In short, Afterlives is an annotated bibliography focused on Bret Weinstein's ruminations on issues not about the Evergreen protests, including but not limited to Ivermectin, mRNA vaccines, HIV, and immigration. Here's a longer intro.
Wilson, Dan. "Joe Rogan Just Doesn't Think". YouTube: Defunk the Funk With Dr. Wilson. 11 September, 2024.
Informed critique of Weinstein and Rogan's claims about Covid vaccinations in their Rogan episode of a few days earlier.
Weinstein, Bret. [Tweet September 9]. X. 9 September, 2024.
While not explicitly endorsing the 'Haitian immigrants in Springfield are eating other people's pets' rumor, Weinstein riffs on it in a way that assumes it to be true and promotes his immigration-as-invasion trope (stated explicitly in a tweet the next day). Trump explicitly repeated the rumor in the Sept 10 debate, and doubled down on it when the moderator said there was no evidence for that claim. To date there is no evidence for it, and the implied evidence for it has all been shown to be false. On X, at least, Weinstein has not retracted, or even acknowledged the lack of evidence. Update: Weinstein riffed on the theme again on Sept 13, and, on his podcast, said that he was "agnostic" about the truth of the rumors (for which there is still no evidence on Sept 15).
Pellish, Aaron. "RFK Jr. and Gabbard will speak at DC rally alongside anti-vaccine advocates and Trump supporters." CNN. 9 September, 2024.
A short report on a planned "Rescue the Republic" rally slated for DC later in September, features RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Russell Brand, and Lara Logan, organized by Weinstein along with the Libertarian National Committee. Also speaking will be other "prominent anti-vaccine voices"
Rogan, Joe. "Joe Rogan Experience #2198 - Bret Weinstein". Joe Rogan Experience. 4 September, 2024.
Another multi-hour ramble. In 2020, Weinstein dallied briefly with a "Stop the Steal" claim, before acknowledging that he had been fooled by a bad data analysis. This time he is strongly implying in advance that the election will be rigged to some degree towards the Democrats, and states that Trump will have to not only win but also beat the "cheat margin". The main concern expressed about election fraud is mail-in voting.
Scher, Bill. "Kamala Harris Should Pledge to Appoint a Republican to Her Cabinet ". Washington Monthly. 29 August, 2024.
Scher lists Weinstein as a "crank podcaster" along with three major influencers from the entertainment industry (Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, and Jimmy Dore).
Weigel, David. "Donald Trump goes all in on the ‘weird’ vote". Semafor. 27 August, 2024.
In an article on reactions to Trump's embrace of former democrats Kennedy and Gabbard, Weinstein is the first pundit quoted, ahead of actor Russell Brand and podcaster/comedian Jimmy Dore.
“This was not a simple endorsement of Trump,” said Bret Weinstein, an academic who frequently appears on anti-establishment podcasts, in a Monday interview with Patrick Bet-David. “This was an endorsement of retaking the White House and using that position to restore the republic to its proper course.”
Weinstein, Bret. [Tweet August 10]. X. 10 August, 2024.
Weinstein retweets a photo from Dinesh D'Souza's account, purporting to show evidence of a photo possibly manipulated, or AI generated, to show a large crowd greeting Kamala Harris as she disembarks a plane. The claim is that the reflection on the plane shows that the crowd in the foreground of the photo is not really there. This claim has circulated widely, including a Truth Social post by Trump on August 11. Weinstein's tweet is framed as a 'just asking questions' post, but he doesn't reference the considerable evidence that the crowds were as depicted in the photo, including a Snopes fact check ("unproven") and articles in Forbes and other major media outlets that call the claim false. Nor does he consider where the photo came from in the first place. According to Forbes, the Harris campaign has stated that the photo is one of theirs and has not been manipulated. So far (Aug 11), there is no explanation for why the reflection does not show the crowd, although it is not hard to come up with non-nefarious possibilities. On August 12, PolitiFact published a detailed fact check of Trump's tweet, rating it false.
Weinstein, Bret. [Tweet August 10]. X. 10 August, 2024.
