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.
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.
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.
“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.
Leana Wen, anyone?
In the UK we also call these weathercocks!
"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.