Episode 1203 Scott Adams: Biden's Foot, Data Anomalies, Opening Schools, Who Took the Utah Monolith?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Cover story for Biden foot injury?
Strong claims of election fraud emerging
2 Curious election facts
47% Believe enough fraud to steal election
Cheap home COVID test kits
The future of home building
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Better put my ring on before somebody asks me about it.
And how would you like to start this morning?
The best way? Yeah, why would you do it any other way?
The best way is with a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a steinic anti-junk or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Except your Utah monolith.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Oh yeah, that's good stuff.
Well, let's talk about all the things that are happening.
I hope you all saw the story about a mysterious metal obelisk that appeared in the Utah desert.
Now, here's the strange part.
It was a famous in the news obelisk It was about the size that a few strong people could pick it up and put it in a truck.
It was unguarded and valuable because it was famous.
What are the odds that somebody would steal a valuable, because it's famous, movable, unguarded object in the middle of the desert?
Now, if you think that somebody...
May have taken it.
I think you need to prove it.
I think you need to prove that somebody went in there and took that.
Because I don't see any evidence.
It's just a thing that was 100% likely to be stolen.
So, like your election, if there's something of high value and it is largely unprotected, do you have to wonder if somebody's going to take it?
Do you have to think real hard and say, huh, there's an unprotected, valuable asset in the middle of the desert where everybody can find it.
Do people take it?
Huh. Yes.
People take it.
People take it.
And indeed, it looks great in my living room.
Let me tell you that. Um...
So I was talking yesterday on Twitter about whether you could prove a negative, and this is one of those examples.
You know, you can't prove that that obelisk is going to be stolen, but do you need to?
How much proof from me would you need in advance to know that that obelisk would be stolen if it were famous and unguarded and you could pick it up?
So I was arguing that sometimes, in special cases, you can know that something happened without any evidence.
Because it's the situation.
It guarantees it.
So Gregory Towns on Twitter decided to challenge me on that idea that sometimes you do know something happened, even if you don't have direct evidence.
And he said this in a tweet, he said, has anyone debunked the very credible and serious allegation that Scott Adams had sex with a goat?
Except he didn't say sex, he used a naughty word.
And so, has anyone debunked that credible allegation that I've had sex with a goat?
So my first instinct was to tweet back wittily that that was false, and that I've never gotten past second base with a goat.
Later I realized that you would have to have some farming experience to know why that is so hilarious.
Because in order to milk a goat, you kind of have to get to second base, if you know what I mean.
So those who did not have farming backgrounds were not too impressed by that joke, so I followed up with the second one.
And you can choose which of these hilarious replies you like better.
So... Instead of saying I never got past second base, I decided on the second reply about the allegation that I can't prove I did not have sex with a goat, and I said, my mistake.
It was horny and eating garbage, so I mistook it for your mom.
So, why do people say witty things to cartoonists on Twitter?
I don't know. It's like walking into a narrow ravine.
It feels like it's just too easy.
In other news, you want to hear the biggest news in the world?
It's the biggest news in the world.
Nay, not the biggest news in the world, the biggest news in reality itself.
Yeah. And it goes like this.
I have often been asked, if we were living in a simulated world, and this were just some kind of computer simulation that we think is real but it's not, how would you know?
Could you prove it?
Well, I don't know if proof is the right word, but there are things that you should look for if we are a simulation.
And one of the most obvious things you should look for is that we can create the past.
In other words, the past doesn't exist objectively because we were just invented in a certain period of time, if we're a simulation.
Which means that if we were to examine our past, the past would actually not exist until we started looking for it.
Because the computer program would not go through all the effort of creating a detailed history if nobody ever cared.
So that's the way you would write a simulation.
You would only code the parts that would matter, and you wouldn't code anything nobody would look at, nobody would care about.
So, if we ever discovered, in scientific terms, that you could change the past, not change what you know about the past, but actually change the past, we would be a simulation.
Now that alone wouldn't be the one piece of proof, but it's a pretty big one.
And it turns out that there is exactly that kind of experiment, where it can be proven that two observers can observe an objective past which is different.
Meaning that they can look at something that's proven, I mean really just proven, two different people in two places, And they can see for sure a past that's different.
One of them sees a past that's different from the others, and they're both proven.
Two different objective pasts.
Can't both be true, right?
If we were just one reality, there would be one past exactly.
There would be no alternative pasts.
There would just be one. But now science has proven.
That there can be at least two in this one example.
Now, I tweeted it. It's a Deepak Chopra tweet, so look for that.
I tweeted it yesterday if you want to follow up on that.
But the reason I say that this experiment shows that the past can be programmed is that one of those two observers went first.
So one of the observers went first and solidified a past That's now done.
So that past is completely solidified.
The second observer comes in and rewrites the past.
Changes it. Because it used to be one thing was true, and the second observer made a second thing which is 100% incompatible with the first thing.
