Episode 1395 Scott Adams: Fauci versus Tucker, Biden Goes Full Racist, Veg o Matic Greenwald Versus Potato Stelter, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
2 vaccinations thought process
Glenn Greenwald vs Brian Stelter
JBS ransomeware attack is on Biden
President Biden goes full racist
Fauci emails, any smoking guns?
Pandemic zombie beliefs
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. I got my second vaccination the other day.
Let me tell you, it was Moderna, second vaccination, and let me tell you, that second vaccination sometimes can kick your ass.
But it's about 24 hours of unpleasantness.
I'm back. I would say...
I think I'm 100%.
I don't feel any lingering carryover.
But if you'd like to know how yesterday went, yesterday was not fun.
Yesterday was not fun.
The discomfort never got higher than, say, a 4 out of 10, but it's all day.
And if you've got a discomfort that's a 4 out of 10 and it lasts all day, You're not going to have a good day.
But it's also not the biggest problem in the world, and I knew it would be gone in a day, and everything's good now, and I am protected.
Protected. Allegedly.
We'll find out. But why are you here?
Why are you here?
Probably because you want to enjoy the simultaneous sip and all the goodness that comes with it.
And if you'd like to do that, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
With just a little bit of oxytocin this time, a little bit of flavoring.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now all over the world.
Go! Mmm, yeah.
Well, that'll make the news go down better, won't it?
So, if you would like to feel good, and don't you, don't you want to feel good?
Let me tell you how to feel good.
Find my Twitter account.
And near the top of it, you'll see I retweeted from Axios.
I had an article with one of the best graphics I've seen of the trendline of the coronavirus.
And watching that virus go up in January and peaking, and then down, because it's animated.
And then you see we're actually at the lowest point since the pandemic began.
Let me say that again. We're at the lowest point in the United States since the pandemic began in March 2020.
Huh? Did you know that?
Did you know that we reached our all-time low?
Just now. We just did it.
Let's have a hand for the United States.
And all the other countries around the world who are doing a great job, Israel in particular, doing great.
And I've got to say that just playing that little graphic and watching that go up and then watching human ingenuity drive that frickin' thing down into the dirt, it's a really, really good feeling.
And I've got to tell you, being fully vaccinated in this context...
And I know there are some skeptics out there, and I'm not discounting that, but it feels really good.
So today I would say my attitude about the pandemic is by far the best it's ever been.
Now, as somebody's saying, it's not over yet.
Dr. Fauci thinks that maybe it'll last forever.
Maybe there'll just always be some stuff out there.
Now, I don't want to be a, let's say, a doubting person, a skeptic, if you will, but...
Have you had any questions about why it takes two vaccinations for this vaccination, but it feels like everything else in the past was one vaccination?
Have you ever asked yourself, what's up with that?
Well, I'm going to just speculate.
So there's no facts or evidence behind what I'm going to say next.
But I have been in meetings at big corporations where I've worked, So I've had lots of experience at two major corporations where I was behind the door helping to make some decisions.
So I kind of know how things go in a corporate environment and I think it goes like this.
Hey, we're gonna need to rush to make a vaccination.
What should we do?
Well, the The best thing we can do is make it like every other one, but we don't know the exact thing to test, because you could test everything from one small shot, small dose, to one large dose, or two smaller doses, one after the other, and you can't test them all.
So you're going to have to test something, right?
You're going to have to pick one, or maybe two, but probably just one approach, And just see if you can warp speed it through.
Because you can't test everything.
There's just no way to do it all.
So you've got to pick. You've got to guess.
I think this is our best bet.
And then just test that one thing and hope you get it.
Now that's what happened. They largely tested one approach, the double vaccination, at least for the two vaccinations.
And it seemed to get a good result, so they went with it.
My understanding is they're going to test lower doses for the two vaccines.
But imagine you're behind the door and you're one of the vaccination companies.
Do you think that you charge the same for one dose versus two?
Now, of course, you and I are, if you're in America, you're getting it for free, but the government's paying, right?
So I assume that the government is writing a check for each dose, right?
You're a corporation, and you could say, we could test one dose, and we might get greater than 90%, but we could also test two doses, make twice as much money, right?
It's twice as much money.
Would the government not pay for the second dose in a pandemic?
Put on your negotiating hat.
I can save the world, but just one wrinkle.
Unlike all of the other vaccinations, this one's going to take two doses.
Each of those doses will cost as much as a regular one dose, but now there's two of them.
Twice as many doses.
So, do you think that science drove the decision for two doses?
Do you? Do you really think that science drove the decision for the two doses?
No. No.
No, it did not.
I had a ruined day yesterday because I got the second dose.
I'm following the guidelines.
Maybe I shouldn't.
But I'd like to travel, and I'd like to have fewer restrictions on me, so I did it.
Yeah, I don't think that that was a science decision.
Now, it could have been a good risk management decision because maybe the two doses is closer to a guarantee that it works than the one dose.
