Debunking "Debunk the Funk"

And the conflict stemming from conflicts of interest.

COVID gave rise to a new lineup of YouTube stars as the entire world halted and interest began shifting into the world of science. Many of those who aligned with the popular narratives being pushed through mainstream sources were boosted exponentially, while those with dissenting opinion often got removed from the platform altogether. As people flooded into this niche looking for answers, the long-captured industry was ready to receive them and tell them exactly how they should think.

“Don’t do your own research,” they said. “Trust the science.”

But the science wasn’t to be trusted. Some of the same leaders that patted themselves on the back for promoting AZT—a drug that has killed countless numbers of people in the name of fighting HIV/AIDS the past 30 years—were back in front of the cameras with no new wisdom. They had already performed mental magic on a smaller scale and were ready—dare I say hungry?—for the challenge of hypnotizing the entire world.

YouTuber Dr. Dan Wilson, known for his show “Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson,” was one of the benefactors of this great funneling of laypersons. The premise of his show is simple—dispelling “bad” science while feeding you what he perceives to be the “settled” science. Because those who challenged the messaging being broadcast to the world were either shadow banned or had their accounts terminated, Dr. Wilson automatically looked credible to those who didn’t know any better. Once these types of accounts are able to gather a significant following, the framing of them as authoritative voices makes it much easier to punch down on those who have been banished to the corners of the internet. Major platforms like YouTube have a vested interest in creating these conditions.

We saw little scientific debate from these characters during the earlier COVID months, but we have seen that trend change. Presently, it is common for Dr. Wilson and others (like “cardboard PhD” Dr. Ian Copeland) to host debates on Twitter Spaces, now that the platform is letting these conversations take place after most people have intellectually chosen a side. As far as having great benefit for the masses, the changes at Twitter were too little and too late by design.

Nonetheless, an account dedicated to challenging the dogma of virology recently dropped a thread highlighting how they have pressed Dr. Wilson.

ViroLIEgy @ViroLIEgy

Another scientist, & yet another example of intellectual dishonesty. This time from @Debunk_the_Funk, who I asked a very simple question of. I wanted to know whether or not evidence for "viruses" meeting very specific requirements existed. Dan said that it did and that he had it.

This challenge is as old as time—is there evidence of isolated and purified virus? Are Koch’s postulates being fulfilled? If not, how can one definitively determine disease causation? How can one dictate “good” science? We saw this same exact problem with HIV/AIDS, as evidenced in this clip featuring Nobel laureate biologist Dr. David Baltimore and oncologist Dr. Robin Weiss in the 2009 film House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic by Brent Leung (as well as his 2011 follow-up The Emperor’s New Virus?).

The viral “boogeyman” kept the masses scared and, maybe more importantly, kept an endless pipeline of HIV/AIDS research money flooding into science labs all over the world. What was the one catch? You had to believe wholeheartedly in the boogeyman even if it contradicted the work you were doing. It’s like believing in the Tooth Fairy so that you might find a dollar underneath your pillow. If you stop believing in the boogeyman, you might coincidentally end up in a plane crash or experience some other horrible tragedy.

When writing a scientific paper that is meant to be published, one is supposed to list any conflicts of interest that might create bias in one’s work. The same thing should apply to scientific debates from people who claim to be experts, but many people these days just want to see credentialed people confirm their preconceived notions. A little research into Dr. Wilson shows us a CV filled with reasons why he might side with certain narratives.

VaccineMole @VaccineMole

1-Today,while this mole dug for pests underground,it hit hard in a metal box With it's paws felt picture engraved with name @Debunk_the_Funk It felt strong odour coming from box similar to stinky smell of COV-19 tests,vaccines,pharmaceutical industry This was the picture:

Not only was the school that he attended during the early months of COVID a major benefactor of COVID-related funding, his employers since are attempting to make large profits from the narrative. The mixture of money, politics and science do not make for honest discourse. So, the cycle repeats itself as it has for generations, only now having a slightly “woke” rebranding for PR purposes.

As for Dr. Copeland, a deep dive was performed by The Daily Beagle which concludes he is likely a fraud and possibly a paid propagandist which should come as no surprise to those paying close attention.

The information war has been going on for a very long time, but it has only been more recent where the scales have started to tip in the other direction due to the powers that be overplaying their hand.

If you haven’t already done so, please subscribe as I explore storytelling in the world of science.