Bret Weinstein Exposed: Hardcore Lockdown & Vaccine Proponent
On a recent Tucker Carlson episode, popular DarkHorse podcaster and self described professor in exile Bret Weinstein inadvertently exposed himself as a junk science peddler and biowarfare totalitarian.
On the X social media platform yours truly called him out on this:
Bret unsurprisingly would not respond to me again.
I then added a few more X posts for his pleasure:
Bret’s below quote on having even more draconian anti-science lockdowns is cited from the following article:
Bret Weinstein, August 4, 2022: “Lockdowns I think I got right. Which was, there was a place for lockdowns, but they needed to be more intense than they were. They needed to be short duration and they needed to be paired with excellent-quality testing, which frankly we still don’t have. Which, I don’t know, I can’t imagine why we still don’t have it. I think it’s a problem money would solve, and the fact that we haven’t dedicated enough money to have tests that are worth anything is conspicuous to me.
But I would have had, let’s say – yes, painful–six week, very intense lockdown. And the reason for that is that gives it enough time –most of the transmission was at home. So, six weeks gives it enough time to burn through, you know, places where we were corralled together, such that at the point you lift that six-week mandate, you have a small number of places where active COVID still exists.
And you had good testing, you could figure out where they were and you apply some very local solutions that we – the rest of us could have gone back to life. Given that we never had good tests, I would not favor that plan. But, were I in charge, I would’ve invested very heavily–Shellenberger: Then the Asian, East Asian approach. Korea, Hong Kong.
Weinstein: Well, yes and no. Good tests would be key, and then an epidemiologically sensible lockdown in which the virus was given a chance to be not contagious in any given group. So that, you know, you would have hotspots but you could find them and the rest of us wouldn’t be infecting each other. So I think I had that right, but we don’t know, because we didn’t do that.”
According to Bret, harder lockdowns and more fraudulent PCR testing would have been better. And if the Modified mRNA slow kill bioweapons were not exposed for what they really are, then it is quite possible Bret would still be shilling the “Safe and Effective” poison “vaccines.”
Also, what is most peculiar is that at the height of the “pandemic” Bret had on his DarkHorse podcast two individuals from seemingly out of nowhere (do you believe in coincidences?) that up to that point were completely unknown in the public arena: the inventor of the deadly mRNA technology Robert Malone, and the inventor of the optical mouse and depopulation and climate change advocate Steve Kirsch. These two men, both allegedly “vaccinated” when they appeared on Bret’s show, became important figures in the medical freedom movement, and yet their true motivations and allegiances remain — to put it politely — unclear even to this day.
Expect more “pandemics” and “experts” from all sides to run disinfo and misinfo campaigns concurrent with their various forthcoming psyops.
They want you dead.
Do NOT comply.
I watched that interview with Tucker. He clearly stated that he had it all wrong. I saw nothing in the interview where he exposed himself as a junk science peddler and a biowarfare totalitarian. He recognized he had it wrong and now holds views not much different from your own.
Has anyone asked Steve Kirsch what his opinion is on the climate scam these days? I saw posts mentioning this in the last month or two, but the posts from Kirsch were from quite a while ago.
I was falling for the climate scam and the vaccine scam until the COVID scam got me digging a bit deeper and realizing that modeling studies and appeal to consensus are absolute garbage.
I can't work out Malone at all, as he spends a reasonable amount of time in fighting with people on our side. As for Weinstein, he has been doing good work but there is no way of conclusively proving or disproving his hard lockdown theory. They might work if they were implemented at the very start when very few people were infected, they might not. I feel that he is wrong on that and wrong thinking that covid was a serious problem. But I do feel that he has been a decent voice overall.
Do we really need to get into purity spirals on this side? It seems less than productive.