Episode 1214 Scott Adams: Fang Fang, Hunter Biden, Rapid Testing, CNN Versus Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Massive disinformation campaign impacted election
Eric Swalwell, Fang Fang and many questions
Government Facebook misdirection
Election fraud happened, guaranteed
Ivermectin as a therapeutic for COVID19
Michigan Rep. Cynthia A. Johnson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
That's right. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the best time of the day.
There was this one time that I thought it wouldn't be the best time of the day, but then I was wrong, and it was.
So, learn from history, will you?
Because it repeats in this particular way, and only this way.
This is the best time of the day, and it'll be better if you have a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug 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 of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better except Representative Swalwell.
It's called The Simultaneous Simple and Goes Now.
Join me. Well, that makes everything better.
Everything. Let me tell you what is the biggest delight, completely unexpected, about President Trump's probable change of careers, it looks like.
You know, I was sort of saying to myself, I sure would enjoy another four years of being entertained by President Trump.
But there is a consolation prize.
There's a consolation prize.
And it is that making fun of Democrats is sort of fun.
It's a little bit better than I was hoping.
And a lot of it has to do with the material they're serving up.
I'm going to say that President Trump did serve up some good material himself for his critics.
I think he'll have the best four years of any president, but he did serve up a lot of red meat for the critics.
Turns out that the Democrats are just as good serving up the good stuff.
Shall we dig in?
Yeah, we shall.
So, turns out that...
Hunter Biden might be in a little trouble.
And when I say he's in a little trouble, there are, within the category of what you might call financial crimes, there are a lot of categories.
So you might have your tax-related financial crimes, potentially.
Somebody might be laundering a little money.
That would be a financial crime.
Maybe, let's see, maybe you were...
Let's see. What are some other financial crimes?
Oh, having foreign ties.
Well, you know, I suppose if there was a financial connection, that'd be a financial thing too.
So it turns out that Hunter Biden has been accused of all financial crimes simultaneously.
Like, if it were a financial crime, somebody's looking into it on old Hunter Biden.
I'm only exaggerating a little bit.
But the point is...
That we're learning after the election that he's in massive trouble from securities fraud.
There's a securities fraud unit looking into it.
Doesn't mean that's the crime.
So we don't know the exact allegations.
I will defend Hunter Biden the following way.
Number one, Hunter Biden is an attorney.
If he set up a business situation that is transparently illegal, I'd be a little bit surprised.
I mean, it's not impossible, but he's a lawyer, and he works with lawyers.
It's hard to believe that he set up a situation that would be both easy to discover and just flat-out illegal.
So I don't know that these allegations will turn into anything.
How many times have we seen allegations not turn into anything?
It's a pretty common thing, right?
So I don't want to be the one who says Hunter Biden is guilty of anything.
Anything at all. You know, obviously the swampy behavior is apparently technically legal.
So we're pretty sure he was involved with swampy stuff.
But in terms of actually breaking the law, there's nothing in evidence.
So I'm going to treat it that way.
There's nothing in evidence. And it's the type of investigations that we do see when people are ultimately not charged.
But there are a lot of them.
There's a lot of smoke here.
I'm telling you that I can't see the fire, but there's a lot of smoke.
So use your judgment.
The big part of the story, of course, is that this was completely squashed as a story before the election.
And I was just tweeting a A difference between how Politico treated it right before the election versus how they're treating it now.
Now Politico is dumping out all the allegations.
Before then, they actually ran a major story on Politico, same site, before the election, saying that according to former and current Intel people that all of the Hunter Biden allegations looked like Russian disinformation.
So our own current and former Intel people were working against the United States.
That's interesting, isn't it?
So according to Politico, our own current and former Intel people are actually not on our team.
That's a little scary, isn't it?
Wouldn't you like to know that your former intel people were on your side?
That's like the last people that you want to piss off.
Ask Chuck Schumer.
He said it directly. It's the last group of people you'd want to piss off because they can get back at you so many ways, according to Chuck Schumer.
So it's pretty distressing that our own current and former intel people were lying to our media so that the media could lie to us.
What do you make of that? I feel like that's maybe the biggest story.
The biggest story is the misinformation or disinformation from our side.
Our own intelligence people, retired and current, were feeding disinformation in a massive way, massively disinformation, to our own press in real time.
And what are we going to look into instead of that?
Well, we'll talk about it.
But that feels like one of the biggest stories in the country, doesn't it?
If you were going to say to yourself, like, you know, rank the big stories, what would be a bigger story than current and former Intel people starting a disinformation campaign in this country?
Because that's really bad.
That's really, really, really bad.
That's... Nine or a ten, on a scale of one to ten.
And we're in this really weird new environment.
You've seen it before. Maybe it's just attenuated, or maybe I just didn't notice it as much.
But it goes like this.
In any given day, let's say there are a hundred things happening in the world that could legitimately be called news.
Which of the hundred things that are happening in the world End up actually being news.
Well, not all hundred, you know that, it's some little subset of the hundred things that could be news, become news.
