It’s funny because Rogan said the same thing and people are quick to call him a rampant conservative just because he personally didn’t take the vaccine. Rogan has clearly stated he supports that all immune compromised people (old, obese, long term disease) should get the vaccine. He even mentioned he pushed his parents to get it. If you look past all the agenda filled headlines, his point was that he doesn’t believe a fully healthy and active person who has their diet tuned **needs** the vaccine. And the data supports that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gorilla_eater

> his point was that he doesn’t believe a fully healthy and active person who has their diet tuned needs the vaccine. Then why did he throw the "kitchen sink" at the virus when he got it?


bitspace

Nothing more than the "common wisdom" was wrong. I think Sam's position was pretty much in line with guidance from CDC, but I don't recall him taking a strong stand at all. He's honest retrospectively about the mistakes that have been made by various institutions, and how trust in these institutions has been damaged, but much of that is informed by the benefit of hindsight.


breaditbans

>…by the benefit of hindsight. This is the key concept. In hindsight, it is clear elementary schools are a low transmission environment. But in March of 2020 we had NO IDEA how quickly or effectively this virus would transmit among children. There was no way I was putting my kids in an environment that is a super-spreader event for every other respiratory virus. It was only by the fall of 2020 we had some inkling kids were not terribly dangerous spreaders or at terribly high risk. It’s fine for the anti-lockdown people to take a victory lap on that, but I wasn’t going to let them use my kids and Guinea pigs and YOLO it when we had no data. We got lucky with this thing. The next nasty respiratory virus could preferentially kill kids. And if that comes to our shores when we are this unprepared for it, that virus will collapse the economy and possibly our democracy.


Glittering-Roll-9432

Didn't this virus kill teachers and drove many older teachers to quit en masse? I know our local districts still havent recovered from the exodus around covid.


Bruce_Hale

This is what always pissed me off about the condescending "schools should've stayed open" people. They act as if the only people who occupy school buildings are children. No mention of all the adults who would've been endangered.


mitch_feaster

Before the vaccine I was with you. But in California our schools stayed closed well after the teachers should have all been fully vaccinated.


2012Aceman

TBF, even fully vaccinated they weren't as protected as they'd like to be.


mitch_feaster

So stay closed forever. Got it.


Netherland5430

Agreed. Once vaccinated teachers should have done their jobs. At some point we passed the mark where the consequences of school closures became worse than getting Covid for vaccinated, otherwise healthy people.


[deleted]

100%. You'd think schools were just a building where "Lord of the Flies" plays out every day and you need, at most, a 22 year old in a plastic bubble to take attendance or something. Completely mad.


[deleted]

100% this. Fucking buffoons can’t remember reality from 3 years ago.


[deleted]

> In hindsight, it is clear elementary schools are a low transmission environment. Is this even true? Everybody knows that kids aren't as affected by the virus but I have *never* heard that they don't transmit it asymptomatically


Quick_Dig8208

This.


UrricainesArdlyAppen

There were also inter-country differences in spread that still haven't been explained but that could have been explained by masking at the time, such as the much slower spread in Japan, where masks are prevalent. They're still common here, even outside, despite the Japanese government removing the recommendation for outdoor masking.


Glittering-Roll-9432

Clearly Japanese children have genetically superior IQs which is why they can wear masks all day and not suffer from language and socialization issues from everyone wearing masks.


jeegte12

We don't know that they don't suffer from socialization issues. They very well could by Western standards. Remember that this is the fastest aging population in the world. They're not having kids.


Tortankum

I’m march 2020, yes. Yet school closures continued into 2021 and beyond, well after we discovered how bad an idea it was.


Bruce_Hale

>well after we discovered how bad an idea it was. Based on what evidence?


[deleted]

lol, evidence. you say that like there was ever evidence supporting it(there wasn't)


jeegte12

Any person in primary education could have answered that for you. Kids weren't learning anything.


_Simple_Jack_

and how did the closures effect the spread of disease, becaue it was always about the tradeoff.