Weinstein claims that Stuart Thompson in the NYT (see the August 7 entry for Thompson, below) misrepresents two of Weinstein's July tweets, and calls for corrections to the article. This is an interesting case where minor details matter.
tl;dr; summary: Weinstein is wrong on one count, and at least partially right on the other (at a minimum, Thompson creates an impression that is misleading).
Long Version: Thompson's article was mostly focused on conspiracy theorists who spread the view that Biden was dead or dying while he was recovering from Covid (and as/after he bowed out of the presidential race). Thompson then looks at how those theorists reacted when Biden reappeared in public, demonstrating those theories to have been false. He discusses Weinstein, and displays what appear to be two of Weinstein's tweets, a 'before' and 'after' tweet. Weinstein claims Thompson misrepresents his tweets twice and calls for corrections to the article. So is Weinstein correct that this NYT reporter, a specialist in mis- and disinformation, got two things wrong?
One of Weinstein's concerns is that the tweet Thompson labels "after" was actually posted "*before* President Biden’s Oval Office speech" on July 24th. This is true, but irrelevant. Thompson's "after" reference point was not specifically the Oval Office speech, but Biden's "public appearances". Those public appearances include the July 24 Oval Office speech, but also Biden's appearance on July 23rd boarding Air Force One (and perhaps Biden's public call to a Kamala Harris campaign event on July 22). Weinstein's 'after' tweet was also July 23rd. So Weinstein has not refuted what Thompson actually wrote. It may or may not be true that Weinstein's July 23 tweet came after Biden's July 23 Air Force One appearance, but Weinstein doesn't address that question, which is the relevant one. And, if you count Biden's telephone call on July 22 as a "public appearance", a reasonable thing to do, then Weinstein's tweet definitely did come "after".
Weinstein's other concern is that Thompson wrongly stated that Weinstein initially (July 22 tweet) believed the 'Biden is dead/dying' conspiracy theory. Weinstein is correct that Thompson cut off the final two sentences of Weinstein's July 22 tweet, and that this contributes to the impression that Weinstein was supporting the conspiracy theory on July 22. Moreover, although Weinstein doesn't mention this, his other July 22 tweets show pretty conclusively that he did not believe that Biden was dead/dying. So, if Thompson had written that on July 22 Weinstein was one of the believers of the conspiracy theory, Weinstein's critique would be correct. However, Thompson does not literally state that Weinstein believed the conspiracy theory: Thompson's main point is that Weinstein's second tweet (July 23rd) "echoes" a view of another conspiracy theorist that the "evidence" that Biden was dead/dying had been deliberately planted (a psyop) in order to inspire the conspiracy theory so that it could be debunked later by Biden's public appearances. Although Thompson's article is mainly about conspiracy theorists who initially believed that Biden was dead or dying (or claimed to), he includes Weinstein mainly because of Weinstein's support for the 'psyop' theory. That said, Thompson's framing, while not literally stating that Weinstein believed the 'Biden is dead/dying' conspiracy theory, strongly implies that Weinstein believed it.
So Weinstein has misread Thompson completely on one point of contention, and partially on another. Corrections are probably not called for. Still, it is true that Thompson creates a misleading impression that Weinstein believed the 'Biden is dead/dying' conspiracy theory. As a journalist tracking disinformation, Thompson should have provided the full context for interpreting what Weinstein meant to say in regard to the main point of the article (even if he was including Weinstein mainly to support a different secondary argument).
Merlan, Anna. "How covid conspiracy theories led to an alarming resurgence in AIDS denialism". MIT Technology Review. 7 August, 2024.
In this long piece on AIDS denialism, Merlan begins with Weinstein's appearance on Rogan, summarizing the event in this way: "Speaking to the biggest podcast audience in the world, the two men were promoting dangerous and false ideas—ideas that were in fact debunked and thoroughly disproved decades ago. "
Thompson, Stuart A. "What Do Conspiracy Theorists Do When Proved Wrong? Double Down or Move On.". New York Times. 7 Aug, 2024.
A helpful review of social media influencers most of whom spread the conspiracy theory that Biden was dead or dying in the days after he announced that he would not run. Weinstein is included for his support for the related 'psyop' theory (see the July 25 entry for Cathy Young below for an earlier take on this story), noting that Weinstein's post on this was seen by more than 2.2 million people and that he "gained more than 10,000 followers after the speculation began."
