Episode 1401 Scott Adams: Warm Apple Pie and Sunshine Are the Decoy Topics of the Day
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Self-generated vs media-assigned opinions
CNN spins vaccinated and death counts
The looming major change in transportation
Hunter Biden's email word choice
Jason Andrews piece on imprinted ideas
Mara Gay on politicizing American flag
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. I don't want to get your hopes up, but I have a feeling that this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams of all time.
Yeah, I just have that feeling.
And if you'd like to hear about warm apple pie and sunshine, well, you came to the right place, but that's the decoy.
We'll be talking about the headlines, as always.
But before we get to the simultaneous step, and I know you're waiting for that, I'd like to give you a few sources for future research on your own.
There's a lot of talk about the so-called bat-human interface.
That was studied at the Wuhan lab, apparently.
If you'd like to do your own research on the bat-human interface, I can recommend two movies.
Number one, Walking Tall, the Bat-Human Interface, and also Dracula, another good source for the Bat-Human Interface, and third, an Ozzy Osbourne concert.
If you're American, you probably understand all of those clever references.
If you're not, consult a friend.
Well, I think it's time.
Time for what?
Yes. The Simultaneous Sip.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or 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 here today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it's going to happen now all over the universe at the same time.
Go. Ah.
Alright people, remember I've told you that your opinions are sometimes assigned to you by the media.
It feels like you're coming up with your own opinions, but probably not.
Now, I'm not exempt from this.
I assume that I'm subject to the same forces, but it's easier to see it in other people.
You can see other people's mistakes easier than you can see your own.
That's how we're designed.
And I would submit that one way you could determine that your views are assigned to you by the media is if they assign you two views that conflict, in other words, two things that can't both be true, and you accept both of them.
Right? Wouldn't you say that would be a good test?
To find out if your opinions are self-generated, Or if they're actually assigned to you by the media, if the media gave you two opinions that you accepted, you accepted both of them, but they're in direct conflict, don't you think that would be a good test?
Well, let's test it.
Let's see how many of you here, and let's see if anybody, I'm not sure anybody will fall into this category, but let's just test it.
How many of you in the comments, tell me, how many of you believe the pandemic began when a deadly weaponized virus, or at least one that they were working on for the purposes of gain of function, escaped from the Wuhan lab?
It was a deadly pandemic weaponized virus escaped from the Wuhan lab.
How many believe that that is probably true?
You don't have to be completely certain, just give me a probably true.
Yes, yes, yes. Probably yes.
Yes, yes, yes. Looks like almost universally people are saying probably true, right?
Yeah, we're waiting for something that would tell us for sure.
But almost unanimous, all right?
So we seem to unanimously believe, the people watching this livestream, that the pandemic was started when a deadly weaponized virus escaped from the Wuhan lab.
Alright, that's belief number one.
Now I'm going to do a different belief.
Alright, we're going to stop your answering the first one.
We're going to go to the second belief.
Belief number two.
The coronavirus of this past year is basically just a bad flu.
In the comments, how many of you believe that the coronavirus and COVID-19 are overdone?
And that they're basically just a bad flu.
I'm watching the comments go by.
Alright, a lot of no's.
Good. A lot of no's.
But there are, strangely, quite a few yes's.
So, if you said, yes, you think it was a deadly pandemic that started at the Wuhan lab, but You do not believe that it's a harmless virus.
Well, that's consistent.
That would be a consistent opinion.
And it would be consistent with, doesn't prove it, but it would be consistent with the hypothesis that you make up your own opinions.
So if your opinion is consistent and there's no conflict, it might be your own opinion.
There would be no way to tell that it was necessarily assigned to you by the media.
But if you believe both of these things, that it's a deadly virus that escaped from a lab, and it's also not a deadly virus, you've got some explaining to do.
Right? That would show you that your opinions just came from TV. Because Fox News holds both of these views.
The opinion people, not the news people.
So when I talk about Fox News, I'm talking about the opinion people.
The opinion people, I think, can you do a fact check on me?
Tell me if I'm going too far.
Is it fair to say that the opinion people on Fox News are telling you that the virus probably came out of a weaponization process to become a deadly escape virus and also, at the same time, it's just a normal flu but a little bit worse?
They can't both be true.
They can't. You've got to pick one.
If you believe both of those things, I believe you can say for sure your opinion came from TV and did not come from your own thoughts.
All right. Here's some good news.
In the comments, tell me.
In the comments, I want to see how well informed you are.