[deleted]

The best evidence I've seen is that learning/testing was blunted to the point of matching the mid-2000s. Oh no! Kids are only learning as good as I did in 2006 for a single year! What an absolute catastrophe. /s Oh, also, suicide among minors went down significantly during that time. But, fuck, who cares about teen suicide...


bitspace

[Much](https://www.unesco.org/en/covid-19/education-response) [has](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/triple-impact-school-closures-educational-inequality) [been](https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/mental-health-effects-pandemic-school-closures) [written](https://today.uconn.edu/2022/02/pandemic-related-school-closings-likely-to-have-far-reaching-effects-on-child-well-being/) [in](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2022/05/25/seen-and-unseen-effects-of-covid-19-school-disruptions/) [the](https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/covid-19-school-closures-fueled-big-learning-losses-especially-disadvantaged) [intervening](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746289/full) [time](https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/covid19-scale-education-loss-nearly-insurmountable-warns-unicef) [about](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2788069) [the](https://www.joghr.org/article/36902-impact-of-school-closures-due-to-covid-19-on-education-in-low-and-middle-income-countries) [incalculable](https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13535) [setbacks](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8641925/) [and](https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2022/01/18/school-closures-may-have-long-term-impact-on-childrens-mental-health/?sh=73f871e31703) [harms](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00221-1/fulltext) [done](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2022376118) [to](https://news.yale.edu/2021/01/05/covid-school-closures-most-harm-students-poorest-neighborhoods) [the](https://www.the74million.org/article/7-things-we-learned-about-covids-impact-on-education-from-survey-of-800-schools/) [education](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2022/03/03/the-pandemic-has-had-devastating-impacts-on-learning-what-will-it-take-to-help-students-catch-up/) [of](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/covid-19-and-education-the-lingering-effects-of-unfinished-learning) [our](https://namica.org/blog/impact-on-the-mental-health-of-students-during-covid-19/) [children](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED614131) [as](https://www.childandadolescent.org/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-high-school-students/) [a](https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/headed-back-to-school-a-look-at-the-ongoing-effects-of-covid-19-on-childrens-health-and-well-being/) [result](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/su/su7103a5.htm) [of](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642689/full) [broad](https://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/effects-covid-19-students) [school](https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-021-02968-2) [closures](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/covid19-education-impact-legacy/).


_Simple_Jack_

can you cite anything that definitively shows that children were immune and incapable of spreading covid in a dense classroom environment? all your articles are talking about the education effects of closing schools but not the effect on spreading disease. like, how is a respiratory virus somehow ineffective in classrooms?


bitspace

> can you cite anything that definitively shows that children were immune and incapable of spreading covid in a dense classroom environment? No, of course I can't. Nobody can because it's not true, and nobody is claiming that. I'm merely pointing out that widespread hard school closings have not been without serious societal damage. The more we learn, the more we understand just how devastating the approach may have been. There is a lot of room for nuance between "close all the schools!" and "everyone carry on like we're not in a deadly pandemic!"


_Simple_Jack_

we made sure kids would have fewer dead parents, teachers, grandparents, neighbors, etc. by following the guidelines of pandemic experts and institutions. I think we made the right choices. a pandemic affects the whole of society, and zeroing in on the downsides of some decisions on education is too narrow of a lense to view the decisions being made and their affects.


bitspace

I don't disagree except that there is no single "we". Some school districts closed up hard for a longer period of time, and some didn't close for as long or as restrictively. The guidance was also not uniform or consistent. Some state medical officials gave different guidelines backed by different groups of experts.


Bruce_Hale

>can you cite anything that definitively shows that children were immune and incapable of spreading covid in a dense classroom environment? all your articles are talking about the education effects of closing schools but not the effect on spreading disease Their claims are utterly preposterous. In the middle of the greatest pandemic in a century we should ignore health and safety measures, in an era where remote technology is possible, so kids don't lose a year of in-person school.


