Podcast Summary
Discussing lies, COVID-19 updates, and merchandise with Michael Shellenberger: Doctors Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying had a lively discussion with Michael Shellenberger about various topics, including detecting lies and COVID-19 updates. They reminded viewers of their financial reliance on patronage due to YouTube demonetization.
During the 135th episode of the Dark Horse Podcast livestream, doctors Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying discussed various topics, including a "way back machine" segment about detecting lies and COVID-19 updates. They thanked their audience for their support and encouraged viewers to check out their merchandise and weekly writings. A notable discussion was with Michael Shellenberger, featuring friendly but substantive disagreement. The episode was available on multiple platforms, including YouTube and Odysee, and viewers were reminded that YouTube had demonetized them a year ago, making financial support from patrons crucial for their ability to engage in private Q&As.
Personalized Nootropics and Electrolyte Drink Mixes from Thesis and LMNT: Thesis offers customized nootropic blends based on individual responses, while LMNT provides an electrolyte drink mix with essential minerals and no added sugars or artificial ingredients. Both sponsors prioritize authentic relationships and cater to specific needs.
Thesis and LMNT are two sponsors offering unique solutions to enhance focus, energy, and overall wellbeing. Thesis, a nootropics company, uses a personalized approach to recommend customized blends based on individual responses, while LMNT provides an electrolyte drink mix with essential minerals and no added sugars or artificial ingredients. Both sponsors prioritize authentic relationships and offer products that cater to specific needs. Thesis's nootropics can optimize mental performance, replacing or complementing pharmaceuticals, while LMNT's electrolyte drink helps maintain optimal body function and prevent headaches, muscle cramps, and sleeplessness. These sponsors embody a scientific and personalized approach to improving daily life. To try Thesis's customized nootropic blends, visit takethesis.com/darkhorse and use code darkhorse@checkup for a discount. For LMNT's electrolyte drink mix, learn more at drinklmnt.com.
Discover Affordable Electrolyte Replacement and Hearing Aids: Try Elemnt's risk-free trial for electrolyte replacement and enjoy a free sample pack of all eight flavors. MD Hearing Aid offers discreet, effective hearing solutions at a fraction of typical prices with a 45-day risk-free trial and a buy one, get one free deal using promo code 'dark horse'.
Elemnt, a product designed to help with electrolyte needs, is beneficial for anyone leading an active lifestyle, regardless of their dietary preferences. It's not just for athletes. Even everyday activities or consuming alcohol can lead to electrolyte depletion. Elemnt offers a risk-free trial with their no questions asked refund policy. They currently offer a free sample pack with any purchase for listeners to try all eight flavors. Additionally, MD Hearing Aid was founded by an ENT surgeon to provide quality hearing aids at an affordable price. They removed unnecessary components and cut out the middleman, resulting in a rechargeable hearing aid that is FDA registered and costs a fraction of typical hearing aid prices. MD Hearing Aid aims to provide discreet and effective hearing solutions. They offer a 45-day risk-free trial with a 100% money-back guarantee. Listeners can use the promo code "dark horse" to get a buy one, get one free deal on their hearing aids and a free extra charging case, a $100 value.
Scientific community's approach to reporting COVID-19 research evolves: Preprints regain importance in reporting COVID-19 research, naming conventions for variants may be arbitrary, and prior infection with earlier variants offers some immunity against newer ones.
The scientific community's approach to reporting on COVID-19 research has evolved throughout the pandemic. Initially, preprints were the primary source of information due to the rapid rate of research. However, there was a period where peer-reviewed publications were favored, and preprints were downplayed. Now, preprints are being referenced in major science news outlets like Nature. Another observation is the naming of COVID-19 variants. Initially, we saw new variants emerge frequently. Now, we're seeing subvariants of Omicron. This shift feels arbitrary and potentially political, as there's no clear justification for this change in naming conventions. Additionally, prior infection with earlier COVID-19 variants, such as Omicron, provides some immunity against newer variants like BA.4 and BA.5. These findings come from preprints, highlighting their importance in understanding the ongoing pandemic.
The distinction between viral variants and subvariants is arbitrary: The distinction between viral variants and subvariants is not universally defined and can impact public health policies, requiring ongoing scientific research for clarity.
