Podcast Summary
Discussing misinformation, pandemics, and iatrogenic harm on the Dark Horse Podcast: Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying discussed misinformation from the Twitter files, the nature of respiratory viruses and pandemics, and the potential harm caused by medical interventions on their self-run podcast.
This week on the Dark Horse Podcast, Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying discussed misinformation, specifically in relation to the latest revelations from the Twitter files. They also touched upon the nature of respiratory viruses, pandemics, and iatrogenic harm. Additionally, they read excerpts from a German theologian who attempted to wake up the German people during World Wars 1 and 2. The podcast was self-run this week, and they did not have a Q&A session. Instead, listeners can find Brett's writing on his Substack, where he explores the topic of sex, gender, and transness. They encouraged listeners to subscribe, like, and share their videos, and to comment to help the algorithms reach more people. The podcast is supported by its subscribers.
Navigating challenges in content creation and online communities: Building a community on Patreon offers benefits like exclusive conversations and Q&A sessions. Strategic partnerships with vetted sponsors, like Mindbloom and American Heart for Gold, can support content creation.
Creating and sharing content on platforms like YouTube involves dealing with potential challenges, including the possibility of shadowy practices or sabotage. However, building a community through platforms like Patreon can provide benefits such as access to exclusive conversations and Q&A sessions. Additionally, sponsorships from carefully vetted companies can help support the content creation process. For instance, Mindbloom offers at-home ketamine therapy as a potential solution for mental health issues, while American Heart for Gold helps individuals and families protect their wealth through precious metals investments. Overall, navigating the world of content creation and online communities requires resilience and strategic partnerships.
The Importance of Free Speech and Making Informed Choices: Stay informed about attacks on free speech, protect liberal principles, invest in gold/silver for economic stability, and choose Vivobarefoot shoes for foot health.
It's important to be informed and aware of the misinformation and manipulation happening in today's world. During a recent hearing, journalists Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger faced attacks for their work, highlighting the need to protect free speech and defend liberal principles. Meanwhile, companies like American Hartford Gold offer physical investments in gold and silver as a hedge against uncertain economic times. In the realm of footwear, Vivobarefoot provides shoes designed to allow natural foot function and promote overall health. By staying informed and making smart choices, we can navigate the complexities of our modern world. The hearing at the House of Representatives brought attention to the alarming state of free speech and the targeting of journalists, as Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger faced attacks. This situation underscores the importance of remaining vigilant against misinformation and defending the principles of a free and open society. Meanwhile, American Hartford Gold offers a tangible investment opportunity in the form of physical gold and silver. With their excellent reputation and current promotion, it's an attractive option for those seeking to diversify their portfolio. Lastly, Vivobarefoot shoes promote natural foot function and overall health, providing a simple yet effective way to improve well-being. By making informed choices in various aspects of life, we can navigate the complexities of our modern world.
Testimony on Twitter files reveals collusion to suppress viewpoints: The Twitter files expose a network of collusion between security state and tech platforms to suppress misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, with potential evidence deletion.
The recent testimony from Matt and Michael regarding the Twitter files revealed a vast network of collusion between elements of the security state and tech platforms to suppress certain viewpoints, specifically in relation to misinformation and disinformation. This aligns with our discussion in episode 115 back in February 2022, where we highlighted the Department of Homeland Security's National Terrorism Advisory System bulletin warning against misinformation and malinformation. Misinformation is false information shared without the intention of causing harm, while disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate. Malinformation, based on fact but used out of context, was also identified as a concern. The revelations from the Twitter files have shed light on the extent of this issue and the efforts to suppress information, including the deletion of potentially relevant evidence.
Discussing the importance of exposing students to misinformation in education: Exposing students to misinformation aids critical thinking skills, but government control over information can lead to propaganda and censorship, infringing on democratic values.
During the discussion, we emphasized the importance of exposing students to various forms of misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation in education, as it helps them develop critical thinking skills and learn how to distinguish truth from manipulation. However, we also warned against the potential dangers of government control over information, as seen in the hearings, which can lead to propaganda and censorship, infringing on constitutional rights and democratic values. Furthermore, a government-issued guide for controlling misinformation, as discussed a year ago, was criticized for its draconian nature and its attempt to suppress information that may cause distrust towards the government. Instead, we advocated for the importance of upholding truth and scientific inquiry, and the dangers of allowing the government to define truth.
