Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 28, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:00

20200428_Tue_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You are about to be part-time on the great debate.
	And you are all friends.
	America first.
	And you are not.
	What's your country?
	Welcome to another edition of American Countdown on Tuesday, April 28th.
	Day 25, day 28, day 32, day 47, depending on where you are in the country, as to the day of shutdown that you are experiencing in most parts of the country.
	Though by week's end, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Texas are planning to be mostly or completely open.
	So at least there's some promise on the horizon.
	Some states, of course, about eight in the country.
	From Iowa to Arkansas to the Dakotas and never shut down.
	So we will have something like maybe a quarter of the population free by this weekend, while three quarters of our population still lives under suppressed or restricted lifestyles and circumstances.
	In this particular regard, tonight will be about resolve that the Bakersfield doctors who took the noble stand this past week to oppose the shutdown are more right than they're critics.
	Indeed, we'll get into the analogy, we'll look at what the doctor said, a summary and a highlighted version of it, we'll look at one of the primary public profile critics said about them, and then we'll address which one used the more persuasive arguments in the context of Scott Adams' book, Loser Think.
	Scott Adams has written many books.
	You can follow him on Twitter at Scott Adams Says.
	You can buy his books at Amazon from Win Bigly to Loser Think to How to Fall... I think it's called How to Fall at Everything and Somehow Succeed.
	It's a lot of great books about mindset, about persuasion, about psychology, about the human experience.
	Good basic advice for people in their everyday lives as well as their everyday dialogue, debate, and discussions with themselves and others.
	So it has many utilities and we'll be applying some of those rules and you'll understand in particular why I think those rules are particularly apt to this debate.
	Because one of the people that has been a critic of the doctors is Scott Adams himself.
	So we'll look at what the doctor said and what Scott Adams said and who stuck to the rules of Loser Think and who avoided the habits of Loser Think.
	Here's what some of those rules are.
	If your view of reality is consistent with the past but fails to predict the near future, you might be in a cult-like mindset with a manufactured worldview.
	So we'll look at when you're watching the two sides discuss later on in this segment, and then I'll break it down in the second half of the show.
	Watch to see whose view of reality is consistently predicting the near future versus completely missing on the near future.
	Has it been the modelers or is it more these doctors?
	Is it the doctors or is it their critics that have been more accurate in predicting the near short-term future over the last six weeks?
	Rule number two, this again comes from Scott Adams' book Loser Think, If you are discouraged from listening to opposing views, you need to start planning your escape from whatever mindset or group you're a part of.
	That is good logic.
	Those who are confident in the accuracy of their viewpoint Welcome debate and discussion.
	Do not run from it.
	Do not try to dodge it or evade it.
	Do not try to hide from it.
	That is good logic.
	So when you're watching the discussions later on in the show, look to see who is it that says positive things about the people that have been their critics versus who it is that is sort of demonizing their critic, who is discouraging people from listening to the opposing view.
	Does that occur?
	And if so, on which side does it lie?
	Rule number three, try not to discern the intentions of pure strangers engaging in mind-reading type activities.
	Here too, look to see whether is it the doctors that try to mind-read their political or public policy opponents, or is it their critics that attempt to mind-read them, that also use projection techniques and tactics to say that somehow the doctors have bad motivations but only they good ones.
	Look to see who it is that's doing it.
	Is it the doctors doing it?
	Or is it the critics doing it?
	Another rule of loser think is that the sign that someone is engaged in loser think is a failure to compare the cost and benefits of any policy and particularly the failure to compare the cost and benefits of alternatives to make meaningful comparisons because we don't live in a world of the real versus the ideal.
	We live in a world of two reals.
	Every person who goes through the ballot box figures that out every time there's an election.
	They only have those candidates on the ballot.
	They don't have an ideal candidate.
	That's why occasionally some of them will write in Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny.
	When they're dissatisfied with their choices.
	But look here too.
	Who is it that discusses the cost and benefits of the lockdown policy?
	And who also discusses comparing it to alternatives?
	Provides meaningful basis to compare those alternatives.
	Is it the doctors or is it the critics?
	See who it is that's employing good persuasive logic and who it is that's stuck in loser think.
	In the same degree, the Loser Strength book does a very good job of demonstrating why it is and how it is that you should always generally distrust models, particularly if they're models trying to predict the long-term future and involve a lot of complexity.
	Look to see who it is that's been employing models and who it is that's distrusting models in terms of who's persuasive and who's using loser think or relying upon it in this debate and discussion we're going to have.
	Is it the doctors?
	The Bakersfield doctors challenging and contesting the shutdown?
	Or is it their critics that are relying upon employing, justifying, exculpating the various models that exist?
	Another rule of Loser Think and persuasive logic versus Loser Think is that one should question experts.
	One of the great parts of Loser Think is going through all the times and all the ways from nutrition to population explosions that the so-called experts got wrong.
	In particular, Scott Adams makes the point that where the issue involves complexity, where it involves something that isn't historically commonplace within a particular area of knowledge, that is particularly an area where you should basically just see an expert as a slightly better opinion than an average opinion, but not the degree to which you should esteem it as a final word on anything.
	So look here, too, to see who is questioning experts, who's contesting experts.
	Based on available data, based on available information, based on their lived experience, based on their review and research of the information.
	Who's contesting the data versus who is basically saying the experts agree with me, the most important experts agree with me, so my position must be right.
	Who is willing to contest experts and who is making an appeal to authority in the name of experts.
	Watch that as we see the debate unfold in the later part of this show.
	Another great piece of logic from Scott Adams in his book, Loser Think, is to mostly quote, straight line predictions are generally wrong and dangerous if you act on them.
	Now, what is a straight line prediction?
	It is, he says in general, it is a terrible way to predict the future, which is to assume the things will keep going the way they have been going.
	So this is a key.
	Look to see who employs straight-line predictive logic.
	Is it the doctors?
	Are the doctors predict using straight-line logic that because something has gone a certain way, it's guaranteed to keep going that way?
	Or is it some of their critics using it that way?
	Does someone, for example, predict that there's just going to be a flat rate of death from now until summer?
	A straight-line prediction.
	Because, as Scott Adams identifies, someone who's using straight-line predictions is someone not using good thought and is instead using loser think.
	Rule number nine from Loser Think, and this is not in his order, this is in my own.
	One should look at what if the opposing view is true.
	So here, again, look to see whether or not the doctors contemplate what the opposing view is.
	Do they appear to have a full and accurate knowledge of what that opposing view is?
	Do they talk about it?
	Do they discuss it?
	Do they name call it or do they give it deference?
	Do they give it some respect and then contest it?
	And see the same of the critics.
	Do the critics really take time to understand the doctor's perspective?
	Are they able to re-articulate what that doctor's perspective is in an accurate way?
	Or do they sort of name-call it?
	Do they sort of demonize it?
	Do they sort of mock it and satirize it and critique it?
	Not with its own words, not with its own evidence, but instead with their own name-calling language used.
	Because the latter is the sign of Loser Think.
	So who's employing Loser Think in the context of this debate involving the Bakersfield Doctors and the policy wisdom of the shutdown?
	Last but not least, in terms of rule number 10, is that in general, name-calling is, particularly certain kinds of name-calling, is a sign of Loser Think.
	If you have to resort to using certain... In fact, we have a version of this in the law.
	If you're having to use adjectives, you're already losing.
	So if you have to say the other person's argument is dumb, crazy, idiotic, lunatic, da-da-da-da-da, then the judge will often know, okay, why can't you just tell me what the argument is?
	The argument's that bad, and you have to use adjectives.
	That tells me the argument isn't that bad, and you just don't have good arguments against it.
	So if you want to show that you have good arguments, quality arguments, then what you want to show is and what you want to look at is you want the facts.
	You want the basis of the argument, the evidentiary foundation and predicate for it.
	So looking at those rules, let's look at the two discussions that take place.
	And we'll start with the Bakersfield doctors and see who is employing persuasive reasoning and who is employing loser think and who that label should properly be applied to in the context of this debate.
	First, let's look at a highlighted section of the doctor's statement.
	After testing thousands of people for COVID-19, Dr. Dan Erickson, co-owner of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California, held a news conference to release their data, compare it to the CDC's data, and deliver a powerful message.
	COVID-19 is more present and less fatal than we were told.
	The numbers say that it is less of a danger than influenza.
	Does this make sense?
	and place order is causing far more damage than good.
	Their information is based on science, and the message is chilling.
	You can see the full video at band.video, but here's the gist of it. - Does this make sense? Are we following the science? We keep hearing following the science.
	What is science essentially?
	It's the study of the natural world through experiment, through observation.
	So that's what we're doing.
	We're studying the disease around us.
	We're making observations.
	We're doing testing experiments to figure out exactly what's going on.
	And so this has caused some severe disruption for Accelerated as we have people coming in 7 in the morning till midnight, we're reporting to the health department, we're calling patients back, and at the same time, our volumes have dropped significantly.
	The hospitals, their ICUs are empty, essentially, and they're shutting down floors.
	They're furloughing patients, they're furloughing doctors.
	So the health system has been evacuated in certain places.
	In New York, the health system is working at maximum capacity.
	In California, we're really at a minimal capacity.
	Getting rid of our doctors and nurses, because we just don't have the volume.
	The hospitals don't, as I've met with our CEOs twice in the last week, and we don't as well.
	So we're busy with paperwork for COVID, and we're all focusing on COVID.
	So the more you test, the more positives you get, the prevalence number goes up, and the death rate stays the same.
	So it gets smaller and smaller and smaller.
	And as we move through this data, what I want you to see is millions of cases Small amount of death.
	Millions of cases, small amount of death.
	So if we look at California, these numbers are from yesterday, we have 33,865 COVID cases.
	Out of a total of 280,900 total tested, that's 12% of Californians were positive for COVID.
	As you guys know, the initial models were woefully inaccurate.
	They predicted millions of cases of death, not of prevalence or incidence, but death.
	That is not materializing.
	What is materializing in the state of California is 12% positives.
	12% positives.
	We've seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible incidence or prevalence of 4.7 million.
	That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California.
	I also wanted to mention that 96% of people in California who get COVID recover with almost no significant sequelae or no significant continuing medical problems.
	So I want to look at New York State.
	They've been in the news a lot, right?
	And their numbers are critical.
	Let's go over their numbers.
	Cases of COVID as of yesterday, 256,272 cases in New York State.