In the context of discussing viral variants in biology, there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes a new variant versus a subvariant. This is because the distinction between ranks like family, subfamily, or genus in biology is largely arbitrary and does not carry significant meaning. Instead, what matters is the factual description of the relationships between different organisms or viral variants. Some scientists take a more rigorous approach to phylogenetic systematics and may have strong opinions on these distinctions, while others may be more relaxed about the terminology. One practical consideration is that as new viral variants continue to emerge, it can be challenging to keep up with the terminology and the implications for public health policies. Some scientists argue that a meaningful distinction for viral variants could be based on the point at which immunity to a prior variant no longer provides protection against the new one. It's worth noting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has defined various terms related to viral variants, including mutation, recombinant, lineage, and variant. However, the specific definitions and classifications can be subject to interpretation and may evolve over time as new scientific evidence emerges. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities and nuances of studying viral variants and the importance of ongoing scientific research to better understand their implications for public health.
CDC's inconsistent messaging on vaccine effectiveness against Omicron: The CDC's conflicting statements about vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant raise concerns about their reliability as a public health authority. Prior Omicron infection offers some protection against certain Omicron lineages, but previous infection with non-Omicron variants does not.
The CDC document discusses the effectiveness of vaccines and therapeutics against the predominant variant of SARS-CoV-two in the US, but later in the same document, contradicts this statement by acknowledging the emergence of the Omicron variant, which may reduce the neutralization effect of post-vaccination sera. The CDC's inconsistent messaging raises concerns about their reliability as a public health authority. The Nature News article "Prior Omicron Infection Protects Against BA. 4 and BA. 5 Variants" further highlights the significance of the Omicron variant and the importance of being infected with it for protection against certain Omicron lineages. However, previous infection with non-Omicron variants does not offer similar protection. These findings underscore the importance of staying informed about the evolving nature of the virus and the effectiveness of various countermeasures. The CDC's contradictory statements and shifting recommendations add to the confusion and make it difficult for individuals to make informed decisions about their health.
Study on Omicron reinfection may not accurately determine immunity: The study's classification of previous infections as pre-Omicron or Omicron based on timeline may not accurately reflect the actual variants, potentially skewing the findings on immunity to future Omicron reinfection.
A recent study, which was the basis for a Nature News article claiming that previous infection with the Omicron variant provides strong immunity against future Omicron reinfection, may not be as clear-cut as it seems. The researchers classified previous infections as pre-Omicron or Omicron based on the timeline of the Omicron wave in Qatar, without actually testing for the specific variants. This means that the study may not have accurately determined if the observed immunity was due to escape from natural immunity or incompleteness of natural immunity. Furthermore, the study's findings may simply reflect the fact that the more recently someone has been exposed to COVID-19, the more likely they are to maintain natural immunity. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the virus, it's crucial to approach such studies with caution and consider the limitations of the methods used.
Critiquing the peer review process in scientific publishing: Despite its reputation, peer review can be flawed and even counterproductive. Critics argue that evaluators, often former academics, may overlook valuable insights in the preprint literature and introduce biases or errors in the published findings.
The peer review process in scientific publishing, while often seen as the gold standard for ensuring the validity and accuracy of research findings, is not a magical or infallible process. In fact, it can be deeply flawed and even counterproductive. The speakers in this discussion highlighted that the people responsible for evaluating research for top-tier journals, such as Nature, are often individuals who have left the academic world themselves. They noted that the preprint literature, which has not undergone peer review, can be noisy but also contains valuable insights that may be overlooked or distorted by the peer review process. The speakers criticized the way that Nature News, in particular, handled an unpeer-reviewed article, revealing the potential for errors and biases in the peer review process. They also pointed out that natural immunity, which has long been a contentious topic in scientific literature, may last longer than vaccine-induced immunity, as acknowledged in a recent preprint. Overall, the discussion underscored the importance of being critical of the peer review process and recognizing its limitations.
Focus on Antibodies as Primary Indicator of Immune Response May Be Misguided: Antibodies are not the only or even the most effective form of immunity against viruses. T cells and the evolution of viruses can impact the effectiveness of antibodies over time.
The focus on antibodies as the primary indicator of immune response to viruses may be misguided. Antibodies are easily measurable and have been the focus of vaccine development, but they represent a weaker form of immunity compared to T cells. Furthermore, the evolution of viruses and the potential waning of immunity to specific strains can make antibodies less effective over time. The assumption that the observed waning of antibody-mediated immunity is due to the failure of the immune response, rather than the evolution of the pathogen, is a common mistake. It's important to consider the context of the virus and the population it is affecting when evaluating the effectiveness of an immune response. Additionally, there is a larger question that haunts our response to the COVID-19 pandemic: would we have been better off doing nothing at all? It's impossible to answer this question definitively, but it's important to consider the potential unintended consequences of our actions. Ultimately, it's crucial to approach the study of immunity and the development of vaccines with a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between the immune system and the viruses it encounters.