They can't both exist, but they do.
That is creating the past.
And so, we are a simulation.
Maybe. Alright, there's a story that Biden sprained his ankle, but then it turned into a hairline fracture on his foot.
And the story was that it happened when he was playing with his big old dog.
Now, does that sound true to you?
Do you think that he injured himself playing with his dog?
Totally possible.
Do I have any information that would suggest that this is not true?
That he didn't injure himself playing with his dog?
I have no information that would suggest that's not true.
I will simply point out that if it weren't true, This is just hypothetical.
If, let's say, he just fell down or tripped in an old man way, which is pretty common for old men and old women, right?
If that happened, again, just hypothetical, I'm not saying you did, what kind of story would your handlers make up that would be a perfect lie?
What is the perfect lie?
Well, the perfect lie would be, number one, something slightly athletic, something active, something a young person does.
But if that thing had been, let's say, going for a run, or that thing had been going for a bicycle ride, there would be evidence, because whenever the president-elect allegedly leaves home, there's going to be reporters and stuff.
So they couldn't go with the story of an athletic event because people would know it didn't happen.
So you have to come up with something that would be active and young and athletic that would just sort of happen around the house where nobody was watching.
So what do you do?
Well, what's the most vital, manly thing you could do?
Rough housing with your very large dogs.
Perfect. Perfect.
Now, again, I'm not saying that the story is false.
I'm just saying that whenever you see a story that's just a little bit too perfect, you have to ask yourself, is this one of those times that reality serves up a story that's a little bit too perfect?
Or are you seeing a cover story?
No, no. Well, when I saw that Biden had hurt his foot, I said to myself, Biden thinks he's president-elect, but his doctors gave him the boot.
He's actually wearing a boot now for his bad foot.
And I said, Biden protested, but he didn't have a leg to stand on.
No. And those were not that funny, but I wasn't done yet.
No, I'm not done.
The final one, I think I'll end it on this one, is I don't see how Biden could ever win in court.
He has no standing.
I think that one I like the best.
And I'm not going to go with Trump had the agony of defeat, but Biden has the agony of defoot, because that's too ordinary.
That's one you could have done yourself.
You don't need a professional for that one.
No. You need a professional for he has no standing.
That's the difference between the amateur and the professional.
Alright. There is more an increasingly number of accusations of specific fraud in the election.
There are now two forms of accusations.
I'm going to put them in two buckets because I like dividing things into two buckets.
Don't you? You know you do.
You like dividing things into two buckets.
So I'm going to do that. Bucket number one are the allegations of fraud that are pretty unlikely.
Let's say that one bucket has fraud allegations that largely are debunked.
But then there's another bucket with what I call the good stuff.
I told you in the beginning That 95% of all the allegations you would see, now remember I said this in the beginning, before the allegations were all out there, I said, 95% of whatever you're about to hear will not be true.
How'd I do? How was my prediction that 95% of the claims of fraud would be debunked?
I think I'm right on.
I think I'm right on.
I tweeted a series of debunks for some of the main claims that the president makes, actually, and that other people make on his behalf.
Now, because there are credible-looking debunk claims to a whole bunch of allegation frauds, what's that tell you?
Does that tell you that all of the allegation frauds are not true?
Because there are 13 of the most common ones you've heard, and they've got pretty good debunking.
Now I can't...
Validate the claim, and I can't validate the debunk, and most of us are in the same boat, right?
But when you read the debunk, it does look pretty convincing, because it's usually stuff like, uh, you looked in the wrong column.
So go to this website, and you can see for yourself that you just looked in the wrong column.
Now, if that's your debunk, I don't even bother looking because that's such a bold claim that you looked in the wrong column and you can see for yourself, here's the link.
That's probably a good debunk.
Not definitely, but probably.
If you have limited time, I would say that if somebody offers that debunk, that's probably true.
All right? So, most of the things that President Trump claimed, such as dead people voting, has been debunked.
Does that mean that there is no dead person who voted in this election?
Of course not. Of course some dead person voted in this election, because it's possible, and it's a big country.
But there is no evidence that enough dead people voted to change the election.
So that's the kind of claim that you'll see debunked.
So there are about 13 of them, and I would call them the weak claims, and you would expect that you would have seen more of them in the beginning of the process, and you would see if there are any strong claims, if strong claims exist, you would expect to see them about now.
Because it takes a while to put that stuff together.
And sure enough, the strong claims, the ones that I've been telling you, I could get a little bit of a preview because I knew they were being prepared.
The strong claims are starting to come out.
So you would look to people like Matt Brainerd for the strong claims.
Now, the strong claims are in the form of data anomalies.
And you're seeing some debunks of the strong claims.
But here's what you want to look for.
The strong anomaly claims tend to get a little complicated, and if you're not a data analyst, you can get lost pretty easily.
