All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
41:43
Episode 161 Scott Adams: Fake News, Dalai Lama, Healthcare and Optimism
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, get in here.
You know what it's time for.
Yeah, it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Now there was a study I just saw on Twitter saying that if you started your morning with optimism, it would reduce your stress for the rest of the day.
That's probably one of the many reasons that you love coffee with Scott Adams.
This is your little simultaneous sip of optimism to start your day, because today's going to be a good day.
It's a really good day.
We've got a good week coming, a good month, but today's a good day.
And let's start it with a little optimism with a simultaneous sip.
Ooh... Question.
I can't find my own tweets.
I'm not saying this is a joke, but I think I'm shadow banned from myself.
Is that a thing?
Because recently I've tweeted, but my own tweet doesn't show up on my own timeline.
I just did it.
Did anybody see me tweet the Dalai Lama's tweet this morning?
Has anybody seen that?
Because I just tweeted it and it doesn't show up in my own feed.
That's the second time that's happened.
Maybe it shows up later?
Because I'm pretty sure I'm shadow banned from myself.
I can't see my own tweets.
Not all of them. I can see some of them.
So, don't know what's up with that, but let me tell you what the tweet was about.
Maybe I'll have to look at the Dalai Lama's own Twitter feed to actually see what he said.
Very annoying. Dalai Lama, okay.
So this is the Dalai Lama four hours ago.
Many of the problems we face today are our own creation.
Creating a more peaceful world requires a peaceful mind and a peaceful heart.
As human brothers and sisters, we must live together in tolerance and affection.
So his first sentence, many of the problems we face today are our own creation.
In other words, a reality of the mind.
In other words, he's introducing the Golden Age.
The Golden Age, as I've described it, is a time when things are generally going in the right direction, but more importantly, More importantly, the golden age is when we realize that our biggest problems might be psychological.
The problems that cause wars, North Korea, for example.
And probably there are a lot of other problems, our biggest ones, that are psychological.
Let me give you another example.
There was a study that got some publicity today about what it would cost to have universal healthcare, single-payer, Medicare-for-all type healthcare in the United States.
And the estimate was something like, you know, two to three trillion dollars a year extra.
Now the first thing that they do, they, the people who do this estimate, I'm not sure who it was, some independent group, They make it a 10-year cost so that the headline says $32 trillion.
Why do we pick 10 years as the relevant number?
I'm sure there's some history to that.
But when you turn that into a headline, It just makes the number look literally ten times bigger than the number that might be useful to hold in your head.
So if you told me that annually it was three trillion, it's still a big darn number, but I can handle that a little better.
Now, here's my problem.
Apparently there are other studies, so between two and three trillion dollars a year extra, there might be some differences in the assumption, but Doesn't it feel like something's left out of that?
Because the idea is you're taking, I don't know, are two-thirds of the people buying their own insurance already?
What percentage of the country already buys its own insurance or is covered by a company?
Because that stuff isn't free.
You have to look at the $3 trillion it's going to cost the government and at least take into consideration the That maybe two trillion, I'm just making up numbers here, but maybe two trillion was what the public was spending already.
So you might need some kind of technique to recapture the fact that people saved two trillion on paying their own and then the government paid three trillion.
It's more like the country's net is closer to a trillion.
You know, in just very generic large numbers.
Now if that's the case, if the difference between universal care and what we have now is a trillion net, how do you make up that difference?
Well, let me suggest.
Imagine if all of our companies that are paying healthcare for employees didn't need to do it anymore.
Imagine that. Imagine if all the people who are buying their own health care, and I'm one of them, you know, I buy it through my own corporation, but what happens if I just didn't have to spend that money anymore?
You're gonna free up two trillion dollars a year in available spending and investment, aren't you?
And when the people who estimated that it would cost us three trillion a year Did they include, I'm answering my own question here, do you think they included the extra tax revenue, extra economic benefit of freeing up two trillion dollars a year?
Two trillion dollars a year freed up to spend, to go to college, to invest.
Now, I would consider the study that did not include the economic benefit of freeing up all that money.
It also did not include the economic benefit, if there is one, and by the way this is more of a question, of better health care.
Are we more productive?
Do we avoid larger costs in the future because we had better health care in the near term, so we handled problems before they got expensive?
How in the world do you really know what it would cost the country?
