Episode 1238 Scott Adams: Looks Like Trump Won, Based on Latest News Out of Georgia. Will That Change?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Georgia Senate committee votes to decertify Biden and do audit
A cumulative vote count decreased?
Georgia audited the only county locally regarded as honest?
Green tea component might protect against coronavirus?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But 2021, so far, it's early, but so far, 2021 is frickin' fantastic.
Call me an optimist, but boy did we start strong.
Let me get into that.
Happy New Year, Jack Posavik.
Thanks for joining.
You know what you need to do now, don't you?
Yeah, you do. You know.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a stand, a canteen, jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the boost that'll take you all the way into 2021, The best year that you've had in the last two years, I guarantee it.
And man, it's starting off right.
Go! So far, I can honestly say I haven't had a problem this year.
No, not a single problem in 2021 so far.
Yeah. But let's talk about how awesome it is.
First of all, have you noticed that Facebook is a festering cesspool of evil and bile?
Well, I have.
And I was trying to figure out why Facebook seems so horrible and Twitter, with all of its, you know, rough edges, doesn't feel that way.
And I finally figured it out, you know, with a little pattern recognition.
I was looking at, I have a Facebook account, but I don't use it too much.
And I was looking at the comments there to me, and the comments on Facebook are to me personally telling me what a piece of crap I am.
Now, of course, I get criticized as much or more than most humans who have ever lived, so I'm not bothered by the criticism, but what I notice is it's different.
If you go over to Twitter, People will say some version of your idea is terrible, you're backing the wrong person, your policies are bad.
And in my case, they almost always misinterpret my opinion before criticizing.
But over on Facebook, it's just about me.
It's not about my opinions.
It's about me being a horrible piece of crap.
And I'm thinking, is there something about Facebook That attracts the worst people in the world?
I mean, I thought Twitter was pretty rugged, but man, Facebook is awful.
So my plan for 2021 is to...
I'll probably keep my account open, just in case I want to check something.
But I'm not going to use Facebook in 2021 if I can avoid it.
I tweeted this morning a lovely...
A lovely video of, there were some camera crews, a lot of reporters in Times Square last night, as you might imagine, and one of the crews came up and interviewed randomly a couple who were in Times Square.
As luck would have it, the random couple that they picked to interview just to say, you know, how's your 2021 or whatever, the man was planning to To propose to his girlfriend he was with that night.
And he gets on camera and they start doing the interviews.
And this magnificent bastard realizes that he can propose on camera.
And he just doesn't.
He just pulls out his ring, proposes on camera.
And I said to myself, I don't know this guy.
I don't know this guy.
But there's a man who recognizes a moment and didn't run from it.
He's sort of what makes America great, in a way, right?
He wasn't planning it.
This moment happened.
And in one of the most, you could say, probably tension kind of situations, you're on live TV, there's a camera crew on you, you've already planned to do the most nerve-wracking thing, which is to propose to your girlfriend and All the pressure in the world.
This frickin' guy was so cool.
He's like, camera on?
Cool. Just took it up a notch.
Boom. Takes out the ring.
Proposes. Love that guy.
Love that guy. All right.
There was a story in the Washington Post that I tweeted around.
And I'm part of the story.
Part of the story is there's some scientist or researcher named Rasmussen, not to be confused with the Rasmussen poll, just the same last name.
It was a story about her and her climb to prominence because she has some expertise in the pandemic.
Then there was a part about how people on Twitter were giving her a hard time.
And one of the ones I mentioned was Elon Musk, doubted some stuff, had an exchange with her.
And then they throw me into the story.
You know, the Dilbert creator got into it with a testy exchange with her.
And I'm thinking, wait a minute, why is that news?
A Twitter exchange?
And here's the funny part.
Apparently it was important enough to be in a paper of record.
You know, that's a fancy name for the most important newspaper platforms.
And the Washington Post, like the New York Times, has at least traditionally, historically been a paper of record.
And it's like national news.
And it's about me.
Like I'm part of the news.
I swear to God, I don't remember it happening.
It's national news somehow.