You could make the argument that it was risk management.
But I feel like money is always predictive.
And if there's one approach that gives you twice as much money and the other side can't even negotiate because it's a pandemic, what are you going to do?
Can you lower the price on that?
No, not really.
They're going to get any price they want, so they just make it two doses instead of one.
I think that's what happened, or at least you have to worry about that.
If you're not watching the interplay between one of China's, I assume, professional trolls named Chen Weihua.
I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right.
W-E-I-H-U-A. Weihua?
Weihua? I don't know.
But Twitter brands his Twitter account as China State Affiliated Media.
So according to Twitter, this guy works for the Chinese government, but he says he doesn't.
He says his opinions are his own.
Coming into tweets that I've been involved with.
And he and I have become acquainted online.
So Chen and I sometimes trade tweets like yesterday.
Traded a few tweets. And here's the thing.
Is this going to work out well for him?
Because I'm a professional.
Meaning that I'm a professional communicator and a professional humorist.
Beyond that, I'm skilled in persuasion.
Chen is a guy on Twitter.
And I was actually worrying today that I could get him executed.
Like, actually executed.
Because it isn't hard to completely humiliate him online.
I mean, he doesn't act humiliated, of course.
But it's pretty easy to make fun of him and to call out what's happening.
There's no such thing as science, only mass hysteria, Maple Bob says.
You're not far off.
And so I was worried that if I get too much of these exchanges, that China will just execute this guy for embarrassing their country.
But so far, Chen is a great representative of what we call West Taiwan.
Some people call it China.
But I saw somebody on Twitter refer to China as Western Taiwan, to which I said, hmm, hmm.
Okay. Speaking of persuasion, have you all been following Corey DeAngelis, who's been persuading against the teachers' unions to try to get more Competition in schools.
And Corey did a little poll today.
Now, of course, this is a highly unscientific poll.
But he asked this question.
How have your views about teachers' unions changed since March 2020?
Now, of course, that's the beginning of the pandemic.
So this is how people's views about teachers' unions have changed.
The number who have a less favorable view, 89%.
89% have a less favorable view of teachers' unions.
But there are also people who have a more favorable view.
1%. 1%.
1%.
That's it. And 10% think it's the same.
Now, I don't know what this would have looked like a year ago.
Maybe teachers' unions were always a little disliked.
But it feels to me that he's moved the bar a lot.
And of course the pandemic helped, right?
Because there was something specific that you could watch the teachers' unions be unhelpful.
And somebody says 1% are in the teachers' unions or maybe married to a teacher.
That's probably true. So, as I've pointed out before, the way our system has evolved is that there are a number of decisions that seem to grow out of the public, as opposed to the politicians making decisions and debating them.
It seems like there are some topics that our politicians just can't handle.
For whatever reason. And then the public has to take it on themselves.
I think the question of wearing masks has already transferred into the public.
We just haven't seen that expressed yet.
So the public will decide what masks are done.
They won't be the experts. At this point in the end of the pandemic.
Likewise, I think the public will decide whether they can put up with a lack of school options and whether they can put up with the teachers' unions.
It's not that the public can directly make them go away, but certainly the public can force more competition.
And it looks like Cory DeAngelis is making this happen.
Now, I, of course, have been boosting him as much as possible.
So, you know, when I retweet him, it's another 600,000-plus people who see it.
So I'm doing what I can to help.
But, man, that's some seriously good persuasion.
And, like I said, the pandemic helped.
Are you watching the battle between Glenn Greenwald and Brian Stelter?
You know, so what's happening is Glenn Greenwald, he appears more on Fox News than on other major outlets.
And the reason is that Fox News invites him.
That's why he appears on Fox News.
Because he's invited.
Do you know why he doesn't appear on CNN? They don't invite him.
Do you know why he doesn't appear on MSNBC so much?
I mean, he has in the past.
But do you know why he doesn't do it so much now?
They don't invite him. And I guess the problem is that he says things which are true and not specific to any left or right side, and that makes him a right-wing, according to the left.
They're trying to brand him as right-wing.
Now, what makes him effective besides the fact that he's hilariously, let's say, biting in his commentary?
I mean, he just writes well and it's fun to watch.
He's provocative. But he also is making a huge dent.
And the Democrats are taking a beating from some of his writing and commentary.
And so it looks like they've decided to target him for elimination.
So now CNN went after him, and Brian Stelter in particular.
And I can't stop seeing in my head a potato on a Vegematic.
Do you know the Vegematic, or is anybody old enough to remember that?
It was a thing for slicing vegetables.
And I just see a potato...
You know, stelter. And I see Greenwald as the Vegematic.
It doesn't look like a fair fight.
And then I looked at the Daily Beast as a big, you know, a hit piece on him.
So if the Daily Beast is going after him and CNN is going after him and they're trying to paint him as a right-wing crazy person, which isn't working because...
He doesn't say anything that's even a little bit crazy.
He's not even close, right?
