I was listening to Drs Ghandi, Makary, Attia, Damania on the Drive. Your name came up! They were having a sidebar on the Malone/Rogan podcast. One thought that came up was having a scientific debate structured in the form of legal discovery, where all materials are presented beforehand and all participants agree to limit the discussion to only those materials
I thought it was a great idea. It is a form of public peer review, or a scientific courtroom or something. Rarely do we get a chance for experts on differing sides of a problem have a long form discussion open to the public. Actually, more like never.
It would be a billion times better than constantly listening to the blathering "weathervanes" on cable news.
I think you are too charitable to these pundits. I don't think they do any "averaging" I think they are spokespeople/stenographers for the official narrative, not "Weathervanes" who consider a range of views.
At issue is that they are always promoted by media as authorities and many citizens have listened and not realized that they are not representing the best of a popular journalists' task - holding officials to account. It would be OK if they noted the CDC says "xyz" and stopped there but they often tell us why the policy ought to be helpful. They NEVER report an alternate viewpoint or allude to a controversial opinion. It's always one-sided now the propaganda. They imply that alternative viewpoints are misinformation and treat the viewers as children that can't examine evidence and decide. It's this inability to trust people that is scary. After all we are trusted to vote, aren't we? Of course those voters may decide they are tired of being treated as children and vote differently. That's the real point of branding anything contrary as misinformation. We are not fooled. Many of us have gravitated to Substacks like this one and Berenson, Malone, etc.
Matt Taibbi notes
"Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading."
The debates have not been held among learned experts but Sen Johnson's "Covid-19 A Second Opinion" was refreshing as an open public forum for an alternative public discussion. The policy defenders were notably absent. What are they afraid of?
I like the term. It's kind of the opposite of a mindless contrarian. Ironically that's kind of why I ended up subscribing here. There's this guy Yuri Deiglin who helped identify the lab leak of covid. He's been staunchly pro-vaccine and arguing with Brett Weinstein and others about how the vaccines are effective. But when that Rogan clip with that Australian journalist came out he said actually Rogan is right and pointed to an article on this sub clarifying that vaccines cause more myocarditis than COVID for young men. That's the sign of a man who is thinking for himself and won't sacrifice truth to score a point.
And their rather low ratings define them in a very fragmented media world. The token conservative on the View must be constantly replaced because the panel gangs up on her.
I was listening to Drs Ghandi, Makary, Attia, Damania on the Drive. Your name came up! They were having a sidebar on the Malone/Rogan podcast. One thought that came up was having a scientific debate structured in the form of legal discovery, where all materials are presented beforehand and all participants agree to limit the discussion to only those materials
I thought it was a great idea. It is a form of public peer review, or a scientific courtroom or something. Rarely do we get a chance for experts on differing sides of a problem have a long form discussion open to the public. Actually, more like never.
It would be a billion times better than constantly listening to the blathering "weathervanes" on cable news.
I think you are too charitable to these pundits. I don't think they do any "averaging" I think they are spokespeople/stenographers for the official narrative, not "Weathervanes" who consider a range of views.
At issue is that they are always promoted by media as authorities and many citizens have listened and not realized that they are not representing the best of a popular journalists' task - holding officials to account. It would be OK if they noted the CDC says "xyz" and stopped there but they often tell us why the policy ought to be helpful. They NEVER report an alternate viewpoint or allude to a controversial opinion. It's always one-sided now the propaganda. They imply that alternative viewpoints are misinformation and treat the viewers as children that can't examine evidence and decide. It's this inability to trust people that is scary. After all we are trusted to vote, aren't we? Of course those voters may decide they are tired of being treated as children and vote differently. That's the real point of branding anything contrary as misinformation. We are not fooled. Many of us have gravitated to Substacks like this one and Berenson, Malone, etc.
Matt Taibbi notes
"Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading."
The debates have not been held among learned experts but Sen Johnson's "Covid-19 A Second Opinion" was refreshing as an open public forum for an alternative public discussion. The policy defenders were notably absent. What are they afraid of?
“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.” ~ Bob Dylan
These people are propaganda prostitutes..the sickening part is their audience bows to the illusion of ethics & intelligence.
This is the single most important paper during this clown show era. I wish you were president, head of CDC, head of NIAID, and the Surgeon General.
Dr. Prasad is not a hack, a useful idiot, an outright liar, or a tool. Therefore, he cannot rise to the top of a bureaucracy.
Good answer! When you're right, you're right! LOL.
Leana Wen, anyone?
In the UK we also call these weathercocks!
Ha! 👍🏼
"Tell me you are writing about David Leonhardt without telling me you are writing about David Leonhardt"
Excellent piece! Also, thank you for the latest dr.zeb podcast ( where you touched on this topic). Dr.zeb and you give me hope. 🇨🇦🙏🏻
Thank you Vinay for another insightful piece.
I like the term. It's kind of the opposite of a mindless contrarian. Ironically that's kind of why I ended up subscribing here. There's this guy Yuri Deiglin who helped identify the lab leak of covid. He's been staunchly pro-vaccine and arguing with Brett Weinstein and others about how the vaccines are effective. But when that Rogan clip with that Australian journalist came out he said actually Rogan is right and pointed to an article on this sub clarifying that vaccines cause more myocarditis than COVID for young men. That's the sign of a man who is thinking for himself and won't sacrifice truth to score a point.
Thank you!!! Home truths here!
Sharing. Thank you again for your thoughtful expertise.
And their rather low ratings define them in a very fragmented media world. The token conservative on the View must be constantly replaced because the panel gangs up on her.