I have no idea who this woman is.
I have no memory of this exchange.
But the funny part is, they didn't show what point I was making.
Why is that?
Because they said something about what Elon Musk said that she disagreed with because it would make Elon Musk look bad in that particular limited exchange.
But they mention me, but they don't say what I said or objected to or tweeted.
Why is that? Why do you think they left that out?
Well, I have a speculation.
No way to know.
But I do sometimes make fun of experts.
And sometimes I'm right.
Now, that's just a fact that I make fun of scientists and experts in public.
You would agree with that fact, right?
And it's also...
It's objectively true, that in a number of those cases, not every time, but in a number of those cases, I ended up being the one who was right.
Because I have a special skill set, which is identifying bullshit, basically.
And if you have that skill set, you can apply it to a bunch of fields that you are not an expert in, and you will be surprisingly accurate.
If you're just good at identifying bullshit, you don't need to have the expertise to see the easy stuff.
You know, I'm not going to wade into some physics discussion with formulas.
I'm just, you know, the low-hanging fruit, the obvious stuff that's obvious bullshit.
I can identify that.
Alright. There was a doctor on Twitter who was having an exchange with me this morning.
And sent me some scientific paper to make a point.
It asked me what I thought of the scientific...
It wasn't necessarily a scientific paper, but a document by a bunch of scientists.
Which I had no interest in reading, because, as I said to him, I don't trust anything that scientists say.
And this was about the pandemic.
So I said, I didn't really trust anything that the experts and the scientists say about the pandemic.
Is that a reasonable statement in 2021?
That I don't trust anything that the experts say?
Now, I'm not saying the experts are wrong on everything.
I'm not even saying the experts are wrong on most things.
Because, in fact, my own opinions do agree with most experts on most things.
So it's not about all experts.
I simply made the statement that I don't trust them on this topic.
Now, not trusting them means I don't know what the odds of them being wrong are.
Is it 20%? Is it 50%?
Is it 80%?
What are the odds that they're accurate?
I don't know. If I knew that the odds of them being right were, you know, 95%, I'd say, oh, that's pretty good odds.
I'm going to go with the 95% likelihood.
But I can't put odds on this.
Could you possibly put the odds on whether a specific paper authored by scientists is accurate or BS? Could you?
Could you put any odds on that?
How would you? So why would I trust something that I don't know if it's 20% likely to be true or 95%?
I can't tell. Why would I, as a non-scientist, have any opinion on any of it?
All I know is it's not credible, nor could it be.
Credible meaning you don't know you could trust it.
Being not credible, if anybody's new to these live streams, when I say something's not credible, I'm not saying it's true or false.
I'm saying I don't know.
So it's not credible because it didn't convince me one way or the other.
Credible stuff would.
So he took it as a personal insult that I said I don't trust experts.
Is it a personal insult to any one expert?
That I don't trust experts in general on a particular topic.
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
It's not really a personal insult.
Because it certainly doesn't say all scientists are wrong, or all experts are wrong, or all scientists are dumb, or bad, or evil.
Nothing like that. It's just a comment about the general situation.
If you replaced every scientist in this situation with all new scientists, it wouldn't change the credibility.
Because I can't determine credibility.
So my subjective version of credibility, I mean.
All right. I made the claim on the live stream that Trump's leadership on the coronavirus didn't make any difference in terms of negative outcomes.
And what I said was that there's nothing that Trump did that hurt anything.
In terms of the coronavirus.
And I was met with a long string of counterclaims along the lines of things he said that did not agree with the experts, of which there's a fairly long list of things he said that experts disagreed with.
But I never made the claim that everything he said was accurate.
I'm only making the claim that he didn't do anything that hurt anything.
And the things he did that were helpful were helpful.
Such as warp speed, such as closing traffic from China, which could have been sooner or more, but it was still the right decision compared to the experts.
So it does not impress me, no matter how many things Trump said that the experts say is technically inaccurate.
My claim is that he was weak on the things that don't matter, like that stuff, and he was super strong on the stuff that matters a lot.
