Episode 1423 Scott Adams: Brains Versus Cowardice Versus Studies Versus Doctors. Come Sip.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
January 6th committee investigation
Bill Cosby freed
Masks and kids
Why viruses go away
My critics need to make up their mind
COVID impotence?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
On the ball, those of you who are early risers and, dare I say, assertive self-starters, you're all here early because you know that if you miss the simultaneous sip live, well, you're going to have to do it recorded.
And the recorded simultaneous sip, while one of the best things in the world, is not the best thing in the world, which would be the live simultaneous sip, which is coming at you just about now.
And all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chals or stein, a canteen, a canteen, a flask of vessel of any kind.
How's my audio today?
Pretty good, right? Fill your cup with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything except my audio better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Mmm.
Did you get the live one?
Yeah, it's better, isn't it?
No surprise. Well, may I start with the news of the day?
The big news of the day is like the big news of yesterday and the news of the day before.
Because there's not much big news happening.
So we need something to be afraid of.
Are you ready? Beware of the delta variable.
The delta variable is coming for you.
Oh yeah, you thought you were out of the woods?
No, that doesn't sell clicks.
How can you sell advertisement on news programs if you've solved a pandemic?
You can't. What you need is the Delta variant.
Beware of the Delta variant, which is under your bed.
It's under your bed.
It's in your closet, children.
Put on your masks.
Beware of the Delta variable or variant.
Now, I don't know how afraid of the Delta variant you should be.
I know I'm not afraid of it because I got vaccinated.
And the funny thing about vaccinations, if there's anything funny about them, is that it's caused this cattle versus sheep kind of thing.
We humans so love to be on a team and hate the other team that we'll make a team out of anything.
And suddenly it's like, oh, you're on the Moderna vaccination team or the Pfizer team?
Like, what if I don't want to be on a team?
What if I just want to get vaccinated?
I don't have to be on a team, do I? So here's the thing.
My particular vaccination apparently is effective against the Delta variant.
Oh, I might have other risks getting vaccinated, but not the Delta variant.
So your mileage may differ.
But we'll see if the Delta variant gets us, because you've got to be afraid of something.
So the House of Representatives voted yesterday to approve a resolution to create a committee to look into the January 6th capital attack.
Can you think of anything that you would like your government to do less than that?
If you were to make a list of all the things you think are important that your government should look into, where would you put on your list of top priorities for the country?
Where would you put form a committee to look into the January 6th capital attack?
I don't have any questions left about that, do you?
Suppose we find out there were some bad actors in the group.
I don't care. It's not like a few bad actors caused it to happen.
They might have been there.
What if you find out that all the people there had different motives?
We kind of know that.
What if you find out that a large group of Americans had some really bad actors in it?
Is there any possibility there weren't?
Are there any large group of Americans that don't have any bad actors in them?
What if we find out there were FBI assets in the group?
Of course there were.
So? We already know that.
Do you think the FBI informants or assets caused the riots?
Do you think they pushed them?
Well, you don't need a committee to look into that, do you?
It seems like law enforcement would be looking into that.
Or not. So I don't see any purpose in this whatsoever except political, just to keep it as a story.
I think, was it McCarthy who warned that you would lose your committee assignments if you're a Republican and you join this committee?
So I don't know that this will go anywhere.
Very political. Completely useless.
Big story of the day.
Well, Britney Spears is still a prisoner of her conservatorship.
I guess she was unsuccessful in getting that released.
But Bill Cosby is a free man.
That's right. Britney Spears is still under a conservatorship, dancing away in her bikini.
But Bill Cosby, free man.
Now, I don't want to cause anybody to feel bad about this story.
If you've been a victim of any kind of crime like this, or know anybody who has, or you're just a good person, you're probably quite offended by this story of Bill Cosby going free.
It turns out that he is accused by approximately 60 women of a very similar crime.
60 women.
How does your lawyer get you out of jail when 60 women have accused you of a similar horrible crime?
Yeah.
What kind of a lawyer can do that?
Well, here's the basic idea.
Most of these, or all of them, I think, were past the statute of limitations.
So there was only one that was the subject of his going to jail.
And it turns out that he had some kind of oral agreement.
Everything sounds naughty when you're talking about Cosby now.
He had an oral agreement with a lawyer, not a lawyer, a prosecutor, that he wouldn't be prosecuted for that one crime if he was forthcoming on the civil case.
I don't really understand the details of that.
But apparently he got some kind of immunity...