So he doesn't buy into the conspiracy theories or anything else you would imagine could be in the far right wing anyway.
But here's the thing.
There's this long criticism of Glenn Greenwald, and I read it, and I'm looking for the criticism.
Now, generally, if there's a criticism piece, it would include some criticism.
But instead, it was all things like, he's associated with Tucker Carlson, and he's been on Laura Ingraham's show, and Fox News really likes him.
Yeah, Fox News really likes him.
And the entire thing was just a smear by association.
There was no content.
I don't believe there was anything that they said about him where he had lied or cheated or gotten something wrong.
Nothing. There was actually no criticism.
They actually wrote a hit piece...
Without any hits, because they didn't have anything.
They were completely empty.
So this tells you that he's certainly making a dent, and they're trying to mute his attacks.
But he's also in this weird situation because he's on Substack, which means that the more attention he gets from his critics, the richer he gets.
Because people will say, who are you talking about?
Oh, Glenn Greenwald?
What's he saying? Oh, he's saying interesting things?
Oh, he has his Substack account?
Next thing you know, they're subscribing to his Substack account.
So, while CNN's ratings are down 70% from whatever their high was during Trump, and I guess Brian Stilter's show is struggling as well, Every time that they fight, CNN loses viewers and Greenwald gets richer.
So, go ahead and fight with them, I guess, if you want.
I've got a question about all these ransomware attacks.
And by the way, Gordon Chang had a good framing for this.
He said in a tweet that President Biden is not responsible for the colonial pipeline hack.
You know, that was just a criminal act, or maybe Russia was behind it, we don't know.
But Gordon says he is responsible, meaning Biden, for the recent ransomware attack on JBS, the meat processing company.
And Gordon says it's because he invited this new attack by allowing Colonial to pay a ransom.
What did he think was going to happen next?
Good question. So here's my question.
Number one. Is there an industry economic opportunity here?
Don't you think that somebody should be making a product that is the backup of all backups?
Something that can zero out a system completely and then reboot it with a mirror image of the software as it existed on whatever day?
It seems to me that somebody needs to invent The ransomware correction software.
There's got to be a way to simply wipe all systems and then repopulate them.
Somebody says that would also be hackable, of course.
Yeah, I mean, if they manage to get their software into the copy as well.
Somebody says it's just expensive.
I'm just looking at some of your comments because most of you are Smarter than I am about technology, or many of you are.
And somebody says, blockchain, I don't know.
Already exists. Companies just don't use it, somebody says.
Well, that's what I would expect.
So here's my question to you.
Find me the software company.
Find me the company who does this.
Find me the company who protects against ransomware, because I'd like to invest in that company.
I'm hearing that YouTube is throttling my audience.
Is that happening? I don't know that that's happening.
You can't really tell. Yeah, alright.
So, and I wonder at what point, given that Russia actually warned us that they were going to make us uncomfortable, and that these are Russian hackers, and it's hard to believe that Putin can't find a Russian hacker.
Do you believe he can't find a Russian hacker?
I feel like he could, right?
So he's at least allowing it to happen.
And it makes me wonder what we're doing in return.
It better be something.
You know, I was reading an opinion that the only way these ransomware attacks will stop is if we take down a country.
Take down a country to make them stop.
And I would say that maybe the second time, you know, this meatpacking company...
Maybe this isn't time to take down Russia, but at some point you have to turn the lights off in Russia, if only for an hour, just to let them know that we're not screwing around anymore.
So I just don't know what you do about this, but we need to put some pressure on Russia like they've never seen before, because I don't think anybody believes they can't control these criminal gangs in Russia.
Kristen Sinema. Democrat, Arizona, is kind of interesting.
Here's something she said that you'd never see.
It's just like, well, not never, but it's so rare to see somebody say something honest in politics that it really caught my attention.
So first of all, she says she likes the filibuster.
Which is not really a Democrat view at the moment, because they'd like to get rid of it so they can pass a bunch of legislation just by a simple majority.
But the filibuster makes, for many of the bills, they have to have 60% support, and so the filibuster can basically effectively stop anything that doesn't have overwhelming support.
And she says that's good because you don't want things ricocheting back and forth every time the political leadership changes.
You want it hard to change anything.
That's her point of view, and I agree with it.
You do want it hard to change anything.
Because then you know you're only getting the changes that matter.
But here's the interesting thing she said.
I'll read it as a quote. So, Kristen Sinema says, I do not believe the additional extraneous commission...
Now this is talking about the proposed commission for looking into the January 6th events.
She says, I do not believe the additional extraneous commission that Democrat leaders want would uncover crucial new facts or promote healing.
Oh, I'm sorry.
This is not her quote. This is actually...
Never mind.
It's actually McConnell's quote.
Damn it. They stuck a mechanical quote in a Kristen Sinema thing, and I thought it was hers.
So, I'm sorry I just wasted your last minute.
There's nothing we can do about that.
It's completely...
It's gone now.
We can't get it back.