Travel, vaccinations, etc.
That's the claim. I'm open to an argument on that.
Let's see. Here's some funny fake news.
So you remember the claim that the Russians were paying a bounty to the Taliban to kill Americans?
That was a big anti-Trump story.
And then the story was, why doesn't Trump do more about it to punish Russia?
But the other part of the story is it wasn't credible, again.
Now, why wasn't it credible?
Because it comes from American intelligence sources.
Anything you hear from an American intelligence source is not credible.
It could be true.
It could be true.
It could be not true.
But anything you hear from an intelligence...
Agency, whether it's American or any other, it's not credible.
You shouldn't automatically believe it.
Haven't you seen plenty of evidence of them not being credible?
These so-called 17 intelligence agencies that, you know, we're pretty sure there was some Russian collusion or whatever it was.
So, no, you can't trust any intelligence agencies.
That's not even a thing.
So what's funny about this is that there's a new, also not credible, Report from the intelligence agencies that China was paying the Taliban to kill American citizens.
Now, do you believe, A, that Russia was paying a bounty to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan?
Do you believe that? And number two, do you believe that China was doing it?
I don't know the answer to either question, because I can't know, right?
And even if I saw a report, I wouldn't believe it.
But my personal opinion, if I had to put a bet on it without having much knowledge about it, I just had to place a bet.
Scott, we're not going to give you any more information, but you have to place a bet.
Gun to your head, right? I would bet that neither of them are true.
And the reason I would bet that neither of them are true is...
Why would they do that?
What would be their national interest in getting a few extra soldiers killed in a war that Trump desperately wanted to get out of?
And I don't see us escalating in Afghanistan.
So obviously our role there was going to, you know, reduce over time anyway.
Can you imagine that Russia or China would want to take a chance on getting caught doing that?
Basically, it would be the worst thing you could get caught doing, or one of the worst, with the smallest benefit.
So would they take the biggest risk you could possibly take for foreign interference kinds of stuff, the biggest risk with the smallest payoff?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
Now maybe, you know, again, given that my level of knowledge on this topic is microscopic, somebody could easily change my mind and say, Scott, you don't understand the greater strategic value of a few thousand troops in Afghanistan for a few extra years.
To which I would say, yeah, I don't.
I really don't understand the strategic value of that.
I don't have any idea what strategic value that would have For a situation that's going to change on its own.
You don't have to kill something that's already dying.
And I think China and Russia would have understood that.
So, here's the funny part.
This probably fake news, could be true, but probably fake about Russia, handicapped Trump and was a huge burden to him because it reinforced the story that he was being Putin's puppet.
So, Trump has...
Humorously returned the favor.
And that's the only way I see this, because he didn't really need to release this intelligence, right?
I feel that he released this just as a big F you.
I think it was just funny.
And if you can't appreciate that this is funny, well, you don't understand Trump.
Now, it probably has some usefulness because it's bad for the other team, right?
And it's It paints him in a corner.
But you can't overlook the fact that this is pretty funny.
Because it puts Biden in a position that Trump was in, also victimized by probably fake news, but using the same dynamic that you have to believe the intelligence community if you're the president.
Because remember, Biden's the one who says believe the experts, right?
Biden is the one who says believe the intelligence reports.
So now Biden's in a trap, right?
All of his consistent statements require him to go hard at China, and he can't.
He can't.
Because he's soft on China.
It's almost his brand.
And then there's the Hunter problem.
So this story feeds into the Hunter Biden allegation so perfectly that I have this vision in my head of Trump hearing this news for the first time.
We have these unconfirmed reports.
We can't say for sure But unconfirmed reports are telling us that China's paying the Taliban to kill U.S. troops.
Can you imagine what Trump thought at that moment?
Wait. Say that again.
We've got unconfirmed reports that China's paying the Taliban to kill U.S. troops.
Is this my best day ever?
I feel like it's the best day ever.
Let's put that out there.
Let's just sort of put that out there.
See what happens. I've got a feeling that Trump laughed out loud, at least privately, when he saw this story and he realized what he could do with it.
