by UnHerd Staff
Monday, 6
June 2022
Video
16:37

Bret Weinstein: I will be vindicated over Covid

Freddie Sayers challenges the biologist over his controversial pandemic views
by UnHerd Staff

Before the pandemic, evolutionary biologist and former Evergreen professor Bret Weinstein was lauded by both sides of the political divide for his insights into the crisis on American campuses. As a member of the so-called ‘intellectual dark web’, Weinstein was expanding his audience and being profiled by legacy media like the New York Times. Then the pandemic began and his heterodox perspective suddenly fell out of favour, even with many of his erstwhile allies.

Advocating for alternative treatments for Covid, questioning the efficacy of the global vaccine programme and challenging narratives of the pandemic came at a cost. Without warning, the Dark Horse podcast was demonetised on YouTube and Weinstein was forced to split from the views of his former friends and supporters.

So, how can we seek truth in such divided times? Freddie Sayers invited Bret into the UnHerd studio in London to try to understand what his views really are.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
34 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ray Mullan
Ray Mullan
2 months ago

I think that Professor Weinstein is already vindicated — the real question is how long will it take the general population to firstly acknowledge that we are in thrall to a Global system of over–extended and unaccountable bureaucrats and secondly do something about it.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 months ago
Reply to  Ray Mullan

I see we “drink from the same well” on this issue. Excellent.

Red XIV
Red XIV
16 days ago
Reply to  Ray Mullan

Weinstein has been consistently wrong about everything, so how do you imagine he’s “already vindicated”?

David Simpson
David Simpson
2 months ago

Excellent interview, you both did really well. I think the most important point Brett made was that we are in a systemic crisis, that all the incentives are pointing the wrong way – media, politics, economics, individual livelihoods – and not just in the case of Covid. Somehow, the light must be allowed to shine in, which you both have done your bit to help.

Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
2 months ago

Crikey, is Freddie Sayers for real?! Does he really not understand that the grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted Covid-19 response is the biggest scandal of all time, and that the Boris Johnson/UK government is right in the thick of it?!
Many people, including me, made comments on UnHerd on this topic over the past more than two years, recorded by the Disqus system, which has now disappeared on UnHerd since it move to a subscription basis.
Many comments were made about the influence of Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report 9, which recommended ‘suppression’ of ‘the virus’, aka restrictions/lockdown, “until a vaccine becomes available”. It wasn’t disclosed in Ferguson et al’s Report 9 that Neil Ferguson was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s most influential vaccine promoter.
People who tried to challenge the influence of Bill Gates were written off as nutters, when they were actually raising important facts – the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been influencing international vaccination policy for over 20 years.
When is this diabolical plan to destabilise the world via the Covid-19 response going to be investigated and exposed, including how the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trials were off and running in early 2020?
Who decided on a ‘vaccine solution’ to this disease that wasn’t a serious threat to most people, how was it evaluated and decided upon?
Who was behind the gross fear mongering about this disease, the beat-up to facilitate the multi-billion dollar Covid jab markets?
Come on Freddie Sayers, crack this scandal wide open.
For example, examine the conflicts of interest of Andrew Pollard, the Chief Investigator on the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trials, who is also the Chair of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) – how is this massive conflict of interest allowed to happen?
I raised Pollard’s COI in comments on an article on The Telegraph a while ago, and was then banned from commenting further on The Telegraph, subscribers are silenced if they step out of line.
Way past time to investigate this scandal, the unfolding Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ disaster is really what should bring Boris Johnson and his cronies down.

Su Mac
Su Mac
2 months ago

A fascinating listen. I remember listening gripped for over 2 hours to Brett interview Steve Kirsch and Dr. Robert Malone in 2020? kicking off what I think of as the science oriented opposition to the covid propaganda avalanche.
Listening to Freddie express his “but everything is fine now Brett surely?” standpoint had the frustration welling up in me like a scream, just like when my family members look at me blankly when I ask them if they know about Yellow Card adverse reaction reports, why people with previous immunity are still jabbed or why safe repurposed drugs are banned?
Brett is a master (as is Malone) at sticking to a level headed, least extreme case argument but even he must walk out of the studio thinking of a thousand other bits of evidence he could have pointed out to no avail. You cannot win arguments. Period.
People will not understand what is going on until the BBC actually does a flippin’ documentary to tell them so! My 4 times vaccinated sibling is actually telling me about their podcast relating the Sackler/Oxycontin scandal which killed 100,000’s Americans, with a straight face, quite oblivious to living through a repeat on a gloal scale.
In the end you may live or die by the sources of media information you choose to trust and I am grateful to be unvaccinated and wide awake.

Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
2 months ago
Reply to  Su Mac

Yes, I remember listening to the Weinstein/Kirsch/Malone discusssion too. It was listening to people ‘waking up’. For those of us who have been investigating vaccination policy for years it was an interesting experience hearing what seemed to be their bewilderment about what was happening in the world of ‘science’.
For years scrutiny of vaccination policy and practice has been verboten, anyone daring to question the Church of Vaccination is shut down, tagged as ‘anti-vax’ and ridiculed and marginalised.
And here we are, with the diabolical Covid situation, and a global mass population ‘vaccine solution’…against a virus it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat for most people.
Now Brett Weinstein, Steven Kirsch, and Robert Malone are finding out what it is to be labelled as ‘anti-vax’ for daring to question vaccination, and they have only scratched the surface… This goes much deeper than just Covid-19 ‘leaky vaccines’, other vaccine products and revaccinations are also highly questionable.
Vaccine are lucrative products pressed upon millions of people, for which the vaccine industry is largely protected from liability.
It’s way past time vaccination policy and practice was investigated and exposed, it’s an area steeped in conflicts of interest.

harry storm
harry storm
1 month ago
Reply to  Elizabeth Hart

Using the COVID mess to support your anti-vaccination notions is disingenuous. There’s a huge difference between questioning a new vaccine technology (mRNA) as Malone and Weinstein did, and believing that long-used vaccines like those for measles or polio are harmful and should be resisted. Anti-vaxxer sounds about right for the latter.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vilde Chaye
Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
1 month ago
Reply to  harry storm

As I said Harry Storm…
Vaccines are lucrative products pressed upon millions of people, for which the vaccine industry is largely protected from liability.
It’s way past time vaccination policy and practice was investigated and exposed, it’s an area steeped in conflicts of interest.

Last edited 1 month ago by Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
Elizabeth Hart
2 months ago
Reply to  Su Mac

Sue you say: “People will not understand what is going on until the BBC actually does a flippin’ documentary to tell them so!”
I’m afraid you’re right, critical thinking is a rare commodity these days, even moreso on tricky controversial issues where people are frightened to challenge the status quo.
As for sources of information, the BBC has proved to be a rotten propaganda machine, controlling the Covid narrative. Is it a coincidence that the BBC receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, see for example: Bill Gates bankrolled select media outlets to the tune of $319 million, including the UK’s Guardian and the BBC – Gript.

moya mc nulty
moya mc nulty
2 months ago
Reply to  Su Mac

CONGRATULATIONS – I’M WITH YOU 1000 per cent! It’s the ULTIMATE BATTLE between GOOD and EVIL.

Stephen Lodziak
Stephen Lodziak
2 months ago

Great interview. I think you put him on the spot more than I have seen before but his answers were compelling. Now, if only Sam Harris would step up.

Andre Rego
Andre Rego
2 months ago

Another great interview on the Covid topic. Just the fact that Freddie chose to interview Bret Weinstein makes me feel that subscribing UnHerd is well worth it. Now I would be absolutely delighted if Freddie would be able to get Sam Harries interviewed on this topic.

J Bryant
J Bryant
2 months ago

Great interview. I’m not fully on board with everything Bret says; some of it is a bit too close to conspiracy theory for me. I certainly agree that the WHO is a discredited organization, not least because of its pandering to China, and shouldn’t be given any more power. I also agree there is a very disturbing story, that will probably be buried forever, about the US funding gain of function research at Wuhan and how that type of research might have inadvertently led to SARS-cov-2.
My twenty-thousand-foot-view of why the pandemic response played out the way it did is it finally revealed the extent to which technocrats now run the world. They think alike and anyone who disagreed with them was ostracized. I don’t think it was a global conspiracy, more like an example of global group think among technocrats.