Somebody said, Scott, are these my hypothetical numbers?
Yes, they are very generic.
So the numbers that the experts have come up with is that a government single-payer, where the government is the only one who provides health care in the United States, would cost an extra $3 trillion a year for our government.
But, Since two-thirds or 75% of people are already paying for health care, either directly or through their business, wouldn't it be something like two trillion dollars freed up that the government is paying for you, that now you as an individual can pay, etc.
So that creates X amount of economic benefit and that has to be factored in that.
So here's the first question.
It could be that there are some estimates.
Somebody said the CBO includes that.
There may be some estimates in which they try to do a more comprehensive look at the costs.
Believe me, I'm still on the page where we don't know how to pay for it.
So I'm not saying it can be done.
I'm saying that these big studies that you see are so incomplete that they border on fraudulent.
So all I'm asking is some reasonably good job of looking at all the factors, and I'm not seeing that.
Alright, here's my point.
Suppose you could get the extra cost of healthcare down to a trillion dollars a year.
I don't know if you can, but suppose you could.
Let's say that, you know, that's all it costs, an extra trillion.
Could you also reduce the cost of providing healthcare so that you just take that down to, you know, let's say $200 billion, at which point the country can absorb it?
And here's my, somebody says, you're losing me, Scott.
Here's my take on that.
The only way that I think you can get to affordable health care is not through taxing and not by having the government be single payer.
Those things might help a little bit.
But you can't get there with that stuff.
You need to actually fundamentally change the cost of providing it.
And I'm going to give you a technique to get there.
What you can't do This would not be a good plan.
You don't want to offer a bad form of health care to poor people and a good form to rich people because that's just more inequality.
But what you can sometimes do, and follow me on this, sometimes you can make the poor version better than the expensive version.
And then everybody's happy, because some people still want the expensive version, and well, maybe they could just pay for it.
But imagine, let me give you a historical example.
Do you remember, some of you are old enough to remember when ATMs were new.
I was working at a bank.
It was one of my first jobs out of college.
And the bank was one of the first to put in ATMs.
Nobody had ATMs.
It was the first bank. And the way the public regarded this, Was that the ATM was worse than being able to go and talk to a person.
Because people like the comfort of a person.
So here's the point.
Is that the public regarded ATMs as worse because they were losing their personal service.
But Many people who use the ATM said, this is way better.
I can use it 24 hours a day.
I don't have to wait in line.
I don't need to talk to people.
I'm in a hurry. So you had a worse solution, the ATM, that was actually better than what it replaced in many ways.
So you want a situation where the bad version actually looks better than the good version, if you know what I mean, conceptually.
So imagine, if you will, that we said there's going to be just brainstorming here.
Suppose the government said we're going to put a focus on the new technologies and new health care processes, and we're going to say if you're below a certain income, You can get this kind of healthcare for free.
But it's all the new stuff.
It's all the new stuff.
Nothing dangerous, but new processes, new systems, new technologies, new ways to organize, new ways to keep records, new ways to do things in the cloud.
Maybe there's some home visits.
Maybe there's some sharing of things.
Whatever that looks like.
But this group of people will give free healthcare.
Let's say it's all the people who don't have any now.
And it will be the bad version because it's not the ordinary version.
It's all new stuff.
But here's the key.
The new stuff's going to be better.
Mostly. Some of it may be a test and it doesn't work out so well.
But you could make the new experimental stuff that the people with low income get to be the better stuff.
Now somebody's saying, lab rats, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying.
You wouldn't make anything available that you don't know is at least safe.
So I'm talking about things like how you organize patient records, whether or not...
Let me give you a specific example.
Let's say you organized so that people who are trained nurses have an app.
That they can sometimes do a visit to somebody nearby.
And let's say you make some changes in the law so that the nurse can maybe make some more decisions.
So the poor person can just say, hey, is there somebody next door who can just walk over with a stethoscope and give me a suggestion whether I need to see more health care?
And maybe you've got an app, like my company's app.
I'm not selling the app right now, but my company's startup's app, the interface app.
Let's say there's a doctor in India who speaks English.
So the nurse comes over.
She looks at you next door.
She's going to cost $25 because she's going to spend all of half an hour.
She gets $25.
And she just walks next door.
And then she says, ah, this one's a tough one, so I'll pick up the app.