Because we're all watching the news, right?
Probably every person who's watching this live stream Also consumes a good deal of news.
And given that the biggest story in the world is still COVID, how many people approximately, without checking, okay, no cheating, don't check any sources, tell me how many people died, let's say, on average,
the average number of people who died per day, in the United States only, not the world, just the United States, how many people died per day in the past week, From COVID. Just off the top of your head, because you all consume news, and it's the biggest story in the world.
So how many was it? Somebody said 50, 17, 1400, 1000.
10, people saying 3, 1000, 350, 1500.
All right, here's the number.
This is CNN's reporting.
It said that in the past week in the United States, there have been 427 deaths.
That would average out to 61 per day.
61. 61.
Do you know what we were...
Weren't we up to like 3,000 or something at one point?
What was our peak? 3,000 per day, I think?
We're down to 61.
Do you know how CNN reported this low, low number?
They had to add the whole week together so it would be over 100.
They had to report it as 427 deaths over the past seven days.
They couldn't report the daily deaths because they're too low.
And it would make you not get a vaccination.
Probably. I'm assuming that part of their thinking was the public good, I hope, and that they were trying to not report it as the good news that it is, because it might cause you to act differently.
And, you know, I can understand that.
That would be a responsible thing to do.
But it does appear that they have added the whole week together to get over 100, because if it's not over 100, you're not going to care.
If it's not over 100 per day, you're not going to care, are you?
It's just too small.
And what do you feel is the accuracy of counting COVID deaths?
I know I'm leading you to the obvious answer.
Do you think that we've always been really good at counting COVID deaths?
No. No, of course not.
We've never been good at counting COVID deaths.
What do you think would be the relative accuracy?
Let's say you were not so good at counting COVID deaths, but you're trying really hard.
You're trying to do your best to count them right, but you're not that accurate.
How many miscounts would you expect per day?
From the number of people who die per day, how many of them would you expect might be a misdiagnosed COVID death?
I don't know, maybe about 61 per day.
I feel like we're down to the level where the real number of deaths is very close to the number that we miscount.
Now, I'm not suggesting that none of them are real, but you're getting to the level where it's just lost in the rounding.
Like, it might not even be real at this point.
We could be down to zero and we wouldn't even know it.
We're not down to zero.
But the point is, the numbers are so low that they're going to be really hard to count.
Because you're not really sure you're getting them all, right?
So, that's amazing news.
The reporting also says, listen to how CNN reports this.
The good news comes as about 42% of Americans are fully vaccinated.
That doesn't sound like much, does it?
I mean, it's great compared to zero.
But 42% fully vaccinated, that's not, like, great.
While 52% have received at least one dose.
A little bit better, but, you know, not that 70% we're looking for.
But here's what they don't report.
If we've got 42% of Americans fully vaccinated, we have all of the vulnerable ones vaccinated who want to be vaccinated, right?
Basically, all of the people who have risk and want to be vaccinated are vaccinated.
Oh, interesting.
Trudy's got an interesting question here.
Let me get to that in a minute.
So anyway, that's your situation.
I think we may be really, really in good shape here.
But the news is trying to be responsible, trying to make sure you get your vaccination.
I understand the motivation to that.
So I don't mind this kind of fake news.
This is fake news, in my opinion, because they're shading the news toward a bias to cause you to act in a certain way, but I feel like it's responsible.
Enough. I'm okay with this level of fake news.
Trudy said that Pleasanton has had some success getting addicts off the street, but I don't know about that.
I don't know how many were on the street to begin with in Pleasanton, but I'll look into that.
Maybe there's something there. CNN says there's a mystery that there's no seasonal flu this year.
You already knew that news, right?
You knew that in the United States, the number of regular flu deaths was basically zero in the past year.
And you said to yourself, well, that makes sense, because if we're doing all this mitigation for coronavirus, which is far more viral...
We probably would get rid of the regular flu.
Because kids are not going to school, especially.
And they're the ones who get the regular flu and bring it home.
So, made sense.
But there's a new mystery to add to the fact that America did not have any regular flu deaths this year.
And the mystery is this.
It happened in every country.
No matter what they did.
Let me say that again.
The disappearance of regular flu happened in every country, no matter what they did, whether they closed down, whether they used masks, no matter what they did.
None of them. They all had zero when they counted them.
Do you know that the regular flu, the seasonal flu that we get every year, we don't count those deaths.
We estimate them Based on the extra people dying who don't die during the non-flu season.
It's an estimate.