	Not New York City, New York, the entire state.
	They did a total of 649,325 tests.
	That's 39% of New Yorkers tested positive for COVID-19.
	That's their ratios.
	This is public data online.
	You can all look it up.
	649,325 tests.
	That's 39% of New Yorkers tested positive for COVID-19.
	That's their ratios.
	This is public data online.
	You can all look it up.
	How many deaths do they have?
	19,410 out of 19 million people, which is a 0.1% chance of dying from COVID in the state of New York.
	And they have a 92% recovery rate.
	If you are indeed diagnosed with COVID-19, 92% of you will recover.
	So we're seeing millions of cases, small amount of death.
	USA, this is a big one for us.
	802,590 cases as of yesterday, gives us a 19.6% positive out of those who were tested.
	gives us a 19.6% positive out of those who were tested.
	So if this is a typical extrapolation, 328 million people times 19.6 is 64 million.
	That's a significant amount of people with COVID.
	It's similar to the flu.
	If you study the numbers in 2017 and 2018, we had 50 to 60 million with the flu.
	And we had a similar death rate.
	The deaths in the United States were 43,545.
	Similar to the flu of 2017-2018.
	And we have a similar death rate.
	The deaths in the United States were 43,545, similar to the flu of 2017, 2018.
	We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States every single year.
	No pandemic talk, no shelter in place, no shutting down of businesses, no sending doctors COVID-19 is one aspect of our health sector.
	What has it caused to have us be involved in social isolation?
	What does it cause that we are seeing the community respond to?
	Child molestation is increasing at a severe rate.
	We could go over multiple cases of children who have been molested due to angry family members who are intoxicated, who are home, who have no paycheck.
	These things last a lifetime.
	This isn't about a seasonal flu.
	These are things that will follow these people and affect them in a negative fashion for their life.
	And these are secondary effects from COVID.
	And these are for me talking to ERs, talking to my doctors, and talking to people across the country and finding out what they're seeing.
	Spousal abuse.
	We see people coming in here with black eyes and cuts on their face.
	It's an obvious abuse of case.
	These are things that will affect them for a lifetime, not for a season.
	Alcoholism, anxiety, depression, suicide.
	I talked to Donnie Youngblood and various people in the community.
	I've asked them, how are things going?
	Suicide is spiking.
	Education has dropped off.
	Economic collapse.
	Medical industry, we're all suffering because our staff isn't here and we have no volume.
	These are all real things that I'm seeing every day.
	I don't read about this stuff.
	I'm seeing it in my clinics.
	We have clinics from Fresno to San Diego and these things are spiking in our community.
	These things will affect people for a lifetime, not for a season.
	So let's make sure we're clear on that.
	We've gone over the statistics.
	Now I want to compare flu virus.
	Is this significantly different?
	Deaths per the CDC, 24,000 to 62,000 deaths each year.
	We had about 45 million total cases in 2017 with about 62,000 deaths or a 0.13 chance of death from flu in the United States.
	45 million total cases in 2017 with about 62,000 deaths, or a 0.13 chance of death from flu in the United States.
	As you know, our other numbers were 0.02.
	So the lethality of COVID-19 is much less.
	And then when you bring up a system of lockdown, you automatically have to compare it to a system of no lockdown.
	The immune system is built by exposure to antigens, viruses, bacteria.
	When you're a little child crawling on the ground, putting stuff in your mouth, viruses and bacteria come in, you form an antigen-antibody complex, you form IgG, IgM.
	This is how your immune system is built.
	You don't take a small child, put them in bubble wrap in a room and say, go have a healthy immune system.
	This is Immunology Microbiology 101.
	What I'm seeing is, when you take human beings and you say, go into your house, clean all your counters, lice all them down, you're going to kill 99% of viruses and bacteria, wear a mask, don't go outside.
	What does it do to our immune system?
	Our immune system is used to touching.
	We share bacteria, staphylococcal, streptococcal bacteria, viruses.
	We develop an immune response daily to this stuff.
	When you take that away from me, my immune system drops.
	As I shelter in place, my immune system drops.
	You keep me there for months, it drops more.
	And now I'm at home hand washing vigorously, washing the counters, worried about things that are indeed what I need to survive.
	When the child's in a womb, you're in this protected environment.
	When you come out, you have almost no immune system.
	You develop that through touching your mouth, touching your eyes, virus, bacteria, virus, bacteria, immune response, IgG, IgM.
	This is how you build a strong immune system.
	Sheltering in place decreases your immune system.
	And then as we all come out of shelter in place with a lower immune system and start trading viruses and bacteria, what do you think's going to happen?
	Disease is going to spike.
	And then you've got disease spike amongst a hospital system with furloughed doctors and nurses.
	This is not the combination we want to set up for a healthy society.
	As your mask that you're wearing for days, you touch the outside of it, COVID, and then touch your mouth.
	This doesn't make any sense.
	We wear a mask in an acute setting to protect us.
	We're not wearing masks.
	Why is that?
	Because we understand microbiology, we understand immunology, and we want strong immune systems.
	I don't want to hide in my home, develop a weak immune system, and then come out and get diseased.
	We have both been in the ER through swine flu and through bird flu.
	Did we shut down for those?
	Were they much less dangerous than COVID?
	Is the flu Less dangerous than COVID.
	Let's look at the death rates.
	No, it's not.
	And what's interesting to me, too, is when someone dies in this country right now, they're not talking about the high blood pressure, the diabetes, the stroke.
	They say, did they die from COVID?
	We've been to hundreds of autopsies.
	You don't talk about one thing.
	You talk about comorbidities.
	Their vessels were narrowed.
	Their lungs were a smoker.
	COVID was part of it.
	It is not the reason they died, folks.
	It is one of many reasons.
	So, to be so simplistic to say, that's a COVID death because they have COVID.
	You know how many people die with pneumonia?
	Or people that die from flu?
	With flu, I should say.
	It's not from flu.
	Their lungs were compromised by COPD.
	They had a heart attack two years ago.
	They have a weakened body.
	We aren't pressured to test for flu.
	But ER doctors now, my friends that I talk to, say, you know, it's interesting, when I'm writing up my death report, I'm being pressured to add COVID.
	Why is that?
	Why are we being pressured to add COVID to maybe increase the numbers and make it look a little bit worse than it is?
	I think so.
	When I look at the basic tenants that we know of microbiology, and I say, do we need to still shelter in place?
	Our answer is emphatically no.
	Do we need businesses to be shut down?
	Emphatically no.
	Do we need to test them and get them back to work?
	Yes, we do.
	The secondary effects that we went over, the child abuse, alcoholism, loss of revenue, all these are, in our opinion, a significantly more detrimental thing to society than a virus that has proven similar in nature to the seasonal flu we have every year.
	We need to make sure if you're going to dance on someone's constitutional rights, you better have a good reason.
	You better have a really good scientific reason and not just theory.
	One of the most important things is we need our hospitals back up.
	We need our furloughed doctors back.
	We need our nurses back.
	Because when we lift this thing, we're going to need all hands on deck.
	I know the local hospitals have closed two floors.
	Folks, that's not the situation you want.
	We're essentially setting ourselves up to have minimal staff, and we're going to have significant disease.
	That's the wrong combination.
	And I've been working with some of the leaders, and I've talked to the head of the CDPH.
	I've gotten their opinion on this, and a lot of the leaders in Sacramento.
	And we're all in agreement.
	But we need to have Governor Newsom in agreement with us to lift this ban.
	I've talked to our local head of the health department and he's waiting for that.
	Even though they're in agreement with me, they're waiting for the powers that be to lift because the data is showing us it's time to lift.
	So if we don't lift, What is the reason?
	I can go into Sully's right now, which I did this morning.
	There was 25 people in there, and I can stand in line for 10 minutes, but I can't go in Cafe Rio and sit there for 10 minutes.
	Does that make sense to you guys?
	And I can go into Costco, and I can shop with people, and there's probably a couple hundred people, but I can't go in Cafe Rio.
	So big businesses are open.
	Little businesses are not.
	There's no science behind that.
	As we've gone over, that is not science.
	There's other factors in play that we don't have time to go into, but it's not science.
	I want to make that clear.
	So in looking at what the doctors said, and I watched the whole video, you're encouraged to go to Ben.Video and watch the whole video yourself. In the same context, go to our sponsor, InfowarsStore.com, where you can buy a range of health care supplement products. You
	can great coffee, storable food, and a wide range of other items because it was people that were preparing for this possibility that turned out to be prescient in their predictions as to what would happen more so than a lot of the political class did.
	Well, let's look at the scope of what the arguments were and what methods and mode of argument we saw present.
	So, for example, we saw them be, they actually were much more accurate in predicting the near future in terms of what was going to happen even to them than their critics have been.
	In fact, their skepticism turned out to be well warranted, but they waited to see what happened before making any public commentary or public questioning.
	In addition, they didn't discourage going out and getting opposing opinions or different opinions.
	They showed intimate and intricate familiarity with those opposing opinions.
	They were gentle and generous in the language they used.
	They complimented Fauci, complimented Governor Newsom, complimented Governor Newsom's staff.
	They did not demonize or name-call anybody.
	They didn't call anybody stupid.
	They didn't call anybody dumb.
	They didn't use name-calling and adjectives as a pretext or as a substitute for substantive argument.
	Instead, it was all substantive argument.
	And to say they didn't mind read, you didn't hear them saying, we believe the motivations of these people are this.
	They didn't accuse Newsom of being on a power grab.
	They didn't accuse Fauci of being on an ego trip.
	Both of those might have been fair criticisms, but they didn't make those criticisms.
	They didn't mind read anybody.
	They didn't second guess the opinions and intentions and interpretations of events of any other people.
	They just laid out why they had a different take on what the public policy should be based on their lived experience and their life education.
	In the same context, they did not.
	Did you see any straight line predictions?
	No, there were no, hey, we think this is going to just like this, or it's, it's, you know, there's none of that.
	There was no, because it's gone this way, we predict that it's guaranteed to go this way moving forward.
	You didn't hear any of that.
	Did you hear, they're, they're not cheerleaders for doom and gloom.
	They don't have any particular partisan agenda on that side of the aisle.
	They're just laying out the real risks that are present if this continues and how some of the harm is, can be lasting harm in ways that the virus itself doesn't quite pose, particularly to children and young people.
	In the same context, they don't say to defer to experts.
