I feel like the process was far from perfect. There was a certain very intense mood that could be called hysterical. It was a lot of a sort of moralistic judgment of any one who dissented. The whole period is regrettable in a lot of ways, and we should hopefully learn from it. We are living in an era where something that isn't even hiding itself a plan to accomplish something, is dismissed as a wild eyed conspiracy theory by those who wish not to talk about its implications. So i don't know how that works. To me, the fact you know that it has a websit you can go to, is highly suggestive of the fact that it exists.
Freddie Sayers sits down to discuss the pandemic response with Biologist, Bret Weinstein.
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.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.