So I apologize for that minute that you completely wasted.
So forget about this story.
There's nothing here. President Biden has gone full racist.
Here's a quote from Jeffrey Dove Jr.
Now, Jeffrey Dove is a black American, which is important to the story.
When can I stop saying that?
Please, please, when can I stop telling you what somebody's ethnic affiliation is before I tell you the news?
Like, my God, how can we get past that?
It's just the most ridiculous thing.
But here we are, so I'm still doing it.
So Jeffrey Dove Jr., who is a black American, says about Biden in a tweet, he says, why is it that every time he speaks about the black community, he makes us seem incapable of the simplest tasks?
Whether it's getting an ID card, using the internet to make an appointment, or now this.
And this was, Biden said, young black entrepreneurs...
Are just as capable of succeeding, given the chance as white entrepreneurs are.
But they don't have lawyers, they don't have accountants.
And as Jeffrey points out, why is it that you think black people can't get an ID, or that black people can't use the internet, or that black people can't find a lawyer or an accountant?
I'm pretty sure that's a problem with all poor people.
Right? Did it have to do with being black?
Or does it have to do with being poor?
How many people in poverty can get themselves a lawyer and an accountant?
Zero? Zero, maybe?
But the way Biden talks about this stuff, it just screams racist.
Doesn't it? Doesn't it?
If he's calling out that black people have trouble getting IDs, but nobody else does.
Nobody else has trouble getting an ID. But according to Biden, this is like a special problem for black people.
That's got to be racist.
Are you telling me there are no poor white people in whatever circumstance who also have trouble getting an ID? Of course there are.
I mean, if anybody has trouble, it's going to be everybody who's poor or in a bad situation.
And for some reason, Biden thinks that he needs to tell us, and here's the one that just slaps you in the face.
Biden thinks he needs to tell us that young black entrepreneurs are just as capable of succeeding as white entrepreneurs.
I feel like I knew that.
Is there somebody who doesn't know that?
It's 2021.
We had a black president for eight years.
I think people understand That black people can do stuff.
Why are we even talking like this?
Can you imagine...
Just imagine Trump saying any of these things.
Can you imagine Trump saying that black people have trouble getting ID? I mean, seriously.
Imagine him saying that.
And he never did, did he?
Have you ever heard Trump say anything like these three different things that Biden has said?
In which he has to remind you that black people could do well too.
Of course not.
Trump would never say that.
And, I mean, if he were likely to say it, he would have said it by now.
And you know why he wouldn't say that?
Because it's fucked up.
It's fucked up.
This is totally fucked up.
Oh yeah, black people can do just as well as white people.
Did you know? Have you heard the news?
This is like...
Usually I don't get offended on behalf of other people, because they think it's stupid.
You can get offended on behalf of yourself, and probably you don't need to do that either.
But being offended on behalf of somebody else, that's a waste of time, usually.
But I've got to say, I feel offended that my president, Biden, that he talks this way.
It's offensive. So I agree with Jeffrey Dove Jr.
on this. All right.
Here's a little update clarification.
Remember I talked yesterday, if you saw it, that Texas was noodling on some legislation, I don't know where it stands now, that would change the voting availability on Sunday in Texas.
And there's a weird little story here about that that I learned since then that I don't know what is true and what is not.
So you make the decision.
It goes like this.
Apparently the law change was going to suggest that you couldn't vote on a Sunday before 1 p.m.
You could vote from 1 until like 9 at night.
But you couldn't start before 1 p.m.
Now the thinking was that this was a voter suppression.
Because traditionally the black churches would get everybody excited in church and say, hey, let's all go vote.
And they would get a really good turnout because they would go from church to voting booth and it was just a good way to get everybody on board.
But if they had to wait till 1 p.m., that's way too long after church.
So it doesn't really work, right?
People are more likely to go home and then you lose the energy, etc.
So, it was suggested that this was overtly racist and intending to suppress the vote of black church-going people.
And that was an argument I was willing to listen to.
Right? It's a reasonable argument.
But, today we learn that according to at least some politicians in Texas, it was a typo.
A typo.
That it was always meant to be 11 a.m., but it was a typo that turned it into 1 p.m.
Or, you know, miscommunication, not necessarily a typo.
But the claim now is that it was always meant to be 11 a.m., which would probably work perfectly with the church thing, and that the Republicans, not the Democrats, the Republicans are saying, oh, we'll change this back to 11.
That was not intended.
I don't know. You buying it?
Yeah, and was there a typo that went from a.m.
to p.m.? Now, you can imagine the a.m.
to p.m. thing happening, because if anybody said it's 1 o'clock, your brain would say, well, it's not 1 a.m., so you might just automatically change it to p.m.
when you wrote it. Yeah, I'm not sure I buy the story.
Right. Yeah, your skepticism is warranted.
But my guess is there may have been some people who were trying to be clever and maybe other Republicans who would not have done that.
And when they saw that it was done, said, no, we're actually trying to fix things, not suppress things.