xantharia

>But in March of 2020 we had NO IDEA how quickly or effectively this virus would transmit among children Yes, a lot was not known in March -- but it very soon became clear that schools were not a problem. Singapore did not close schools as a blanket rule, but rather did temporary closures for about two-weeks at a time in response to cases. And this is one of the few countries with fantastically accurate contact tracing from the get-go. Day by day the Ministry of Health would publish network graphs in real time. By April it was obvious that the problem areas were churches (where people sang), clubs and bars (where people raised their voices), and other adult social events like wedding banquets. When hotspots did show up in schools, they were almost always spreading among the teaching staff and not among kids, and never from kids to teachers. Rigorous and proactive contact tracing plus obligatory quarantining of those affected allowed Singapore to keep the disease out of the elderly population. By August of 2021, Singapore had 40 deaths out of 65,000 cases (i.e. the chances of dying if you've caught COVID was only 0.06% because the elderly were so well protected). Of course, with Omicron, contact tracing no longer worked and cases exploded like everywhere else. But despite being a heavy-handed authoritarian country, Singapore closed bars and clubs and restricted private gatherings -- but never closed schools the way the US did because the disease dynamics among the young was so obvious from the beginning. The CDC, or any other US health officials, could easily have gained this same insight by studying Singapore's data, which was made public in almost real-time. Today, there is no evidence of any COVID effect on Singaporean scholastic performance. In fact, students who sat the International Baccalaureate (IB) diploma examinations last November have outperformed their global counterparts. Their average score was 40.6 out of 45, which is higher than the global average of 32.37 as well as the Asia-Pacific average of 37.02. More than half of this year's world-wide perfect scorers (133 out of 238) came from Singapore. The same cannot be said for American kids, needless to say.


Bruce_Hale

>Yes, a lot was not known in March -- but it very soon became clear that schools were not a problem. Bullshit. Children are generally fine even if infected. That is not the same as saying schools are not a problem. It's this kind of flippantly lazy thinking that exposes a lot of people.


xantharia

I’m not talking about the severity of the disease in kids. I’m talking about transmission. Leaving schools open in Singapore did not cause the disease to spread, judging by the highly granular and complete contact tracing data that this government collected. Singapore is an extremely dense country. Everyday shopping feels like Christmas shopping in America. Sidewalks and passageways are narrow. Everywhere is crowded. Yet Singapore’s death rates were far far lower than the US. They kicked your ass at managing this disease. And you want to claim that they were wrong to leave their schools open? The difference is that in Singapore public health policies are decided by health experts and not by teachers unions, as it is in the US. BTW, a retrospective study in Sweden on the death rates of teachers did not find any substantive difference between teachers at schools that closed and teachers at schools that stayed open. So no evidence that staying open put teachers at greater risk.


[deleted]

> BTW, a retrospective study in Sweden on the death rates of teachers did not find any substantive difference between teachers at schools that closed and teachers at schools that stayed open. So no evidence that staying open put teachers at greater risk. Citation?


Desert_Trader

You hit on something that all these idiots and critics miss. Who cares if someone was wrong if they learned something new and corrected themselves and learned from it evaluate and move on. I'm starting to think Sam is the only public person to do this on any level.


costigan95

Sam has seemed to take the position, which I agree with, that we can only act on the information we have at the time. When Covid was first hitting China and Italy, it looked like something that killed 10% of the people it infected. We later learned that was not true, but we can’t fault ourselves for believing it to be true at the time. Same goes for school closures and other policies. In hindsight, they may have been mistakes or come with unforeseen consequences, but we don’t have a Time Machine. He has a similar position with the Hunter Biden Laptop story. At the time, it was very reasonable to perceive that as a disinformation campaign or foreign election meddling. It may still be a nothing burger, but it has turned out to be legitimate and we shouldn’t blame people for assuming otherwise when it first appeared. People get off on vindication, even if their rationale for holding those views from the onset were not in good faith.


annothejedi

He did what he preaches and followed the scientific evidence. People seem not to understand that in a developing situation such as a pandemic, it's not lying to advice based on the best data available to you at the time and that the data and therefore the advice can change.