When you count them, they're not there.
Now, a year ago I told you I believed that we would learn that the regular flu deaths were always fake.
That they were never real.
And I based it on this observation.
That the number of people who allegedly die from the regular seasonal flu every year is in that 50,000 to 80,000 a year range.
The number of people who die of fentanyl overdoses is the same range, 50,000 to 70,000.
Why is it that we all know somebody who died of a fentanyl overdose, but almost none of us have ever heard of somebody dying of the regular flu?
Am I right? How many of you have heard of a fentanyl overdose?
Somebody you know. Obviously, it hit me close to home.
But I also know other people who died of fentanyl overdoses, not just my own stepson.
Now, somebody said their grandfather did.
So, to me, I don't understand why there's one that I hear about all the time and one that I've never heard of in my entire life.
Not once. Not a single case.
I'm not saying they don't exist.
I'm saying I've never heard of one.
So how could those numbers be about the same when one you hear all the time and one you just don't hear about?
Could it be because it's old people dying of the flu, so you don't talk about them because it just looks natural?
Whereas a young person dying of a fentanyl overdose feels like a bigger...
A bigger deal. Maybe it's that.
Maybe. But I suspected that the regular flu deaths were always fake.
And I believe that once we know that as soon as you're counting them, they've disappeared everywhere, certainly suggests that's the case.
Now the other hypothesis is that all of the regular flu deaths are being called coronavirus deaths this year.
Is that possible?
In the comments, Give me the opinion.
Which do you think is more likely?
That there were never really any substantial seasonal flu deaths, or that there were just as many this year, but they were attributed to COVID? I'm seeing a lot of people buying into the misattributed to COVID. But for those of you who think the problem is that they were misattributed to COVID, how do you explain this?
Kids didn't get the flu.
Now, remember, the kids are not necessarily the ones who are dying from the flu so much.
I mean, it happens, but not so much.
But the children, it's not that they didn't die.
They didn't get it.
It's not even just the deaths that are missing.
The children didn't get it.
If we were miscounting COVID deaths, there would still be plenty of children with the flu.
They just wouldn't be dying, but they'd have the flu.
Now, of course, people are saying, well, that's because there's no school, Scott.
But how do you explain it in the other countries where there was school?
Remember, no matter what the country did, none of them had flu.
Deaths. But did they even have flu?
I'm going to say that they didn't have the flu either, because if they did have the flu, maybe they would have had the flu deaths.
So, is it possible that children in other countries where there was school are having seasonal flu just like normal, but nobody's dying?
Because they're all misattributed to COVID. I'm not sure that we have a final answer, but I'm going to stick with my prediction that we're going to find out that deaths from the regular seasonal flu do exist, but they're so rare that they were vastly overestimated before.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen.
I'm saying vastly overestimated.
All right. Here's the biggest thing that's coming.
In the future. And it's so big, I don't know if we can quite even grasp how big this is going to be.
And it's the change in transportation.
Everything about transportation is ready to change.
I'm not sure if you've quite put it all together.
Here are just some of the things that are massively going to change because of transportation evolution.
Number one, commuting.
Wouldn't you agree? Mike says every time he goes to the doctor with feeling horrible, they tell him he has the flu, but they don't test for it.
I don't even know if there is a test for the regular flu.
But anyway. So in transportation, commuting is...
Almost a thing of the past for a lot of jobs because the internet is now so strong and Zoom calls are so normal and the pandemic got us used to not commuting.
So commuting has probably forever changed, right?
Some people will go back to the office, but I think the idea of driving to the office as a requirement is just forever gone.
So there's that. Number two, delivery of everything.
So the delivery services will just keep getting better and easier and more irresistible.
At this point, I have a tremendous amount of things delivered.
That's not going to change.
So all the reasons you had to go to the store just went away.
But you also have self-driving cars coming.
Nothing can stop this.
If you're saying to yourself, I don't think there will ever be self-driving cars...
Because they won't be safe enough, or they won't be approved, people won't feel comfortable with them.
None of that's going to happen. Self-driving cars are 100% guaranteed.
There's no way around it.
We're going to have them. And there are slowly a number of companies working themselves through the permitting and testing.
Phase. Now, something that I heard Elon Musk say is a good context for this.
In order to have self-driving cars, you would have to have computers in the cars that are strong enough, and we do.
The computers that are already in new cars are strong enough to do everything a self-driving car needs.
So that's done, basically.
Number two, you would need to have enough camera systems to see everything you need to see.