So I think there might have been a little difference of opinion there.
If you're following persuasion, The vaccination persuasion game is really interesting because now all of the easy-to-vaccinate people are getting vaccinated.
You're down to the tough cases, the people who are on the fence, the people who maybe don't want a vaccination.
Now, separating from the question of whether they should be vaccinated, let's hold that separate.
If you wanted them to be vaccinated, how would you persuade them?
Well, one of the things is, I guess, Budweiser is offering a free beer For anybody who gets a vaccination.
Now, what's your first impression of that?
What's your first impression?
Well, my first impression is, gosh, nobody's going to risk their life for a beer, and nobody's even going to risk having 24 hours of discomfort like I had yesterday.
Nobody's going to risk that for a beer, like one beer.
Right? And then there are all these other offers that different states are doing, like black-owned barber shops, I don't know, get a free haircut.
Parents who get the shots get free child care while they're inoculated.
And so there are various little tax credits and things like that.
Now here's the thing.
Not one of these incentives is anywhere near the value of the vaccination.
Right? It's like getting a, I don't know, just a grain of sand.
That's a terrible analogy.
But it's a terrible reward because the thing that you're being rewarded for is way more important than a beer or a haircut.
So, is it good persuasion or bad?
Go. In the comments.
In the comments. Is it good persuasion or bad to offer rewards that are trivial?
I took a class to train my dog Snickers, and the professional trainer taught us this trick.
She said, dogs can't do fractions.
Meaning, you can get a dog to do a trick for a nice big treat, but you can get that dog to do exactly the same trick For a little piece of that treat.
Just like so little that you can barely hold it into your thumb and finger.
And that dog will do the same trick for a fraction of the treat.
Do you know who else does that?
People. Human beings.
Right? Human beings will do tricks for treats no matter how big the treat is.
The treat can be trivial, and you'll still do it.
Why? Well, my best interpretation of this is what I'd call the fake because.
Meaning that there are people who are on the fence about the vaccination, and maybe there's a little peer pressure.
Maybe their friends are saying, eh, I'm not getting it.
And you're like, eh, I don't want to do what my friends are not doing.
If my friends say they're not getting it, maybe I won't get it.
You're sort of on the fence.
In persuasion...
There's something called the fake because.
I named it, actually.
And the fake because is a reason that's not a real reason.
It's the reason that's not a real reason.
And when you use that is when somebody's already leaning in your direction.
They're already halfway there.
They're, like, leaning. And all you need to do is, like, tap, poof, and they go over.
The fake because doesn't work at all if somebody's completely opposed.
You're not going to change anybody's mind with a fake because if they're really, really solid on the other side.
The only time you use it is if somebody's like, well, I'm uncertain.
I'm uncertain. I'll have a beer.
I'll have a beer. Oh, okay.
I'll get a vaccination for a beer.
Because I was thinking about it, and I probably would have said yes.
I don't know. I probably would have said yes.
But one way I get a beer, the other way I don't get a beer, I'll take a beer.
How about a free haircut?
Pfft. Sure. So here's the tricky, here's the part.
If you look at all these incentives, and you're not a persuasion-trained person, you'd say to yourself, this can't work, because the incentives are way too small.
You're wrong. You're wrong.
Those tiny little incentives will move a lot of people who just wanted any reason, just give me any reason, doesn't have to make sense, Doesn't have to be a big reason.
Doesn't even have to...
It could be irrational.
Completely irrational. I'll still do it.
Yeah. So that's good persuasion.
And when my government is...
And governments, because the states are mostly doing this, when I see my governments doing this kind of stuff, I like it.
This is a confidence builder for me because this is the right thing to do.
This assumes that you think also that people should get vaccinated.
Uh... Let's talk about Fauci vs.
Tucker. How many of you believe, in the comments, I want to see this, in the comments, how many of you believe that the Fauci emails have shown that he lied on something important?
How many of you think that the Fauci emails are like a smoking gun?
And when you look at those emails, it's plain as day that he fooled the country.
I'm going to look at your comments.
I see. No, yes, yes, no.
Maybe not sure, no.
Nope, it doesn't.
Doubt it. 50-50.
Don't know. You're all over the place, aren't you?
How could you be so all over the place?
How is that possible?
Because the news has been out there for a while, right?
And you're seeing very prominent people saying, yes, he lied.
I'm seeing yes, yes, no smoking gun.
Yes, he did. No, he didn't.
You're all over the map.
Why is that? Well, let me tell you how to sort this out, okay?
Here's how you would approach this question, because it's a little confusing.
No, it's not a little confusing.
It's really confusing.
And I'm going to take you through it a little bit and try to sort this out.
The number one thing you ask yourself is, Where is the news that Fauci lied or that he did something horrible?
Where is it being reported?
If you go to CNN, is CNN reporting that Fauci's emails have a smoking gun and a problem in them?
Is CNN reporting it?
No. No.