Philippe W
Philippe W
2 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Anyone who believes there is a plot by global elites would do well to question why José María Fernández Sousa-Faro, the head of biotech giant Pharma Mar, was recently caught buying fake covid passes for himself and his family.
The conspiracy which suggests Big Pharma controls everything and everyone would have had the Spanish CEO’s vaccination records falsified long in advance; there would have been no need for him to risk media attention by using a petty crook to commit fraud.
The whole two year nonsense has been the result of groupthink by powerful dimwits. Nothing more.

moya mc nulty
moya mc nulty
2 months ago
Reply to  Philippe W

The point is NOT who’s RESPONSIBLE for this COVERT LIE – or HOW LONG IT’S BEEN GOING ON (since AIDS) with FAUCI/TEDROS partnership – and the W.H.O. – which is ANYTHING BUT the “HEALTH” of the WORLD. WE ALL HAVE TO DECIDE – NOW – which side are you on and then EVERYONE OF US HAS TO FIGHT to WIN THIS BATTLE BETWEEN GOOD and EVIL.

harry storm
harry storm
1 month ago
Reply to  moya mc nulty

Before taking on the battle between good and evil, perhaps you should sort out the conflict between upper and lower case.

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
2 months ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Are not the global groupthink and a global conspiracy from the same source? The technocrats and Co have not all arrived at their same conclusions etc by accident, they have told each other what they must all say and tell us plebs. Is that not conspiracy.
Also, the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is about 6 months.

Brock Hill
Brock Hill
2 months ago

Dissappointed that Freddie is an ‘apologist’ for the status quo Big Government Big Pharma nexus that is GAVI / Gates / Soros / Fauci / Pfizer. I can’t / don’t believe that he is as naive as he appears? For that reason I won’t be continuing with a subscription ! Bret Weinstein was fabulous – logical and passionate – he gets my vote.

Stevebva B.
Stevebva B.
2 months ago

Fantastic interview. I believe peeps, no matter what side of the aisle they are on, would agree with Brett’s findings and analysis. Physicians and clinicians should have been at the tip of the spear in handling this pandemic. One thing I was surprised about from the outset was the West usually leads and the rest of the world follows. In this case, the UK and the USA followed China’s lead. Strange that we put our confidence in what they were doing to “stop” the virus.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steve Bouchard
Rachel Chandler
Rachel Chandler
2 months ago

Another good interview by Bret. His discussion (posted on Dark Horse) with Neil Oliver is illuminating and depressing yet inspiring for those of us who want to question everything, open our minds to uncomfortable facts and look ahead to a better future. I’m disappointed that Freddie went down the route of guilt by association in suggesting many of the panellists at the Better Way Conference are “anti-vaxxers”. If we can’t get beyond these crass labels and debate with all-comers, humanity is lost.

Norman Powers
Norman Powers
2 months ago

An interesting interview, thanks once again Freddie for always challenging interviewee’s views in a polite and respectful way.
Weinstein says a lot of true things but there are a few areas where his argument seemed weak.

  1. The insistence that pharma companies are the root cause. Weinstein is an academic so it’s not a huge surprise that he has this sort of view, but it just doesn’t align with the timeline I saw during the pandemic. It started with academic epidemiologists, it was promoted by academics and former academics in the health bureaucracy, all of whom were armed with a bottomless pool of terrible quality papers. The pharma firms in contrast did actual studies with large numbers of people and in their press releases, only announced things that they actually had data for. Then public health once again immediately exaggerated big pharma’s claims and pushed their products on everyone. AstraZeneca even signed up to a totally non-profit initiative! That behaviour doesn’t really fit with Weinstein’s theory at all. Pfizer etc are certainly no angels and their behaviour went downhill once enabled by the corruption in public health, but at least at the start the bad behaviour wasn’t coming from them.
  2. Ivermectin, claiming it’s obvious. There are way too many fraudulent studies in ivermectin+COVID to be sure of anything, really. I’ve gone back and forth on this one so many times myself I got dizzy from it. The takeaway here is not “big pharma is suppressing effective cheap treatment” and Freddie was right to call out the absurdity of this belief. The takeaway here is that science is so unreliable that what should be a simple question, quickly and conclusively resolved, is actually a basketcase of (mostly academic) nonsensical studies and trial fraud. That’s bad, independent of whether ivermectin works or not.
  3. The Great Reset has a website therefore the conspiracy theories aren’t conspiracy theories. What? The Great Reset website is just some WEF marketing site. It doesn’t literally say “this is a conspiracy to run the world”, it’s Schwab hawking his book and his events (which have declining sales). The term as used BTL is a far grander vision of a behind the scenes effort by shadowy global elites to rebuild everything, not an extended advert for a conference series.
Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
2 months ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I cannot understand the down votes. Big Pharma will always act in its own interests, but we didn’t need them for the authoritarian instincts of global officialdom, academia, and the medical profession to be unleashed from February 2020.