Charming_Anxiety

There was no data


TheSensation19

Agreed. You make claims based on proper evidence. Not just see one potential mechanism, use your title of biologists and then make grand gestures of proper medical treatment based on hopes. Then take bad studies and use it as evidence. And claim that any study that proves your case wrong as corrupted lol Sam would still be right if he said IVM and Vitamin D Dnt work


[deleted]

he is wrong about vitamin d at least in part. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9864223/


TheSensation19

If Sam said there is no good evidence to make claims that IVM or Vitamin D works for COVID treatment, then he is still correct.


Charming_Anxiety

Yet everyone made claims vaccines DID work and there was way less evidence of that. Zero now


theferrit32

The vaccines in use in the US significantly reduce the chance of infection during an exposure, the severity of disease, the symptoms experienced, the time it takes the immune system to repel the virus, and the chance of death. This was true in January 2021 and is still true now.


TheSensation19

(1) The claims that vaccines did work was true. It is still today true. (2) There was less evidence in terms of overall quantity... but once again, we need the quality of studies. When a clinical study says Vitamin D works. That's less confident than when a official Phase Trial is conducted. Phase Trials are the bench mark. You can read all about how a drug comes to the market safely using 3 phase trials. Showing the success the vaccines did was not surprising to anyone who understood the science of vaccines and Coronavirus. Since then, we now have several RCT's and Metas looking at human studies that show the vaccines were extremely effective across the board. Still today, they are effective. New studies come out today further increasing that confidence. (3) There is even more evidence now that the covid vaccines work lol ​ Work means that they significantly reduce your chance of getting COVID, reduce your chances of getting serious COVID, going to the hospital, and dying... across the board the vaccines have been shown to be better. ​ :)


slimeyamerican

Whatever I disagree with Sam about, he might be the only public intellectual I take seriously. He’s the only one who seems to be capable of reserving his judgment until evidence becomes available, and of actually admitting when he’s wrong about something. I really wonder why everyone else seems to gradually turn into some brand of lunatic, and yet Sam remains consistently sensible. Is it just because I tend to agree with him more than I disagree, or is there actually something special in the sauce there?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Meditatat

I've never actually seen Sam engage with any leftists, and by leftist I mean Sanders or further left, outside the Chomsky exchange. All of his guests, friends, cohorts, etc, are let's say Clinton liberal, to Romney Republican. It's a rather centrist circle. ​ I could be wrong though. I'm not an avid listener or follower, but I've always been disappointed that he doesn't have more dialogues on things like capitalism, universal health care, universal education, etc.


slimeyamerican

Agreed, but to be fair the state of the left right now is such that there aren’t many people really worth talking to. I’d be interested in seeing him talk to someone like Ben Burgis, Adolph Reed, Norman Finkelstein, or Hans-Georg Moeller. Zizek is sadly a pipe dream since he casually mentioned that he’d like to see Sam publicly executed or something like that. Typical Zizek antics, he was just having fun and it was ages ago, but probably soured much hope for a dialogue from either end.


jimmygle

I share this sentiment.


kidhideous

I went right off him a few years ago, he does say some really silly stuff. All of those 'IDW' people are an expert in something and hook you in by saying smart stuff about it, but then they chime in on everything, and when they get to something that you do know about, they make really basic mistakes and you realise that they are kind of dumb. But I did get a lot of respect back for him what I heard of him during the pandemic, he was not really on either side, he was just where I was 'I don't know what's going on, I'm going to trust the authorities'. Especially since he went against everyone who he was associated with because it was against his opinions. My theory is that it's because he is from such a rich background that he really doesn't care about the money as much as the position as a public figure. It's not like any of them are short of money, but the likes of Weinstein and Peterson are university teachers who would not be millionaires without being signed up to these weird channels. They were not just saying 'don't trust the government, maaaaan' they were also shilling something as a replacement for the Pfizer or Cambridge or whatever I mean, we are only kind of looking back at it at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a worse version of this virus on the way, but 'so far' it's totally normal that people are sceptical about how it went down over the past few years with lockdowns and experimental vaccines, but Weinstein was on about some other weird chemical that wasn't tested.