I love that. All right, here's the favorite story of the day and the reason you signed on to this live stream.
And you're saying, what's taking you so long to get to this story?
So Rudy Giuliani tweets this.
He says, Rudy is making this claim that if we had a free press,
I would have already known that.
Guess what? I did not already know that.
I did not know that.
And I watch a lot of news.
So I said to myself, well, surely, Rudy, if anything like this were true, that's going to be on CNN. I mean, the big news network, CNN, you've heard of them?
They're in every airport. They're going to cover the story, because this would be big.
This would be a big deal.
So I went to CNN. Nothing.
Nothing. This actually is happening.
Right in front of you, one of the biggest stories of all time.
Of all time. If it's true, by the way.
We'll talk about whether it's true.
But the allegation...
No, actually, I take that back.
What Rudy is saying is just true.
Because there was a Senate Judiciary Committee that did this...
And they did want to decertify Biden.
But remember, this is only the committee, so there's no official decertifying going on.
It's just a committee. But that part's true.
The committee did that, and it is bipartisan, and they did ask for an audit.
Now, we don't know if the audit will find anything, because the way they audit may not be the way that you need to find things.
But we'll see. So over at Fox News, it is mentioned.
So Fox News did mention it.
So if you're on the right, you saw the news.
If you're on the left, nothing.
Total blackout. But let's talk about the claim.
And let me say this before I talk about the details.
You all saw there was a A computer expert who gave some testimony that was pretty credible and convincing.
We haven't heard the other side, and you have to before you make a decision.
But on its own, it was pretty darn convincing.
I'll talk about it in a moment. But here's the thing that was making me laugh this morning.
And I tweeted this.
If the alleged election fraudsters...
The news has told us totally don't exist.
So there are no election fraudsters.
We've been told that by the news, so that must be true, because the news said so.
But the alleged ones, the allegations exist, so we'll talk about the allegations.
If they exist, these election fraudsters, it feels like they made one mistake.
One little mistake.
You know what the mistake was?
They got nerds interested.
Never get nerds interested.
Because if the nerds get interested, they're going to find your shit.
It might take them a week.
It might take them a month.
It might take them six months.
It might take them a year.
It might take them five years.
But the nerds, they're going to find your shit.
They're going to find your shit.
Because your big mistake was making them interested.
Until they were interested, it was the perfect crime.
Because you couldn't really detect it with the All of the allegations of this bunch of ballots did this, or these ballots were destroyed, or these were fake ballots, all the ballot stuff always felt to me like, probably not.
Probably just somebody saw something and misinterpreted it, probably.
But once the nerd gets into the log file, and there's something that happened here that's way bigger than you quite realize.
And I'm going to tell you what it is.
And when you hear it for the first time, if you haven't already realized this, it's gigantic.
It's invisible, and it's gigantic.
And here's what it is.
The reason that this alleged election fraud is so hard to get your hands on, so hard to prove it happened or didn't happen, so hard to make a case, is because, why?
It's complicated. It's complicated.
So that's reason number one.
It's so complicated that the news can't report it right.
The public is confusing all the different cases.
We're not sure. Did the courts really hear evidence or did they just get dismissed for other reasons?
So there's this giant fog of complexity and confusion which allows the news to To give you any narrative they want.
Because if the facts are unclear, all you have is the narrative.
And the official narrative is, yeah, look at all this fog.
Nothing to worry about. Nothing to worry about in all that fog.
That's the narrative, right? But then the nerds got interested.
The nerds got interested.
And do you know what nerds can do?
Well, they can do a lot of stuff.
And by the way, again, if you're new to me, I'm the author of the Dilbert comic strip.
I love engineers.
Like, literally, I frickin' love engineers.
Because they have a certain way of thinking that I find totally appealing, generally are honest to a fault, Are incredibly skilled, driving the entire economic engine of the world.
Most important profession, and when I say engineers, I mean technical people more widely.
Most important people in the world who are not maybe medical people and scientists.
And so I could not love, I'm using the word nerds lovingly, I could not love nerds more.
Because number one, I identify with them.