I'll get the doctor in another country who's totally qualified.
He's just in another country in another time zone.
Call him up and say, hey doctor, I've got this situation.
Point the camera. What do you say?
Talk to the person.
And the doctor says, yes, I think first thing you want to do is just here's a prescription.
I'll call it in. So suddenly you've taken the cost of healthcare just by organizing it differently, having an app, maybe loosening up some rules, to really excellent healthcare.
This person was sitting at home, picked up their app, and within 10 minutes a nurse knocked on the door and had you connected to a top doctor who actually knew what to do.
So that's an example of a poor person's health care that's better than the rich person's health care.
What did the rich person do?
Well, the rich person had to wait till Monday, get an appointment, drive in, wait in line, wait for the doctor.
It's worse. But it costs a lot more because there's real estate they have to pay for and insurance and all that.
So that's just one small example.
Let me give you another one. I've seen a number of startups who have small devices that do in-lab tests, let's say blood tests, skin tests, that sort of thing, that are maybe 10 times cheaper Then the process of sending it to a lab and waiting for days to get it back.
So imagine if you had those locally in the town, people could go in and get a test.
It cost them $25 for the whole test.
And they get it right away.
Ten minutes. That would be the poor person's version of healthcare that again would be way better than the rich person's version.
So anyway, I'll wrap this point up and that is that probably through being smarter we could create a class of free or very inexpensive healthcare that would be better than the current system.
We just have to start thinking of it from scratch and just be smarter about it.
All right. People are resisting my discussion on this.
Let's talk about, I mentioned that there was a study that said that optimism in the morning keeps your stress down.
That's another health care benefit.
If you get your stress down, everything works out.
But I think that might be one of the reasons that you like my periscopes.
Because I pretty much am optimistic every time.
I think I am.
There may be some exceptions.
But I try to be optimistic every time because I am.
That's my natural...
Actually, let me take it back.
It's not my natural state.
It's a learned state.
So if it seems to you I am unnaturally optimistic, think about somebody else you know who fits that description.
Who is the most unnaturally optimistic person you know?
President Trump.
And we get it from the same source.
We get it from the power of positive thinking, Norman Vincent Peale.
And this idea that you can think your way into a better situation is essentially what the Dalai Lama is saying.
It's what I'm saying.
It's what Norman Vincent Peale is saying.
It's what Tony Robbins says.
It's what the president is doing right in front of you.
He's displaying his optimism in a contagious way and that helps a lot of things like the economy.
So there could be a health benefit from joining me with coffee with Scott Adams.
Not only has the coffee been shown to be healthy, But a little bit of optimism, too.
Try this in the morning.
I do this sometimes, quite literally.
I was doing it this morning.
The first thing I was doing this morning is, you know, I'm alone in the house today.
And I was saying, today's going to be a great day.
Today is going to be a great day.
Great day coming up.
Now, if I were to look at the details of my day, there's a lot of work coming up and stuff I gotta do, and some of it is not all that pleasant.
But, it's still gonna be a great day.
It's gonna be a great day.
It's gonna be a great week.
So keep that in mind, and you'll be amazed that just repeating that to yourself, even if there's a part of your brain that says, I'm not sure this is true, Yeah, I say it out loud, but you don't need to.
Saying it out loud, I think, does add a little extra oomph.
But how often do you repeat it?
5, 10, 15 times.
I don't think it's super sensitive to the number of times you do it or whether it's written or spoken or repeated in your head.
It's the process of doing it that matters.
It's the focus on it.
It's just reorienting your mind, and then you get off to a good start.
Try it. If you ask the question, how many times to do it, etc., just try it.
Just try a few things. It might be independent, or it might be individual.
I imagine it would be. Let's talk about TAD versus TDS. You may have seen a study that I tweeted around in which psychologists and therapists were saying that there's a real syndrome called, they call it, Trump, what's the A for?
TAD, what's it stand for?
TAD? Trump Anxiety, what's the D? Trump anxiety something.
By the way, instead of Trump derangement syndrome, and I thought to myself, If the therapist did not have a disorder, yes.
So the therapists are calling it Trump anxiety disorder.
Emphasis on the anxiety.
Whereas you and I have been calling it Trump derangement syndrome.
Focus on deranged.
Now why would the therapist call it anxiety disorder?