CNN doesn't see any problem.
How about MSNBC? Is MSNBC reporting that a problem has been found in the emails?
Nope. Nope.
Is Fox News reporting that there's a problem in the emails?
Let me ask you this question.
Is Fox News reporting it?
That's the only question I want to see the answers.
Most of you probably watch it.
I see a yes.
Is Fox News reporting it?
Yes, yes, yes. I'm looking at your comments.
Yes, Fox is reporting it.
Yes, yes, yes. You're all wrong.
I think you're all wrong.
I don't believe Fox News is reporting it.
You're seeing the opinion people, right?
Now, Fox News might have some guests on, and the guests are saying stuff, but are any of the news people on Fox the news people, not the opinion people?
Remember, Tucker is opinion.
Remember, Laura and Graham is opinion.
So somebody says Brett Baer reported it.
What did he report?
Did Brett Baer report that there's a controversy?
Because that would be true. Did he report that people are looking at what Fauci said and they're questioning whether it is compatible?
Because that would be true. People are questioning it.
But did Brett Baer report that Fauci lied and the email proves it?
I haven't seen all of Bret Baier's reports, but I'll bet now.
I'll bet now.
So I'm going to take you through it.
As you know, Tucker has got some comments.
Adam Townsend, if you don't follow him on Twitter, you're missing a good show.
So Adam Townsend tweeted this about this controversy.
He says, You're all going to look like tinfoil hatters to any normies.
You'll say... But the Fauci leaks.
They'll say, okay, show me the email that sends Fauci to jail.
And then you start rambling crazy.
So find me the part in Fauci's email that is your problem.
Find it. Just show it to me.
Here's what happened when Tucker tried to do this.
Here's something that Fauci said, and I'm going to compare this to Tucker's interpretation.
So Fauci did say, at one point during the pandemic, he said this, a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve and the mutations that it took to get to the point where it now is totally consistent with With a jump of a species from an animal to human.
So what he's saying is that the possibility that it was just a naturally occurring virus, that what they knew at the time is totally consistent with that hypothesis.
Now, when you say something is totally consistent with a hypothesis, are you saying that hypothesis is definitely true?
Is that the same thing? Something is consistent with a hypothesis.
Is that equal to it's true?
No. No.
Those are not the same.
It just fits the hypothesis.
If there's another hypothesis that also fits the facts, then you have two hypotheses that both fit the facts.
Here's how I think it was Tucker or Fox News in an opinion piece They changed consistent with to decided conclusively.
So consistent with is what Fauci said.
It's consistent with, and then it looks like Tucker changed that to decided conclusively, or somebody did on Fox News.
And is that the same?
They're not even close.
Decided conclusively is not even close.
Too consistent with a hypothesis.
So watch the really specific language that you're saying.
All right, let's do another one. There's this question of who funded this, quote, gain-of-function stuff.
So Fauci said, and there's this Dr.
Barrick who apparently is central to the question of whether there is gain-of-function research and whether Fauci helped get the funding for the Wuhan lab, etc.
So Fauci said, Dr.
Barrick... Does not do gain-of-function research.
He doesn't do it.
That's the first part.
And if it is...
Oh, so the very next thing is he softened it.
He says he doesn't do it, but if he does, if it is, it's according to the guidelines.
So what Fauci is saying is that, as far as he knows, Beric doesn't do gain-of-function, but if he did, it would be according to the guidelines.
So is that saying he doesn't do it?
No. He's not saying he doesn't do it.
He's saying if he did, it would be according to the guidelines, and it would be done in North Carolina, which is a pretty important point.
And he says, and if you look at the grant and you look at the progress reports, it is not gain-of-function, despite the fact that people tweet that.
And so I said to myself, what does gain-of-function mean exactly?
We all think we know what it means, right?
Don't you think you know what it means?
But apparently there are two reasons to do gain of function.
Do you know what the two reasons are?
You know one reason, which is to turn it into a weaponized virus, right?
What's the other reason?
To develop a vaccine.
Yeah, there are two reasons to do gain of function.
One is to make a weapon, which we don't know for sure anybody's doing that.
We assume they are. But the other is to figure out more about the virus by making it pass to...
I guess the example given was...
This is from Wikipedia, by the way.
So here's an example.
Say you have an influenza B that can only infect humans and harbor seals.
So you've got this virus.
It does humans. It does harbor seals.
You're trying to find out more about the virus because that will allow you to make a vaccination.
And... So if you did a gain of function, you could introduce a mutation that would allow it to infect a rabbit.
So now you've taken something that infects only two species, and you've made it infect rabbits in addition.
That's gain of function. Now, are you going to die because they figured out a way to infect rabbits?
No. I don't think so.
I mean, unless it gets from the rabbit to humans.
But that would not be anticipated in this sort of thing.
But of course, there's always risk.
So here's the thing.
When Dr.
Fauci is saying that Dr.
Barrack is not doing any gain-of-function stuff, what's that mean?