The Complex Relationship Between Government and Science: Stay vigilant and fact-check information, especially on contentious topics, to ensure scientific debates remain open and productive, protecting First Amendment rights and advancing knowledge.
The relationship between government and science is complex, and the constant evolution of scientific understanding can sometimes lead to conflicting policies and narratives. However, it's important to question whether genuine scientific evidence is driving these changes or if political agendas are at play. The suppression of alternative viewpoints and the labeling of information as "misinformation" can infringe on the First Amendment and hinder productive discussions about scientific findings. Organizations and individuals should remain vigilant and fact-check information, especially when it concerns contentious topics and rapidly changing narratives. The ability to openly debate and challenge scientific perspectives is crucial for advancing knowledge and ensuring that the public is well-informed.
Government's involvement in labeling info as terrorism: Declaring misinformation terrorism could strip individuals of rights without knowledge, leading to a dangerous level of tyranny.
The government's involvement in labeling information as "misinformation" or "disinformation," and declaring it a form of terrorism, has serious legal consequences that could strip individuals of their constitutional rights without their knowledge. This is a dangerous turn of events that goes beyond propaganda and censorship, and could lead to a level of tyranny that should truly alarm us. Another important topic discussed was the nature of respiratory diseases, pandemics, and iatrogenic harm. Contrary to popular belief, pandemics may not be as dangerous to modern societies as we are led to believe. These are important issues that deserve our attention and critical thinking, as they have significant implications for our freedom and well-being.
Past pandemics burned out without significant government intervention: Historically, pandemics have spread widely but were less deadly due to their contagious nature and transmission requirements
History shows that pandemics, despite their potential danger, often burn themselves out without significant government intervention. This is evident from past pandemics like the Hong Kong flu in 1968-69, during which major events like Woodstock took place without causing widespread infection. Similarly, the Zika virus, which caused concern for potential mass harm, ultimately fizzled out. Respiratory pathogens, which are highly contagious but require people to be active to spread, are less virulent and deadly as a result. While there are exceptions, the argument is that there is a trade-off between contagion and virulence. Therefore, while pandemics can spread across civilization, they are less likely to be deadly due to the requirements of their transmission.
Debilitating diseases make it easier for vectors to spread: Debilitating diseases can benefit vectors by making hosts immobile, increasing transmission chances, but this doesn't apply to diseases without vectors or causing severe harm to hosts is an evolutionary dead end.
Some diseases, like malaria and dengue, which are transmitted through vectors such as mosquitoes, may benefit from making their hosts sick enough to be immobile, making it easier for mosquitoes to find and infect new hosts. This is because debilitating diseases like dengue can make it difficult for hosts to move around and swat mosquitoes, increasing the chances of transmission. However, for diseases without a vector or other means of transmission, making the host severely ill is an evolutionary dead end for the pathogen and won't persist. It's also important to consider the years of life lost when evaluating the impact of diseases, especially when comparing unknown risks from treatments or diseases. Additionally, many COVID-19 deaths were of individuals who were already near the end of their lives, and the virus may have simply hastened their demise. The use of measures like lockdowns and ventilators during the pandemic has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that they caused more harm than good due to iatrogenic harms and potential years of life lost.
Iatrogenic harms during COVID-19: Medical treatments and policies during COVID-19 caused significant harm and deaths through iatrogenic means, leading to an exaggerated perception of the virus's danger
During the COVID-19 pandemic, iatrogenic harms caused by medical treatments and policies implemented in response to the virus resulted in significant harm and deaths. The use of ventilators in ICUs, sending COVID-positive patients into care homes, and keeping people indoors are examples of such iatrogenic harms. The striking aspect is that medical professionals and policymakers did the opposite of what they should have done, leading to unnecessary deaths and panic. The counting of these deaths as COVID-19 deaths further amplified the fear, justifying draconian measures. It's unclear why this happened, but Malo's point is that we inflicted harm on ourselves, leading to an exaggerated perception of the virus's danger.