Unfortunately, It's the complexity of the claim, and the fact we're not data analysts, most of us, allows the debunkers to say absolutely anything about the claim, and you and I can't tell the difference.
So now I've read the claims of the anomalous data, and I've read the attempted debunk of those claims, and I'm not qualified to really judge either one of them.
But what I think I see...
Is that the debunk is strawmanning the actual real allegation.
Meaning that the allegation, and I'll try to get as close as I can to this, but I'm way over my depth, so do some fact-checking on this.
You're going to need it. But there's a claim that late Batches of votes that came in certain cities were anomalous, meaning that there was something unusual about these late-night dumps.
Now, I believe that the strong claim says we understand, and everybody understood, that there would be big batches coming in.
So the claim is not that a big batch came in at night, okay?
The debunk says there's a reason that Big Batch came in at night.
Everybody knew it would.
That's not a debunk, because it's not the claim.
The claim is not that we didn't expect a lot of votes to come in, but that's what they debunked.
Not really the claim.
It is also not the claim that it would be unusual if 95% of those votes that came in, given the places they came from, Well, if we're not doubting the number of them...
And you're not doubting that 95% of them were for Biden, aren't we done?
What's left to doubt?
Wasn't that the claim?
That there were a lot of them, and they were 95% for Biden, and that's anomalous.
Then the debunkers say, no, we understand completely why there were so many votes that came in late.
Everybody expected it.
And we expected that they would be overwhelmingly for Biden, just like happened.
But that's not exactly the claim.
So watch how often this happens, that the debunk is just a couple of degrees off from what the claim is.
And if you didn't know the details of the claim and you didn't understand the debunk, you would think that that debunk applied to the claim.
But not quite.
I'm going to do a bad job of this, but I'm going to do the best I can of trying to interpret what I think I read.
So give this low credibility relative to other things that I say.
And it goes like this.
Getting 95% of those big batches of late votes for Biden is indeed not that unusual.
Meaning that it is unusual, but it's not impossible.
Especially when you have a president who's pretty provocative.
But here's the claim.
That if you go from 95% Biden votes, which is possible, I mean, could happen, to 98%, you've gone from something that's highly unlikely to something that just can't fucking happen.
And that's the claim.
I believe. I believe that's right.
Now, I need a fact check on that.
But if you don't do data analysis and you don't understand how a big batch can change a small batch or a small batch doesn't change a big batch, you don't understand the number stuff.
Somebody says the host sounds high.
No, that would be later today.
I usually don't get high before Periscope or YouTube.
So there's the nature of the claim, and I think you should take what I just described as more of an example of the point as opposed to being right.
So is it true that going from 95, which would be unlikely, but maybe, to 98 moves it from possible to not really possible?
That's the claim. So every time you see somebody say, Scott, you idiot, Everybody knew there would be tons of votes coming in late at night.
True, but not the point.
If everybody says Scott, Scott, you knew it was going to be overwhelmingly Biden, those ones that came in late at night.
True, not really the point.
Do you see where I'm going on this?
We will be so confused by the data anomalies and that analysis that you just won't know what's going on.
And I don't even know if the data analysts will.
Let me ask you this.
If, as is almost guaranteed, let me tell you something that is so guaranteed that you could put a huge bet on it.
The data analysts, in the end, will disagree.
Right? Is there any doubt that very high-end top analysts with Ivy League degrees and tons of history doing this exact kind of math and statistics, don't you know with complete certainty that there will be experts at that highest caliber on both sides of this in the end?
Not just in the beginning, Where they are now.
You expect it in the beginning, because there's still a little fog of war, right?
But you also, if you live in the real world, you know that when we get to the end of this, there's still going to be highest qualified experts on both sides.
You know that's true, right?
Does anybody doubt that?
Because to doubt that, you would have to be very young.
To say it in the most kind way I can.
So, do you follow the experts?
They're not going to agree.
So that's another one of those when-do-you-follow-the-experts questions.
Alright, so be aware that there are really good debunks for most of the claims of fraud.
But there are some things which there are debunks, but they're not quite on point.
And you have to ask yourself why.
And also ask yourself if the good...
Oh, and one of the ones that's being questioned, you're seeing that people saying there were only four cities, and I've said this one myself, but it appears to be not true, only four cities in which these anomalies happened.
And so that's part of the debunk.
It's like, no... You look at these other cities and you can see the same thing you're claiming for the four cities is actually more widespread.
To which I say, again, that's not really the debunk.
Because if it happened in the four cities, that's all it needed to happen.
It doesn't matter that it might have also happened in some other places.
That's not a debunk.
It is definitely saying that a detail is inaccurate.
That it only happened in four places.
It's possible that that detail is accurate, but that doesn't really debunk the larger claim, I think.
What are the odds that the guy figuring this out, his last name, would be Brain Nerd?
Well, it's a simulation.
All right. Here are two interesting facts.
And I want you to see if you can figure out why I put these two interesting facts together.