Number two, they're the most important people in the world.
They just don't get the attention that they should because they don't ask for it, which is another thing that makes them awesome.
And here's what they did.
And you haven't seen it yet, but when I describe it, you're actually going to feel something physically.
So get ready for this.
You're going to feel this physically.
They simplified. They simplified.
They brought it down to one question.
Here's the question.
Is there ever a reason that the cumulative vote count could turn negative under normal, non-hacked conditions?
Because it did.
So that's the part that I think they'll be able to show with no doubt about it.
That the And indeed, that's what part of the testimony was.
They could show you the cumulative count, and I believe they were looking at the logs.
There must have been some logs for those.
And you can see that the total, the cumulative total, went negative for Trump.
This is the claim, by the way.
So I'm not saying I saw it.
This is the claim. At exactly the same amount, not approximately, But exactly the same number that immediately went to Biden at the same time.
And there's an explanation about why it wouldn't be noticed unless you were looking for it the way that nerds looked for it.
Now, here's the important part.
They took the whole ball of allegations, complexity, fog, most of it's bullshit.
Most of the allegations of voter fraud, 95% are just bullshit.
And all of this, they took down to one...
Verifiable question.
They did that.
That's your fucking kraken.
Your kraken isn't big.
Your kraken is that simplification.
Now, it comes with data, right?
Now, you have to know that the data is right.
Now, what would you expect to happen...
After a claim like that, what have you seen every time?
Every time there's been a claim that is that damning, what happened within 24 hours, 48?
Now we've got a holiday here, so maybe it'll take a little longer.
What always happens?
What always happens is a major news source will write an article debunking it, right?
Every time. Every single time.
It's the process. It's obvious.
The Democrats obviously reach out to their friendly pets in the media.
It's obvious that this is happening.
I don't need direct evidence of this.
This is so well known as a process.
So Democrats will reach out to some writer that they know is friendly, and they'll say, this claim is out there.
Can you write a major article that everybody will tweet around and talk about in which you debunk it?
Now, if it's debunkable...
That'll happen every time.
And by the way, I'm glad it happens.
You shouldn't be unhappy about that.
Because if the thing can be debunked, well, yeah, I want it to be debunked.
I don't want to believe some bullshit Republican thing just because I like Trump.
I want to know what actually happened.
So I do want to see the debunk.
And I would say that almost every time, I've read the debunk.
The debunk sounded better than the claim almost every time.
In fact, I can't think of an exception, but I'm sure there were some.
But this one? This one's a little different, isn't it?
It's been how long now?
Now, I realize there's a holiday, so you have to calculate that.
So you don't want to get too optimistic.
By later this afternoon, there could easily be a major article that debunks it.
It could say something like, oh yes, there's a normal way that the log could show a decrease in votes for one and an increase in the other, and it would have nothing to do with anything fraudulent.
Let us explain why this can happen, or, alternately, why you think it happened but you were looking at the data wrong.
How long would it take Let's say Dominion to offer the counterclaim.
Was it Dominion? I forget.
I don't want to...
Let me take back the Dominion part because I don't know which systems he was in.
So let me withdraw that before I get sued by Dominion.
I'm not making any claim about Dominion or any particular software.
I'm just saying there was an expert who made some claims.
But now it's down to just one little question.
If it's true...
And here's the fun part. If it's true that this claim holds up, this simple, simple claim that there can be no way you can ever go backwards on the cumulative vote count, and it did happen, that's the end of the election.
You get that, right?
If this claim holds, and it's one of the weird kind of claims that you can actually just look at the log and Like, you don't have to guess.
You can just say, what did you look at, expert?
Can you show it to us?
Of course. That's the whole point.
I want to show it to you.
Then you look at it, and you say, okay, there's another explanation for this observation, or there's not.
Now, History tells us that this would be more likely one other thing that's a claim that's debunked, wouldn't you say?
If you just went by the trend, and the Democrats, of course, are looking at it this way, well, the trend is it doesn't matter what gets put forward, it's going to be debunked.
But what if this one isn't?