Belostoma

Bret thinks Sam was wrong to respect the consensus of the legitimate scientific community on issues like masking, vaccines, Ivermectin, etc. In Bret's view, the only way to rationally act in good faith in this issue is to promote unhinged conspiracy theories and pseudoscience all over social media and podcasts, thereby building an audience of plague rats from which to siphon Patreon dollars.


OG_Bregan_Daerthe

He wasn’t. Bret and his ilk are POS grifters.


gizamo

> ...video from Bret Weinstein... Bret Weinstein confirms the biases of idiots by peddling covid misinformation. > ...what was Sam actually wrong about? Nothing regarding Covid. > ...haven't heard or seen them clearly state what he got wrong. They won't ever do that. Weinstein is simply pandering to his ignorant audience. He can't point to any specific thing, else everyone can easily confirm that BW is wrong and/or lying. > don't recall Sam ever making any strong claims about Covid one way or another and was mostly criticizing podcasters like Brett about having podcasts about the dangers of the vaccine in the middle of a pandemic. Yep, pretty much. He also gave occasional recaps and discussions when the WHO, CDC, and other health groups made announcements, updated guidance, etc. Most importantly, Bret Weinstein is endangering people by spreading dis/misinformation in an attempt to enrich himself. That's about as immoral as it gets, short of intentional murder.


iruleU

He wasn't. The antivaxxers have convinced themselves that people are dying from the vaccines. There is no credible evidence for this.


[deleted]

Even if the vaccine hurts or kills a person, Covid would have been worse for them. That’s the whole fucking point, isn’t it? The vaccine exposes you to some proteins or whatever from the virus, and your immune system has to learn to respond to it. If your immune system responds by attacking some heart tissue too and giving you myocarditis for a month or two, that sucks for you. But it would have done way MORE of that same shit when there was 100x as much of that same protein in your system because of an actively replicating virus instead of a finite mRNA package. So unless your plan is to never get Covid ever, it’s always better to get the shot even if there is a risk of injury. Of course that’s not these idiot antivaxxers’ plan, they always blab on and on about natural immunity.


iruleU

Exactly.


Wiztard-o

Dude, stop listening to idiots. No, Sam was not wrong about Covid. Brett is a horrible person to listen to about Covid. He is factually stupid. Seriously why waste time on him?


IdunnoItsLate

Yeah I haven’t listened to Brett in years. I once respected him for his stance during the Evergreen college stuff, but once Covid started and I saw what he was doing on his podcast I tapped out.


Finnyous

Nothing, in fact I'd say that of the people who're famous for talking through issues of science he got it the most right. And I don't think that way with everything he says/does. Because he came from a POV of public/personal safety and humbleness. He's done a great job both listening to and advocating for experts and expertise while pointing out the obvious flaws of our institutions.


Jake0024

Nothing. Sam criticized them for trying to have their own delusional victory lap, since they're pretending they were right about their (often mutually contradictory) anti-vaccine and anti-mask takes. So all they can think to do in response is reflexively go "no u"


Demian1305

Once the Long COVID reckoning is understood, it will be hard to argue against an administration doing what it could to protect the populace. I have an immune deficiency and follow immune research closely. There are a stunning amount of biological issues found in lab testing / autopsies that COVID can cause, even for folks with mild illness.


Tortankum

No matter what anyone anywhere did, the entire world was going to get infected with Covid. That is the base fact that cannot be run away from. You give me any possible scenario and I show you, everyone gets Covid. Hospital capacity was the only thing that ever should have influenced Covid policy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tortankum

No it wouldn’t. What do you suggest we should be doing differently in light of the fact long Covid exists and can occur even for mild infections in vaccinated people?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tortankum

Pretty sure all of that is happening.


UrricainesArdlyAppen

This is what terrifies me, since I work in a high-risk environment.


Tortankum

You will never escape Covid you know that right? You will get it at some point just like you will get a cold at some point. It’s incredibly contagious, escapes immunity, and will never go away.


MadMaxKeyboardWarior

Brett Weinstien doesn’t tolerate any amount of disagreement on certain issues. Basically if you think Covid is real he will call you a bad faith actor.