	Indeed, even though they themselves are a form of expert, someone with a medical degree, someone with a professional education, someone with decades of life experience in dealing with these issues, someone with specific knowledge about immunology and virology, they didn't, they cited that, but they didn't say you should only listen to us because of that.
	They didn't say we were, in fact they recognize that and repeatedly compliment Fauci as a great virologist and immunologist and point out that a lot of academics disagree with him and they don't try to demonize them for that reason.
	They lay out that their experience is lived experience, that's a different kind of experience qualitatively and it informs why they believe what they believe.
	But they by no means try to demonize their opposition.
	So there is no doom and gloom cheerleading.
	There is no straight line predictions.
	There is no name-calling, mind-reading, or adjectives.
	There's no inaccurate near-term future predictions.
	There is encouraging people, not discouraging people, to get opposite opinions.
	They show familiarity with those opposite opinions.
	They explain what those are and where and how they disagree.
	And they explain those opposite opinions in ways that are really extraordinarily fair and generous to those opposing opinions.
	They could be described in much harsher and darker terms.
	They described the whistleblowers that have produced information to them from ER physicians and hospital administrators all across the nation, which they are uniquely in the position to do.
	They are willing to subject themselves to questions.
	There's multiple hostile reporters there who interrupted them throughout their presentation and asked hostile and adverse questions, and they answered them in reasonable and fair ways throughout the entire process.
	They didn't appeal to authority.
	They didn't say because we're doctors you have to do what we tell you to do.
	They're saying here's what our experience is as doctors and we believe this should inform part of the discussion and the debate and the dialogue.
	They didn't do the Milgram experiment of appealing to, not only appealing to authority, but saying you should defer to the white lab coats.
	The infection of white lab coat deference that's going on that was popularly portrayed in the Milgram experiments where simply wearing a white lab coat could get a human being, get an American to continually shock and inflict pain on a random stranger simply because the person in the white lab coat told him to do that.
	That is one of the great dangers that we face.
	That's the reason why Nazi Germany resorted to using public health as its pretext for most of the initial stages of the Holocaust and its horrors that came with it.
	So in that same context, they go through and they detail the prevalence and testing and mortality rates.
	We'll get into what some of the debate, some of the discussion, some of the controversy is.
	On the bottom half of the hour.
	We'll also show you a Scott Adams portion where he is critical of it and we'll see whether Scott Adams lives up to his own definition of what is a proper persuasive argument or whether he fell prey himself to loser think in criticizing these doctors.
	So come back in the second half of the hour just after the break, and we'll get into that side of the debate.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	And to sort of give a snapshot review of what the doctors talked about in their hour-long press conference last week that has now earned them all kinds of enmity, all kinds of criticism, all kinds of condemnation from a wide range of circumstances and settings.
	Let's take a look at what some of those would be or are.
	In fact, what they said is that they believe in science, which a lot of these politicians say they believe in, but that has not always been the case.
	So they believe in science, and what science is is observation and information that is derived from experimentation as well as observation.
	And their point is they said, let's look at the actual science.
	And determine what the science says in terms of how that may inform the political decision makers moving forward.
	As they point out, and what science is, is you have observation or experimentation and from that you have data and information.
	And from that data and information you use inductive and deductive reasoning to come to some reasonable understanding of what the information can be.
	They explain how their reasoning, the background for them, is their experience and education in medicine, including taking by microbacterial and microbiology classes, immunology classes, virology classes, spending the better part of two decades as emergency room and physicians and doctors and medical care professionals that have to overlook a wide range of over and oversee a wide range of urgent care clinics and facilities that see the wide range of patient care on a day-to-day basis.
	All across California and as part of that process, stay in touch with doctors and medical care providers all across the nation.
	They pointed out that the history of treating viruses did not suggest quarantining healthy people.
	They pointed out something that a lot of us pointed out.
	There's simply no history behind this.
	So people say, oh, the medicine and the science and the data support.
	No, it doesn't.
	There's no evidence of that.
	Find me any evidence from anywhere in the history of the world where they said that quarantining healthy people was the key to dealing with a virus outbreak.
	It's never happened.
	This is the first time it's ever happened in the United States.
	We've never quarantined healthy people before.
	So this is entirely novel, entirely new.
	And they pointed this out as part of their training, as part of their education, as part of their experience.
	They knew that you normally never quarantine healthy people as a way to try to deal with sick people.
	And the prevention of disease among sick people.
	So they recognize there's asymptomatic people who have it, that asymptomatic people can spread it, though that is still very much in controversy as to how much they can.
	And in that context, testing could suffice.
	But we've never before used quarantining the healthy.
	This is one of the key points they make and come back to repeatedly.
	Their point is there's millions of people who have the disease and only a very small number who have died from the disease.
	I mean, if you look at that small number, they're the people with the shortest life expectancy out there.
	So in terms of life years lost, the life years lost are as small as possible.
	In the same way, they do the cost-benefit comparative analysis recommended by Scott Adams in his book, Loser Thing.
	They talk about the benefits of the shutdown.
	They talk about the cost of the shutdown.
	They also talk about alternatives to the shutdown and the cost and benefits of those.
	They pointed that out.
	Their ultimate conclusion was protect the vulnerable, test everyone else, get everybody else involved, because the cost-benefit analysis for that is dealing with flu-like deaths and disease levels amongst that part of the population.
	And for the rest, you have protective measurements that are in place.
	Whereas by contrast, the cost, and they go through all the costs, the cost of the shutdown, they're witnessing.
	It's no longer theoretical.
	As they point out throughout their entire hour-long plus discussion, there was a lot of theory in the models, not a lot of fact in the models, not a lot of science in the models.
	The experiment wasn't the experiment that gave us information to tell us to do something.
	The experiment is what we're actually doing.
	We're a living experiment, a living Milgram experiment, and deferring to the white lab coats, letting them run our lives.
	And their point is, if you look at the actual data and the actual information, you come to different conclusions, including what some of the costs are.
	Not only the economic costs, and how those costs, notably, they point out, are disparate and disproportionate to small entrepreneurs and small businesses.
	We'll get to that in the bottom half of the show.
	But at the same way, they talk about how it's causing social isolation, which is leading to locking in victims with their abusers.
	That's leading to domestic violence problems, child abuse problems, that are going to be lifelong, lasting, and scarring.
	They point out there's medical care that people aren't getting.
	Doctors and nurses and health care providers, psychiatrists, therapists are being furloughed so that they're not available for key medical care and they're seeing the consequence of that of people not getting the preventative care that they need.
	Which is going to lead to maybe higher deaths down the road, as well as a wide range of other problems.
	And they're seeing rises in alcoholism and depression and stress.
	So their point is, we're seeing the medical health consequences to this.
	The medical health consequences are happening in a population for whom this virus poses no greater risk than the flu, which frankly is indisputably true.
	We'll get into that.
	But for people under the age of 50 who are healthy, the risk of COVID-19 is no greater than the flu in terms of lethality or mortality.
	That's based on all of the evidence that we currently have.
	That's what the data shows.
	That's what the science shows.
	And that's what they point out.
	So they go through all of that information.
	They do the comparative analysis that we want.
	They do a respectful approach to their opponents that we want to see in terms of assessing their credibility as persuaders and making a public policy pitch based on their learned experience and their life education.
	And they do that well.
	So now let's contrast it to the critics.
	The big healthcare groups and some of the big doctor groups and emergency physician groups, the people that Jerry Spence used to call the top hat crowd, the gentlemen of the bar, as he used to describe it in appropriately derogatory terms, the official white lab coats with the official titles, the people who are the gatekeepers of what Eric Weinstein calls the institutional narrative, came out and attacked and demonized these guys in ways you couldn't even imagine, said that
	While these critics had basically no factual criticism at all, no substantive content in their criticism at all, and yet respectable and in fact intelligent people are repeating and reciting what they said as if somehow it's authoritative when it's in fact self-indicting in terms of what they did.
	They attacked these doctors saying, oh these doctors are motivated by money, so they did name-calling, they did mind-reading.
	They did all the things that Scott Adams and Luzer think says are signs that you should discredit such an opinion.
	Because such an opinion is using non-persuasive, really anti-persuasive methods of argument.
	And yet that will be the precise affirmation that Scott Adams uses to confirm his own prior opinions that he voiced that we'll be showing here in a bit.
	And that is a little bit unsettling because, frankly, it contravenes the very terms of Scott Adams' own book, Loser Think.
	The Scott Adams' own argument and the people making the argument that he's citing and relying upon violate the very rules he says you shouldn't if you want to avoid Loser Think.
	The critics of these doctors are engaged in Loser Think.
	In fact, they're engaged in almost every terms and every means and every manner of Loser Think.
	They are engaged in loser think by resorting to name calling, by resorting to mind reading, by resorting to adjectives, by resorting to not doing comparative alternatives, by resorting to appeals to authority, appeals to experts, appeals to models, rather than appeals to evidence or facts or data or information or evidence or experience.
	So, let us go to Scott Adams' argument, and before we do there, just as a preamble, the sign of this is not something I take as something personally or politically critical of Scott Adams.
	It's a sign the degree to which the media and the political class has been successful at persuading extraordinarily intelligent and bright people to believe things that I think are, in fact, dangerous to our constitutional liberties and our economic and material well-being.
	Not only to the quality of life, but to the quantity of life.
	But that the press has so dominated, the political class has so dominated the debate, that they can persuade people who are as truly ingenious as Scott Adams, someone who is known for his comic Dilbert, but is in fact one of the truly great American geniuses and inventive creative minds America has known in the last century.
	If there's any mistake he tends to make, he tends to assume there are as many geniuses out there as him, when that is often not the case.
	Unfortunately, as the case may be, he wisely and sagely forecast and predicted Trump's election.
	Some people think that there's some sort of personal or monetary or material motivation behind his thought process, aside from the error of mind reading that that intones.
	In addition, it's simply not the case.
	Scott Adams risked and lost a lot of money by standing by what he believed and by serving the public and trying to provide better ways of filtering and framing information to understand our lives, to understand our policy decision makers, to understand our press, and to be able to interact and engage with them in a more meaningful and impactful way, in the same way that Jerry Spence once did when he wrote How to Argue and Win Every Time, one of the great trial lawyers of our history.