And then we obsessively talk about that little group of things that we decided are news.
Well, if you're not familiar with the news business, there are entities called news makers, meaning somebody who's in the news business, who's important enough to look into the hundred things that all could be news, they're all important, But they've picked this one.
And once, let's say, the New York Times picks it, could be CNN, could be Washington Post, but any of the big entities, once they pick it and they say, this is news, then we sort of ignore all the other stuff that was just as important, and we act like that's the only news.
And so I guess the news was always able to redirect you to the only thing they cared about, as opposed to the things you might care about.
But I feel as if their ability to simply tell you that something deeply, deeply important doesn't matter is really the superpower.
Because this story about these ex and current intel people running a disinformation campaign in the middle of an election in this country, that feels like, to me, just about the biggest story in the country.
And it's treated as...
It's not even a story.
They simply have to treat it like it's not a story, and it becomes not a story.
And if it's not a story, it's also not a crime.
There's nothing to investigate.
There's no call from the public to do it.
It just goes away.
And this could have just as easily, you could imagine, it would take you no trouble at all to imagine that it became the biggest story in the country.
You could imagine that, right?
What would be a bigger story than current and future intel people running an obvious disinformation campaign during an election?
I don't know that it gets any bigger than that.
And apparently they were using the media as part of that, Politico in particular, among others.
Probably all of the other big media.
How is that not the biggest story in the world?
It's amazing. All right, let's go on.
You all want to talk about Representative Swalwell, who coincidentally, because the simulation is running out of processing power, you'll see that, and I've told you this before, you'll run into too many repeats.
For example, the biggest story in the country is about a representative in Congress.
What were the odds it would be my representative?
Well, pretty low.
But there it is. So again, I'm only teasing because coincidences are generally just coincidences and confirmation bias.
But if you start looking for it, it's sort of a fun exercise to see how often you'll see it if you tune your brain to expect it.
Now just for fun, just for fun, look for all the repeats and things that would look like you're a computer simulation that's running out of memory.
So it's repeating stuff.
For example, could the biggest story in the news be about my representative, somebody I've met in person?
What are the odds that one of the biggest stories in the world is somebody I know?
Okay, I mean, I've met a lot of people, but that's one thing.
And then what are the odds that the main character in the story, who is not Swalwell himself, is named Fang Fang?
Can you confirm?
I want you to confirm.
Confirm that I've been telling you now for a few weeks, I guess, that you would see the simulation serve up names that are like duplicates.
Did I not tell you that the simulation would start serving up duplicate names?
Confirm this. Because anybody who hears me say that is going to say, you didn't say that.
You didn't predict that duplicate names would be coming.
I want you to see it in the comments that I predicted duplicate names were coming.
Yeah, you see it confirmed.
It's in the comments. Now, of all the weird things I've predicted, is that the weirdest?
Is that the weirdest thing I've ever predicted?
And it's because you can see it happening.
We're seeing just the same people popping up all the time, and now just the same names of things.
Right? Yeah, you're seeing in the comments, I'm not making this up.
I actually predicted that the news would start using duplicate names.
And here it is, the headline, Fang Fang.
And we're hearing a little bit more about this story.
It turns out that Fang Fang had a sort of a name for her boyfriend, allegedly.
She called him Fart Fart.
So it was Fang Fang and Fart Fart.
Very cute couple.
Now, I say they're a couple, but I do not have evidence that they were ever actually a couple.
So I don't think it's fair that, especially since he's married, I don't think it's fair that we should assume that this is true.
There's allegations that he had a sexual relationship with her, but we don't have evidence.
In fact, when Swalwell's staff was asked whether he had a sexual relationship with this alleged Chinese spy, here's what his staff said, and I think you can trust this.
The staff says, we asked Swalwell's office, this was the news reported, and his staff replied by saying that they couldn't comment On whether or not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang, because that information might be classified.
So I guess we'll never know, because according to his staff, whether or not this married representative was having sex with a Chinese spy, they can't tell us because it might be classified.
Let me give some advice to Representative Swalwell.
I know maybe you don't need some advice from me, but it goes like this.
If your staff has ever asked if you've had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, the correct answer is no.
Now, under the condition that he had not had sex with a Chinese spy, the answer is always no.
There's not really a second way to answer that that doesn't sound like yes.
I'll get back to you.
Sounds like sort of maybe he did.
I can't talk about it because it might be, what they call it, might be classified.
That's really saying yes.
So, Representative Swalwell, you might want to make some changes on your staff, because I think they just confirmed you had sex with a Chinese spy.
Now, if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up.
I'll be there, you know, giving the performance reviews, like, all right, Bob...
Let's see. Looking at your performance over the year, you were very punctual.
That's a plus for you, Bob.
Good job in that punctuality.
I liked a lot of your writing.
You did some good writing and some projects.
A plus. There was really just one thing that I have a little problem with, and I think this will have to be reflected on your permanent record, There was a time you confirmed to the press that I was having sex with a Chinese spy.