That's done. The Teslas, for example, have all the cameras you would need to be a self-driving car.
They already have that. The other thing you need which would help would be if they're all electric.
Because I think it would be easier for an autonomous car to self-fuel if it's electric.
I'm just guessing. Because you don't have any liquid that might catch on fire or anything.
So I'm just guessing that being electric is going to be a big part of autonomous.
Not all of them, but maybe most of them.
And then the other big change is the density and efficiency of batteries.
The battery efficiency is just, every year, better and better and better.
And no end in sight.
It looks like batteries will just keep getting better and lighter and more powerful.
And we're now right at the crossover point where electric airplanes are economical.
Airplanes. And not only electric airplanes, but your own private little drone-like helicopter flying car.
Now, I'm not sure you'll have your own flying car.
Probably there'll be some sporty ones.
I don't think you're going to have your own car to commute, but you're definitely going to have flying taxis.
I would say the odds of having flying taxis as a regular feature of life are close to 100% at this point.
And it's going to be pretty soon.
So you're going to have cheap electric flying vehicles and autonomous cars and no commuting and everything's going to be delivered.
Everything about transportation is going to change.
And just in a few years.
On Twitter, Twitter user Donald Luskin says he did a data analysis of masks and found that masks work, but he could find no correlation with social distancing.
In other words, where mask mandates were in place, there seemed to be a noticeably big difference in infections, but where you had social distancing, that did not come out.
I don't understand that.
Because I don't know of a situation where you would ever have a mask requirement where you would not also have a distancing requirement or at least a distancing practice.
If you put a mask on, you're kind of automatically also going to stand at a distance from people because it's all part of the same mindset, right?
So I don't know how you could imagine that masks work but distancing doesn't.
It feels like the data would show either they both work or neither work, but I feel like they travel as a pair, even if the law doesn't require it, just people would act that way.
But I ask you this.
If the numbers showed that social distancing didn't make any difference to infections, would that tell you that social distancing doesn't work, or would it tell you that numbers don't work?
I'd like to see your opinion on this.
In the comments, and this is just a hypothetical because I don't know this to be the case, but hypothetically, if the numbers showed that social distancing didn't change the infection rate, what would you assume?
Would you assume the analysis was obviously wrong, or would you assume that social distancing doesn't work?
I'm looking at your comments.
I'm seeing Yeah, numbers don't work.
Numbers rarely work.
Not commenting on this one.
Studies are biased.
Numbers are wrong. Yeah, I don't see any logical way that social distancing could fail.
Am I right about that?
It just feels to me that social distancing is the most obvious thing that would work every time.
To some degree.
Right? Not 100%.
But how do you get the virus if you're not around somebody who has it?
I would just assume the numbers are wrong.
So, keep that in mind.
President Biden is making his first international travel, and I'm glad he is, because he's taking on some of the big problems in the world.
So he's visiting the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Switzerland.
Those are three hotspots in the world.
And if you want your president working on the big priorities, you want him to be going to the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Switzerland.
Because as you know, that's where most of our problems come from, the big three.
Sort of the axis of extreme evil, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Switzerland.
So it's a good thing that Biden is going there first, not doing something useless like President Trump visiting Kim Jong-un and stopping a nuclear war.
But we've got some important topics also with these countries.
And I got a preview of some of the topics that Biden will be discussing when he visits the UK, Belgium, and Switzerland.
So here are the three things on the top of his list.
Number one, cold toast.
Why? Number two, chocolate treaty.
We've got to talk about that.
And number three topic is, which one is Belgium?
So I think those are the three topics Biden will be talking about.
We'll keep watching that.
Speaking of Biden, Hunter Biden is in the news.
Some of his emails reportedly use the N-word.
The N-word. Not only does he use the N-word, but he uses it in reference to his lawyer.
Uh-oh. Who's white?
Who's white? His lawyer's white.
So Hunter Biden calls his white lawyer the N-word.
But not the N-word ending with E-R, but the N-word ending with G-A. Sort of more, you know, not the full proper word.
And people have rightly said, can you imagine, can you even imagine if, you know, one of the Trump kids said something like this and it came out?
Can you even imagine?
Okay, first of all, that's a fair comment.
If this exact same thing had happened with Don Jr., it would be the only news.
There wouldn't be any other news.
However, let me say this.
It's just fake news.
Now, it's a real event.
I'm sure the email is real.
I'm sure he really used the word.
But can we really get excited About two white people talking privately about anything.