	So Scott Adams is without question genius, without question brilliant, without questions creative, without question someone who deserves to have a substantial public platform, a public platform that was only endangered because he was willing to speak up for the interest of ordinary people and speak his mind freely without worrying about its monetary consequences.
	And aside from the comedic genius of Dilbert, his genius is reflected in other books like Win Bigly, like How You Can Fail and How You Can Fall and Win Anytime, a book I gave to my own son as a guidepost to mindset understanding to improve your everyday well-being.
	But, in that context, let's see whether Mr. Adams in fact runs afoul of his own principles and loser think in the way he responds to the doctors.
	I wanted to include as much of it as I could to give him a fair hearing here.
	And so let's go ahead and play clip number four and you'll see what Scott Adams' criticisms was of the doctors and whether they're persuasive arguments or whether they have signs of loser think in them.
	They're going around of two doctors.
	I don't remember their names.
	You've probably all seen it by now.
	It's everywhere.
	There are two doctors.
	One of them is doing most of the talking, and he's making, in general, the point that we've overdone this economic lockdown.
	And he goes through his reasoning and his numbers and his data for why we've gone too far with the lockdown, and we should maybe loosen that up.
	And I can't tell you how many people sent me the video to get my opinion on it.
	And I looked at it quickly, you know, the first time I saw it, and I had a preliminary opinion, but because I knew it would be so unpopular, I kind of held back on it.
	But more people sent me the video.
	What do you think?
	And I thought, all right, I'll spend a little time looking at this video.
	I got through five minutes of it.
	In five minutes.
	Just in my opinion, and I know your opinion will vary, in five minutes it was so obviously full of shit that I couldn't watch the rest.
	There's no way that the rest of it could redeem what is so amazingly bad in the analysis and misinformed in the first five minutes that I would recommend that you discount everything in it.
	Unfortunately, I think it's an example of a video that agrees with what you wanted it to say.
	So, it just happens to be exactly what you wanted to hear, but it is the most confused, bad analysis, and even I can tell that they're missing big things, and I shouldn't be able to tell that so easily.
	It is the least credible thing I've ever seen.
	Well, except for the Huffington Post and whatever Davey Elb was doing today.
	But I would give it no credibility.
	And I'll just point out a few problems with it.
	One is he does this calculation based on how many people tested positive in various tests that have been given.
	And he makes the mistake of assuming that that tells you something.
	And his partner, who was off camera at the time, is trying to correct him in real time, because he's just being really, really stupid.
	And the partner is saying, well, that's just the people who had symptoms.
	They're the ones who got tested, so if a lot of them seem to test positive, that doesn't actually tell you what's happening in the rest of the public, because these are just the people who self-selected because they thought they had symptoms.
	So of course, you'd expect to find a lot of them in the self-selected group.
	So his friend, who's being embarrassed by the guy who's talking, because the guy who's talking doesn't seem to be able to even understand that distinction, keeps on talking like that had never been said.
	Other things he gets wrong is that he completely ignores the observation.
	Forget about the math.
	If Wuhan had to be closed down and the New York hospitals were crashed and Italy got crashed, you don't need to run the numbers to know that there's something going on that you don't want in your house.
	And he just ignores them like that doesn't have to be explained.
	Then he does the bad math of saying that maybe the total number of dead won't be that much compared to the regular flu, which of course is just bad analysis, bad math, comparing the wrong things.
	Here's the path we're on.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	If the next thing I say is wrong, please correct me, because it's important, and if I have this wrong, I certainly want to know.
	It goes like this.
	Current death rate is about 54,000-ish, probably higher today.
	We're losing about 2,000 a day in the United States.
	Correct any of this that's wrong.
	And I'm just talking in general terms, so 50-something thousand dead, 2,000-something a day.
	Our goal Our goal is to flatten the curve because we know we can't drive it to zero.
	Flatten the curve means keep it at 2,000 a day, Dad, for as long as we can until something changes.
	So if it goes above 2,000, we'll consider maybe doing a little more social isolating.
	If it goes below, maybe we'll open up some things until it goes back to 2,000, because apparently 2,000 a day is somewhere in the range that we're willing to take.
	If you multiply out 2,000 people dead a day with no therapeutics working, with no vaccine, just multiply it to the end of August, and you end up with 300,000 dead.
	Now, why can't this doctor do math?
	Now, somebody said 1100 yesterday.
	The individual day-to-day variances should not be trusted, especially if you're looking at a weekend.
	We've seen lots of evidence that the weekend number of deaths are way lower because they just haven't been recorded because fewer people are working on the weekend.
	So ignore any Sunday and Saturday numbers.
	Just look at the weekday.
	So, the doctor seemed to be ignorant of how to just multiply.
	Unless he knows something I don't.
	If flatten the curve, what can it mean other than we're going to accept a certain flat number of deaths per day?
	That's what it means, right?
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	By the way, if I'm wrong about that, I really, really want to know.
	Because it's...
	Somebody says 2,000 a day will drop off very fast.
	That is the opposite of true.
	The 2,000 a day should increase, not decrease, because the whole point is we're going to reopen the economy.
	Reopening the economy is designed to keep the 2,000 at 2,000.
	It's not designed to drop it.
	Right?
	I'm not wrong about that.
	It's designed to keep it constant.
	That's what flatten the curve means.
	Flatten doesn't not mean no peak, it means a lower peak.
	No, flatten means no peak.
	That's what flatten means.
	I mean, it peaks at the flat part and then just keeps continuing.
	All right.
	And then the-- so here are some other things that the doctor in that video didn't know.
	So he used Sweden as his comparison.
	Here's the way to know who you should not listen to again.
	Anybody who uses Sweden as a comparison for what we should do in the United States, that should be your red flag not to listen to anything else they say.
	Now if that's not obvious to you, I'll dig down a little bit more.
	The reason is we can't tell what's different about Sweden from here.
	There are lots of things different and we don't know what the active ingredient is, nor do we even know if they have good data.
	Given that every data we've seen on the coronavirus has been wrong, everything, everything about the coronavirus has been wrong.
	Do you believe any data coming out of Sweden?
	Why would you?
	Why would you believe any data out of Sweden?
	Don't.
	It might be true, but we shouldn't believe it.
	So if you're basing your decision on some data that came out of a country, I don't care what country it is.
	It's all unreliable.
	All of it.
	So that's the first problem.
	And if you don't state that right up front, You're not a credible player.
	So if you say, I'm going to make a Sweden reference and I think it's pretty good, I think that's a solid comparison, you can stop listening to that person.
	It is not a solid comparison.
	There are too many differences.
	Here are some of the differences or potential differences.
	One is that Sweden is a lot easier to social distance.
	Say people who know more about Sweden than I do.
	Apparently, a high percentage of the population lives alone anyway.
	They probably don't have the same number of elevators.
	They have a different society.
	A lot of people have summer homes.
	They can just divide into summer homes.
	The numbers probably aren't true.
	Then here's the biggest fact that I haven't seen reported.
	It's just something I saw on social media from somebody who has direct knowledge of Sweden.
	Even though they haven't ordered a lockdown, the citizens are afraid, just like everywhere else.
	So, they have a virtual lockdown in Sweden, because even if the hair cutting salon is open, they're not getting the same amount of business.
	So they're in a virtual shutdown, which should be more comparable to our actual shutdown, than it is to something that's totally different, and therefore a good comparison.
	So, If Sweden is your comparison, say no more.
	There's nothing else I need to listen to.
	I do think it's useful to look at all the examples.
	If you saw several countries that seem to have a lot in common with Sweden, in the ways that seem to be important, and they all had a similar outcome, then I'd say, okay, that's beginning to look like that's telling you something.
	But if you pick one country and say, well, They got a different result in this one country, so there shouldn't be anything after so.
	All you know is they got a different result and you don't even know that because you can't trust the data.
	All right.
	So don't trust that video is what I'm saying just because it agrees with what you want it to say.
	say.
	So, welcome back to American Countdown.
	Let me just count some of the different violations of loser think or versions of loser think that Scott Adams himself engaged in in his own video while criticizing the doctors.
	He said don't listen to certain opinions.
	That's a telltale sign that he's encouraging you to be part of a cult mindset, according to his own book, Loser Think.
	He says, don't listen.
	If they say this or they talk about this, don't listen to them anymore.
	Don't listen to them anymore.
	That's something that by his own book is a classic, ultimate version of Loser Think.
	But it's not the only one.
	The next one is he does various forms of mind reading at various points.
	He doesn't do the comparison of comparing alternatives that he says is necessary for serious thought.
	He engages in straight line thinking himself, straight line predictions and straight line modeling, where he says, hey, look, this is what's been happening.
	It's been 2000 or so a day, and that's how it's just going to keep happening.
	How?
	Why is that going to be the case?
	That is a classic version of straight line thinking of the very kind that he rightly says is a sign of loser think, unfortunately engages in there himself by all appearances.
	In the same context, he often cites anecdotal evidence and data.
	We'll show you how these anecdotal references to Sweden are completely wrong.
	There's other sources you can find that have actual data, not anecdotal data.
	And who is it that says, wisely, anecdotal references are not your best source of evidence?
	Scott Adams and the book loser thing.
	In the same context, what you don't see is him making an attempt to say, I wonder if the doctor's view is right.
	Let's imagine it's right.
	Let's see what that is.
	Let's explain it from that perspective.
	You don't see that happening, even though that is one of the primary things.
	Assume your opponent's view is true.
	And understand it fully from your opponent's perspective.
	Because that's the only way you can engage in a meaningful debate and not just a diatribe.
	And that's the way you can have a dialogue rather than a demagogue campaign.
	And yet, unfortunately, there is no evidence he attempts to do that in his rebuttal of these individuals.
	Instead, he uses language that he himself says never use in a debate.
	And that was one of the things he says is don't call other people stupid.
	Yet, that's exactly what he does here.
	But in fact, he goes beyond that.
	He uses the word BS, that they're full of it, that they're misleading, that they're misrepresenting a lot of adjectives that sound a lot like mind reading.
	That sound a lot like the very things he has campaigned against as bad methods and mechanisms of persuasion, as bad methods and mechanisms of argument.
	So the reasoning used does not comport with the kind of term persuasive arguments that he himself, Scott Adams, has recommended.
	And there's a lot of signs that Loser Think has infected the argument, along with the COVID-19 that has infected so much of our country, and Chinese authoritarianism that has infected so many of our politicians.
	So, when we come back in the next hour, we'll not only take your calls, but I'll go into a little bit more detail on the evidence.