That was suboptimal, Bob.
And I'm going to have to give you a below expectation for that.
You did not exceed my expectations.
So, narcing me out for having sex, allegedly, with a Chinese, allegedly, spy, not such good performance.
Not such good performance.
You do not get a raise.
Alright, let me ask you this.
Now that the Swalwell story is gaining some credibility, and we all know about it, does it not explain everything that you saw with Swalwell?
Was there not some point you said to yourself, I feel like he's getting ahead of himself running for president?
Didn't you? Didn't you say to yourself, why is he running for president?
I get that he's on TV a lot, but I don't feel like he's quite ready to run for president.
And sure enough, the public agreed.
But you say to yourself, why does somebody go too soon?
Maybe later he'd be more groomed, or maybe he'd be a senator by then.
Who knows? But the first thing I had a question about is that he seemed too ambitious For what his potential was at the moment.
Could have been more later.
So that was sort of a little flag.
I've always wondered about that.
That seems a little bit too ambitious.
I like ambitious people, but it just seemed a little...
It's not like he was Obama.
He wasn't a superstar.
So that was weird. And then, of course, watching his entire act in which he was trying to paint President Trump as a Russian puppet never looked even slightly real.
It never looked like he believed it.
It never looked like he was even American, honestly.
He gave the opinion, he gave the look, Swalwood did, as not somebody who was just anti-Republican and not even somebody who was a Democrat.
He gave the look of somebody who wasn't even on the side of America.
I mean, that's what it looked like.
Because he was so far over the edge into that Russia collusion thing, it didn't even look like he was trying to be helpful, right?
It looked like he was literally on some other team.
And now we know that there was a connection to the other team that may have been pretty deep, including financial support, etc.
I think we could say at this point that certainly Swalwell should not have any kind of job in the government after that.
I can't imagine it would just be ridiculous to re-elect him.
He certainly shouldn't be any kind of committee.
And again, it doesn't even matter if he's guilty.
It doesn't matter if he's guilty.
If you lose that much trust, that's all you need to know.
You don't know if he's actually guilty of these things.
You just need to know That the situation is such that you shouldn't trust it by its setup, right?
You don't need to know the details.
So after seeing this completely explaining Swalwell's behavior, it looked like he was a Chinese agent, right?
Now I'm not saying he was a Chinese agent.
I'm not alleging he was a Chinese agent.
I'm just saying his behavior looked...
Exactly like one.
Which doesn't mean he was one, because he could have been just a partisan Democrat, right?
But then I say to myself, if this is some kind of massive Chinese plot to influence politicians who they find when they're minor politicians and then they elevate them beyond, you know, maybe a little too early, is there anybody else who fits the same pattern as Swalwell?
In other words, if you thought there was a signal that Given out by the Swalwell situation that said, oh, now that we know there was some Chinese spy involvement, maybe you could see the tells for that, the signals in it.
And one of the signals was somebody who is, let's say, not the strongest politician is getting a lot of attention.
So that's one of the tells, right?
If you see somebody like Trump getting a lot of attention, you say to yourself, well, that makes sense.
He's a very substantial politician.
Of course, he should get lots of attention.
But when you see an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell get a lot of attention, it seems a little weird, doesn't it?
Because they don't seem like substantial people.
They both seem amazingly unsubstantial.
Am I right? So, if you're looking for the tells, look for a Unsubstantial politician.
Somebody who could be molded and moved.
Someone who is not their own man or own woman.
And someone who gets way more attention than the amount of substance they bring demands.
And here's the third thing.
The claims are so over the top that they don't look like a Republican.
They don't look like even a Democrat.
They look like they're on the other team, meaning not Team America.
Right? Am I right?
Somebody is throwing AOC in the mix, and I disagree.
I think AOC is just young.
But I would say she has substance.
Unlike the other two, she has some X-factor native thing, meaning that she was born a powerful person, will always be so.
I don't see that with Schiff, and I don't see that with Swalwell.
So I wouldn't put her in that list of having those same characteristics.
I think she's her own thing.
And indeed, even the Green New Deal and stuff with AOC, Maybe right, maybe wrong.
I think it's wrong. But it doesn't look exactly like a Chinese plot.
Although you could argue that it might destroy the country, so maybe it was.
Anyway, so here's my question.
I'm not going to say there's any evidence that Adam Schiff has anything going on with China.
There's no evidence. There's nothing in evidence, period.
But if you're looking for patterns, he really fits that pattern.
And if I had to place a bet, like with actual money, on this question, does Adam Schiff or has he ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend who were a Chinese spy, I would probably place a bet on that because I could probably get good odds, right? Doesn't mean it's true.
Doesn't mean it's more likely to be true than not.
But based on just the smell of it, I'd place a bet on it.
I'd put $1,000 on it if I could.
I would put a $1,000 bet that you could find someday that Adam Schiff had a Chinese spy connection.
Just because of the way he acts, and I want to be as clear as possible, there is no evidence that I'm aware of that Adam Schiff has any kind of external foreign connections.