Now, I suppose if they were planning a terrorist attack, I'd probably care about that.
But I don't think that as a standard we should be looking at private communications or communications they expected to be private and have any opinion at all about a private conversation.
Here's the opinion you should have about this.
Nothing. It's none of your fucking business, right?
It's none of your fucking business what two people said privately to each other.
None of your fucking business.
And it doesn't reveal any racism.
If it did, maybe that would be news, right?
But it doesn't reveal anything.
There's nothing about his hunter's secret thoughts.
There's nothing about his belief of anything.
It's a non-story.
You know, I would be happy to dump on him if there were anything to this.
But there isn't. It's just, you know, political fun.
So it's fun to...
I guess it's fun to make fun of Hunter Biden.
But, you know, I do have some empathy for his addiction problems in particular.
I mean, that's nothing to joke about.
But let the guy make a bad joke If you want to say his personality is defective, we all have defective personalities.
I would make absolutely nothing of this story.
Apparently Joe Biden is not much of a negotiator because he can't get an infrastructure deal.
So the negotiations have broken down.
Now, how hard is it to negotiate a deal when everybody is in favor of the deal?
It feels like the easiest thing you could do, right?
How would you like to do X? I love X. Let's do X right away.
Okay, let's negotiate X. I agree with X. You agree with X. Let's come together and do X. Apparently Biden couldn't get that done.
He and his winged monkeys have added so much to the infrastructure bill that the Republicans can't call it infrastructure anymore.
And so they say, we're walking away.
Good job, Republicans.
So now Republicans have stopped how many things?
Help me with how many things the Republicans have stopped.
They stopped the investigation of the January 6th riot.
They stopped infrastructure so far.
We'll see where that goes.
And there was a third thing.
What was the other thing that they stopped recently?
I'm trying to remember.
But as long as Joe Manchin is in favor of the, what you call it?
Oh, H.R.1. Yes, the voting changes.
So Republicans have a pretty good record.
And the filibuster, I'm sorry, that's the word I couldn't think of.
So as long as Joe Manchin is in favor of the filibuster, and he's kind of the tiebreaker on a lot of this stuff, I think we're in good shape.
We're in good shape.
What do you think are the odds that Biden's going to push through his tax increases?
It kind of looks low, doesn't it?
I feel like the odds of that are low.
Because if the Republicans can stop three things in a row, including infrastructure, they can definitely stop a gigantic tax increase, can't they?
I feel like that would be the slow-ball pitch.
If a Republican can do anything, they can rail against high taxes.
So I'm feeling optimistic that the taxes won't go up as much as they could have.
But one of the things that Biden is doing well, and I'm going to have to compliment him.
I hate to do it.
I know you don't like it.
But I'm going to compliment Biden on this persuasive thing.
He's asking for so much in terms of tax increases, it's a good opening offer.
Because, you know, at this point, if he only got half of what he's asking for, I would still feel absolutely abused, but I would feel like it wasn't as bad as it could have been, which is exactly why you make the first big ask.
So at least he did that right.
He's got plenty of room to negotiate.
Here's a statistic today from some survey.
20% of Democrats lost a friendship over politics versus 10% of Republicans in recent, I guess, recent year or so.
And so twice as many Democrats lost a friend compared to Republicans over politics.
To which I say...
How is that possible?
How is it possible that there could be twice as many Democrats losing a friend than Republicans?
Doesn't that mean that the Democrats are turning on each other?
Because if the only friends people lost were the opposite party, it would be the same number, right?
Because if I'm a Democrat and I lose you as a friend as a Republican, That's one Republican lost a friend and one Democrat lost a friend.
That's the same number.
How do you get twice as many Democrats losing a friend unless they've turned on each other?
Right? Am I doing the math wrong?
I feel like that's the only way you get there.
I don't know how else you could have a double number.
The Democrats have to be turning on themselves.
I think, right?
I don't know any other way to interpret that.
Alright, so also, same survey, 33% of liberal women ended friendships over politics.
33%. Do you know what the biggest complaint of women is, adult women?
Do you know what their biggest personal complaint?
Don't have friends.
Let me ask you in the comments, how many women, so this is just a question for women, Women only.
How many of you have a real problem finding a friend or making more friends?
So do you have a friend deficit that is really obvious to you?
You're like, ah, I don't have enough friends.
How many of you have that situation going on right now?
I see one.
I do. Yes.
Nope. Nope.
Yes. No.
Yes. Yep. Very much.
No. No problem.
Not really. No, no.