Number one fact.
Trump doubled his share of black voters compared to 2016.
Everybody agrees with that, right?
I don't think that's being doubted.
Even his critics agree that he doubled his black voter support since 2016.
So that's your first fact.
Here's the second fact.
And this one is an allegation.
So it's a fact that it's alleged.
It's not a fact that it's true.
It might be. I just don't know.
So it's just a fact that it's alleged, okay?
It's alleged that most of the anomalous votes for Biden were associated with black identities.
In other words, it appears That Trump may have doubled his black support, but if it's true that the fraud was focused in black identities, which would mean black non-voters in the past,
I think, who had been fraudulently brought onto ballots as if they had voted, but people who have never voted in the past are the group that is least likely to check on it later.
And least likely to notice that somebody had voted in their name, because they're so uninterested they've never even voted once.
So, it's possible, I'm not going to allege that this is a fact, okay?
I'm just going to say it's possible, that not only did Trump double his share of black votes, but did he notice that it still wasn't as high As maybe something like the Rasmussen poll would have suggested ahead of time.
Because Rasmussen was showing Trump's black support at higher than 20% for a long time.
But the final vote didn't get quite as high as the Rasmussen.
So is it possible that Trump's actual percentage of black vote is even way higher than The report.
Because if where the cheating was focused was in historically non-voting black citizens, that would add a whole bunch of fake, hypothetically, would add a bunch of fake votes to Biden, which would make Trump's percentages look artificially low.
If you were going to cheat Trump and you wanted to cheat in a way that when people looked at it after the fact, They wouldn't notice.
Where would you do it?
Where would be the least noticeable and most believable anomaly, if you want to call it that?
In other words, where would you put an anomaly that people wouldn't think was an anomaly?
Well, take these two things.
Ahead of the election, Trump was scoring on credible surveys 20-30% black voter support.
Crazy, right?
Based on everything we know and think, it doesn't seem possible that he could have had that much black voter support ahead of the election.
But has Rasmussen proven that they're polling both in 2016 and this time?
Have they proven to be reliable compared to other polls?
Yes. I would say that that's just a fact, that Rasmussen is more reliable than other polls.
And they were saying black support for Trump could be not just higher than before, but crazy.
Like, unbelievable crazy.
That's what Rasmussen was sort of hinting at.
Now, in the end, was Trump's black voter support crazy?
No, it was just impressive.
And there's a really big difference between impressive, holy cow, you doubled your voter support, but it was doubled from a low base, right?
It's easier to double 1% than it is to double 80%.
So there's a question there.
There is a difference between what you could have imagined his vote would have been and what it was, even though it doubled.
So if I were going to hide...
Fake votes.
That's exactly where I would hide them.
Because after the fact, you say to yourself, huh, well, I guess that Rasmussen poll was way off.
Because the Rasmussen poll never really quite felt like it matched your observation.
Because you think, I watch CNN, and I'm not really seeing something that would look like 30% black support.
I mean, the poll is dependable because it's a Rasmussen poll.
They repeated it. They did it week after week.
Same result. You know, it wasn't like one week.
It was crazy, and then it went back to normal.
Nothing like that. There is still a gigantic mystery about why Rasmussen was so accurate in so many ways, and yet the black support seemed a little less than you might have expected.
All right. I am going to nominate for the dumbest insult on Twitter, the word grifter.
You know, I've been called a grifter, basically everybody in politics has been called a grifter.
And here's why this is the dumbest insult in politics.
It's a little bit like saying, it's like, you know, water is wet.
It doesn't really say anything.
Because we live in a world in which people merge their passions with their occupation.
You see me doing it right now.
The reason I do this is because I enjoy it, and I'm interested, and I think maybe I can add something to the system that would be part of the greater good.
But I also Because it started making a big impact and the audience was getting bigger, etc.
I did what anybody would do in my situation.
I said, oh, if I put this on YouTube, I could make money.
I'm doing it anyway.
I mean, I don't think I would do anything differently.
But if I just turn on this switch over here, money starts showing up in my bank account.
So I think, okay, I'll turn on that switch.
Why wouldn't I? Because I think I do do a better job if people are showing that kind of visible support.
It just makes me feel, oh, not only do people like it when I do it, they're willing to pay for it.
And then it takes me to a whole different level of effort and professionalism, if you can even call it that.
So calling anybody a grifter, if they're talking about politics...
But have also found a way to monetize it, is really just saying nothing.
Because pretty much 100% of the people that you see at some level talking about politics are monetizing it.
Why wouldn't they?
Is that a crime?
Don't we live in a system where you're supposed to do that?
I mean, if you see an opportunity to monetize something you were doing anyway, if you don't monetize it, You're not really smart.
So I would say that a bigger insult would be, are you too dumb to monetize what you were doing anyway?
All right. Dr.
Fauci is saying we should keep the schools open, and that feels like a bit of a shift in terms of emphasis.