For the one thing that he was being prosecuted for, and it took them two years to sort that out, and a court finally decided, yeah, you're right, you have the immunity, so you can't be prosecuted for the one that they could prosecute, and a 60.
So, how often can a rich guy get out of jail with good lawyering?
It's kind of impressive in a horrible way, isn't it?
I mean, is it possible that, say, every normal criminal who's not famous, do they also get out of jail free card if they just lawyer well enough?
Because really this was just the quality of the lawyering, right?
That's the only thing that made them get out of jail.
I can't imagine that other people would have gotten out of jail even in the same circumstances.
The funniest part of this story, and when I say funny, I mean like you're going to vomit funny, Harvey Weinstein's lawyer thinks that Harvey will be next.
Oh, that's bad.
My computer just glitched.
Let's see if I'm still on there.
All right. And I love the fact that I love the fact that Harvey Weinstein's lawyer is trying to make a comparison.
Because first of all, Cosby is apparently guilty as hell.
60 women accused him?
You know, it's hard to imagine he's not guilty.
But to therefore say that because he got off on that one technicality, that Harvey Weinstein is just like him and was falsely accused, it takes a lot of lawyer balls to make that argument.
But Harvey Weinstein's lawyer is making that argument that because this completely unrelated case where the guy is guilty as fuck...
Got off on a technicality.
Therefore, his client, who has nothing to do with Cosby whatsoever in a completely different situation, should also be suffering.
Totally logical.
Not. All right.
On school choice, we've been watching the change in attitudes here, so listen to this.
According to Corey DeAngelis in a tweet yesterday, A year ago-ish, 64% of the public was in favor of funding the students instead of the school system, meaning that the student could take their funding and go to any other school that would accept it, and the money would just travel with the student instead of going to a public school.
So now it's gone from 64% were in favor of the money following the student up to 74% now.
74% of those surveyed want the funding schedule thing to change.
And in fact, a lot of states are looking into doing that.
And somebody asked if Harvey Weinstein is really guilty because he was just trading sex for fame.
No, I don't think that was all he was doing.
He was masturbating into a plant...
At one point, and I don't think he traded anything for that.
I think he just assaulted a plant.
So no, it is not fair to say that all he did was trade sex for fame.
He was actually a rapist, it seems.
Alright, but back to school choice.
It's icky to put these topics right next to each other, but I did it anyway.
See if we can deal with it.
So 74% of those polled say that the funding should fall the student.
What do I tell you about the 25% rule?
You see it over and over again.
25% of the public will answer the dumbest answer on any poll.
The poll could be, are you in favor of oxygen?
25% of the public would say, I don't think so.
I'm not trusting that oxygen, and I don't think oxygen is real.
I think it's fake. Doesn't matter what the question is.
25% of the public can be reliable idiots.
And so on the school choice thing, we've hit the idiot level.
So I think I've told you before that we should consider 75% being on the same side as unanimous.
Because that is all the smart people.
The other 25% are just the frickin' morons who would vote against oxygen and clean water and anything.
For whatever reason, a solid 25% are against everything.
Alright, so fire season is starting in California.
So that's the end of my happiness.
If you might remember last year, the pandemic was in place, but, well, at least we could go outdoors.
Not really. If you were in California and it was summer, you couldn't even go outdoors.
So you couldn't go anywhere indoors, but you also couldn't go outdoors for many weeks in California.
And that sucks.
Let me tell you. When you can't go indoors and you can't go outdoors, you've got a very small world, and it's not cool.
But I'm entering that phase now.
So we had a good solid month where the coronavirus was less, and the mask-wearing was released if you were vaccinated, and the air was clear.
And now that appears to be ending, and I'm going into the long, dark period of California, because California is so poorly managed...
That we let a problem, which we know to be a problem, persist.
Doesn't change anything.
Nope. We just keep on going with the same problems.
So there was a study on masks and kids, a randomized controlled trial.
Those are the good kind, right?
If it's randomized and it's controlled...
It's a pretty good trial. Now, that doesn't mean it's right.
I think we've all learned that you can't trust any individual study.
It's just not a thing you should trust.
But this study said there was a problem with carbon dioxide in kids and masks.
So if kids wore masks for any length of time, The quality of the air they were breathing went down.
So less oxygen, more carbon dioxide.
And apparently that has some types of health risks.
And so the suggestion is that maybe masks are bad for kids.
Did you need a study for that?