Top-down public health approach overshadowed bottom-up medical approach during COVID-19: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of trusting doctors to treat patients as individuals, contrasting the top-down public health approach that hindered effective treatment.
The COVID-19 pandemic served as an opportunity for a top-down public health approach to overshadow the bottom-up medical approach, leading to significant harm. The fear of the virus' high fatality rate was exaggerated, and the public health approach, spearheaded by figures like Anthony Fauci, handed down incorrect information that hindered doctors from effectively treating patients as individuals. Contrastingly, a bottom-up approach, where doctors see patients and discover what works, has historically led to medical advancements. For instance, during the Spanish Flu pandemic, aspirin, a relatively new drug, was overused due to limited knowledge of dosing, and its toxicity outweighed its benefits. However, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the importance of trusting doctors and their ability to address illnesses at the individual level.
Aspirin Misuse During Spanish Flu Pandemic: During the Spanish flu pandemic, aspirin's widespread use at toxic doses, due to Bayer's patent loss and official recommendations, may have contributed to the high mortality rate.
During the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918, aspirin was widely used as a treatment despite not being fully understood, and the doses given were much higher than what is considered safe today. The loss of Bayer's patent on aspirin and widespread fear of the flu created a perfect storm for its misuse. Official recommendations for aspirin therapy at toxic doses, combined with the ease of access to the drug due to its availability in the market, led to a tragic outcome. The author of a 2009 paper argues that this widespread use of aspirin may have contributed to the high mortality rate during the pandemic. The paper presents this as a hypothesis, and the evidence includes the unusual packaging of aspirin, the ignorance of its toxic effects, and the spate of official recommendations for toxic regimens of aspirin before the October 1918 death spike. Additionally, aspirin advertisements and recommendations for its use increased significantly in the months leading up to the death spike. This historical event serves as a reminder of the importance of caution when departing from tested medical practices and the potential dangers of new products or treatments when they are not fully understood.
Iatrogenic harm during pandemics: A complex relationship between disease and medical intervention: Historical pandemics like Spanish flu and COVID-19 have shown that medical treatments, such as aspirin and ventilators, can cause harm, often due to panic and fear, and it's crucial to distinguish iatrogenic harm from the harm caused by the pathogens themselves.
The historical use of aspirin during the Spanish flu pandemic and the overuse of ventilators during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the potential for iatrogenic harm, or harm caused by medical treatment, to be conflated with the harm caused by the pathogens themselves. The fear and panic surrounding these pandemics led to widespread adoption of these treatments, despite evidence suggesting they may have accelerated the demise of patients. The lack of randomized control trials on these interventions does not discredit the hypothesis of iatrogenic harm, but rather reflects the nature of the harm itself. By examining different healthcare practices during these pandemics, we can begin to tease apart the effects of the pathogens and the treatments, providing valuable insights into the complex relationship between disease and medical intervention.
The Spanish flu debate's impact on hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: The Spanish flu debate's influence on COVID-19 research raises concerns about reductionist approaches and the need for a comprehensive understanding of complex systems for effective policy-making and treatment options.
The discussion surrounding the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment has been influenced by debates around the causes of the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918. The Starco 2009 paper, which argues that aspirin was a significant contributor to deaths during the Spanish flu, has been widely cited in recent research on COVID-19. However, some researchers have used this argument to discredit hydroxychloroquine without providing substantial evidence. The reductionist approach to human health and complex systems displayed in these studies is concerning, as it overlooks the nuances of the human body and immune system. The need for a comprehensive understanding of complex systems, especially in the context of public health crises, is crucial for effective policy-making and treatment options. The inconsistency and potential incompetence in handling these issues warrant further investigation.
Challenging the common fear of deadly viruses jumping from animals to humans: While the fear of a deadly virus emerging from nature and causing a pandemic is common, it's much harder for viruses to make the leap from animals to humans and spread between people. Focus on real risks and take appropriate precautions.