I think for a while, not for a while, but I think he's always said that you want to do everything you can to keep schools open if you can, given the risk, reward, etc.
So it's not like he went from closed schools to open schools, but he's a little more Full-throated about it now.
So if you're keeping score, here's the score so far from the experts.
Experts have so far been wrong about when to close China travel.
Trump was ahead of the experts on that.
The experts have changed on mask effectiveness from it doesn't work to it does.
They thought remdesivir was probably going to be the good stuff and it isn't.
They thought vaccine timelines would be, you know, a year to five years and they were completely wrong.
And of course they've largely ignored rapid testing as important, which is wrong.
And they thought maybe there wouldn't be lasting immunity if you've already been infected.
They appear to be wrong about that.
We don't know how lasting, but lasting enough anyway.
And now opinions on schools seem to be moving more toward that would be safe.
So if you were to compare the experts, they got a lot wrong.
Maybe they still have a lot wrong.
We don't know. Because we don't know where they are on the curve.
If they start in the fog of war and they're wrong about most things, forgive them.
Our experts are not magic.
They don't have magic powers.
So in the fog of war, they're going to get a bunch of stuff wrong and you should forgive them completely.
For getting stuff wrong in the fog of war.
Nobody can get everything right in the fog of war.
Complete forgiveness is appropriate.
But as time goes by, you know, they have time to experiment and learn more, etc., and they're getting smarter.
But during this time, I would just like to note that Senator Rand Paul, who has disagreed with the experts on a few occasions, he hasn't been wrong yet.
I'm just putting that out there.
Rand Paul, if you're paying attention to who is making predictions and statements in public about important things, you want to keep track of your track record, right?
That's why I tell you you should make your predictions in public and then go check them later.
I'm just saying that Rand Paul has now created a, let's say, a history of Of being far superior in predicting and understanding the world compared to the experts in the field.
Now he's got a physician's background, so that's not the biggest surprise in the world, because he's got credentials.
But keep that in mind, right?
If there's somebody who continues to be right time after time, And there is another class that continues to be wrong half the time.
Keep that in mind.
All right. I saw Kyle Kashuv tweeting this.
Will Kaepernick...
Denounce Nike for using slave labor.
Now, I don't know. Is there a new story?
I didn't see it in the headlines.
Is there some kind of new story about Nike and slave labor?
It's a good question, even if it's not a new story.
Doesn't Nike maybe use some China labor that's a little sketchy?
Are there any Uyghurs making Nike stuff?
I don't know. Are there? Does anybody know?
Would anybody know?
Would Nike even know? I don't know if anybody knows that stuff.
But it's a good question.
How can Kaepernick support Nike if it's true?
And I'm not making this allegation, so I'm asking you if there's some news about it that I haven't seen.
All right. Forget about that.
Geraldo Rivera was tweeting that the president is allowing some stuff to be moved already from the White House.
Some stuff being moved in, some stuff being moved out.
I don't quite understand why it's happening now, though.
Doesn't that seem too early?
How do you run the government between now and inauguration if people are moving their stuff out of the White House?
I don't know. But at least it shows that the president has every intention Of a peaceful transition, assuming the process plays out that way.
Speaking of Rasmussen, they say that almost half, 47%, of U.S. likely voters now believe there was enough fraud to ensure Biden would win.
47% of the country believes that the election was fraudulent and fraudulent enough to change the outcome.
That includes 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats, which is really the surprising part.
If you told me in advance 47% of likely voters thought it was fraudulent, I would have said, oh, big deal.
47%? Isn't that, coincidentally, the same number of Republicans?
Surprise! All Republicans are on one side and all Democrats are on the other side.
Surprise! But that's not the surprise.
The surprise is that only 75% of Republicans think this election was fraudulent.
Who are those other 25%?
Who are the 25% of Republicans who think this was a fair election?
I haven't met one yet.
Have you? Have you met a Republican who thought it was a fair election?
I know they exist, because I've seen some people writing about it, etc.
But I haven't met one.
So 25% seems like a surprising number to me.
Could be. Not impossible.
Just surprises me. But 30% of Democrats think the election was stolen.
That's the surprising number.
30% of Democrats.
So, here's my question to you.
The House of Representatives, they represent the people.
The House of Representatives, they have an obligation to the law and the Constitution, of course.
But their highest obligation is to the people and the Republic.
If you are the Republicans in the House, are you going to accept an electoral college result in which 47% of the likely voters believe there was enough fraud to change the election outcome?
Can you do that?
I would say that the president has now created a situation in which he has an unobstructed path to the presidency.
What will change that, or what would be the obstruction, I guess, is not the law and not public opinion, and not that the process or the system has steps to allow it to happen.
The part that will derail this, if it gets derailed, is that I believe the courts...
We'll not want to rock the boat.