I'm just saying he acts exactly like a guy who does because we just saw a guy who has that connection.
We don't know how much it influenced him if it did.
But we know that somebody looks just like that.
And I can't explain it with other explanations.
I'll just put it out there. I have to hang my head in shame today because I'm a professional humorist.
And if I miss a joke that's just right there for me, and I miss it, I just feel embarrassed.
And that's how I felt when I saw my Twitter feed this morning, and non-professional humorist Alex Gavaris said, and I quote about this story, that's what she said.
Except he spelled Xi Xi, as in President Xi of China.
That's what Xi said.
And when I read it, and of course, it's one of these jokes that you have to read.
It doesn't work if you say it out loud.
But when I read it, I said to myself, I quit.
I quit. I can't be a professional humorist anymore.
How in the hell did I not say that joke before Alex Guevara said it on Twitter?
How the hell...
Can I live with myself now?
It was right there.
It was right there. It was right in front of me, glowing and big.
Didn't see it. Did not see it.
But Alex did.
That's what she said.
All right. Will rapid testing for coronavirus get approved under Biden?
I tweeted that later today there's an online event about this idea of doing rapid testing.
So this is a virtual event.
Today's the 10th, right? Today's the 10th?
Yeah. It's a virtual event about the topic of rapid COVID tests.
Now, if you're new to this, There is very little in common with doing regular testing for coronavirus and this idea.
Rapid testing, you should think of it as just a completely different animal with a completely different way of working than just testing people like we do now.
And the reason it's different is they use the proposal is to use paper strips, which we just heard word Actually, today, there's news that somebody developed a good paper strip that would be cheap for testing.
So this event, which we'll talk about this idea, this is the Michael Mina idea, I think, of using cheap test strips that you can do as many tests as you want at home.
Maybe it's, you know, two or five dollars for each test.
You don't need a doctor.
You just get a bunch of them.
Test yourself every few days just because you want to know.
And then, they're not perfect tests.
And here's the part people don't understand.
The idea of doing rapid, cheap tests that are ubiquitous and everybody can test like crazy uses cheap tests that are not quite as accurate as these really expensive tests that we have now.
So the point is, if you do enough cheap tests, you get a better result than a fewer number of high-quality tests.
So that's what's different.
The proposal is that doing a small number of whatever we can do with our current technology never gets you to the point where the testing cures the coronavirus.
It just tells you if you need to be treated.
The cheap test thing with the cheap test strips is meant to stop the virus.
The other testing isn't even meant to do that.
So they're not similar.
They just both have the words coronavirus test.
Those two words are basically the only thing they have in common.
Otherwise, it's a completely different idea.
And part of the reason that it isn't going anywhere fast so far is that people can't understand that difference.
And people will say, we already have tests.
And then they're done.
But they don't understand it's different.
All right, so that's today... I tweeted it so you can add it to your calendar directly from the tweet when you see it.
That's worth looking at.
And the question I have is whether the Biden administration might get more interested in this than the Trump administration was.
In my opinion, the lack of the Trump administration dealing with this idea, specifically this idea, is either a gigantic, gigantic failure Or, they should have communicated to us why they're not doing it.
So I would have been happy with, we looked into this deeply, there's a problem here that maybe they didn't tell you, but because of this problem, we're not going to pursue this aggressively.
If I'd heard that, even if they were wrong, you know, maybe they're wrong.
But at least I'd say, okay, they dealt with the A very promising idea.
They dealt with it. They dismissed it, right or wrong.
At least I feel like it was handled in some way.
But it's just sort of ignored.
I know that this idea has reached the administration multiple times and through multiple outlets.
It's not that they haven't heard it.
They've heard it lots of times.
But they don't respond to it.
They don't say it's a good idea.
They don't say we're looking into it.
And to me, that's an enormous failure of the Trump administration's A coronavirus task force.
Enormous. I'm talking about a 10 out of 10 in terms of mistake.
I mean, just a serious, serious mistake.
Again, I could be wrong.
I just need to hear a reason.
And the fact that they don't give the public a reason for not doing it, or even to tell us if they are doing it and we don't know about it, that's just an enormous mistake.
There's no way around that. There's no way to soften that.
There is no way to soften that.
It's an enormous mistake.
Enormous mistake that could have killed 100,000 people.
That's just a fact. And I don't think you can put that on Trump, because the entire task force could talk about it.
Fauci could bring it up.
Fauci could bring it up just to debunk it, which would be fine.
He's not even brought it up, as far as I know.
Does the news bring it up?
No. All right.
Here's the other thing that's fun.
The FTC said that Facebook is engaged in, quote, a systemic strategy to eliminate its competition.
So they're being taken to court for unfair competition stuff, monopoly stuff.
And so some of the things being suggested as monopoly stuff is that they're buying up their little competitors.
So they buy the competitors.
And... And some of them, as an example, they bought Instagram, so it wouldn't compete with them.
They bought WhatsApp, so it wouldn't compete with them.
So of all the things that Facebook is doing, was that the one you were worried about?