Because remember, gain-of-function is two things.
It's not one thing. So is he ruling out both things?
Or is he saying, as he said, if it is, it's according to the guidelines?
The way I interpret that is according to the guidelines, it might be okay to do like this example of figuring out how to infect a rabbit.
That might be according to the guidelines.
I'm just speculating. But it might be.
What would not be according to the guidelines is figuring out how to weaponize it to kill people.
Probably not according to the guidelines.
So there's one kind of gain of function that you want, and scientists would agree, and there's one kind that nobody wants.
So when Fauci says Dr.
Beric is not doing gain-of-function, what's he mean?
What's he mean? Sounds like there's a little gray area about whether you've gotten into that or not.
So that one's hard.
All right, here's another one.
Did Fauci lie about vaccinations needed for recovered people?
Go. In the comments, do you believe that Fauci lied...
When he said he wasn't sure if people who had been infected with COVID, he wasn't sure if that gave them lasting immunity.
Was that a lie? He wasn't sure, because they didn't have data, he wasn't sure that it would give lasting immunity, but there was a good chance that it would.
Look at your comments.
Some of you say he's lying.
Lots of yeses, but lots of noes.
You're all looking at the same news.
It's the same news.
Why are half of you saying yes and half of you saying no?
Let me read his exact statement.
The question was, are people who are recovering from COVID generally immune from reinfection?
It's a big question, right?
And Fauci's response was, quote, no evidence in this regard, but you would assume that there would be substantial immunity post-infection.
Is that a lie? He said there's no evidence in this regard.
Is that part of a lie?
Nobody has studied it yet.
By now they have studied it and they know that it does give you pretty good protection.
But when he said it, there was no evidence.
But he also said, but you would assume that it would be substantial.
So he's assuming it's true because it's always true.
But this virus has been a little bit different and maybe engineered.
So maybe there's something different about this one.
To me, this just looked like a standard scientific statement that we don't have any evidence, but if it's like all the other situations, you would expect it to work this way.
That is exactly true.
Completely, completely compatible with what we later learned, which is that his assumption was correct.
It does give you lasting immunity.
This is called a lie.
Not one part of that was wrong.
None of it. Right?
Alright, then what about the masks?
In Fauci's email to Zeke Emanuel, he admitted something else.
This is Fox's story about this.
That surgical masks, the paper kind that all of us wear, don't really work.
I think this is from Tucker, right?
Now, do you believe that that's true?
Is it obvious that Tucker would say that surgical masks, the paper kind we all wear, don't really work?
And then the next sentence is, they offer very little protection from COVID. But wait a minute, those are opposites.
Those aren't the same thing.
These two sentences in the same paragraph are opposites.
Or not compatible, let's say.
That they don't really work, is that the same as they offer very little protection?
Because in a game of pandemic, if something offers you very little protection, you should do it.
Right? Because you're trying to get that reproduction rate under one, so every little bit helps.
How about social distancing?
Is that something that, let's say, to use the words, doesn't really work, or is it something that has very little protection?
Maybe you would do it anyway, if it's a pandemic, because everything that would help a little, maybe you should try it.
Apparently, Fauci said in the beginning that those masks don't make much difference and that it's more for the person who might be infected to keep them from spreading it.
So Fauci said that.
People agreed. He admitted he lied about the masks in the first place.
And let me ask you this.
In the comments, would you say that it is now demonstrated that those kinds of masks work or don't work?
And let me put this out to you.
I believe, I haven't researched this, but I'm pretty sure it's true, there is no industrialized country in which the medical experts for that country oppose masks for the pandemic.
Fact check me on this.
But I don't believe there's any country whose experts did not recommend masks.
True? So if you think this is some kind of weird Fauci-only problem, It's the whole world.
Every major industrial country's medical experts say the masks work and that the data is unambiguous.
What news are you watching?
Are you watching the news that says none of that's true?
Every major industrial country says masks work.
Now, somebody says, not India.
I would be concerned about maybe supply.
That could be a problem, too. Somebody says, there are a lot of European countries not recommending masks.
I'll bet that's a lie.
I'll bet that's a lie.
Certainly there are different mask recommendations for situations, right?
And whether we needed them outdoors or not, that changed over time.
But I don't believe there's anybody who believes that the following is not a good idea.
If you're going to spend time with somebody who has some comorbidities, and you're going to spend an hour indoors in the same room, would a mask be a good idea, according to All of the experts of all the industrialized countries in all the world.
And I think the answer is yes.
In that situation, all the country experts would say yes.
Not just America, not just Fauci, all of them.
Check me on that. Now, you could have differences on how long you are, which situations, but basically, they're all pro-mask.
Fact check me on this. If you can find another industrialized country that doesn't think masks ever work in any situation, let me know.
Tweet that at me. Okay?
So there's now this thing that I'm going to call pandemic zombies.
So a pandemic zombie would be somebody whose belief of what happened is forever wrong, and they'll just be going through life like a zombie.