Me. No, no, no.
Yes. Yep.
It's hard. No.
Yes. So you can see it's very mixed.
I wouldn't assume that it's equally mixed, but you can see it's big.
It's a big problem. So one of the biggest problems that I've heard people talk about is the lack of being able to find a friend And 33% of liberal women have ended friendships over politics.
Can they afford to lose friends?
Can any of us afford to lose friends?
It's hard to make a friend.
Yeah, look at all the lonely people.
Let me change the question.
Instead of just friends, because that could be a little murky in terms of how you're answering it, let me ask you this.
How many of you would consider yourselves lonely?
so in the comments how many of you consider yourselves lonely like right now in this part of your life uh i'm seeing yes no no no no no no no no no no no mostly no's interesting No, somebody says today, yes.
I do? Mostly no.
It's interesting. I was expecting a few more yeses, and I wonder if this is a conservative bias.
I know most of my...
Oh, you know what?
The other bias is most of my viewers are male.
I think men are a little less likely to say they're lonely.
Yeah. Yeah. Alone but not lonely.
Somebody's enjoying their loneliness or their lone time.
I could get a friend if I wanted.
That feels like a male perspective, doesn't it?
I think a man would say, yeah, I'm lonely, but I could get a friend if I wanted, so it's my own damn fault.
All right, interesting. Well, it's not as bad as I thought it would be, but that could be a reflection of my audience.
It's a biased audience.
All right, here's a...
So the bottom line on this is that the fake news is causing a mental health crisis, and part of this crisis is that people are losing friends, and you can't really afford to lose friends in this world because you might go down to zero.
So that's a big deal.
I would like to direct you to a fascinating article by Jason Andrews on his blog, parsingpersuasion.com.
So I tweeted it so you can see it in my Twitter feed toward the top today.
And the basic idea, which I'm not going to get into the details, but the basic idea is that what we're seeing in terms of the wokeness and critical race theory and, you know, let's say the social politics of the day, that this is...
Perfectly suited for Marxism to essentially get a grip.
Now, I had been trying to figure out why people were saying critical race theory is a Marxist idea.
Because I couldn't figure out how that works.
Because Marxism seemed like a political system, or a political slash economic system, whereas...
Whereas critical race theory just seemed like a social thing and I couldn't figure out how they fit.
Jason has some fascinating ideas about how people get imprinted early in life and these imprints from either a strong or weak mother or father can cause different personality types and if you cause one personality type you are vulnerable to a change in system.
And another personality type You're less vulnerable to a change in system, be it Marxism or something else, and that the recent changes have primed people for a change in system.
Now, I don't know how...
I have no evidence that any of that's intentional, meaning I don't really know that there's some smart people sitting behind a desk somewhere who figured out, if we do this and this and this and wait 30 years, it'll be perfect for Marxism to take over, I don't know. Maybe.
Maybe. Maybe there's somebody doing that.
I tend to not believe the people are so clever they plan 30 years in advance.
I tend not to believe that.
But anything's possible.
We have seen interviews from Soviet defectors saying that they have these long-term plans to destroy the United States culture, etc., Maybe.
So I would just suggest that you read Jason Andrews' piece on that.
Make up your own mind. But I think there's something there.
You know, I might need to read it again, but I think there's something there.
Rand Paul gets a big win today.
He'd been saying that you don't need a vaccination.
Talking about himself, really.
You don't need a vaccination if you've already had the COVID infection and it's confirmed.
But a new study comes out, a Cleveland Clinic study of over 52,000 employees, showed that the unvaccinated people who have had COVID-19 had no difference in reinfection rate than people who had COVID and took the vaccine.
So there was no difference.
So the vaccine added zero extra protection.
But... But, as Ian Martousis might tell you, there might be a difference in how long they last.
So it could be that Rand Paul is completely right at the moment.
It could also be true that in six to nine months, that people who had the infection, but not the vaccination, might have less protection.
We don't know if that will translate into actually more infections, but I think what we know about it is that the double vaccination gives you more protection than just being infected by it.
And I also don't know if the variants make any difference to this.
Does having one version of COVID Give you just as good protection against the variants as having the vaccine that was sort of designed to take care of it.
Which one does the variants better?
So I still have some questions about this, but I think we can give Rand Paul the win.
Would you agree? You know, I feel like it's not a 100% win because it could be a difference in how well protected you are in the long run.
In the short run, it looks like he's just right, right?
When you say that in the short run, he's just right.
In the long run, we don't know yet.