	The evidence that shows why, in fact, the doctors have made very sound, very good, very reasoned, very evidence-based arguments, and why the evidence, in fact, stacks far more on their side than it does on Scott Adams' side.
	As smart and wise and sage and even genius people can make mistakes.
	When we come back, we'll talk about breaking through the gatekeeper institutional narrative and letting the truth run free.
	The British are coming.
	The British are coming.
	You are about to be on the street today.
	And learn more about the land.
	America first.
	And the hot.
	What's your country?
	I think in times that a lot of the issues and arguments and debate in this context is often defined by projection.
	So I think you're seeing that in fact that's one of the things that Scott Adams wisely warns about in his book, Loser Think, is to avoid projection.
	Projection can in fact be a problematic tool and technique in terms of making good decisions and understanding information.
	Projection also can be informative at times.
	Sometimes the person when they're talking about projection are projecting themselves.
	In this particular context, there was a lot of criticism as if the only reason why people believed the doctor's videos was because they wanted to believe it with confirmation bias.
	Well, that also can work the other way.
	Sometimes people don't believe what the doctors are presenting because they don't want to believe that it could be true.
	And have found all kinds of interesting creative arguments to discount what, in my view, was a very serious and studious effort to explain a policy position from learned experience and from life education.
	And that is, in fact, what the doctors did, and often using terms that were on the persuasive side much more than on the loser think side of the equation.
	And unfortunately, the response by many critics, including by Scott Adams himself, was much more on the loser think side than on the persuasive side in terms of the methods used of making those arguments.
	But in that same context, a lot of this is about what's called the gated or gatekeeper institutional narrative by Eric Weinstein.
	He is a key person with Peter Thiel, one of the great inventive minds, both he and his brother, in the United States, often on Dave Rubin's Rubin Report.
	And one of the ideas that he sort of helped create, in terms of his terminology, is what he called JIN, for short, the Gated Institutional Narrative, or the Gatekeeper Institutional Narrative.
	That is the attempts to control who has access to certain information, to only allow certain people in the room, a certain form of cultural capital reserved for the conformist culture that has consumed, corrosively consumed, academia in our intellectual world, both within government and outside of it.
	And he describes that in a couple of videos, and that's really what's sort of happening here, and we'll show you some of his explanation and application of that argument in a wide range of contexts.
	But what's happened is you have people who are challenging really the main argument of this live Milgram experiment, which is, hey, the people in the white lab coats all agree.
	The people with the big pedigrees and big degrees all agree.
	The people that are epidemiologists and virologists and immunologists, they all agree.
	So those were the fancy names.
	The very experts that Scott Adams wisely says you should be careful about deferring to throughout his book, Loser Think.
	This entire pandemic panic policy response Is all about deferring and bowing to our new gods that are in their white lab coats to tell us what to do and when we can do it and how we can do it and to govern our lives even though they've never been elected to anything.
	They've panic struck the politicians in the political class into doing their bidding.
	And whether it's Bill Gates, billionaire bucks backing a lot of those people, promoting them, patronizing them, being their key financial support in some context for they or their family, their friends, in some part of the higher ranks of the public health world, both nationally and internationally, there's the additional context of just a sort of sense of we should defer to the white lab coat crowd, and the way the Milgram experiment exposed the dangers of, and the way Nazi Germany exposed the realities of.
	So in that same context, it's important to understand that this gated institutional narrative comes in a broader context of these people in the white lab coats wanting to run our lives.
	Because here you had two people who also had degrees.
	Here you had two people who also had pedigrees.
	Here you had two people who also had the medical outfits and the medical experience and the medical background and understanding of the medical terminology and vocabulary and literature and new medical science.
	So they were saying, by the way, we are competent and capable to speak to issues related to the medical side of this equation because we have a quarter of a century of life experience and learned education in it.
	And that is what made them so threatening to the other side, who have not been able to rely on data because the data has refuted them.
	Have not been able to rely on their models because their models turned out to be utter garbage.
	They have not been able to rely upon common sense because common sense says otherwise.
	Common sense says it makes no sense to say I can go through a drive up window for a lottery ticket or a liquor bottle, but I can't for church on Easter Sunday.
	So in the same way, indeed, history did not support them.
	So they had no support from history, no support from common sense, no support from actual data.
	Once you dug into that data, no support from actual models that they themselves used.
	They couldn't forecast anything.
	You would have a better chance of a monkey hitting a bullseye on a dartboard than you do of these models getting within 10 miles of accuracy.
	So in that context, what do they have?
	They simply have an appeal to power.
	They simply have an appeal to authority.
	They simply have an appeal that they are the ones in the white lab coats.
	So that's why when people that had medical degrees and medical pedigrees and learned experience and life experience that could contest it and refute it and diffuse it, then they had to attack them en masse.
	And it is unfortunate that some of our better and brighter minds have joined that and that sort of jumping on these individuals simply for willing to voice dissident, iconoclastic opinions.
	But it should not come as a surprise because it's part of the whole gatekeeper institutional narrative, the whole gated institutional narrative that our cultural, social, and political elites are trying to impose to prevent us from having access to free and open information.
	They all want us staring at the shadows on the wall of the cave and not walk outside of Plato's cave and look at the bright light of truth that is right outside it.
	So in that context, let's look at a couple of Eric Weinstein's documentary videos that talk about what the gated institutional narrative is that applies it.
	So because it provides some helpful context in understanding and explaining this information.
	So let's take a look first at the video clip number three.
	Yeah, I brought up this gated institutional narrative.
	And this is where this report is supposed to slot in.
	In other words, it's not meant for individual consumption.
	It's meant to be a citable report.
	And so it's got like high production graphics.
	And hey, it's a PDF.
	PDFs are hard to make.
	It's not a Word document.
	We can let you fix a PDF.
	It's locked in.
	So the idea is, you're supposed to be able to hold a conference, let's say under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences or Brookings or...
	Berkman Center, whatever it is, and you're supposed to say, well, earlier in the year we had this fabulous report by Rebecca Lewis at the Center for Data and Society, and they're doing some remarkable work about how people are being radicalized, and I think this is very important and pressing.
	And so you have a big serious conversation in a closed conference, and you release proceedings, and then maybe you'll allow the public in for the final day, and you say, well, thank you all for joining the conversation.
	Of course, none of those people in the audience is allowed to join the conversation.
	Right.
	And that's what the gated institutional narrative is all about.
	That if you don't own a seat somewhere on the institutional network, you can't get into that conversation.
	So there's nobody who's going to be in a position to say, You realize that report would not be acceptable at any reasonable middle school as a data project.
	So that's what someone was hoping for this.
	But I think even for these institutions, they're going to be a little bit wary because it's so nakedly ideological and so piss poor on the analytics.
	Indeed, Eric Weinstein will go on to explain in another context how the gated institutional narrative uses fake news in the mainstream media and within academia to sort of, in fact, one of his coordinate themes throughout the last decade or so has been that academia
	It doesn't come up with inventiveness in our not only our academic world, just our intellectual world writ large is had increasingly divorced from inventiveness because it suppressed the iconoclastic geniuses needed for new creative ideas.
	And that's because there's been this corrosive, corrupting effect of conformity in our intellectual academic world.
	This desire to concede to the institutional narrative and suppress any independent voice in something out of an Orwellian 1984 novel.
	In this longer video clip, he will go into detail explaining how the mainstream media invents and creates various narratives and story frameworks in order to suppress independent dissident voices.
	Much as what we're seeing happen to these individual doctors who simply are talking about what they have personally witnessed, what their life experience tells them is true, what the observed information of data and empirical knowledge as defined by science shows them is true.
	And merely for doing that, for merely simply calling a small press conference and talking about their lived experience and how they believe it informs the public policy debate, Not dictating what the consequences of that debate should be, but merely saying what their participation and opinion would be as it reflects a medical professional perception.
	Simply for doing that.
	They're now being widely attacked, personally demonized.
	You heard them and they were called stupid.
	By the various medical groups they're being called greedy and avarice and doing it for their personal profit and all of this projection of their own malevolent and malicious motives of many of these gatekeepers protecting the gated institutional narrative are projected upon these independent innocent doctors willing to voice independent opinions to express their own personal beliefs.
	Opinions that we should protect and opinions that we should observe and opinions that we should respect and opinions that we should meaningfully dialogue with, not try to suppress, not try to censor.
	YouTube took down their video originally, so on and so forth.
	So in that same context, listen to put this in the broader context of this is how the gated institutional narrative operates.
	The corrosive corrupting effect of conformity within our academic intellectual culture has led them to believe in and be supporters of and be the pillars of the institutional narrative as the gatekeepers of that gated institutional narrative.
	And they particularly target for their opposition, for their activities, for their propaganda, what the particularly iconoclastic independent creative geniuses that are out there.
	So let's take a look at video clip number one.
	Amir, if you could pull up the Four Quadrant image.
	So I really want to dive into this.
	The first time I heard about this, if I'm correctly wrong, was it the first time you had talked about it publicly, really, was on Sam's podcast?
	It was.
	Okay, so on Sam's Waking Up podcast, which I'm sure most of my audience probably listens to, you described this Four Quadrant method, really, for looking at the world.
	There's a great video of it on YouTube, but we're going to have you re-explain it.
	Maybe you can do it a little better this time.
	We shall see.
	So we're looking at it on the screen so the audience can see it there.
	We've got copies in front of us so that, you know, we don't have to extend our eyes too much.
	Talk to me about the four quadrants, because this made a lot of sense to me.
	But I can't tell you that I understood every piece of it the first time you explained it.
	Terrific.
	So it came out of a frustration with left versus right thinking, which I think we all share.
	We still use it because it's slightly useful, but it's getting worse and worse as an approximation all the time.
	And I think what I was trying to figure out is a particular dynamic that is being used over and over again that we fall for just the way Charlie Brown never manages to kick the football from Lucy.
	And so the idea is that you've got a collection of people that I want to concentrate on as living in the quadrant labeled first principles thinkers and contrarians.
	Now, these are people who are thinking for themselves and are not buying baked cakes.
	They're buying the ingredients.
	And they're saying, well, I want more of this ingredient.
	I don't like that ingredient.
	So they're attempting to avoid having any pre-baked idea put in front of them.
	What you see on the x-axis...
	So we're in the upper left quadrant for those that are following.
	Right.