What if it isn't?
That's the end of the election.
Because would you be satisfied with, oh, it looks like there was this one county, one county where there was a hack?
Nope. If the hack happened in one place once, but these machines were used more widely, well, that's the end.
You don't need to show that the other machines were hacked.
That's the end. So, here's how 2021 started.
Trump won. As of the most current information in the news, Trump won the election.
Now, of course, that's different from actually taking office because there's a process that's bigger than us all.
But as of 2021, January 1st, according to the news, Trump won.
Now, that might change.
But as of today, a reasonable observer would say, based on current information, which easily could change, right?
I don't want you to lose sight of the fact that even while I'm talking, it could be getting debunked.
Y'all get that, right? Because later when you come to mock me for saying, you said this was true, but it got debunked five minutes later, you hear me saying that I think that's likely, right?
Or at least possible. So I'm not going to be...
You can't debunk me by saying, oh, it got debunked.
I know that's possible.
If you don't know that's possible, you should catch up.
But... Somebody says it was a drag-and-drop mistake.
Apparently part of the presentation showed that the place that the vote change happened was in a place in which there's no human intervention.
So in other words, you can trace, this is the claim, not my observation, but the claim is that you can trace the data into the system, and then with no human interaction, you can see it change, and then it goes on.
So any claims that there was a human error have been erased by the nature of the claim, because it couldn't be within that enclosed space, there were no humans.
So how do you like starting 2021 with the balance of the news saying Trump won the election?
That's an interesting way to start the year, isn't it?
Now, like I said, if new information comes in, I will modify my opinion so fast it'll make your head spin.
But at the moment, our current best information is that Trump won.
Because, like I said, even if you only knew this problem happened in one machine, that's the end of the election.
It doesn't matter. You don't even need to look at the other ones.
If you can confirm it on one, you're done.
The election is thrown out, and if it were held again, I feel like it might be a landslide for Trump.
So, that's fun.
There's also some news about some of the ballots that they...
They wanted to audit or being shredded.
Have you heard that news? That Georgia is shredding some of the ballots that were part of the potential recount.
Everything I hear about physical ballots, I disbelieve.
Doesn't mean it's untrue.
But in terms of how credible things are, Give me the nerd every time.
Give me the nerd that looked at the log.
Give me the nerd that looked at the data log and said, you want to look at it?
Here, here you go. I just looked at it.
Would you like to look at it? Here you go.
Now that guy is credible.
Could be wrong. Could be wrong.
Doesn't mean he's right. But it's very credible.
I'll tell you what, it is never credible.
I went in this report and saw something with some ballots.
Boom, I'm out. As soon as you hear eyewitness report, it means you can't look at it, right?
The nerd said, here you go.
Here you go. You can look at this every way it can be looked at.
Every direction. It's all the same.
But eyewitness report?
No. Don't believe anything in the eyewitness reports.
Some of them will be true, but you shouldn't believe them.
The other thing that I'm hearing reported, I don't know what weight to put on this, but the report is that the only place that Georgia did audit was, and this is a funny claim, but people in Georgia are telling me this, right? So this is not my opinion.
They're saying that they audited the only honest county, and that everybody knows that's the only honest county.
So, oh, thanks for the audit.
You audited the only place that people who live in Georgia would say, uh, why are you looking in our honest county?
Why don't you look at one of these?
These counties are a mess.
So, I don't know.
I would put small weight on that, but it's a fun claim.
So, specifically, they're saying that Cobb County was the honest county, and it's right next to Fulton County, but maybe Fulton County doesn't have quite the reputation.
Now, I don't believe any of this story.
It's just a fun story, and the reason I don't believe it is I don't believe that there's a state...
That has different reputations for different counties.
Is that even a thing?
You know, I've lived in two different states, and I can't think that I ever knew that one county was the bad one.
So I'm not sure I'd put any weight on that story, but it's fun.
Here's another story.
Antifa rioted in Portland.
It's almost like a A rerun story.
About 100 rioters and it wasn't covered on CNN. So CNN is making the protests disappear by not covering them.