I feel as if that was the only one I don't care about.
Let me ask you this.
Are you worse off because Facebook owns Instagram?
Not because of competition, because I think...
I'm pretty sure Facebook improved Instagram and now I can post on one and it shows up on both.
I feel like I came out ahead.
Right? What about Facebook buying WhatsApp?
Did that hurt you in some way?
Did you not get to eat today because Facebook bought WhatsApp?
And what about all the smaller companies that they bought?
Every one of those companies was hoping Facebook would buy them or somebody like them.
Small companies, startups, they want to be purchased by the large companies.
That's their exit strategy.
Oh, we'll reach a certain size and Facebook or Google or somebody will buy us.
Why would I want to take that away?
Why would I want every startup not to have an exit strategy that's the most obvious exit strategy that they all look for?
So, Here's my take on this movement against Facebook.
I'm not defending Facebook.
I'm just saying that there's sort of a gigantic fucking dead elephant in the room here, isn't there?
And the dead fucking gigantic elephant is that the real problem is that they just changed the election result Effectively eliminating the republic because they can just decide who gets to be president.
Because the social media companies decide what you see and that makes your opinion and then you vote on it.
So you have this gigantic problem which is that the social media influences the election.
That is an enormous problem.
And then you've got this This monopoly thing?
Yeah, I get that it's the law.
I understand the concept of not wanting monopolies as a general thing.
I have a degree in economics.
I'm no fan of monopolies.
But am I watching my government go after the smallest problem they could identify?
Because this is not my problem.
I don't really care that Facebook bought its competitors.
I don't really care That my friend who worked for WhatsApp made so much money that it's hard to count it.
I don't care. I'm happy for my friend.
He worked for a startup which was intended.
Everybody expected. One of the ways they would exit is selling to a big platform.
And then he did. And he made a ton of money.
I'm happy for my friend.
I'm just not happy that they controlled the election.
So that's an interesting misdirection going on there.
So what's interesting, though, is that 48 states are suing Facebook over this, which means that it's not Republican and it's not Democrat.
Apparently, everybody in the government likes to beat up on Facebook on this point, as opposed to anything that I care about.
YouTube... Has told its creators by emails that they're going to start removing content about election fraud.
Even though at the same time that there are still active court cases.
Is that the most mind-boggling thing you've heard today?
That YouTube is literally going to decide what the truth is.
And then they're going to take...
Then they're going to remove from your site the ones that don't match their idea of what is true.
Now, I'm going to admit, and remember, I said this from the start, that at least 95% of all the claims of fraud would be BS. At least 95%.
Would you say that that has borne out?
That at least 95% of the claims you've seen, claims, Have turned down not to be what you thought they were.
I think so. I think I hit that prediction pretty well.
About 95% are not true.
But are they all not true?
Can I not do a...
Is it not good for me to do a YouTube in which I say, you know, these areas had results that have a one in one quadrillion odds of being natural as opposed to being a sign of fraud.
Can I not say that?
Will I be demonetized or removed from YouTube if I say the following statement?
Because I'm going to say it right now and see if I get removed.
So I'm going to gamble a little bit of money here on this.
Would you like me to gamble in front of you?
All right, here's my statement on election fraud.
Because of the nature of our election systems, And what we've learned about at least the potential for fraud, and what we've learned about the hatred for Orange and Hitler, given that setup, there's a guarantee of widespread fraud.
It's guaranteed.
It can't not happen.
So there's a direct statement about election fraud from me, very direct.
It had to happen.
It exists, it's real.
There is no evidence I'm aware of that we can identify specifically enough of it that it would win in a court case or overthrow the election.
That's true, wouldn't you say?
I mean, there are a lot of you who think, well, we're close, or maybe we'll get there, or I think, you know, one more day and we'll have it.
But as of today, we haven't seen anything that would change the court, We have seen things that at least some members of Congress and the states are saying, the Republicans anyway, are saying maybe we should not certify or maybe we should question the result, etc. But that's just the news.
The regular news is reporting that there are some people talking about that.
So, will I be banned from YouTube for saying what I just said, which I don't believe has any question to it?
That the setup gives the opportunity for fraud.
And given the motivation, it's guaranteed that it happened.
We just don't know the specifics.
That's all. And it probably can't be reversed.
So we'll see. Let's see what happens there.
That's your little test. I saw a doctor, a very qualified doctor, but it's not on the major news sites.
And here's my question to you.
Is this real? Is the reason that this following story is on minor news sites, but not major ones, is there a good reason for this?
So here's the story. There's a doctor, Dr.
Pierre Corey. He's a physician at St.
Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee.
And he and a group of other highly qualified doctors, and the highly qualified is important to the story.
Highly qualified. Really, really know their stuff.
And they decided that since the government was not doing this, they would do it, which is to do a deep dive on all existing medicines to see if there's something that exists already that could work.
Now, I think I heard that this group, or at least this one doctor, was behind the...
What's the name of the category of drugs that are working against COVID if you have a bad case of it?