	What you see on the x-axis is some visible support for a policy initiative.
	Are you for the DREAM Act?
	Do you believe in No Child Left Behind?
	Do you want the US to accept more refugees?
	These are things that we can measure.
	Whether you're supporting or opposing a particular policy prescription.
	On the vertical axis, what you have is some implied moral virtue or vice.
	So let's start with somebody like Brett.
	Okay.
	So Brett, I think, lives in the second quadrant.
	On the X axis, I'm going to put support for the equity agenda advanced by his college.
	So he clearly opposed that.
	On the other hand, the I'm going to put absence of racism on the Y-axis.
	So I would say Brett is a guy with almost zero racism and completely opposed to this equity agenda sneak attack.
	So the problem is... So he's sort of done one good, one bad there, in traditional thinking.
	In traditional thinking.
	Now what they want to do is to say, ah, we can infer from your opposition to the equity agenda That your real Y value is extremely negative.
	That is, you are a racist.
	And you oppose these people because you singled out black females, strong black women who are trying to advance a good cause.
	And so that is the attempt to map from Quadrant 3 Sorry, Quadrant 2, First Principles, Thinkers, Contrarians, into Quadrant 3, and you see this line, Actual Position, Perceived Position.
	So that's what they tried to do.
	They tried to create Brett the troglodyte, Brett the racist, and in fact, that narrative, which is, you can tell how good or bad somebody is on racial or gender issues, depending upon how much they go along with the agenda.
	And that is the media narrative.
	And that's what broke, right?
	Which is that the New York Times probably would say, look, this is part of identity politics.
	This is part of the Democratic Party.
	This is how we do things.
	We can't have people dining a la carte, buying ingredients.
	This is a baked cake.
	Take it or leave it.
	You either support the initiative and you're virtuous on race, or you oppose it and you're a bastard.
	Right.
	Because otherwise it's so contrary to everything else we put out there, it can't make it through the system.
	Right.
	Now let's take somebody else.
	For example, let's take Sam Harris.
	Okay.
	So Sam Harris would normally live in Quadrant 2, along with Brett.
	But here, for example... Freethinkers.
	Freethinkers.
	You know, Sam might oppose opening our borders for refugees coming out of Uh, failed states, particularly with Muslim-majority populations.
	You would like, if you were part of the control structure, to say, well, that could only be because you're an Islamophobe.
	But my guess is, and I got Sam to admit this on his podcast, he seems to be a bit of an Islamophile.
	He's aware of the poetry, he's aware of the music, he's aware of the culture, he's got very close friends and collaborators who are active practicing Muslims.
	And so the idea is that Sam is a non- I think he's probably an Islamophilic guy who's worried about the same thing his Muslim friends are worried about.
	Just when he needs another label.
	What?
	Just when he needs another label.
	But we're gonna drag him out.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	And so the key point is, is that the dupes are the people who say, well, you know, I can tell, I can infer, what Sam is really up to.
	He just wants a first strike against Muslims in the Middle East.
	Well, obviously he doesn't.
	That's stupid.
	Now, who's actually controlling this game?
	My claim is that it's these people in the fourth quadrant, which is rent-seeking elites.
	These are people who, for example, want to save a pension plan by increasing immigration because we're not reproducing in growth.
	Is it a low?
	And so they, for example, may have a very kind of mercenary, self-interested view of why they want a border opened.
	So that's the elite level.
	Where would you put the people that relentlessly slam and smear him for their own good?
	Those are the dupes.
	Those are the dupes.
	Those are the dupes, right?
	And so the dupe army is...
	is going to come after you relentlessly for breaking ranks and saying, I want to dine a la carte.
	And so, for example, I don't see you as a Trump supporter.
	So if I did this, which would be like support for...
	How would I do you?
	So, So in this case I might say Dave is somebody who is opposed to the mainstream news narrative.
	Absolutely.
	And we want to, but he is extremely intellectual and very analytical and trying to figure things out for himself and we would like to say that he's actually slid right.
	So you'll see a ton of stuff.
	You know, Dave Rubin refuses to criticize X, Y, and Z. He's actually a right-winger.
	He's not a liberal.
	Blah, blah, blah, nonsense.
	Yeah.
	And what is this?
	Again, they're angry at you for, in some sense, dining a la carte.
	And over and over again, it's one trick, which is We want to break out these long-short positions, which is to say, you know, I'm long Microsoft and I'm short Yahoo, versus somebody else who says, no, you can only be long tech.
	Or you have to be against tech.
	You can't actually have a view that one tech company is on the way up and one tech company is on the way down.
	And so I believe that this diagram, we all need to understand it.
	Because what's happening is that we're being attacked individually.
	Each one of us has a custom one of these fitted to us.
	As to what's wrong with us.
	What's wrong with Eric that he's ragging on the New York Times?
	I feel like journalism is so important.
	Right.
	Well of course I feel like journalism would be important.
	Somebody should invent it.
	I just don't see much of it.
	Right?
	And so it's not against that.
	It's a point of saying, I hold a long, short, nuanced position and what are you going to try to do?
	The easiest way to neutralize me is to try to map me to the troglodyte.
	And how are you going to do that?
	It's always the same game.
	We have the right to infer what you're really up to from some bit of observed behavior.
	Thank you very much.
	Your words mean nothing.
	The nuances are all lost.
	We've got your number.
	Next please.
	The only way that works is that some of us are still dependent on institutions.
	So the institutions are still playing that game.
	But here, and this was my point to you earlier, here we are in a non-network.
	We're in somebody's very professional studio, able to reach people so that I get recognized in airports and coffee shops.
	And the fact is, we're out of control.
	And that's why they're coming for us now, is because they're starting to understand, well, what happens if Sam Harris and Dave Rubin and Eric Weinstein and Sargon of Akkad and Lacey Green and Philly D, all these people, actually start saying, Are you seeing the same craziness I am, whether it's on demonetization, whether it's on Facebook, thankfully, making sure that fake news is out of my feed?
	Well, what you're really going to start doing is filtering a bunch of stuff that isn't fake news.
	Yeah.
	It's just stuff that's off your narrative.
	Or Google is going to bury it in their algorithm.
	So it's going to be there, but it's going to be seven pages in.
	You'll never see it.
	We've got a lot of work to do.
	Well, we've got two possible ways out so far as I can see it.
	Or we can just start up history in earnest and try to see whether we land safely.
	But I would certainly take either of the first two options.
	Either depotemkinize the institutions or reboot from a ragtag collection of kids who look something like the Bad News Bears but might be able to get the job done.
	I'm on the reboot side.
	The other one just simply doesn't seem possible to me, and I think the rebooting has begun.
	Now, we need a lot of allies, we need a lot of help, but I think the Calvary is coming.
	Well, I'm here for the second time, and that should tell you something about how I'm voting.
	I wish we could do it the other way because it'd be easier, but there's no time to lose, and semi-reliable communal sensemaking is the number one crisis, and we do not learn How to come up with a narrative that we can share, where we can have small differences, but everybody more or less agrees on the general facts without turning everything into a political contest.
	We're going to take the most hopeful and best experiment with all of its flaws, throw every bad thing that happened to the 20th century, and we're still better off not trashing this experiment and protecting it.
	I'll come back anytime you want.
	Indeed, the key to crashing the gated institutional narrative is independent information like what you get on this platform.
	So we encourage you to go to our sponsor who makes this platform possible, makes this and other independent platforms possible.
	One of the last true free speech platforms left in the world.
	So you can go to InfoWarsStore.com and get a bunch of good, excellent, high quality products.
	Things that I buy, things that my friends buy, things that family buys.
	So they're good products at a discounted price.
	Things, whether it's health supplements, whether it's things you need for your well-being, whether it's things you need in terms of storable food so that you're prepared for any contingency that comes down the pipeline, whether it's things like the great coffee or anything else that you happen to like, whether it's a t-shirt or a hat or something else.
	It's only, this is the last place left in America with a completely free of corporate control, completely free of big tech control, independent platform, providing a platform for those independent voices that Eric Weinstein is talking about from across the intellectual and ideological spectrum, which only share certain things in common uniformly, and that is the freedom of speech, the freedom of thought, the freedom of ideas, and the freedom of America.
	And in that context, and talking about geniuses coming from independent thought, not always coming from excellence, but coming from people who think differently than everyone else.
	That's one of the other keys that Eric Weinstein talks about.
	That the crushing of independent thought is the crushing of independent personalities that come with it.
	And that is what's happening to these two doctors for willing to contest the institutional narrative.
	And in the same vein, another person that you have not seen on mainstream media is one of actually the top Virologist, immunologist and epidemiologist in the world.
	He's the man who hired the man in Sweden, currently running Swedish policy and why Swedish policy is different than everywhere else.
	And so let's first give you an introduction to what some of his background and resume is.
	Let's play a video clip 7 part 1.
	No, it started before that.
	I used to be an infectious disease clinical doctor and worked a lot with AIDS patients during the 1980s.
	And that's what put me into epidemiology.
	And then I spent one year or two years at the London School of Doctoral Medicine in the early 90s.
	And then I came back to Sweden and then I became state epidemiologist for Sweden, which means having control over all infectious diseases.
	Which is the job that Anders Tegnell currently has.
	So I actually hired him 20 years ago and then I was his boss and now he's my boss, but it's working actually quite well.
	And you then became Chief Scientist at the European Centre for Disease Control?
	Yep.
	So this is a guy with extraordinary degrees in pedigree.
	He, too, will voice many of the same arguments, same ideas, advance the same propositions as those two little doctors from Bakersfield.
	But you're not hearing from them in the institutional media because they don't support the institutional narrative.
	When we come back on the latter half of the show, the last half of the hour, we are going to play the rest of his viewpoints.
	We'll also be taking your calls as you, the jury, get to weigh in.
	On this debate in this public policy discussion throughout the country.
	So you can call in at 877-789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539 or if internationally you can dial 512-646-1776.
	789-2539.
	That's 877-789-2539.
	Or if internationally, you can dial 512-646-1776.
	That's 512-646-1776.
	Call in, try to have your question within about a minute or so, and we'll try to answer it the best way that we can.
	Let's look at a couple of the charts that go to the core of the controversy involving the two doctors.
	The only positions that have been criticized by them that I have found so far, other than just lots of big adjectives being used, lots of name-calling being used, is, and Scott Adams' point was that he thought they made some mathematical errors, and that he didn't think anyone talking about Sweden should be listened to.