The fear of a deadly virus jumping from nature to humans and causing a pandemic is overhyped. The speaker argued that it's much harder for viruses to make the evolutionary leap from animals to humans and then spread between people. He also pointed out that many fears are based on ghost stories and the possibility of lab-created viruses. The speaker, who had handled bats in research, acknowledged the risk of getting sick but emphasized that it's not likely to cause a pandemic. He also clarified that bat biologists are more at risk of contracting fungal infections like histoplasmosis rather than viruses. The speaker's perspective challenges the common fear of a deadly virus emerging from nature and causing a pandemic. Instead, he suggests that we should focus on the real risks and take appropriate precautions.
Minimizing respiratory risks: fresh air and open communication: Prioritize fresh air to reduce respiratory infections, and foster open communication to address concerns and prevent deadly misinformation
It's important to prioritize being in fresh air and avoiding enclosed spaces to minimize the risk of respiratory infections. This was emphasized with the example of three miners who contracted a disease but did not transmit it to others despite working in a highly dusty environment. Another key point is the importance of open and honest conversations about potential concerns, rather than suppressing information or demonizing those who raise valid points. This can ultimately save lives by contributing to the collective effort to understand and address risks. Conversely, intentionally spreading misinformation and silencing those who challenge it can have deadly consequences. This was illustrated by the actions of certain government officials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the words of theologian Paul Tillich, who spoke out against the Nazis during World War II, serve as a reminder of the importance of truth and the dangers of suppressing it.
Paul Tillich's Unconventional Life and Stand Against the Third Reich: German philosopher Paul Tillich defied societal norms, lived an unconventional life, and took a bold stand against the Third Reich by broadcasting anti-Nazi messages to German listeners, emphasizing the role of intellectuals in shaping a nation's future and warning against fear-driven support of oppressive regimes.
Paul Tillich, a German philosopher, defied the expectations of his peers during and after World War II. He was known for his socializing, womanizing, and even photographing famous figures like Nixon, the pope, and Marilyn Monroe jumping. However, during the rise of the Third Reich, he took a stand against the regime, recording 112 radio broadcasts for Voice of America to undermine the will of German listeners and encourage resistance. In his broadcasts, Tillich emphasized the importance of intellectuals in shaping a nation's destiny and criticized those who supported the regime out of fear. Despite the tragic consequences, Tillich believed it was essential to understand the roots of the intellectual community's downfall and eliminate them to prevent future harm.
Questioning Intellectual Elites' Conclusions: Intellectuals have the power to shape reality, but it's crucial to ensure they're not being manipulated or co-opted by those in power. Be aware of inconsistencies and challenges to the status quo, especially in science, and be willing to question authoritative conclusions.
Intellectual elites in Germany during the reconstruction process had a significant role to play, but those who claim to be the intellectual lifeblood of the country should be questioned if their conclusions align with one's own best interests. Paul Tillich, in his broadcast to Nazi Germany in 1942, urged the German nation not to consent to false intellectual narratives and instead demand genuine intelligence and critical thinking from their scholars and writers. Intellectuals have the power to shape reality, and it's crucial to ensure they are not being manipulated or co-opted by those in power. The unveiling of truth is often uncomfortable for those in power, leading them to suppress or co-opt intellectuals. As Tillich emphasized, it's essential to allow the old, feeble mind to decay and make room for the new, critical, and independent-thinking intellectuals. In today's society, it's crucial to be aware of the inconsistencies and challenges the status quo, especially when it comes to science, and be willing to question authoritative conclusions.
Listening to voices that challenge the status quo: Engage in meaningful dialogue with voices that challenge the status quo, contributing to societal progress.
In today's world, it's essential to listen to voices that challenge the status quo, even if they are deemed controversial by those in power. We live in an era where individuals like Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Russell Brand, Joe Rogan, Woody Harrelson, and Bobby Kennedy Jr. are using various platforms to share important information that needs to be heard. These voices come from different backgrounds and disciplines, but they all contribute to the conversation about the state of our society. It's crucial for adults to come together and use this information to steer the ship of state back towards values we all agree on. So, let's not ignore or dismiss these voices but instead lean into them and engage in meaningful dialogue. Remember, we will be back next week for a Q&A session, so feel free to submit any questions you may have in advance on our Patreon. Until then, take care of your loved ones, eat well, and get outside. Be well, everyone.