The steroids?
Is it the steroids?
So I think he already has credibility as somebody who found that these steroids...
I may be using the wrong word.
Yeah, steroids, right?
He found that those would be effective in a certain kind of patient that's gotten to a certain point.
So he's got lots of credibility...
So it's really important that you know that this is not a doctor like the ones who were mocked for coming on Fox News, who were also real doctors, by the way.
The ones who were mocked on Fox News for hydroxychloroquine.
Real doctors with real credentials.
And there were multiple of them.
But they all got mocked.
Because Trump liked that drug, so that was impossible.
But here we have somebody who not only has that kind of credential as a medical professional, but is already a track record of succeeding, finding some recommendations that made a gigantic difference in coronavirus treatment.
So this is a real credible person, worked with other credible people, and has decided that this drug, ivermectin, which already exists, it's a I think there are several companies that make it in generic form already, so it's already generic.
Somebody says dexamethasone, you know what I mean.
Yeah, so those are the ones that do work.
So ivermectin, he says there have been recent studies that Even though you can't get to certainty, like we don't have enough time and data to really, really, really, really know.
But he says that there's so much, and it's so much in the same direction, that it's sort of a no-brainer that it works, according to this doctor.
Now here's the tough part.
And he says directly that even if you had looked into this in August of this year, in August of this year, when Science was looking into it.
They looked at ivermectin and they decided that it was not quite right.
One of the problems was that it would only work at a dose too high for your body to handle it.
So it might work in theory, but you couldn't put that much of it in your body without hurting yourself.
So that's what we thought in August.
So here's the problem.
Once you know something is true, it's really hard to change your mind.
It's hard for the public, the news, to wrap its head around that August was a million years ago.
So apparently what we've learned from August, where the evidence was suggesting you shouldn't try it, to now is a whole bunch of news, like a whole bunch of data, that is all positive.
Just all positive, according to this doctor.
So according to this doctor, and I'm not making this claim, I'll just report what he said, This is so effective that it effectively ends the pandemic.
So there's a real live doctor with real qualifications.
Doesn't mean he's right, right?
We can all be subject to confirmation bias.
Doesn't matter how qualified you are, you can still be subject to confirmation bias.
Here's a guy I'm not going to ignore.
I'm not going to ignore this guy.
I really, really want to know if this works.
And since it's widely available, we could be 30 days away from being done with this if he's right.
Now, the history of this kind of thing being right is very low, right?
Most of the time, these turn out to be dead ends, but it makes me feel good to talk about them.
You all saw the story of the Michigan...
Representative who threatened Trump supporters in a video?
Let me read to you what a Michigan, I guess her name was Cynthia Johnson, Michigan representative said this, quote, so this is just a warning to you Trumpers.
Be careful.
Walk lightly. We ain't playing with you, Michigan State Representative Johnson said in a video, and then she went on, Enough of the shenanigans.
Enough is enough. And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it.
Do it right. Be in order.
Make them pay.
So she was actually calling for people with training in violence, soldiers, to make Trump supporters pay in this country.
She was literally a government employee Recommending violence against citizens in this country.
Now, the politicians in their state acted quickly.
The Speaker of the House immediately stripped Representative Johnson of all of her committee duties.
That's not enough.
No. No, that's not enough.
Let me tell you how not enough that is.
Fuck you. Fuck you.
She needs to lose her job right away.
Right away. You need to change the fucking locks on her place.
Like, even if you can't get rid of her with some, you know, system, you know, if the system doesn't allow quickly to get rid of her, change the locks.
Change the locks. Because she doesn't get to go to work anymore after this bullshit.
So I don't know what can happen to her, but losing her committee assignments isn't really close to what needs to happen.
We're not in the same galaxy with that.
Just to be clear.
Now, let me tell you what the big story is to me.
The big story is not that there was this one person who said this one thing, because we live in a big world of crazy people.
There's always going to be somebody saying crazy things you don't like.
Here's the part that just is chilling.
She lives in a world, meaning that whatever information comes to her, whoever she talks to, she lives in an environment or a reality that In which she didn't think she would get in trouble for recommending physical violence against Trump supporters in public.
As an elected person, she thought that as an elected person, she could suggest violence against citizens who had nothing but a political difference of opinion.
Now, that's the story.
The story isn't that she said it, because people do bad things all the time.
That's no story. The story is she didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
Didn't think there was anything wrong with it.
Probably thought she was helping.
In her own mind, might have actually believed this was good for the world.
Think about that.
Think about the level of brainwashing that's happened That somebody could think, well, I'll just say this in public.
What could happen? I mean, that part just makes my head explode.
And, you know, of course, that'll get buried a little bit in the story, because it's going to be about her.
It shouldn't really be about her.
I mean, something has to happen there.
But it should be the bigger picture, which is, why did she think that that was even maybe a little bit okay to say?
I don't think she was even a little bit worried.
Do you? Do you think she was worried after she posted that, that somebody would find that that went too far?
I don't think she was worried.