That's a little bit more of an open question.
But if I had to put a bet on it, if I had to put my money on it, I think I'd bet on Rand Paul on this one.
I think I would bet that the natural immunity is good enough, even if it's not as good.
Are you watching this story about a New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay said something about Trump supporters politicizing the American flag.
And if you like the flag, you probably said to yourself, how do you politicize a flag?
Because the whole point of the flag is for everybody.
That's what it is.
But apparently people on the left think that the full embrace of the American flag by people on the right...
Suggests that it's becoming sort of a racist symbol, or a divisive symbol.
To which I say, who made that happen?
I don't think it was the Republicans loving the flag that turned it bad.
Wasn't it the fact that Democrats were stomping on it and burning it that made it not their flag?
It wasn't the Republicans that made it not their flag.
It was the people who kneel when the flag is flying.
It's the people who burn it, the people who disrespect it.
How do you blame this on the Republicans?
The Republicans always loved the flag.
They never didn't love it.
But the Democrats and the left are certainly demonizing it.
So if it becomes a divisive symbol, who did that?
The Republicans, just by being exactly the way they always were?
Did they make something happen by being exactly the same as always?
That's what happened? No.
If something has changed, you'd have to look to the people who changed.
It wasn't the Republicans.
I don't see any Republicans flying extra flags.
Really. I don't think so.
Although I have seen a lot of flags.
I'm going to say that in my town...
How many of you notice this?
In my town, we're still a good distance away from 4th of July, but there are more American flags, right?
Can you confirm that?
I'm noticing more.
And I don't know if those are Republicans who are sort of sending in a bat signal or something.
I don't know. All right, let's talk about Trump.
Apparently Trump wrote a press release congratulating Nigeria for banning Twitter.
And he said, because they banned their president.
And Trump said, perhaps I should have done it while president.
So Trump is actually talking about banning Twitter because Twitter banned him.
And I tell you, you don't realize how much you miss Trump until you see him say anything.
Everything Trump says is more interesting than anything anybody else says.
And how does he do this so consistently?
How does he do it so consistently?
I mean, this is the most provocative thing anybody said today, and he's always the one who says it.
So, man, is he good at this, the provocative stuff.
Anyway, here's an update on ivermectin.
I told you the story that Brett Weinstein and others, a lot of others, are talking about how the studies on ivermectin, although individually the studies may be imperfect, if you did a meta-analysis, they seem to point strongly in one direction, but you don't even need the meta-analysis.
You can just look at all the studies and say, they all point in the same direction.
Some of them might be flawed, some of them might be flawed in different ways, but they all point in the same direction.
So this point I don't think I made clearly when I was talking about it before.
While I don't believe that meta-analyses are the magic bullet, I don't believe a meta-analysis should necessarily be trusted.
But that said, with the evidence that we have, If you have to decide what to do about your own health, and you've got a well-known drug with basically zero risk, and all this evidence that's not perfect, but is really,
really, really strong, might be wrong, but it looks kind of right, and there's no risk, and the expense is minimal compared to the benefit if you have any, it's a no-brainer in terms of risk-reward.
So if you're telling me what should you do, well, the risk-reward is obvious.
There's no risk, really.
And there's really, really good evidence that it might work.
But I have to use might because we're just short of proof, right?
There's no doubt about it.
It should be treated as something you take seriously.
Now, even today, there was yet another story about hydroxychloroquine potentially having some benefit in some study.
Again, same thing.
I don't believe science is agreed that hydroxychloroquine works.
I believe the consensus is still that it doesn't.
But I might.
I might. If you think my alarm's going to go off, that's not every day.
There's something I need to do on some days that I don't need to do on other days, and today's not a day I need to do it.
Some people say it's the zinc.
Well, I don't know. I think zinc's been tested as well.
All right, so there's also a thought that the real problem with ivermectin is that if we had a therapy that worked, you couldn't have gotten the vaccination emergency authorities.
What do you think of that?
Apparently there's some kind of rule in place that says you can't do an emergency authorization of a drug the way we did with the vaccinations.
If there's some existing drug that's already approved, that could do the job.
Because you would just use the existing one.
You wouldn't need to do an emergency authorization.
And there's some thinking that that's the only reason that ivermectin was shown to be not true or considered not a treatment, is just to make way for the vaccinations.
My opinion on that is that's ridiculous.
I believe that's ridiculous.
Here's why. Hey, President Trump or President Biden, you can fill in any president, okay?
So this is independent of personality.