Meaning I think the court will find some reason, because they can always find a reason, to put Biden in office even though they don't believe he won, or that the evidence doesn't prove he won, or that they're not confident in the outcome.
But I think they'll just go for stability over...
I think you'll see the courts go for stability over technical accuracy.
I made an accusation on Twitter that I'm going to stay with, and I'll tell you why.
I made the prediction that the reason that we don't already have cheap, rapid tests that you can do at home...
Do you know, by now, in almost December...
That we don't have these rapid test strips that you can just go to the CVS, go to the drugstore, buy a dozen of them for 20 bucks, test yourself as much as you want.
Okay, maybe it's not the most accurate test, but you've got 12 of them.
So you can test yourself every day.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
But if you have it, if you've got the virus, and you test yourself 12 times, you're probably going to catch it sooner than if you didn't have these test kits.
So the idea It's perfectly sound.
The technology apparently is very doable.
You can make these in the lab.
It's not that hard. And I'm told that the reason we don't have these yet is that the FDA requires every test to meet medical device specifications.
So in other words, there's some high hurdles that the people who could easily make these inexpensive but not that accurate tests, they can't meet these hurdles.
And here's one of them. An example of the hurdles is that you need to separately qualify a rapid antigen test for both symptomatic and asymptomatic.
And it's hard to do some testing of asymptomatic people because you don't know who to test.
You would have to sort of blindly just test, I don't know, thousands of people and hope there were some asymptomatic people in that group.
So it's hard to test. But we live in a world in which the Trump administration is willing to remove any regulation or rule that gets in the way of solving the pandemic.
You saw the Trump administration do it lots of times, right?
Oh, that's stopping us from getting there?
We'll get rid of that rule. You can't have...
There's some rule against telemedicine across state lines.
That's stupid. Get rid of that rule.
So we know that the Trump administration can get rid of rules if it makes sense to do so.
Full transparency, right?
They're doing it right in front of the public, saying, yes, this rule doesn't make sense anymore in a pandemic.
We're just going to get rid of it.
That's what happened with telehealth across state lines.
Didn't make sense. So they just got rid of it.
Could the Trump administration recognize this problem and just get rid of those requirements and just say, okay, okay, these are not really medical test devices.
Just put a label on it that says it's only 80% effective or whatever they are, and we're good.
Just put the label on it that says what it is and what it isn't, and just go ahead and make them.
Do you think that the FDA could do that, or the government in general, let's say, working with the FDA, do you think they could do that and that they understand the argument?
Now, those of you who are saying, but wait, if it's only 80% accurate, that's no good.
I don't know what the real number is, but let's use that.
To which I say that you don't understand the argument.
The argument is if you've got a cupboard full of cheap tests, it doesn't matter if they're only 80% effective because you can do one every day.
If it didn't work on Tuesday, well, there's a pretty good chance it'll catch it on Wednesday, and you still got it faster than if you didn't know you had it, and you weren't testing at all because you don't have any symptoms.
Could the government understand the argument, agree with the argument, and change the rules fairly easily so the industry, which knows how to make these test strips, could just start making them and just put a warning label on it so you know what you're getting?
What is the obstacle to this happening?
There have been articles in major publications, including Time Magazine, where Michael Mina explains why this is a good thing and why it can be done and why you could basically crush coronavirus by Christmas if we did it.
Now, here's why...
I say that the most likely explanation for why we haven't done this thing which, as I explained it, sounds like we obviously should have done it.
What is the reason we didn't do it if we know that removing rules and regulations, we know we can do that?
What would be the reason?
I don't know the reason.
But I'll tell you this.
If we, the public, had been presented with a good argument, which says, yes, we have these rules that make it hard to do, but we need to keep these rules, and here's my reason.
If I'd heard the argument, even if I didn't agree with it necessarily, I would say to myself, oh, well, it could be incompetence, or it could be my incompetence.
It could be that I thought it was a good idea, But these smart professionals looked at it and said it wasn't.
But the good news is they communicated.
Here's the key point.
They communicated.
It was an important idea that was raised by professionals, reported in major publications.
Doesn't your government need to report to you what they think of this important idea that could end the pandemic?
Do you think that your government can just ignore An idea for ending the pandemic by December?
Just ignore it?
Because they know it, right?
They've heard it. There's no question that the administration has heard the idea, but if you heard why they're not doing it, have they ever announced, thank you for this idea, we've looked into it, this is why we're not doing it?
No, you haven't.
At least as far as I know, and I've been tracking this and I haven't seen it, And so, I take the only assumption that you can, given this set of facts.
Something criminal is happening.
Something fraudulent or criminal.
There's either a bribe, or somebody has a job lined up after this administration, or they sit on a board of some pharmaceutical company that would be harmed by doing this, or something.
There's something happening here that That screams a fraud.