Hobbs, Jack. "WILD THOUGHTS Joe Rogan’s biggest conspiracy theories revealed – & how he’s still inking Netflix comedy specials despite controversy" U.S. Sun. 3 August, 2024.
Weinstein is the first Rogan 'conspiracy theorist' mentioned, with reference to his poorly evidenced claim that Ivermectin would be "the end of Covid if we decide to make it so." Hobbs seems to be drawing mostly or entirely from a more detailed 2022 Washington Post article by Aaron Blake (see the 2 February 2022 entry at https://libguides.evergreen.edu/c.php?g=823875&p=8586363 for details)..
Weinstein, Bret. [Tweets August 2 and 3]. X. 2-3 August, 2024.
In a remarkable set of tweets over 2 days, Weinstein appears to promote two fakes. In the first, a video of Biden is said to show a confused president getting onto an empty plane that isn't his. Although the White House has said that Biden was simply going on to the plane, which was not empty, to recognize the crew that had brought former Russian prisoners to the U.S, and both a reporter and other video evidence undermine the claim, Weinstein has not (as of Aug 4) corrected the apparently false claim in his series of 3 tweets, tweets which reached over 2 million people and generated over 2000 comments. Even though Snopes published a detailed fact check debunk on the 2nd.
Then, on August 3, Weinstein quote-tweeted a militant pro-Antifa video that purported to be made by Portland Antifa and ends with a call to violence. Weinstein wrote "The Blue Team's Brownshirts are back". Weinstein did not seem to notice that the account that published the video (a strong critic of Antifa) had, earlier that day, published another AI-generated hoax video (openly labelled as such) , and also tweeted that "I have the ability to clone almost anyone's voice and Prompt custom speaking parts within minutes.". Also, that account had immediately acknowledged in the comments that they had created the fake Antifa video with AI.
Hours later Weinstein tweeted a correction, noting that the Antifa video was an AI generated fake. But, in his correction Weinstein writes that it is "'fake' in one sense . . . but I'd encourage us to think seriously about it anyway." He goes on to imagine how an actual member of Antifa could make such a video using AI, sparking "renewed Antifa activity". And he worries that "We’re not going to know what to believe as the border between ’real’ and ‘fake’ disintegrates into meaninglessness." In short, he downplays the significance of his own mistake, does not criticize the creator of the actual fake that he fell for and who supports his priors, does worry about a non-existent future identical AI-generated video that, in intent and imagined outcome, would oppose his priors, all while failing to correct his debunked claim from the day before about the Biden plane video..
Abel, Luther Ray. "Pagans in Paris". The National Review. 28 July, 2024.
Ray, who doesn't appear to be a satirist, begins his critique of the Olympic opening ceremony by writing that the French are ". . . rude, effeminate, unfamiliar with deodorant . . . ", and moves on to support Weinstein's conspiracy theory that the ceremony in question was a deliberate trolling of the "anti-woke" crowd, intended to goad them into a false critique (specifically, goading them into critiquing the ceremony for mocking the Last Supper, and then countering that it was not re-presenting the Last Supper, but rather "The Feast of the Gods"). At about the same time Weinstein has floated a parallel hypothesis that the Democrats (or somebody) deliberately planted clues that Biden was incapacitated in order to goad others into claiming a conspiracy to cover up Biden's incapacitation, only to have Biden appear several days later proving the (planted) conspiracy theory false..
Young, Cathy. "The Life and Death of the 'Biden is Dead' Conspiracy Theory". The Bulwark. 25 July, 2024.
Young surveys those who suggested that Biden was incapacitated, dying, or dead between the time of his decision to drop out of the 2024 presidential race and his appearance a couple of days later. She discusses a Weinstein video, posted on July 23, the same day Biden appeared boarding Air Force One, which argued that there had been a "super-Machiavellian Deep State psyop intended to plant clues that would alert any truly inquiring mind to a conspiracy to cover up Biden’s incapacity or death, then triumphantly show an alive-and-well Biden to the world, and thereby destroy the credibility of conspiracy theorists who might be getting a bit too close to the truth about the conspiracy to kill Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania." (Young's summary). Weinstein's tweeted video has well over 2 million views. Weinstein's X account is also pursuing a 'second shooter' hypothesis regarding the attempted Trump assassination.