Whoever is president.
Hey, if we do an emergency authorization for these things, we can't say ivermectin works, but we think it does.
What does the president say?
No matter who the president is.
Oh, well, let's change that.
Here's an executive order.
Maybe somebody says, oh, you can't do an executive order for this.
You need a, I don't know, some other kind of law.
Maybe Congress or whatever.
And what would people say?
Oh, well, let's change that law.
It's an emergency. It's a crisis.
No president would let that stand.
I don't believe there's any level of incompetence that a president would let that stand in an emergency.
If this were not an emergency, the bureaucracy does what the bureaucracy does, and I could totally understand that the bureaucracy would do something stupid.
But in an emergency, all those stupid things are presented to the chief executive, and then the chief executive gets to say, yeah, that doesn't make any sense in the emergency.
If these were normal days, yeah, but not in an emergency.
So then the chief executive would just change that law or ignore it or something.
But to imagine that such a bureaucratic rule would actually stop us from putting a hammerlock on the pandemic with drugs we already have?
No. I refuse to believe...
In that level of incompetence.
I can believe in a lot of incompetence.
I literally made my living pointing out the massive baseline incompetence of big organizations.
No one is more famous for pointing out the inefficiencies and problems with large organization decisions.
I'm literally the most famous person in the country for doing exactly that thing.
And even I don't think that's even possible.
I do not believe that anybody in charge said, no, we can't do this because then we couldn't do the vaccinations.
I don't believe it for one second.
It is so far from being, in my opinion, so far from being a possible thing that happened, I just am not even going to consider the possibility.
All right. Yes, I did listen to Dr.
Corey's testimony. Here's one thing I never believe.
The rogue doctor who is the only one who can see what everybody else can't see.
If I were to give you a category of thing you shouldn't believe, it's this.
The rogue doctor, who is very persuasive, and he's looking at numbers, and he's an expert, but there's just sort of one of them.
And the other doctors are like, I'm not so sure about that.
I would say you should believe the rogue doctor 20% of the time, at most.
Maybe 10%, maybe 5%, maybe 1%.
But if you think, hey, I watched YouTube, and there was an actual very qualified person who had a persuasive argument, the amount of beliefs you should put on that would be 20%.
If you're putting 100% on that, you don't understand how anything works.
You can easily find a rogue doctor who will be completely persuasive and completely qualified for any viewpoint you want.
Anything. So don't believe the rogue doctor.
Doesn't mean they're wrong. Definitely doesn't mean they're wrong.
But you shouldn't put credibility in it just because a doctor said so.
All right. There's a rumor that Dr.
Fauci once bought a ticket to an Ozzy Osbourne concert, which would in effect be funding the bat-human interface.
But I guess I used that joke twice.
Too credentialed to be considered a rogue?
Nope. That's the trap.
So in the comments I'm seeing somebody say that this particular doctor I think you're referring to is too credentialed to be sort of a quack?
Nope. That's not a thing.
There's no such thing as being too credentialed to be a quack.
Not a thing. The moment you think that can't be a thing...
You're really going to be confused about the world.
Please explain rogue versus whistleblower.
Well, a whistleblower would be somebody who is just telling you what they saw.
Right? I saw or heard or experienced this.
The rogue doctor is looking at data and interpreting it different than other doctors.
They're not even close.
Are we woke for COVID? We're trying.
Moderna and NIH patent.
Rona delivery in December took two days to create...
Well, so there's some thought that the COVID vaccination was too fast.
Now, of course, it takes a long time to test it.
But remember, the mRNA platform, if I'm using the right technical terms, the mRNA platform was designed to be able to quickly address a virus.
So maybe it just worked exactly the way they designed it.
Because apparently, they're taking a look at everything from AIDS to malaria to herpes to Deng fever.
And they think they can fairly rapidly spin up the mRNA platform to make a testable vaccination for all of those.
So that's interesting.
All right. How are my decoy titles working?
Quite well, quite well.
So I finally figured out that I was being demonetized immediately based on the titles in the broadcast.
Because the titles would often be provocative concepts, but the way I talked about them was not violating any rules.
And I do that intentionally.
It is my intention to never violate a YouTube Term of Service.
I'm going to try my legitimate best to not violate any Terms of Service.
So if I do it, that's going to highlight a problem.
Because I feel as if some people maybe do it intentionally.
Right? Don't you feel like some people are seeing where they can push the line?
And if they get banned, that's sort of a different situation than somebody who's trying to follow the rules.