Versus deranged. Well, one reason might be it sounds better.
It's a less harsh diagnosis.
But the other possibility is that the therapists have it.
If you have this syndrome, are you going to say, I have anxiety, or are you going to say, I'm deranged?
I mean, think about it. You know that the therapists have this.
You know that they're suffering from this condition, right?
Or at least a lot of them are.
And they're not going to say of themselves, my God, I'm deranged now.
They're going to say of themselves, I have anxiety about this.
Because when you say I have anxiety, you're blaming the external world.
It's like, wow, that external world looks like it might be part of what's causing me anxiety.
But if you say you're deranged, then you're saying, okay, the problem's on my end.
I'm not processing this right.
So I thought it was funny that the people who have it are also the people diagnosing it and also the ones giving it a name, which completely, you know, sort of distracts from what's going on, which is that the therapists have it.
How do you get treated for something when your therapist has it?
Now let's talk about, I saw Brett Hume tweeted around this morning talking about how the president has, essentially I'm paraphrasing Brett Hume, saying that the president has a point about fake news and he gave an example of some fake news that said he was against breastfeeding or something.
I think that's not true.
Now, but he did say it's not helpful for the president to say that the press is the enemy of the people.
But I say, how inaccurate is that to say that the press is the enemy of the people?
Now, clearly, it's not all the press because there's press on both sides.
So theoretically, the one that's on your side, you're going to say, no, that's not the enemy of the people.
That's just the honest one.
But if you look at the anti-Trump press, I don't think you can conclude that they're objective arbiters of fact and news.
Can you?
I mean, that used to be true, but I think the business models has caused them to go to the more extreme emotional manipulation model just because that's where the money is.
You've got to get people to click.
You've got to get people to watch.
And to do that in our increasingly complicated world, you've got to raise the noise level, raise the emotional level.
And so it does seem to me That the press could destroy the country for its own profits.
Let me give you some examples.
The press could convince the country to go to war where there are no weapons of mass destruction, but the press is reporting it like it's true.
In other words, fake news.
Wouldn't that be the enemy of the people starting an actual war?
Because it's good for profits?
I always thought that the second Iraq war was a bit of a press war.
Because it seemed to me that the press was the one that was prepping the country to be able to accept it.
And if the country had not accepted it, I don't think it would have happened.
So, was the press operating in its own best interest?
Because war is really good for ratings.
What is better for the ratings of a network news than a war?
Not much.
Not much better than that.
So it seems to me that the incentive for the press is to create war.
And if the incentive of the press is to create war, and by the way, I don't think there's any doubt about that, is there?
There's no doubt The war gets good ratings.
I think we all agree on that.
And there's no doubt that good ratings create money for the people who work in the news industry.
Their prestige goes up.
It's more interesting for them in a horrible way.
It's just good for the news industry to have a war.
I'm not wrong about that.
So, here's the next rule that I think is a universal truth.
When you incent something, That strongly, it's going to happen.
When you have that strong of an incentive for anything, it wouldn't matter what it is, if you've got a huge economic incentive and it's legal and you can totally get away with it, how often does it happen?
Those are the three conditions.
It's a huge upside benefit.
It's totally legal or you can get away with it.
Same thing. It's easy.
And you can just totally get...
I think I missed one there.
But it's a big payoff and you can get away with it.
How often does the thing happen if it's a huge payoff and it's easy to get away with?
I'd say 100% of the time.
Now, that doesn't mean it's going to make war after war.
But long term, it's guaranteed to create war.
Because if the public wants the war, it's coming, because the press can prep us for it, and then we're ready.
So is the press the enemy of the people?
I would say yes.
I think that is a fair, completely objective statement.
Now, pick another topic.
Suppose the economy would have been good But the press has decided to report it like it's bad, because let's say they don't like the president.
Because optimism drives the economy.
If the president is giving you optimism, he's doing his job, getting people to invest next year, which causes the economy to be good.
But what if the press absolutely universally said everything's terrible, even if it wasn't so terrible?
Well, then the press is going to be depressing the entire economy through the reporting.
Now that might not be good for the press because they are part of the economy and they don't want to drive down their own profits.
But certainly they could depress them a little bit and not feel too much personal pain.
So that's another example.