Coyne, Jerry. "Bret Weinstein embarrasses himself again, disses modern evolutionary biology for not understanding everything, osculates Intelligent Design". Why Evolution is True. 24 June, 2024.
Coyne's blog Why Evolution is True, cited several times previously in this bibliography, has shifted from celebrating Weinstein, to criticizing specific claims, to wholesale denigration. In this post, motivated by Weinstein's recent thoughts on Darwinism and Intelligent Design, Coyne also mentions some of Weinstein's other more recent theories and then writes "I no longer take Weinstein seriously as a biologist, or even as an intellectual." Those other theories include some of those covered below, but also Coyne claims (supported by a link that those interested could follow) that Weinstein "wrapped his cameras in aluminum foil because he suspected some sinister forces were impeding his transmission."
Wilson, Dan. "Experts Agree: Bret Weinstein is WRONG!". Debunk the Funk. 24 May, 2024.
Wilson follows up on two previous videos responding to Weinstein's COVID-related claims, primarily that the the mRNA vaccines are toxic and are likely killing millions of people. This is a direct response to a video Weinstein published in response to Wilson's original critique, in which Weinstein discussed the issue with two guests (the previous videos appear earlier in this bibliography). Wilson reviews the evidence that Weinstein and his guests put forward, arguing in detail that much of their evidence was weak, or are studies that actually showed the opposite of what Weinstein et al. had said they did. Wilson also reads comments he solicited from 3 scholars with relevant expertise. Along the way, Wilson correctly contrasts the experts he himself previously interviewed (well-credentialed scholars with expertise in directly relevant fields) with the experts Weinstein interviewed (one with no relevant scientific expertise who did most of the talking, and one other with some relevant expertise). Wilson points out that Weinstein had stated that he would publicly acknowledge that he was wrong if showed by experts to be wrong, but has refused to directly discuss the issues with Wilson. It remains to be seen whether Weinstein will directly respond in detail to Wilson's detailed critique.
Cullinan, Kerry. " Disinformation: Anti-WHO Convoy Heads to Geneva for World Health Assembly". Health Policy Watch. 21 May, 2024.
Cullinan focuses on " An alliance of right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and alternative health practitioners calling itself 'The Geneva Project' . . . One of their key – and false – claims against the pandemic agreement and the amended International Health Regulations (IHR) is that they will give WHO the power to supersede domestic laws and declare lockdowns and other measures during pandemics and public health emergencies."
Weinstein is featured because "he was part of perpetuating an astonishing conspiracy linking the attempted assassination of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico with that country’s 'courageous rejection of the WHO’s audacious Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and International Health Regulations'" Cullinan also highlights Weinstein's other health-related positions, including promoting Ivermectin as a COVID treatment.
Bickerton, James. "Marjorie Taylor Greene Floats Theory About Slovakia PM Shooting" Newsweek. 16 May, 2024.
Referencing the WHO 'pandemic plan,' in an article about Greene's suggestion that the WHO might be connected to the assassination attempt against the Slovakian Prime Minister, Bickerton writes: "The proposed agreement has already caused a backlash from conservative commentators. During an appearance on Tucker Carlson's online show author Bret Weinstein suggested it could end the U.S. First Amendment, though this claim was described as "false" by fact-checking website PolitiFact."
Weinstein, Bret. [May 15 Tweet] . X. 15 May, 2024.
Though he "can't be certain", Weinstein suggests a connection between the assassination attempt against Slovakian PM Robert Fico and "whoever is steering the WHO [World Health Organization}".
Ahmed, Sofia. "The World Health Organization’s pandemic plan won’t end free speech". PolitiFact. 15 May, 2024.
Ahmed reviews Weinstein's claim, made on Tucker Carlson's show and seen by millions, that the WHO's 'pandemic plan' will effectively end first amendment protections of free speech. She rates the claim 'False'.
Johnson, Matt. "Bret Weinstein: Conspiracy Theorist in Academic Clothing." The Unpopulist. 23 April, 2024.