I think she thought that that was acceptable public discourse.
That's the part of the story that isn't getting covered.
Speaking of CNN creating problems and then assigning it to supporters, here's the funniest one that I've seen lately.
They're talking about the denialism, they call it, in the Trump camp.
And they're making two points.
One is the denialism about the election being fraud-free and being done.
And the other is what they call the denialism about COVID being real.
Now, I suppose you could add on top of it being real, that it's not as bad as people think.
So that would be what they call the denialism.
And This one article on CNN offers three reasons that connect the two kinds of denialism.
So why is it that Trump supporters would deny two things, not just one thing?
If it were just one thing, then you say maybe it's about the information or the data about that one thing.
But if you've got two separate things that CNN is presenting as facts that Trump supporters say just don't exist, Here are the reasons that CNN proposes for why that could be.
Would you guess that it's President Trump's fault?
Of course. They say that President Trump won't admit defeat in the election, and he won't admit any missteps in COVID, creating a bedrock of inaccuracy.
So they're building their case.
So now President Trump says things that CNN says are not true.
And therefore he's created a bedrock.
A bedrock of inaccuracy.
Alright, now they're going to build their case on that.
So they've started with a bedrock of inaccuracy.
Number two. The democratization of information.
So they're saying that information can come through the internet as well as through the gatekeepers of the professional news.
So you've got a bedrock of inaccuracy and you've got all this stuff that comes in through the internet that's unfiltered.
Alright, that's two. And three.
As the country gets more tribal, people just like to have villains, good guys and bad guys, so they just take sides.
So those are those three answers.
And those are the three reasons they give that collectively we create an environment in which Republicans uniquely are denialists, and they deny that the election was real and that COVID was real.
So that's their explanation.
Let me add my own explanation.
What other reason could you think of?
What other reason?
Would Trump supporters deny that the election was fair?
Could it be because there's no chance it was fair?
Could be. Could be.
What would be another explanation?
Well, I'll just put this out there.
One possible explanation for why Republicans don't believe the news they see on CNN is that CNN has been feeding them fake news for four years.
If your source of this information is literally something called fake news is it really a surprise that if some real news were to come along allegedly that people wouldn't believe it?
Let me ask you this. If you had watched just the political news on CNN for four years, and you had simply made this one adjustment in your thinking, that the real news is the opposite of whatever they report, would you have had a better idea of what happened in the world, or worse, if in political topics, every time they reported the news, you said to yourself, it's probably opposite of that.
Which would have been a better picture of the world?
It's the opposite one. It really is.
If you had just said, Russia collusion, okay, they're saying it happened, okay, it didn't.
Just that kind of stuff.
Just the reverse every single time.
You would have been a lot closer to the truth.
And now I've saved my best point.
Aren't you glad you waited?
Here's my best point.
I prepare you now.
You may know, of course you know, that the media has been accusing President Trump of over, what is the count, 22,000 lies, 25,000 lies, something like that.
So in CNN's view of the world, Trump has lied 22,000 times, and therefore people don't know what to believe.
So Trump has polluted things to the point where His base will disbelieve anything in the news because of all that Trump lies.
But let me ask you this, and here is my best point.
Has anybody tried to count the number of lies on CNN? No.
Nobody has. What do you think they'd get?
CNN is on all day long.
How many times has CNN said just the fine people hoax?
Just that one thing. How many lies have they told just about the fine people?
Thousands? Thousands, wouldn't you say?
Wouldn't you say that there are at least a thousand times that they've lied just on that one lie?
Now add in Russia collusion.
What does the number get to if you add Russia collusion?
Tens of thousands. If you look at all their programming, all the hours, all the commenters, probably tens of thousands.
Nobody has ever fucking counted the number of lies in the mainstream news.
So let's count them.
Let's compare them.
And maybe every time somebody says, President Trump told 25,000 lies, which in his case are generally hyperbole for some good persuasion purpose, whereas the news is just lying to you.
And I know it would be more than 22,000.
Why did we let them get away with four years of telling us that one person was lying without anybody counting how many times they lied?
I mean, it's a lot of work, and there's a lot of opinion.
Now, when they say that President Trump is lying, it's also opinion.
Because they would say, he said this, but we say that, so therefore he's lying.
No, it just means that you say different things.
It doesn't necessarily mean he's lying.
It just might mean that you don't report the same fact.
So, that's what I would like to see.
I'd like to see the mainstream news fact-checked and count how many lies they have, and then maybe I could explain to you why Trump supporters reflexively assume that whatever is on the news is the opposite.
So after spending four years of opposite news, and then a virus comes along, and then they treat the virus right, just say, hey, this is really a real virus and it's deadly, it might be the first true thing they said.
What the hell is all the people who have been deluged by fake news for four years, what are they supposed to think?
They just reflexively say if CNN says it, it can't be true.
Because they have a whole four years of knowing that that's the pattern.
Don't expect people to break pattern.
It's hard to do. Somebody says, but it isn't true.
It is a low risk.
Well, it can be a low risk and kill millions of people.