Suppose there was a way to get to better health care, whether it's single payer or just some better process that's good for everybody in the current system.
What if the press didn't report it straight?
What if they said, imagine if you will, let's just take this example.
Suppose President Trump came up with a path forward on health care that was just brilliant.
And I think there are paths forward, and I think I described, at least in general terms, how you might develop a low-cost version of health care that's actually the better version, and then you can change the whole system from there.
But what if the President came up with that?
I'm not saying he will, but just what if he did?
How would the press report it?
Yeah, let's say it's not a single payer, but it's just something that's a way better improvement in the system.
How would the press report that?
They would report it as terrible because they don't like anything the president does.
Yeah, they would report it as death panels and God knows what.
They'd cry for impeachment.
So when you say the press is the enemy of the people, that doesn't mean that the press is scheming.
I am going to destroy this country.
There's nothing like that happening.
There's no reporter.
Jim Acosta is not trying to do what's bad for the country.
You might argue that it ends up that way, but certainly in terms of his internal thoughts, nobody's trying to destroy the country.
Maybe somebody, but it's not a big deal.
Most people realize that they're part of the country, so they don't want to destroy it.
But if their actions are highly incented To report what's sensational rather than what's true, they become our biggest problem.
Now calling them the enemy sort of assumes too much about their incentive, and I think that's going too far.
But certainly in effect, They might be the biggest risk to the country right now.
And that wasn't always the case, because I think the old version of the news was just reporting it straight, you know, in the days of three networks.
And today they just have to follow the clicks because it's the only way they can stay in business.
All right. I believe I've covered all of my topics.
Look up Project Mockingbird.
I have, I know what that's about.
Incented or incentivized?
That's a good question.
Which of those words is correct?
Giuliani and tapes of reporters.
I don't know about that. Maybe that's this morning's story.
I'll check that out.
When do we talk about midterm election predictions?
Well, just quickly, I don't have a detailed prediction about that.
I just think the Republicans will do better Than whatever people thought back in January, and substantially so.
But that's as far as I'll go in a prediction.
I don't know much about the individual matchups.
I saw, what did I say, Jake Tapper's tweet and he said, There was something about the Obamas.
And his tweet was saying that the Democratic Party is the weakest it's been since the 1920s.
Now, if you don't know, Jake, I think he's a trained historian.
So history is actually his strong suit, one of them.
He's got a pretty deep talent stack.
So it's probably true.
I mean, that's probably a safe statement that the Democratic Party is the weakest it's been since 1920.
Did anybody see that coming?
Is Trump dyslexic?
How would I know? I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Alright, I'm just looking at your comments.
Now if you noticed, I've said this over and over again, but every time I see an example, I like to point it out, because this is part of your optimism.
How many times have I told you that good news often is the result of something looking like it's doom?
You know, the classic, it's always darkest before the dawn.
Sometimes when it looks like you're in the deepest hole, it's also, when you're in the deepest hole, you're also closest to the treasure.
Hey, I just made that one up.
I think I'm going to add that to the national consciousness.
I'll say that again.
Sometimes when you're in the deepest hole, it means you're closest to discovering the buried treasure.
Kind of clever. That's a keeper.
Somebody probably already said that.
I bet I'm stealing that.
And I don't know it.
So, if you look at how long ago was it that it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and that Democrats were going to take over Congress and it was going to be all Democrats all the time and they were going to rule the world.
It kind of felt like that, didn't it?
And then Here we are with the Democratic Party in complete ruin, and the Republicans have a firm grip on power.
Now, things might change a little bit in the midterms, but we'll see.
By the way, I'll give you a midterm prediction.
No, this won't work because the Senate will still be Republican.
I was going to say that should it happen that the Congress was mixed, that there was not an overwhelming majority of Republicans, should that happen, I think the President would actually be stronger.
And the reason is because he needs to play both sides against each other to get what he needs for health care, for example.
So there are some things like immigration and health care where the president would be better if the Congress was a little bit more balanced.
Because if you're depending on entirely Republicans, the Republicans have to get everything they want or they won't do anything.
So I think if he could negotiate, all right, look, if you guys on the right aren't giving me what we want, I've got a way to get the guys on the left.
Which one of you wants to work with me?
So this president, much like, correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill Clinton had a similar situation, right?
I'm not good on the political history, so fact check me on this.