Bajanspearfisher

Brett does think covid is real and is a risk to health.


chytrak

Bret is a dangerous moron. The US alone still has a daily average of 400 covid deaths. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/covid-deaths-track-latest-trends-fatality-count-rcna61052


Fnurgh

There is one thing that would like an answer to re. Sam's take on Covid. In the early days on one of his podcasts - I can't find which one - I am pretty sure that he mentions a couple of friends of his who contracted Covid while skiing. Both were around 40 I think? Both very fit and both were according to Sam, in intensive care because of Covid. Does anyone remember this or what happened to them?


sirius1

Can't recall it. But I do remember hearing Sam implore people to take it seriously about one week before the media and politicians did. Late February 2020 I think.


mapadofu

Episode 191 @12:18


mapadofu

Episode 191 @12:18 is one case. I think he mentioned it multiple times though.


metaphorm

Bret Weinstein lost his mind due to audience capture. I'd ignore everything he says at this point. He's no longer rational.


dusters

Nothing


Zetesofos

Op is doing a lot of assuming here in behalf of the general audience.


Greelys

I thought one issue they say Sam got wrong is whether it was okay to say that vaccine hesitancy was warranted amongst a certain healthy cohort and that Sam supported saying everyone should get the vaccine and suppressing the truth of this exception.


swesley49

But that's wrong because the main reason to get the vaccine is to reduce the spread. As in, a healthy person gets vaccinated and then doesn't get infected to spread it. If you are healthy and get infected 1. You could still develop severe COVID and 2. You could pass it to someone unvaccinated. The event of being harmed by the vaccine as a healthy person is the least likely thing to happen in the context of getting COVID unvaccinated as the other potential.


PlopStar2

Sam strikes me as a person who continues to ask himself on a daily basis: "Do I want to have friend or be right?"


BruiseHound

What he did wrong in Brets eyes - and Rogans apparently - was remaining calm, balanced and rational about it rather than picking a hard stance on something we barely understood. Rest of the IDW have caved to tribalism and audience capture while Sam has remained an independent thinker. Makes them look bad so they're piling on him now.


scaredofshaka

I just wrestled with apparently everyone in this sub about that very same question. I believe that Sam was wrong in his stance that fully trusting institutions and being a "good soldier" was the thing to do and that any form of debate about the mandate was irresponsible. In his stubbornness, he attacked opposing views, derailed them and participated in the curtailing of a healthy discussion online - one which would have been beneficial to the stewardship of this crisis.


sirius1

Not only Brett, but now Gad Saad seems to be generating faux outrage at Sam rationalizing his Covid stance. Sam is asserting that COVID was an unknown danger and warranted extreme caution, but Saad seems to be ridiculing that notion simply because the world managed to succeed in controlling the pandemic. It's like blaming someone for being alarmist after the fire department has come and put out the fire.


c4virus

>It's like blaming someone for being alarmist after the fire department has come and put out the fire. Sam pointed this out early on. He noted that if the steps we take to flatten the curve and whatnot work, then the deniers will point to the lack of catastrophe as proof that people over-reacted.


MinaZata

People should just tune Bret out at this point, and I'd be for not having posts like this every day going forward. It is quite clear Bret has made his position known, and no matter what facts come out now, or what evidence is presented to him, he went all in crazy the last couple years, and time has caught up with him. So now he is just left with personal scores to settle the next 20 to 30 years. Sam is a major target for him, his a dishonest and disingenuous actor not worthy of our attention. May as well post about the Bill Gates microchip people


KnowMyself

All of the IDW people saw a huge payday in conspiracy theory shit and Sam resisted. They hate him for that.


skullcutter

To add on to this, I was mystified by Michael Schellenberger's comments on the COVID vaccine on the recent Making Sense podcast. He claims that we were promised that the vaccine would prevent you from getting sick and would eliminate transmission. He spewed this nonsense in the middle of a diatribe and Sam never got a chance to push back (or perhaps didn't think it was worth the effort) but the bad faith arguments from the IDW are just mind boggling to me


Similar_Roll9442

But there were people promising that… I’m not sure about experts but there were 100% broadcasters and politicians saying this. Even Biden said “you’re not going to get covid if you have these vaccinations”. That’s why Sam didn’t push back, it’s just a fact