Is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that something could be a very low risk Let's say the coronavirus, while also killing millions of people.
As long as both of those are true, you saying it's a low risk doesn't say anything.
If you say it's a low risk, therefore we should not treat it like it's important, well, you're stupid.
Unfortunately, there's no way around that.
That would just be stupid. It's a low risk For the population in general, that population in general is not necessarily you.
Now, if you're 12 years old, yeah, you could treat it like it's not a risk.
It might kill grandma if you do, but if you're 12, it probably won't kill you.
If you're me, you've got a comorbidity.
If you're over 60 with a comorbidity, asthma in my case, Do you treat that like it's low risk?
I treat it like it's one risk I can control, so I'm going to.
I can control it in a little bit.
I can't control it totally, but I'm going to do what I can do.
So don't be fooled by saying it's a 99.999% chance that you'll survive.
That is unrelated to whether it's a big problem.
You get that, right?
Does everybody get that those two things can be true?
That 99.9999% of you will have no problem at all.
At the same time, with no conflict whatsoever, it's a gigantic global problem.
You get that, right?
Those are not conflicts.
Those are saying the same thing, just two facts.
Now I'm being blamed for being bad at math by somebody who's literally named Jim Davis.
That's right. The most common insult I get is, oh, you're the creator of Garfield, go back to drawing your cat.
The most common criticism I get.
The one critic I choose to read And at that list, his name is Jim Davis, the same as, I don't think it's Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, but the name of the creator of Garfield.
The only one I saw.
How did I start this Periscope?
I started it by saying, you're going to see name repeats.
That's how I started. And there it was.
You're watching it right in front of you.
That's a name repeat right there.
Of all the names in the world, I only read one.
And of all these names that went by, I only read one, and I didn't see the name first.
I saw the comment first, and then I noticed the name.
I'm just saying. I'm just saying.
Now, this, of course, is more of a demonstration of confirmation bias, is what it is.
Maybe it's the simulation, which would be fun, but watch how much I can prime you, because I'm doing it intentionally.
I'm priming you to see name repeats.
Watch how often you see it.
This should teach you that in other situations where I don't tell you in advance, I'm going to prime you for confirmation bias.
I'm a trained hypnotist, if anybody doesn't know that already.
I'm a trained hypnotist.
I'm priming you right now.
I'm priming you for confirmation bias.
You're going to see name repeats.
When you do, and you will, Tell yourself, oh, this is how everything works.
Everything is priming me.
Almost everything I think is true is confirmation bias.
And once you see it with this little experiment, you'll be able to more easily recognize that you might be in it in some future time when I don't tell you you're in it.
I'm telling you you're in it right now.
You can depend on the fact You will experience confirmation bias on this name-repeating thing.
It's going to happen. Alright, that's all for now.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
And those of you on YouTube, you have another minute or so of my...
So even the story about the representative, Cindy Johnson.
Cindy Johnson is the name of one of my...
Classmates when I grew up.
Sort of a big name in my childhood was Cynthia Johnson.
And that's the name in the news.
Again, it's confirmation bias, but it's funny.
Um... Somebody says, are Trump supporters smart enough to know lies from facts?
Let me give you a definitive answer to that.
Nobody is. There's nobody who's smart enough.
If people could tell the difference between lies and facts, there wouldn't be lies.
Or at least nobody would lie to smart people, but they do.
Nobody can tell the difference.
And here's the way to know if you're stupid.
There is a way.
If you think the other side is the stupid side, that's how you know you're the stupid one.
Because if you were smart, you'd know that whatever's going on on your side is definitely happening on the other side too, and vice versa.
Whatever's happening with Democrats that makes them unable to see simple truths is clearly, obviously, definitely happening with Republicans and with independents and with humans.
Because it's a human thing.
It has nothing to do with politics.
Being a Trump supporter doesn't make you dumb.
Being dumb doesn't make you a Trump supporter.
It doesn't work that way.
People are just dumb.
And people are in different groups.
You're going to find some dumb people in every group.
But the way you can know you're dumb is to think it's the other side that's dumb.
The moment you tell yourself it's the other side that's dumb and my side got it figured out...
You have identified yourself absolutely as a dumb person.
There's no way around that.
If you want one of the few rules in life that you could depend on, something that has 100% predictive value, because very few things do, right?
Most things are like, well, maybe, probably, whatever.
But you could say with 100% certainty that if you believe you were lucky and you got on the smart side, Lucky.
I joined the smart team.
I'm on the Democrats.
Or I'm on the Republicans.
Thank goodness I'm not like those guys.
As soon as you say that, you are the dumb one.
Guaranteed. Guaranteed you're the dumb one.
Now, if you say to yourself, we're all being fed fake news and the people who are consuming...
One kind of fake news falls for a certain set of lies.
The people consuming another set of fake news are likely to fall for another set of lies.
Then you might be smart.
That would be an indication of somebody who might be smart.
But if you think it's only the other team that's dumb, maybe a little self-examination would be in order.