	So let's do the first part, the math.
	The math assumptions is whether the prevalence in a community can be tested by looking at the test rate amongst people who have been tested already.
	And so there, the doctor's position was that's the only data that we have, so he was going to extrapolate from it, knowing there would be limitations to it, but it would likely be as good as anything else until we got serological surveys back.
	And so people say, oh, you can't do that.
	No, it's simply a method to do so.
	There's a wide range of polling modes and methods that are out there.
	Anybody familiar with public opinion would know that far greater extrapolations of data and information take place every day in the polling world.
	So that application was not so extraordinary or so ridiculous as to be without merit.
	Indeed, it was simply saying, here's what we think is the case.
	Even in the worst case scenario, let's assume that the rate of infection is far less than the rate that is tested amongst those who take the test, which that, by the way, is not normally the case.
	And the flu, only about 3% of the people that are ever tested are estimated to have actually got the flu.
	So the norm with influenza-like viruses, what these doctors were doing is the same kind of extrapolations that happen every year within the medical community concerning influenza and other viruses.
	It's just a statistical method to do so when you have partial but not full information.
	In that same context, The flu, basically they estimate about 30 times more people have the flu than get the test.
	Even if that rate is far less for COVID-19, the mortality rate is still way less than has been projected.
	Remember, originally they were talking about 3 to 5 percent.
	They were only looking at those people who got confirmed tests and were the most sick.
	When you compare it to the likely number of people who either had it and got better from it and so did never even went in for a test for it or others, what you're going to find is that in fact this is much more like a flu-like disease than the plague.
	So when we come back on the bottom half of the hour, we'll take your calls, we'll go into additional data, we'll show the charts, we'll show the info, we'll show the demonstration of that information that supports those doctors against their critics.
	The doctors were right to dissent because the science supports the doctors.
	Not their critics.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Let's take a look at chart number five that goes into the issue that those doctors were talking about.
	The core question, what is in fact the mortality rate?
	The reason why there's all this controversy over what the contagion rate is, all this controversy over what the infection rate is, is there's all this concern because if the mortality rate is not 30 to 40 times higher than the flu, then we've been doing this for nothing.
	That the shutdown was over Uh, over justified.
	It was exaggerated.
	In fact, that's what we find.
	We found a doctor and other people put together the data from California, and they complained about these doctors.
	They said, oh, they're in Bakersfield.
	They can't project that date onto California.
	They can't project that date on America, even though they had multiple places in California.
	They can't take the testing data and say that means anything about the broader population.
	Well, they went and looked at the serology surveys that do measure the whole population.
	Not only serology surveys from Santa Clara, which also, when those came out, even though they came out from Stanford professionals, the media and the press and the data experts said, no, no, no, that can't possibly be right.
	No, no, no, there's all these little problems.
	They nitpick them just like they nitpick these doctors.
	And then the data came out of Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, came out of Italy, came out of Iceland, came out of Germany, all saying the same thing, same thing, same thing, same thing, over and over and over and over again.
	It turns out the nitpicking critics are the ones that have been wrong, who have been guilty of loser think, rather than being able to forecast the near short-term future.
	So if we go to chart number five, what we see is divided by age compared to 2018, the death rate is almost exactly the same across the board for every age category.
	It's a little bit higher for people over 50 and substantially lower for people under 25.
	That's it.
	So why are we depriving children of the opportunities to go to school, go to camp, go outdoors even, when the risk to them is less than the flu from COVID-19?
	Why are we preventing people under 50 from working that are healthy when their risk is less from this from COVID-19 than it is from the flu?
	Why are we doing that?
	So in fact, the data, that was the argument of these doctors.
	And the data backs them up.
	The data is on their side, not on the side of the doom and gloom white lab coat experts.
	In the same context, the other argument that was made by both Scott Adams and then other critics of the doctors was, well, you can't pay attention to Sweden.
	Now there's several problems with that.
	First of all, Scott Adams contradicted himself in that context of about 10 minutes of a Periscope broadcast.
	Because one minute he says, we absolutely can rely upon the data from Wuhan.
	We can absolutely rely on the data from Lombardy and Northern Italy.
	And we don't have to worry about anything being different in those places compared to us, but by golly, we just can't rely on anything from Sweden.
	In fact, it's so unreliable to rely on information from Sweden, it's like believing the earth is flat.
	In fact, the information is, and that's by the way not my analogy, Scott Adams' comparison was that these doctors believed in what their beliefs were, what their statements were, were equivalent to people who believe the earth is flat.
	Maybe a little extreme.
	Maybe a sign of an unpersuasive argument.
	Maybe a sign of loser think rather than good argument.
	But in that same context, if we look at this, why is it again that we can't look at Sweden?
	Is it a coincidence that Sweden is the only nation that has refused these draconian shutdown policies?
	Is that supposed to be pure chance?
	Why is it that Sweden somehow is the one place we just can't assess any information from?
	But we are supposed to be able to assess it from Wuhan, probably one of the least reliable places for data.
	Almost all of the doom and gloom models were based on information from Wuhan.
	They didn't have Italy's data yet.
	Imperial College's estimates.
	The University of Washington's organization backed by Bill Gates's estimates, the IMHE, all based on Wuhan data.
	That's what they were originally relying upon for projecting what was going to happen here.
	So we're supposed to be absolutely be able to, as Scott Adams called it, just observation of what happened in Wuhan is a relevant, pertinent, evidentiary standard.
	In fact, it's so persuasive we should do something we've never done in the history of humankind, quarantine the healthy.
	But at the same time, if you even look to a whole nation of 10 million plus people like Sweden, a democratic country with much more open transparency, then you're so crazy and nuts you should never be heard from again.
	Does that sound like persuasive argument?
	Or does that sound like loser thing?
	You decide.
	In the same context, and you can call in, we'll take your calls in answering some of those inquiries and answering some of those questions, but let's go to one aspect about it.
	There was an assumption that Scott Adams had about Sweden, which was maybe it's so radically different from everywhere else that we can't absorb their data, or their data is so corrupted because all the data about COVID-19 is so corrupted, we can't trust anything.
	Well, let's go to that second one first.
	How is it you say that we can't trust any data related to COVID-19 and then turn around and say we're supposed to rely on the data from China and Wuhan that we just observed for our decision making in making radical decisions of experimentation here in the U.S.? ?
	So the data from Wuhan is okay, the data from Italy is okay, the data that you have someone believing you're going to die 2,000 deaths every day for the next six months is okay, but all the other data is corrupted and particularly as applies to Sweden, somehow we can't trust the data there.
	Does that sound like a persuasive argument?
	Or does that sound like someone has been infected with the virus of Loser Think?
	In the same vein, if we look at, in fact, some of his assumptions were simply false because they were anecdotal.
	What Scott Adams talks about is he'd heard from other people in social media that maybe the Swedish are just fantastic social distancers, just by nature.
	In fact, maybe the Swedes, when you really dig into it, you'll find that they're all living in a home in their little apartments in Stockholm.
	Beautiful city, I've been there, great food.
	But somehow that they're actually all a bunch of recluses.
	Well that, in fact, we actually have data to measure that.
	We don't have to rely upon anecdotal stories over social media to figure out what's going on in Sweden.
	We have some of the best and most transparent and most reliable trustworthy data comes from Sweden.
	Because unlike the United States, as the USA Today confirmed yesterday, Sweden doesn't have any incentives to inflate the number of people dying from COVID-19.
	Their incentive is simply to be accurate.
	To be empirically correct.
	To make evidence-based decisions.
	They have some of the top epidemiologists and immunologists and virologists in the world are in Sweden.
	Due to a wide range of historical and coincidental factors.
	And so not only can we rely upon their data about COVID-19 and by the way the growth in their death rate has been the same or lower than most of their Nordic neighbors since the shutdown has gone into effect.
	And definitely and in fact They did a huge study in the Financial Times and they did a big study with the New York Times republished it today.
	And what they did is they were showing excess deaths in Europe.
	And their main premise was to argue that in fact COVID-19 might have killed more people, but the actual evidence suggests that maybe the shutdown has been killing more people.
	Because guess which country had one of the lowest, in fact the lowest, excess death rate amongst the countries measured and reported on in all the different publications in Europe?
	Sweden.
	The lowest rate of excess death was Sweden.
	Everywhere else was seeing a much higher surge than Sweden.
	So in fact, Sweden has shown the most success in competing with this virus, if we look at the available data, and maybe that's why we're not supposed to look at it.
	And in the same context, there's also available data for whether Sweden was social distancing.
	Google and phone companies have been tracking your activities around the world.
	In Europe, you don't have anywhere near the degree of privacy protections that you do in the United States.
	But a lot of this is tracked in the United States, of course, as well.
	And so if we look at chart number two, We'll see was in fact Sweden doing this massive social distancing without regard to shutdown orders as Scott Adams sole factual basis for claiming Sweden was different from the United States in any material measurable way that could impact policy.
	Well, if we take a look at it, what they track is they, as we see, they track mobility activity for people and where their phones and where they were present in parks, beaches, marinas, dog parks, plazas, streets, and basically in publicly concentrated areas.
	And what they found was there was substantial social distancing declines, almost all associated with lockdown.
	So right away, everybody out there saying, oh, everybody was social distancing before and without the lockdown.
	Well, one, if that was true, you don't need the lockdowns to achieve it, do you?
	Number two, it turns out it isn't true.
	In fact, people were not social distancing on the scale and size that people presumed until the lockdowns went into effect.
	Now, maybe that was the propaganda effect of the lockdown.
	Maybe it was people simply complying with the law.
	But what's notable in all of this is there's one country, other than South Korea, which also didn't shut down and did not have a pandemic breakout of the scale and size we've seen in Europe.
	There's only one country in Europe that, or in the West, that did not see, in fact, saw an actual rise in relative social activity compared to the norm, and even less social distancing than any other country typically does.
	And that was Sweden.
	So the data shows that Sweden was all what they call in the red.
	Sweden was way a lots and lots and lots of social activity in concentrated areas of public places.
	They aren't all living in their solo apartments.
	They aren't all hiding out in some cave someplace up in the in the Viking lands.
	They're just like everyone else.
	Stockholm is a very urbane cosmopolitan city.
	So those saying that Sweden is magically different in such a way we can't even figure it out.
	It's unfathomable.