And until it's explained to us, the public, I believe that it is both right and rational to assume that the Trump administration is engaged in, and I don't mean Trump himself, I doubt he's in the details of this topic, but somewhere in the administration, It seems to me there's a screaming red flag for massive criminal-like, but maybe legal, corruption.
So, for those of you who have been bothering me for years and saying, why don't you ever criticize the Trump administration?
Why do you only say good things?
I don't. This is a pretty good example.
I'm accusing them in public Of massive, probable fraud, or something that's close enough to fraud, whether it's technically illegal, that it should be stopped, whatever it is.
Now, somebody mentioned Pence.
Do I think that Pence is compromised?
No. No, I don't.
Do I think that Trump knows the details of what I just described?
Nope. I don't.
He would know what the FDA tells him, probably.
So I don't blame Trump specifically, except that the boss always takes the responsibility.
Alright, here's a little experiment for you if you really want to get into some conspiracy theory stuff on climate change.
Here would be a little experiment that I don't think anybody will do, but it would be fascinating.
Start recording the difference between the temperature at your house On the mercury thermometer that's just always in the same place around your house, outdoors.
And what your phone tells you is the temperature.
You know, if you ask your digital device or you check your computer, what's the temperature in my town?
Now your specific house and the placement of your specific thermometer doesn't mean that's going to match the official temperature of your town.
Probably off a degree or two, you know, at least.
So you start measuring the difference.
And don't worry that they're a little bit different because one is an average and one is your specific thermometer.
And then start measuring them for years every day and see if that difference starts to increase.
So that's the conspiracy theory part.
Because the temperature that you get from your digital device goes through some common database that has some officialness on it, right?
Whereas your mercury thermometer that's outside on the corner of your house is just you looking at the thermometer.
So your mercury thermometer probably won't change physically, and it can't be influenced by politics.
But the official reported numbers can be influenced by politics.
And so, if you saw that the computer reported numbers is climbing higher and your temperature on your house is not 10 years from now, you would have detected maybe a little bit of bias in the official reporting.
Don't know. I'm just saying that I'm just saying that that would be something that I'd want to keep an eye on.
Alright, I'm going to close out with my idea of where building homes is going to be in the future.
You've seen probably videos.
Of 3D printed homes.
It's like a giant 3D arm that they put in the middle and then it just swirls around and it prints sort of this like fake concrete wall and makes a house.
I don't believe that's the future.
I don't believe that a 3D printed house can ever work.
Because you have too many reasons to want to change your house.
You want to add a window, knock down a wall, etc.
And it looks like once these 3D printed houses are built, it would be pretty messy to change a wall or add a door or any of that stuff.
And that happens so much that I think it's just impractical to just print a house.
But here's what I think will happen instead.
The 3D printer or printers will be put in the middle of what will be a housing development, and it will print the parts as needed to build.
But those parts will be smallish, and one person can pick them up and snap it together.
And it would snap together in a Lego-like way so that your homeowner could build their own home just going over to the central 3D printer.
So you wake up in the morning.
The printer's been going all night.
And when you go to work in the morning, there's a new pile of parts.
And these parts are exactly the ones you need next.
So it's not the ones that you store until you need them.
They're the ones you need today.
And that's the only thing that got printed.
And the instructions come with them.
And you walk in, you say, okay, this block is for the west wall, and when you go three blocks up, replace that one with the special blocks that have conduit for the electrical.
And you go, oh, okay, show me the YouTube video.
You look at it for about 10 seconds, you go, okay, west wall, dump, bump, and you walk over and you just do, do, do, do, and that's what you do today.
Now, could a 3D printer print your doorknobs?
Yes. Could a 3D printer print your metal faucets?
Yes. Could a 3D printer print every single part of your house separately that you could snap them together without cutting and without using a hammer to nail anything?
I think yes.
Now, if the houses that were built We're pre-designed from a certain set of homes that engineers and architects had already tested and vetted and it would pass everything.
Then how hard is it to get it built?
I feel as though somebody says you would need a different 3D printer.
I think that's right. So you might need one that does one kind of material, say metal, and another one that does the wall material, etc., Alright, so this is my suggestion.
And then once your community has been built out, you take those several 3D printers, and you move them to a new community, and you just start again.
Yeah, different nozzles for different materials, right?
Now, I saw, and I tweeted this around, a new 3D printer that is so cool, it blew my mind.
And I'm going to describe it for you.
So let's say you had an object and you wanted to print a duplicate of that object.
Today, your 3D printer would look at it and scan it all around, and that would start building from the bottom up a 3D representation.
It could take a long time.
There's a new version of a 3D printer It's going to make you mad that you didn't think of it.
Where you can take any object and you put it in the 3D printer.
It doesn't matter the dimensions of the object.
It just has to be small enough.
You put it in your 3D printer.
And then the 3D printer, let's see if I can do this visually.
I think I can. Drops on top of it a bunch of 3D printed goo that goes on top of it.
And because it's goo, it wraps around it just because it's sort of liquid.