So it's going to look like Biden fixed all that.
Fox did cover it.
So here are two stories that Fox covered, both of national interest, both important, both true.
True in terms of, you know, they reported what happened, not an interpretation of it.
And it wasn't even covered on CNN, at least on their page.
I don't know if they mentioned it on here.
Alright, here's the weirdest idea.
Do you want a really good conspiracy theory to start off 2021?
I got a good one.
This is maybe the best conspiracy theory I've heard.
So it's a good one to start the year.
Let me tell you that I don't believe what I'm going to say.
And you probably shouldn't either.
This falls into the category of fun conspiracy theories that are almost certainly not true.
If I had to put a weight on it, I'd say 2%.
2% likelihood of being true.
Here it is. There's a component of green tea, and this is just something from the internet, right?
So nothing too credible.
There's a component of green tea that there is some science that shows that it might protect against coronavirus.
Do you see it? Yeah. So the conspiracy theory, again, I don't believe any of this, but it's a fun one, that China designed a virus that would work on people who don't drink green tea.
Now, if you didn't know, pretty much everybody in China drinks green tea pretty much all the time.
It would be like the United States doing it for a coffee, right?
You would get 90% of the people in the United States drink a caffeinated beverage of some sort.
Now, if China built a super weapon that would kill you Unless you drank green tea, it would be...
Yeah, somebody's saying it's EGCG, it's the chemical within the green tea that is supposedly active.
Now, if they did that, that would be the most evil thing I'd ever seen in my life.
But, suppose they had created this virus not to release it now, but to release it in case of, let's say, a worst-case scenario for China.
Let's say that China was...
I don't know, under attack by other countries.
I can't imagine it because they're a nuclear power.
But imagine that China's really under attack and it's the last thing that they can do.
And they release this virus that affects everybody except green tea drinkers.
And of course, they don't want to tell the Chinese public that it's the green tea that's protecting them because then everybody would drink the green tea.
And then if everybody drinks it, then it doesn't work.
So you'd have to not tell your own public, just say, hey, you had your green tea lately?
You sure like that green tea?
Now, of course, by any measure, that would kill 100 million people in China, too.
I'm just picking a number.
But I can't imagine that the green tea protection wouldn't kill 100 million Chinese people if they just ignored the virus and didn't try to mitigate it.
So I don't think there's much of any chance that there's any reality to that.
But damn, would that be clever if it were true.
You may have heard that Dr.
Drew has been diagnosed with the coronavirus.
The irony of that is he was ready to get the vaccination.
So he got the coronavirus right before he was up for the vaccination.
And he's a doctor, so they get stuff first.
And that should be a cautionary tale, shouldn't it?
Because I'm most worried about lingering side effects from the coronavirus.
I'm not really afraid that it will kill me.
I'm going to act as though it could.
I'm going to be a responsible adult in every way I can, you know, in all the usual ways.
But I don't wake up worrying about being dead from the coronavirus, even at my age and with, you know, some asthma and stuff.
I don't really worry about it. But I do worry about lasting effects.
I think that could be a big deal.
I don't know, but I worry about it.
And so when you see somebody who is that close to getting the vaccination, but they got the virus instead, Maybe that should tell you that you should be a little more cautious for a little bit longer, at least until you get the vaccination.
So that would be...
I'm not sure I'll follow my own advice there, but it's a cautionary tale.
Now, the other thing I heard about this story is that Dr.
Drew was given or took...
A monoclonal antibody called Bamlanivimababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababab Now, this was only approved, this drug, in November.
And I hadn't really heard of it.
The first time I saw that name of it was in relationship to the Dr.
Drew story. And it's a monoclonal antibody, and apparently it's indicated.
And apparently it's a good thing.
Now, let me ask you this.
If we only have the emergency authorization for this BAM limit for a month, do we really know what our survival rates and death rates are?
Because if it works, it works well enough to be an emergency authorization.
It must do something.
Does it cut the death rate in any appreciable way?
I mean, could we see the death rate cut in half I'm just tossing out some ideas here.