A very good review of recent Weinsteinian thinking. Johnson discusses specific "hypotheses" (for instance, that there may have been an "evolutionary force" working through the one-child policy in China such that we should wonder if a “male-biased population in China was produced as a weapon, and if that weapon is now being deployed" in part via Chinese migration through South and Central America to become sleeper agents in the U.S.). But he also identifies some of the rhetorical techniques running across many of Weinstein's interventions, especially the "just asking questions" approach. For more examples since this article was written, check out entries above, for articles published since this one appeared in April. The second Aug 10 entry for Weinstein is a textbook example of the "just asking questions" technique.
Veldhoen, Marc. [March 26 Twitter Thread]. X. 26 March, 2024.
Veldhoen`provides a detailed critique of Weinstein et al’s March 24 video, linked to below. Those with relevant domain knowledge can assess the details. Others of us can take note of Veldhoen’s credentials compared to those of Weinstein et al (discussed in the annotation to "Unsettling Science", below),, and also this specific critique: ". . . upon examining the references in [Weinstein's video response], a significant portion are from MDPI and/or are case studies.”
MDPI is a mega publisher of academic journals many of which are considered low quality or even predatory. Veldhoen is right that Weinstein et al don't show any recognition of that concern when they cite MDPI articles.
Weinstein, Bret. "Unsettling Science – Rebutting the Experts". Darkhorse Podcast. 24 March, 2024.
About 5 months ago, Debunk the Funk provided a detailed criticism of Weinstein's views on covid vaccines in a long video accompanied by 3 experts. This is Weinstein's response. Those with relevant domain knowledge can assess the detailed arguments themselves.
Others can await Debunk the Funk's response, and/or consider the expertise of the discussants, summarized here based on what one can find on their own web pages and Google Scholar. The tl;dr version is that the discussants Weinstein assembled fell far short of the relevant expertise that Debunk the Funk assembled. Here are the details:
Weinstein, a PhD and former college professor of evolutionary biology with no record of expertise in immunology or virology, brings in two discussants supporting his position:
Bret Swanson, "the "president of the technology research firm Entropy Economics", and former nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who describes himself on his own web page in this way: "His recent research focuses on information technology’s potential to drive a resurgence in productivity and economic growth . . . In previous research, he has presented a new theory of the economic rise of China; projected an “exaflood” of Web video, leading to an estimated 56% compound annual growth of Internet traffic through the year 2015; exposed the deep monetary errors behind the crashes of both 2000 and 2008; anticipated the shale hydrocarbon boom and following drop in energy prices; and advanced a new concept linking information theory and entrepreneurial economics. Google Scholar does not get everything right, but shows numerous publications by Swanson, none of which appear to be in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, and which do seem to be about his self-identified areas of expertise, like technology, finance, and economics (and not about immunology, virology, nor even biology, nor even any other scientific field)..
Joomi Kim, a Rutgers PhD whose "doctoral research focused on how the cell cycle connects to metabolism", and who authors a substack started "because governments were censoring dissident scientists and doctors . . . and spreading propaganda", which addresses "the rotten aspects of medicine and “institutionalized science”". Google Scholar shows at least three scholarly articles by Kim, in the reputable PNAS, and The Plant Journal, and provides this summary:
Research Assistant, Hallym Institute of Applied Psychology
Verified email at hallym.ac.kr
Cited by 10
Debunk the Funk (aka Dan Wilson), a science communicator and podcaster whose PhD is in the immunology-adjacent field of molecular biology, brought in three others to support his position:
Cynthia Leifer, a Cornell University professor of Microbiology and Immunology, with scholarly articles in top journals like Science, Vaccine, and many others. Google Scholar summary:
Cornell University
Verified email at cornell.edu
Cited by 8632
Marc Veldhoen, a scientist with a focus on immunity, and according to Google Scholar numerous scholarly articles in top journals like Cell and Nature:
Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa
Verified email at medicina.ulisboa.pt
Cited by 23425
Edward Nirenberg, an independent scholar and science communicator, with one 2023 scholarly article in the Oxford journal Clinical Infectious Diseases on improving vaccine effectiveness estimates. That article has no citations yet, according to Google Scholar.