I believe Bill Clinton did well with more of a balanced Congress, because he negotiated well.
Am I right about that? So when you worry about the results, yeah, triangulation, if you worry about what happens if Republicans lose the Congress, I have to say, I'm not worried about that.
Because I don't think that you can do a straight line projection and say, oh, Republicans lost control of the House, therefore, X. I don't think there is a therefore, X. I think the president's negotiating power might improve.
I'm not sure. It's a little hard to predict.
Eisenhower too, somebody said.
I'll bet that's true. They will start impeachment over Nancy Pelosi's dead body.
So you said they'll start impeachment if they get the House.
Yes, over Nancy Pelosi's dead body.
Because she knows, and the leadership knows, it's a stupid play.
When the economy's zooming and other things are going well, you don't do your impeachment thing.
Now, if there's some new news that we haven't heard about, all bets are off.
But if things stay about the way they are, impeachment's not going to happen.
And if they did, who cares?
Who cares? The Senate isn't going to do anything with it.
it doesn't remove him from office, right?
Um, you helped me pee in public.
Uh, uh, You may be surprised that will be the comment that I'm going to talk about right now.
So somebody just said that I help them use, I assume that means use a public restroom.
I've mentioned before that there's something like 5% of the world who has Shia bladder or pyresis is the official name.
And what that is is literally an inability to urinate in public like in a public restroom.
And you can imagine what a big problem that would be.
And I've said before that I suffered from that for most of my adult life until my brother came out of the water closet, as he likes to say, and said that he had the same thing.
I went my entire adult life without knowing That my brother had exactly the same condition and my father did too.
I learned it later in life.
Now once I learned that it was both normal and that it had a name and that millions of people had it, it instantly changed my feeling about it.
I went from thinking, oh my god, I'm some kind of a freak.
Why am I the only person in the world who can't use a public restroom?
Like, I physically can't.
There's no amount of trying harder that would make it work.
And once you realize that it's a completely well-known normal condition, Then all of the sort of shame, embarrassment, the psychological part just vanishes.
And now I used to be like in total fear that if I was, let's say, out to dinner and I'd say, oh, I'm going to use the restaurant, you know, hoping nobody's in there, that somebody at the table, another guy would say, oh, yeah, I've got to use it too.
And it would go stand next to me and then I can't do it.
And I don't want to explain why I can't because it'd be embarrassing.
That whole thing went away the moment I realized it's just a normal medical condition.
So now that situation happens and I stand up and someone says, oh, I've got to go too.
I go, oh, I can't pee when other people are there.
I've got a shy bladder.
You go first or I'll go after you or whatever.
And to a person Nobody ever judges you for that.
They just don't judge you.
I would say at least a third of the time people say I have the same problem.
Yeah, it's the same thing.
And so simply acknowledging that it's a real thing that lots of people have probably reduced the impact of it by two-thirds.
So I'm sorry for those of you who don't have this problem to have to listen to it, but what I'm doing here in real time while you're watching happening is I'm actually curing probably thousands of people.
Alright, so let's say 30,000 people watch this.
Probably at least 2-3,000 people who have this problem and are listening to me and they're saying, oh my god, he's a famous guy who's actually talking about this on camera and it doesn't bother him a bit.
And that... It's going to make it bother you less, too.
Because you realize it's psychological.
All of our biggest problems are psychological.
Now, there is sort of a physical connection to your brain, so nothing is completely psychological.
There's something about the way we're wired that's different.
But once you've realized that you're normal and that you can just use the stall or wait till people are gone or tell people you can't use it and just use it later, Once you realize you can just work around it and nobody's going to judge you for it, and if they do, well, screw them.
It doesn't really matter. Then you're two-thirds of the way to a solution.
The rest of it is just practice.
And by the way, the best way to practice is after working out.
Go to the gym. Get a good workout on and then go directly to practice and keep your headphones in.
Put you into your own little world.
You'll be amazed that you can do things you didn't know you could do.
Alright, so I'm done curing 3,000 people of the biggest problem that they have in their life.
And by the way, that's completely accurate.
You just watched...
I swear this is true.
You just watched me two-thirds cure...
Probably 3,000 people in real time.
That just happened while you were watching.
That's real. I swear to God, that just happened while you were watching.
Alright. That's all for now.
▲
Export Selection