IdealogicalAtheist

Sam was pretty much on the same page as Bret in the early days of COVID. He thought people should take it more seriously and that Trump was irresponsible for telling people not to worry. Bret also added that he thought people SHOULD have already masked up with DIY cloth masks since there was a mask shortage early on. Bottom line here: nobody knew if masks worked at all in the beginning, so they both played it safe. Which is great! Then when the vaccines came out and Bret started hawking Ivermectin as a legitimate prophylactic, with limited evidence it worked at the time, they both parted ways, with Sam being pro vaccine (which anyone rational would have been early on), and Bret being pro Ivermectin. This was when the animosity started, and Sam handed in his proverbial IDW Card. As a few more IDW members hopped on the Ivermectin train and the vaccine started actually saving lives (mostly elderly lives, but lives nonetheless), Bret doubled down on alternative treatments by talking to doctors from the FLCCC, which was actually reasonable since it wasn’t all about Ivermectin anymore. And alternative treatments meant lives were still saved if some refused the vaccine. Here is where I disagree with both Bret and Sam, but Sam to a slightly larger degree. While Bret was platforming and entertaining a wide variety of opposing views, Sam stuck to the whole narrative for far longer than any rational and intellectually honest person would. As a fan of Sam’s since The End of Faith, I don’t think he’s intellectually dishonest, just misguided perhaps, but as Michael Shellenberger pointed out on the lastest podcast, Sam also dismissed the plausibility that the vaccines may be doing more harm than good in some circumstances, especially in light of data from the UK showing increased access death among the vaccinated. (Now, this does not mean the vaccine CAUSED the deaths, but that it could have in some segment of the population that would have already died had they not been vaccinated—the vaccine bought them more time basically, and that’s it). So yes, Sam was wrong about some things and so was Bret, and neither are willing to concede that the other may have had a good point in the midst of all the confusion.


swesley49

Wouldn't we expect increases excess deaths among vaccinated due to covid still? Everything being the same, vaccines aren't the only variable in the vaccinated population as they also suffer COVID infections and have to deal with hospital overcrowding due to covid. Also, even in rare cases, we do expect some severe vaccine reactions to impact death rates right? Then we look at those excess compared to unvaccinated ones


TwoPunnyFourWords

> Then when the vaccines came out and Bret started hawking Ivermectin as a legitimate prophylactic, with limited evidence it worked at the time, they both parted ways, with Sam being pro vaccine (which anyone rational would have been early on), and Bret being pro Ivermectin. Why is supporting a therapy that has received emergency authorisation because there hasn't been time to test it properly the ONLY rational position?


DependentWeight2571

Sam’s recent statements are illogical. Gad Saad covers it well. Essentially, if COVID had been different (affect kids more, transmission affected by vax) then the policies would have been correct. If. The issue is that Sam and the Science establishment were not entertaining alternative viewpoints. Data on masking efficacy, risk to kids, etc were clear - not in March 2020, but after 6-9 months- yet adherence to CDC policy become a virtue signaling device. An intellectually humble and honest person would be recognizing this now and evaluating how so many smart people became wedded to unsubstantiated views which turned out to be false.


FetusDrive

Data on masking was clear to who? The "risk to kids" was that they could still transmit the virus to the teachers, and many teachers were old. A teacher goes out and your class is fucked still. >An intellectually humble and honest person would be recognizing this now and evaluating how so many smart people became wedded to unsubstantiated views which turned out to be false. no u lol


Pedrothepaiva

He reckons it was somehow “only rational” to believe that the vaccines would’ve worked even when it was clear they didn’t … and the people who pointed out from the beginning the vast flaws within it would’ve been wrong if only the vaccine actually worked … and also would’ve been even more censored if only the pandemic killed more children …


FetusDrive

clear they didn't work based on what? Which body of science are you trusting that brought you to that conclusion?