The aftermath of gain-of-function research and censored discussions: The release of dangerous viruses from early gain-of-function research led to consequences, the lab leak theory may have been true, and there's a lawsuit against the Biden administration for alleged censorship of free speech related to these issues.
The early stages of gain-of-function research, which some saw as great, led to the release of dangerous viruses with far-reaching consequences. The genie is out of the bottle, and now we're dealing with the aftermath. The lab leak theory, which some were censored for discussing, may have been a reality. Meanwhile, two attorneys general in the US have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with social media giants to suppress free speech related to this issue and others. Discovery in this case is expected to be fascinating. Another noteworthy point is that journalist Jeremy Lee Quinn, who has been a guest on Dark Horse, wrote in Newsweek about the importance of investigating leftist violence alongside the events of January 6th. This serves as a reminder that political violence, regardless of its source, should be addressed. Quinn, an anarchist himself, raises important questions about the nature of political violence and the role of investigative committees in addressing it.
Double standard in understanding threats: The January 6th committee's focus on one side's political violence while ignoring the other side's creates a distorted view, undermining our ability to understand each other and perpetuating division. Similar issues arise in academic medicine, where corruption and manipulation of effectiveness measurements can distort understanding.
The January 6th committee's focus on one side's political violence while ignoring the other side's is creating a distorted view of who poses a threat to the country. This double standard is a threat in itself, as it undermines our ability to understand each other and perpetuates a cycle of division. Similarly, in other areas like academic medicine, the gap between efficacy and effectiveness can grow with increasing corruption, but the measurement of effectiveness is also subject to manipulation. It's important to recognize these trends and strive for accuracy and fairness in our understanding of complex issues.
The Dangers of Inappropriate Control in Research and Politics: Intolerance towards heterodox perspectives and inappropriate control can lead to inaccurate representations of phenomena in academia and politics, resulting in a departure from reality in cases like climate change and political violence.
While control is essential in scientific research for accurate measurement, it can lead to manipulation and corruption when applied inappropriately. This was discussed in relation to laboratories, climate science, and political environments. The speaker argued that intolerance towards heterodox perspectives in academia and politics can result in a departure between models and real-world phenomena, which can be seen in the case of climate change and glacier retreat. Similarly, in political contexts, the gap between the actual pattern of political violence and its portrayal can be a measure of corruption. It's important to maintain an open and balanced approach to understanding complex phenomena, rather than suppressing information that doesn't fit a particular narrative.
Questioning power structures and potential for corruption: Politics and science can both be susceptible to corruption, requiring constant questioning of power structures and potential biases
Corruption can manifest in various forms, whether it's in politics, where the manipulation of voters for power ultimately benefits corporations, or in science, where peer review can act as a gatekeeper but also introduce bias and censorship. In politics, the obsessive focus on certain issues can be used to whip up public frenzy, while in science, the peer review process can lead to self-censorship and the suppression of non-standard but valuable research. Both instances highlight the need to question power structures and the potential for corruption, whether it's in the form of political manipulation or scientific gatekeeping.
Challenges and limitations of peer review: Despite its intended purpose, peer review may be eliminating important signals and contributing to noise in scientific research. Open and transparent scientific environment is crucial for the free exchange of ideas and advancement of knowledge.
The peer review process in science may not be adding value as intended, but instead, it could be eliminating important signals and contributing to noise in scientific research. The speakers shared their experiences of the challenges and limitations of peer review, particularly during the pandemic when the preprint literature became a valuable source of information due to its speed. They argued that the public needs access to good science and scientists who can make sense of complex data, rather than being protected from the "noisiness" of peer-reviewed papers. The speakers also raised concerns about the potential loss of valuable signals in the peer-reviewed literature, which can have negative consequences for the scientific community. Overall, they emphasized the importance of an open and transparent scientific environment to allow for the free exchange of ideas and the advancement of knowledge.
Join supportive communities for personal growth: Engage in meaningful conversations, find supportive communities, respect diverse viewpoints, and continue growing personally and intellectually.
Engaging in meaningful conversations and finding supportive communities can lead to personal growth and positive experiences. During the upcoming private Q&A sessions, consider joining the Patreon and Discord communities for in-depth discussions where individuals respect diverse viewpoints. Remember, it's essential to be good to those around you, enjoy good food, and spend time outdoors while striving for greatness. The Discord server offers a safe space for individuals seeking authentic conversations without fear of being shamed for their opinions. So, take the opportunity to expand your horizons, connect with like-minded individuals, and continue growing both personally and intellectually.