And one of these beliefs is that the pandemic never happened.
So I see quite a few tweets from people who believe we didn't have a pandemic, and that the only thing that happened was we were testing things wrong, and that we didn't have any excess deaths, we just didn't even have a pandemic.
And there are a lot of people in that camp, and they're going to be walking through the world like regular people, but they believe no pandemic happened.
There are also people believing that masks don't work.
I would say that that's a zombie belief.
Now, you can be right, by the way.
You can be right.
But it's not because you're smart.
If you're right, it's just an accident.
Because, as I said, all of the industrial countries, all of their experts agree that masks work in some situations.
All of them. So you're the only person in the world who thinks masks don't work You're a zombie.
And then I'm hearing people say that the vaccinations are not making any difference to the virus level, and that it's really just warmer weather and vitamin D. Really?
You don't think we can tell that the vaccinations work?
Now, if you're saying you're afraid that there might be some medical problem down the line from the vaccination, well, that's at least a legitimate worry.
We don't know if it's true, but it's a legitimate worry.
Is it really legitimate to think the vaccinations are not decreasing the amount of infections?
That's not really a question anymore.
So I would say that you're a COVID zombie if you think the pandemic never happened, it was just a testing artifact, that masks don't work, and that it's proven.
We've got the proof. They don't work.
Or the vaccinations didn't make any difference to the pandemic.
Those things are not good thinking.
And I see people saying, well, I'm a zombie.
Sorry. I mean, there's nothing you can do about it.
People are going to believe that. And so I would like to put this request down to my critics because I'm seeing all the narcissist trolls come in.
And here's how you tell a narcissist troll versus some other.
The narcissist troll will misremember what you said once they find out they're wrong.
So I'm having a number of people come at me on Twitter saying, well, Scott, you said from the beginning, and then what they say is just ridiculous, something I never said, but they really think I did.
They're pretty sure that That I said, you know, something like drinking bleach is good for the...
Whatever. Whatever they say. So they're literally hallucinating that I got a bunch of stuff wrong about the pandemic.
In some cases, things I've never even commented on.
Somebody said, Glenn says, but you did.
But you did. Yeah, if you remember me getting something wrong about the pandemic, probably it's a false memory.
Probably. Um...
Actually, we can test this out.
Let's see how many people we have here.
What do you believe in the comments?
What do you believe I got wrong about the pandemic?
Let's see if anybody can actually accurately say what I said and then also demonstrate it's wrong.
Go ahead. Net deaths was wrong.
Exactly. Now, the net deaths estimate was based on a two-week shutdown.
So if it had been two weeks, I think I would have been right or close to right.
But when it turned into a year-long pandemic, then, of course, that didn't make any sense.
The net deaths were irrelevant once it became a long-term problem.
Now, the part I got wrong was believing that it would be a limited lockdown or that it would take care of the problem.
So I don't think I disagreed with it working or agreed with it working.
I didn't really have an opinion on that.
I just said Fauci didn't lie.
Well, show me how I'm wrong.
Tell me what he lied about.
He did lie about masks not working so he could protect the supply, but he's admitted that.
The PCR tests are valid for testing.
I've never given you an opinion on PCR tests.
You're imagining that.
So that's a perfect example. So if somebody says I'm wrong about PCR test accuracy, I've literally never had an opinion on that.
Because to me, I wouldn't know.
I still don't have an opinion on it.
Michael Lindell says there's a big announcement coming.
That'll be fun. Spoken terms of numbers, when you should have specified percentages.
You're going to have to do better than that.
Lying about masks to protect supplies is still bad.
I've seen the recent Brett Weinstein presentation about ivermectin.
I have, yes. That's very interesting.
Yeah, the ivermectin story, keep an eye on that.
You know, I still bet against it working, just based on the odds.
But if it does, that's a big story.
YouTube gave him a warning and removed him.
My God. Let's see.
I want to see if anybody else thinks I got anything wrong.
I don't see any here.
Interesting. Sweden is a disaster, somebody says.
No, that's not true. You don't mind read, which is great.
Well, I try not to, but everybody does.
Everybody does a little bit of mind reading.
They just don't admit it.
All right. All right.
You have no data on the shot working.
Of course we do.
Somebody says there's no data that the vaccinations work.
Are you freaking kidding me?
There's probably nothing we have more data on than whether the vaccinations work.
I don't think there's anything more documented than that.
Why did Amazon cancel...
Well, I don't know if it was Amazon, but Dr.
Fauci's book has some delay.
I don't know what that's about. We just have to wait and see on that.
That Biden handled the pandemic, I didn't say anything about that.
Happy birthday to Miguel Sanchez.
Alright, well, interesting.
I thought you would have more criticisms of me, but I'm glad that they're not.
And on that note, let me tell you that I'm feeling great today, one day after suffering from the second Moderna shot, if you're joining me late.
But as of today, I feel terrific.
And I'm fully vaccinated. And you can make your own decisions.