Just because in November we started using some new meds?
I don't know. Maybe?
Here's a question for you.
How many of you know why Hong Kong belonged to Great Britain in the first place?
In the comments, how many of you have watched the slow but inevitable takeover of Hong Kong by China and getting control over it?
How many of you watched that story without knowing the backstory of why it was that Great Britain ever owned Hong Kong in the first place?
Yeah, so some of you know it was a result of the Opium Wars.
So I don't know a lot about history, so I'll tell you just the high level what I know.
So there was this point in, I don't know, however many hundreds of years ago it was, that the British wanted to sell opium in China.
And apparently there was a big market for it, and it was very profitable.
The Chinese government said, hey, we don't want you selling your opium here because it's destroying our whole country.
Seems pretty fair, doesn't it?
So what Great Britain did was send its warships in, because I guess China grabbed a bunch of their opium and destroyed it, sent their warships in, killed a bunch of Chinese people, effectively conquered China, or at least, you know, the part that they cared about.
And in their negotiations, now remember, Great Britain is totally the aggressor here.
They brought the opium in, and then when China said, don't sell your opium here, and tried to stop it, they attacked China.
So that's two horrible flaws on Great Britain.
Horrible flaws.
Shouldn't have been selling the opium, shouldn't attack the country, That tried to stop it.
And the reason that they gave for their defense of their selling the opium is free markets.
That was their argument.
Hey, free markets are good.
We should have free markets. That's why we should sell poison into your country in large volume.
China wasn't having it.
So China got into war.
But anyway, so Great Britain kicks their ass because they had more military technology at the time.
So Great Britain kicks China's ass and And in their negotiated settlement, I guess they negotiated to keep selling some opium, which is so evil, I can't even contemplate it.
But it gets worse.
Not only did Great Britain bully China to keep selling poison into their country after killing them for trying to stop it, they said, oh, also, you have to give us Hong Kong.
What? Hong Kong had nothing to do with anything.
Hong Kong was just a valuable island.
And Great Britain, those bastards, just forced China to give them Hong Kong?
Now, replay what you've been hearing in the news about China wresting control of Hong Kong.
Now, of course, we feel bad for the citizens of Hong Kong because they were just born into a situation.
They thought they had a certain amount of freedoms and they're being ripped away from them.
But can you blame China?
Really. Can you blame China for wanting Hong Kong back and getting it?
Now, of course, the way they did it, you can criticize them, of course.
But Great Britain has some questions to answer.
Number one, I'm talking to you, China, because I know you're listening.
China, do you understand that it wasn't too different in timing?
The time that China hated Great Britain and wanted it to stop doing what it was doing was roughly the same time, I mean, in long historical context, that the United States was fighting an American Revolution because Great Britain is a bunch of bastards.
China, do you not know we hated their guts as much as you did when that was happening?
Because if, China, you're getting back at the United States because we look like people from Great Britain in many cases.
Is that why? If that's why you're shipping us fentanyl, it's a revenge for the opium wars, you're shipping it to the wrong country.
So let me just suggest this.
If you're looking for revenge, you should ship every bit of that to Great Britain.
Every bit of it. If you're looking for some historical revenge.
I don't believe that that's the case.
I think that China just does whatever looks like it's going to work.
I don't think it's historical revenge.
It's just things work or they don't work, and they're going to do what works.
That's what I think. I don't know what this means, but in the comments somebody said, send it to Scotland, it won't make a dent there.
I don't even know what that means, but it's funny.
Send your fentanyl to Scotland, it won't make a dent.
I have no idea what that means.
It's still funny. Alright, so, it's good to have a little historical context on that.
And that...
It is my show for the day.
One of the best, I think.
Would you say it's my best live stream of the entire year so far?
Yeah, I think so. And I think it's not too late to do more dad jokes about the new year.
Oh, I got a few more.
I'll be trotting them out later today.
So, let me say this.
Oh, train spotting.
Okay, I got the reference now.
Got it. I think the reference to Scotland is that they're so drugged out and drunk that they wouldn't know the difference, which is hilarious.