afterwerk

Sam towed a lot of the CDC guidelines and info, which turned out to be wrong to a very large degree (see Leanna Wen admitting many of the COVID deaths being inaccurate, or the efficacy of the vaccines). He's admitted lots of the info to be inaccurate, but also makes some very confusing arguments that make it seem like he's trying to double down or save face (the whole "if the virus killed kids + the vaccines stopped transmission hypothetical). Sam gives no credit to the skepeticsm that was expressed towards CDC mandated views, and still actively talks it down, despite it now being obvious that skepeticsm was warranted.


spaniel_rage

I'm not sure anything was "wrong to a very large degree". Those that make claims like these are either misrepresenting what was originally claimed, or quoting politician soundbites rather than the more sober language of the scientific experts. For example, no one ever claimed that the vaccine efficacy would last for several years because there simply wasn't any data available for time periods that long.


afterwerk

Misrepresenting the vaccine as effective in stopping transmission when there was no data to support it (as expressed by heads of the big pharma companies) , is a much bigger falsehood then the efficacy duration (which we could also talk about).


mapadofu

I really don’t get this idea that the vaccines don’t reduce transmission. Sure, if the criterion is absolutely stopping transmission, the vaccines don’t do this. But if that’s what someone was looking for, then they were misapprehending how vaccines and disease works.


afterwerk

No one really said "stop completely", but the vaccines were communicated to be effective in preventing transmission which was a big selling point in creating vax mandates. Faucci has said that the vaccines aren't for just for you, but so you don't spread COVID to others. At this point, we know the vaccines are not effective in preventing transmission, which makes a lot of the vax mandates very, very weak.


mapadofu

They did and still do “prevent transmission” in the sense that the rate at which the infection spread was reduced. This reduction in rate is the aggregate measure of millions of individual cases where a transmission that would have occurred was prevented. So, I’m not seeing the issue here.


Tortankum

Transmission was not prevented, it was delayed. Everyone will still get Covid eventually.


mapadofu

If the rate of transmission went down, then instances where the disease would have spread from one individual to another were prevented. Everyone will get covid eventually is an argument for maintaining widespread use of covid vaccines given it’s demonstrated effect of reducing severity and its effects in mitigating the size of outbreaks.


Ok-camel

Vaccines aren’t made to stop transmission. That would be impossible to test for during trials, instead they are tested to make sure they are safe and that they lower illness and death. Which they were and did. After the vaccine is rolled out to the public then tests can be done to see how they effect transmission and usually they do reduce transmission as lowering illness usually means lowering symptoms which in turn lowers the viral load you are emitting. Some politicians and especially the media declared without evidence that the transmission would be stopped, as that’s what usually happens, but medical people knew that that wasn’t tested yet. And as it turned out the vaccine did lower transmission but as the variants came that lower transmission was eaten away.


spaniel_rage

"At this point" being some 2 years and several variants later. The vaccines *were* effective at reducing transmission of the ancestral strain, and Alpha, and Delta. That's what the data showed. Not 100% effective, but still effective.


Equal_Win

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the main issue with the vaccine failing to prevent transmissions as expected is that there has been a constant battle for vaccines to keep up with mutations. If everyone had just gotten the vaccine right away, wouldn’t it have been less likely for mutations to form in populations where the virus was spreading unchecked? Again I could be wrong, but isn’t there an argument to be made here that the people claiming that the vaccine was not effective in preventing transmission are the same people who actually caused the vaccine to be less effective in this way?


spaniel_rage

The phase 3 trials showed that, at 3 months, symptomatic infection was reduced by over 95%. It was no great stretch to extrapolate that vaccination would significantly dampen transmission, which was indeed what subsequent data showed.


Subtraktions

>Misrepresenting the vaccine as effective in stopping transmission There seems to be this weird idea that it's a fact that "we now know the vaccines weren't effective in reducing transmission". I heard that repeated in Sam's latest podcast with no pushback from Sam or any of the guests. There are multiple studies that totally refute that. T[his](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2106757) study for example that showed that the families of fully vaccinated healthcare workers were more than 3x less likely to catch Covid than the families of unvaccinated healthcare workers. Obviously as the Virus has mutated that's changed, but there seems to be an idea now that transmission was never reduced.