Last edited 2 months ago by Stephen Walshe
Andrea 0
Andrea 0
2 months ago
Reply to  Stephen Walsh

That makes 2 of us. I was about to comment on the downvotes too.

ARNAUD ALMARIC
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 months ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

An excellent analysis , thank you.

Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
2 months ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

Norman, I disagree. My sense is that Weinstein’s replies were grounded, exact, scrupulous, grave and far-reaching. I suggest you watch the interview again.

Ray Mullan
Ray Mullan
2 months ago
Reply to  Hendrik Mentz

This.

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
2 months ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

It is important to examine the theatre stage of the problem. Weinstein touches on it but not completely.
The fact is that our western society is so analysis oriented it always reduces the big picture to a preset way of seeing the world and looks for the arguments that sustain this view. Basically, it accepts that medicine can be (should be) based on averages (average patients do not exists) and physical measurements (they are extremely reductionist and cause a very limited take on reality). The whole (most) of the scientific community and finance is build on this model. The pharma industry we have is the result of this: we, with our Western reductionist thinking have created this industry. They do their job creating money for their shareholders by every legal (and less legal) way they can.
Please read Iain McGilchrist ‘The Matter with Things’ to get the full understanding of what I wrote above.
it is interesting to note, however, that a client high up in the pharma industry has twice complained to me, in a private discussion, that it has become near impossible to register new medicines…
The main culprits are the press who should have done and do their work by scrutinising. In stead they write the stories people want to hear. But note that it is very difficult for each of us to recognise and appreciate reality with our reductionist way of analysing our world…

mary heath
mary heath
1 month ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

Norman you are wrong on all three. You either work for Pharma or Feds.

1) Pharma: please see the 55,000 FOIA of Pfizer. Liar, liar pants on fire. Full on Fraud. dailyclout.io team have a 3,000 medical experts and lawyers reviewing the documents. Why would they request a 75 year hold on the data and files from the public? Whatcha hiding? Took them to court and a Texas judge granted the plaintiff 55,000 pages and every several months they just provide addtl.. it’s horrific the # of d and injuries. 78% of the bambinos of prego ladies didn’t make it. Game over.

2) Ivermectin https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34757970/. Dr Pierre Kory is an expert in the field. I used IVM for C19. Over in 3 days.

3) WEF website on Great Reset
https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset

Last edited 1 month ago by mary heath
Daniel Lean
Daniel Lean
2 months ago

Good interview as far as it went, but limited, staying in overly safe territory. No mention of the emerging story that Monkeypox has also been through the careful hands of the Wuhan lab. The issues that were touched upon have deeply serious implications, and one could easily surmise that Covid 19 was just a trial run.

moya mc nulty
moya mc nulty
2 months ago
Reply to  Daniel Lean

It’s ALL DISGUSTING TO ME. There is absolutely NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that W.H.O. and all the “pharmacy” companies are IN LEAGUE WITH THE DEVIL.- with ONE AIM – to FILL THEIR OWN POCKETS and that the HEALTH of other beings is of no concern to them.

Dermot O'Sullivan
Dermot O'Sullivan
2 months ago

One of the best interviews I have listened to here. I’m not a specialist but Prof. Weinstein articulates calmly and is informative. Also an excellent job by the interviewer pulling out the answers and observations.

Erin Taylor
Erin Taylor
2 months ago

Thank you so much for this fine interview. The fact that you’ve done it is some cause for hope, I feel.

Melissa Martin
Melissa Martin
2 months ago

I wish he’d limit the time he spends on vaccines. Even if he’s right. He & Heather are fascinating on every other topic.

Last edited 2 months ago by Melissa Martin