It just wraps around it.
And then it creates a mold so that now you can just inject that mold and you make as many of these as you want.
Now that would be making something that's only this on the outside.
I'm not talking about printing the guts of what's in here, just the outsides.
But when you see breakthroughs like that, you can imagine that you could take one Lego, stick it in the machine, and have this machine just make you another one.
Now, the other thing that you would want to do in these communities that are built by 3D printers is make them standardized so that later, a year from now, when your doorknob falls off, that you just print another doorknob or there's one just like it.
So you don't have that many options.
Yes, it's a vacuum mold.
That is correct. All right, that's all for now.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
All right, Periscope is off.
Yeah.
And YouTube, you're still here with me?
That's right, it's YouTube chat time.
Housing cost is mainly location value, not building cost.
Well, that's certainly true if you're on the beach or something.
But how much land do we have in the United States that you could build if you had good Wi-Fi, You had water and you could get to an airport and electricity and that's all.
If you were going to work from home on your computer, you have the option of being able to just go somewhere where they can build On cheap land.
In fact, there is so much free land in inner cities, it's free.
Now, the local politicians are crooked, so good luck getting it.
But where Bill Pulte has cleared off the urban decay, There are places that have just been cleared and the value of the land is almost nothing.
So there are plenty of places to build for almost free in terms of land.
How could I red pill my wife?
I should do a special on doing exactly that.
Why do builders make huge houses?
Let me tell you about builders.
So the objective of a builder is to sell a house.
They don't have to live in the houses that they sold.
So when you go to a model home and you're walking through it and you're thinking, oh, I might want to buy one like this model, you're not really looking at it as critically as you could.
You're not really asking yourself, if I need a broom, how far do I have to walk?
You're just looking at sort of the space and the colors and the location and stuff.
So a builder doesn't really need to build a house that fits your needs.
They only need to build a house that you want to buy.
Because you're not smart enough when you're just looking at a house to imagine all the ways you're using it and all the things that can go wrong and the efficiencies.
How hard will it be to do the maintenance on this part of the house?
Can you ever replace this?
Does this door open the wrong way?
You just don't notice when you're buying the house.
The first thing you need to know is that you would say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, we've had this free market for building houses for 100 years or whatever.
The free market has obviously improved homes to the point where You know, people are getting the best value that they can from the home.
Not even close. Nothing like that has happened.
Not even close.
Instead, home builders have learned what people will buy, which is a completely different decision from what's the best home to live in.
Not even close.
And you call the BS...
I saw something...
Let me go back to that comment.
There's a JHU, Ken says, study on death rates.
I'm an actual retired guy with an economics degree.
Okay, so you're smart.
And you called it BS last week.
Why will you not look at it?
Oh, they're all BS. So the reason...
There are some things that I refuse to look at, even if they're in a publication and somebody serious wrote them, because if it's not in mainstream publications, there's usually a reason.
Now, sometimes it's because somebody's suppressing something, but even then, it would at least be in the other mainstream media.
So in other words, if it's not on CNN and it's not on Fox...
Then people on the left and the right have looked at it and said, I don't think so.
So when you tell me that there's this outlier study, and I think what you're referring to is the idea that the net deaths did not go up, that would be the biggest story in the world.
And you're telling me that the biggest story in the world, which would completely clear President Trump of any bad anything, if it looked like there was no extra death rate at all, That would be the biggest story.
It would be all over Fox.
Rush would be talking about it.
So that doesn't mean that a brand new story won't become the story that's in all of those outlets.
But if it's been around a while, and it never made the leap, usually it's not worth looking at.
Scott, did you build your home?
Yes. So I designed this home and had a builder and an architect work with me to get it done.
Have I considered the Great Reset?
I'm calling bullshit on the Great Reset in terms of it being something that somebody planned in advance.
Have I ever tried magic mushrooms?
Yes. Once in my 20s, and it was the best day of my life and changed me forever.
I've talked about that quite a bit.
Biden injury happened at Great Falls.
Where did it happen?
In Virginia, and that is on Old Dominion Drive.
So the coincidences are happening because of the...
coincidences are happening.
All right. Well, I'm not worried about Klaus Schwab and anything he said about anything.
Uh... Somebody said agony of defeat is pedantic.
Good pun with pedantic.
Oh, so somebody's asking about Christina and holiday music.
Well, Christina is perfecting her holiday piano music, and she picks arrangements that are especially hard and complicated.
So when she plays, you know, jingle bells on the piano...
It's not the jingle bells that you hum where you go, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping.
It's a complicated one.
So I don't know what she's going to put on video or what she'll release, but it's sounding terrific right now.
Is Fox News dead with conservatives?
No, I don't think so.
This guy says both with an L.
Both.
Or both? Yeah, I do put an L in there, you're right.
I insert an L in the word both.
I wonder if that's a regional thing, or just a dumb thing.