	And we just can't consider data from Sweden.
	are not being forthcoming and forthright in the data and information.
	They're relying upon either other forms of information, whether it's anecdotal evidence or the kind of evidence that Scott Adams well articulates in LoserThink is unreliable, is in fact LoserThink itself.
	So Sweden provides plenty of evidence and information that's relevant and pertinent and that it's material to this debate.
	And anybody who says, don't listen to anyone from Sweden, is someone that is acting in a self-discrediting way.
	So I would not say quit listening to them because we need to listen to all opinions, not close any opinions.
	The free public square is the place to decide what you believe, not to have someone control access to that public square for you.
	Whether it's big tech, big media, or big government.
	In that same context, let's bring you some more of the opinions from Sweden, explaining why he was going to do what he did.
	You saw his resume earlier.
	Extraordinary.
	Exceptional resume.
	A true expert.
	Maybe the world's greatest expert in this field.
	Someone that has trained other people around the world, that was considered Europe's main infection doctor.
	The man who trained and hired the doctor that is running Sweden, and why they stuck with their plan, even when everyone else around them was going mad.
	And so let's take a look at part two of video clip number seven and hear Professor Johan Diseki's explanation for why Sweden chose the path they chose.
	That's on the 17th of April 2021.
	I think that the difference between countries would be quite small in the end.
	So that you don't think that the severity of the these intervening measures are going to make that much difference?
	No, I don't think so.
	I think, actually, should I tell you what I really think?
	Please.
	I almost never do this.
	I think what we're seeing is a tsunami of a usually quite mild disease, which is sweeping over Europe.
	And some countries do this, and some countries do that, and some countries don't do that.
	And in the end, there was very little difference.
	So when you say it's a usually quite mild disease, what do you mean by that?
	That most people who get it will never even notice they were infected.
	So does that mean that you think the actual fatality rate of this disease is much lower than the numbers that have been talked about?
	Much, much lower.
	So do you have, have you made any speculations as to what sort of zone the real fatality rate might be in?
	I think it would be like a severe influenza season, the same as, which would be on an order of 0.1% maybe.
	So that would suggest then for a country like the UK that is heading towards 20,000 deaths, that would suggest that millions, many millions of people have already had it?
	Yes.
	Do you think that is also true in Sweden then, that a substantial percentage of the population has had it?
	I'm rather certain of that actually and when we get we don't have the tests really yet as you know you have these two kinds you know this don't you two kinds of tests yeah one that tells that you have it now and another one that tells you that you had it at some point before an immunity or serology test and they are just being developed and they're just being Employed.
	I know from discussions with friends in the UK that you started last week with 3,500 such tests and you were gone in one week, and then it will be about 8,000 per week.
	And when you get tests that show people that have the disease, you'll see that most of them never even dreamt they had it.
	But we don't have yet any effective antibody tests, I don't think.
	You're right, but it's coming.
	You're confident that we will get those tests?
	Oh, yes.
	That's a matter of time.
	And so what sort of percentage of the population do you think we will discover has had it once we get mass antibody testing in place?
	At least half.
	In the United Kingdom?
	Or do you mean in Sweden as well?
	Both countries.
	So the whole Yes, I think so.
	rationale for introducing these lockdowns across Europe that has created such an unbelievable side effects and pretty much stopped the whole world in its tracks.
	You believe it's a misguided policy and do you think it's doing more harm than good?
	Yes, I think so.
	On the whole, I mean, if you listen, what I'm saying is that people who will die a few months later are dying now and And that's taking months from their lives.
	So that's maybe not nice.
	But comparing that to the effects of the lockdown, which may be I mean, What am I most afraid of?
	It's the dictatorial trends in Eastern Europe that Orbán is now dictator for Hungary forever.
	There's no finishing date.
	I think the same is popping up in other countries.
	It may pop up in more established democracies as well.
	I think the ramifications can be huge from this.
	We don't even start Seeing them set about influenza.
	But I think if influenza came around as a new disease, you never had it before, but suddenly this new disease called influenza popped up, we would have exactly the same reaction as we have now.
	So I think the number of deaths will be about the same as in a severe influenza in winter.
	And what he talks about there is that basically we would end up having the same sort of mind infection, mind madness that has taken place over the policy political decision makers if influenza came about and we just were unfamiliar with its occurrence prior.
	Because we've been through influenza, we've been through many severe influenzas, we've been through the Asian flu, the Hong Kong flu, the Spanish flu, and we never reacted in this way is what leads the action now to be extraordinary and we just Pretended it was somehow radically different than those past flus in such a way that justified a remedy we had never before chosen.
	So let's go to some of your questions, and as to you, the jury, as to your point of view, as to your perspective, and let's hear from you.
	Let's first start with Anne from Seattle.
	Hello?
	Hello.
	Yes, ma'am.
	How are you?
	Good.
	So, I think it's pretty obvious that the deep state agenda is forced vaccination and total control via vaccine certificates and microchipping.
	I wanted to know your thoughts and what is legal thought on the fundamental right to sovereignty over one's own body.
	No question.
	My view is there's a lawsuit that was filed this week in Nevada by Joey Gilbert, who was on our show just a couple of weeks ago, at the very beginning and at the outset, when the Nevada governor, he was trying to persuade the Nevada governor to take the right actions to respect the patient's right to control their own medical care.
	There should be nothing more fundamental.
	That's what I tell my friends on the left.
	If they believe that that's not a baby and not a fetus, and they believe that there's an absolute right for a person to control their own body, then how in the world can they say that they don't have, a person doesn't have a control over their own body, when it's not a baby, it's not a fetus, it's simply whether something is stuck into their body.
	Whether it's a needle in the arm or a chip under the finger.
	To me it's fundamental that a person should have a constitutional right to decide their own medical care.
	Now I take that in directions that some of my conservative friends don't agree with.
	I do believe people have certain rights to decide when they decide to leave this earth.
	I think they have that right too.
	I don't think it's our right to control that.
	I think it's a that that's an individual choice.
	I want them to make a good one.
	I want them to stay with us as long as possible, but I don't think we have the right to dictate to people what to put in their own body or how to take care of their own body.
	That's why I oppose things trying to ban liquor, trying to ban tobacco.
	These things have not worked historically.
	These things have backfired repeatedly, just as a matter of policy.
	So even if you agree with these restrictions and limitations on what people are able to access, and at the same time demand that they be coerced and forced into letting their Children or their babies take certain things into their bodies that the parents may object to.
	Simply as a matter of policy, it has not functionally worked.
	It provokes dissent.
	It leads to various organized criminal activity in the cases of things like alcohol did, things like certain drugs did, so that we should take a reasonable position that's constitutionally consistent and policy sound and empirically founded.
	And that is to have people respect people's rights to control their own body, to respect people's rights to control their own care, and that they should not be forced or coerced by the state into any state of care.
	The only world, only government where achieved that at any massive level And the first one to do so was Nazi Germany.
	And that should be the reminder as to why we don't want to go down that path.
	You cannot trust the tyranny of white lab coats to do what's best for human beings.
	Our own country proved that as soon as we approved forced vaccines in 1905 and even then only did it in the limited constricted context of an existing smallpox outbreak and someone that was in that community for a smallpox vaccine that had very little safety risk at the time.
	That was known to the medical community.
	So it was a unique set of circumstances.
	They couldn't help themselves.
	They then used the same logic to justify forced sterilizations just a few decades later.
	And, of course, they couldn't help themselves.
	They used the same logic to justify taking away everybody's rights if you were Japanese in America during World War II.
	You lost your First Amendment right of speech, your First Amendment right of peaceable assembly, your First Amendment right to petition the government, your First Amendment right of religious expression, your Second Amendment right to self-defend yourself by being able to bear arms.
	Your 4th Amendment right of privacy, your 4th Amendment right for freedom of movement, your 5th Amendment right to your profession, vocation, or occupation with due process of law, your 5th Amendment right to your property to be justly compensated if taken.
	All of those rights were stripped from them.
	And it all started in the early 1900s when the Supreme Court said, yeah, you can have the government force a vaccine on someone.
	So once you start there, it is very difficult to avoid the logical leap That doesn't require much of a leap at all to Japanese internment camps.
	Because it's the same logic of deferring to the state, of deferring to the white lab coats, of creating emergency crisis exceptions to the Constitution of the United States.
	It was an emergency exception written into the Weimar Constitution that gave the world Nazi Germany that may have never appeared on the scene but for that emergency exception carved into the Constitution.
	We surely shouldn't claim that one exists when it's not even in the Constitution and our founders exempted it.
	So, without question, I do believe it is indeed your body, your choice, your care.
	You should control that.
	Not someone in a white lab coat and definitely not a politician in a suit in some state capitol.
	So, thank you for your call.
	Let's go to Victor in California.
	Hello, Robert.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	I have two quick questions for you.
	The first one, I do listen to Scott Adams' periscopes as well, and he did mention you about a week ago.
	He said he doesn't agree with your opinion.
	Would you consider inviting Scott on your show to discuss this with him so you guys can have a lively debate?
	I was surprised that he got involved in the loser thing this morning.
	And the second question is, Mike Adams from NaturalNews.com says he doesn't believe So yeah, without question.
	I'm a big fan of Scott Adams.
	We follow one another on social media.
	Always glad to debate him, either on his Periscope or him debate me here.
	Always open to that.
	I've made myself open to debating anybody, anyplace, anywhere, anytime on these set of issues.
	I believe more ideas are better than less ideas.
	That's why I played almost all 10 minutes of Scott's point of view so people could see it and assess it for themselves.
	I believe that more debate is good, more dialogue is good, more discussion is good.
	So without question, completely open to discussing and debating it with him.
	He is one of the great minds, one of the great persuaders, one of the great people.
	of the America today.
	And though we happen to disagree on this topic, that doesn't mean that we cannot engage in friendly familial discussion and debate and maintain it on terms of intellectual discourse and the like.
	And there's few people better at that than Scott Adams.
	As to the serology study for Santa Clara, any serology study can definitely be questioned and second-guessed.
	There's always a risk of false positives and false negatives in a novel virus being developed.
	That's been a risk from the current testing protocols.
	But while Mike Adams has that point and a lot of the other critics had that point, the problem for them is those same results are being reproduced over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
	We now have the similar results out of New York, out of LA, out of Boston, out of parts of Pennsylvania, out of Germany, out of Italy, out of Iceland.

▲