I'm not sure you needed a study to decide not to put masks on kids, but your mileage might differ.
Maybe you're afraid of The Delta variant.
Beware the Delta variant.
Put masks on the kids because the Delta variant is coming for you.
So I wondered how long it would take for somebody to debunk this study.
It took Andres Backhaus about five minutes until he saw my tweet and came in and said, You know, every time Andres or Anatoly Lubarsky, my two favorite critics, any time they criticize something, I just shake my head because it's usually something I should have seen.
You know, even with my limited analytical abilities, even I should have seen it, but I didn't really look for it usually.
Here's what Andres says about this study.
He says in the JMA paper, there's no difference when measuring only the inhaled air.
They have to throw in inhaled and exhaled air to find something.
Now, I'm not sure I totally understand that, but it looks like on the surface that the inhaled air was fine.
But the exhaled air had too much carbon dioxide in it?
How's that even a thing?
I don't even know how that could be a thing.
But the suggestion is that maybe you should ignore that paper.
Or at least wait for more papers to confirm it.
But put a little asterisk next to that paper.
That said, children and masks seems like a bad idea to me.
So it's been a few days now since Tucker Carlson talked about the NSA spying on him.
And no news organizations seem to be agreeing with him, including his own.
And the NSA has denied it in a way that confirmed it.
Now, we talked about this yesterday.
The NSA's overly specific denial is as clear a confirmation that it happened as anything.
Just clearly confirming it.
And we just moved on.
How did that happen?
This should be one of the biggest stories in the country, if not the world, that the government was spying on a political person, you know, somebody who talks on the news, And they basically confirmed it by denying it in a way that really does confirm it.
And we just let that go.
I guess there's just nothing you can do about it.
Maybe there's some legal thing that Tucker's looking into.
But can you see how thoroughly the news business can just make a story go away?
They just made this thing go away.
I don't know what would be bigger than this.
I'm seeing Matt Gaetz is calling for an investigation, as well he should, because you know Matt Gaetz is being watched by the NSA. Don't you?
Don't you figure that Matt Gaetz is being spied on?
One way or another. Now, it may not be directly.
They may have some case in which they're looking for somebody else's stuff, but they just get his incidentally.
But I would say that the odds that Matt Gaetz is not being spied on by our government is low.
It's probably low.
I'm almost sure he is.
In fact, I think the odds that my digital communications are compromised are 100%.
I mean, I don't know that there's any chance they're not.
I would say that if you have any public standing in terms of politics, and standing in this case just means you talk about it, you have an audience.
If you have an audience, And you might be persuading people one way or another.
I feel like your digital communications is all penetrated by now.
If not by my own country, then by foreign intelligence people.
I would think that somebody would want to blackmail me by now.
Isn't it weird that I haven't...
Well, you wouldn't know. I guess I wouldn't admit it if I had been.
But I haven't been blackmailed by anybody.
Strangely enough. And again, if I had been, I suppose I'd lie about it.
Alright. Damn it, my laptop keeps dying here.
And that makes me think that...
Over on Locals, can you tell me if my feed just went dark when my computer timed out?
And I don't think my computer should be timing out when I've got a live stream going, so...
So locals, see what you can do to make sure my screen doesn't go to screensaver.
All right. As Adam Dopamine said today on Twitter, now Adam is a medical doctor.
He's an MD. And he tweets this.
When you see 97% of doctors agreeing on whatever, that is meaningless.
It's a lie of consensus.
Now, on some level, you knew that, right?
You knew that just because everybody agreed, that doesn't necessarily make it true.
But let's take that to a deeper level.
He says, as an MD, I can attest that the vast majority of doctors outside of universities do zero primary research.
We know what we read in journals, learn at conferences, or hear on the lay news.
So in other words, the doctors are basically getting their information the same way you are.
And they don't have any special expertise to know if it's true.
So if there's one study, and then the doctors read it, all the doctors will agree, and you'll say to yourself, well, all those doctors agree.
But it doesn't mean anything.
Because the doctors are just looking at the same thing you're looking at.
Oh, there's a study. You looked at it and it said X works.
The doctor looked at it and said X works, and you came to the same conclusion.
The doctor added nothing.
Now, and if you don't know that, that all the doctors agree it literally means nothing, let me take you back to, and I think Adam pointed this out, Do you remember when we were told that 17 intelligence agencies agreed on Russia collusion or something?
Do you remember that?
There were 17 intelligence agencies agreed.
Who was, and this will be a test of your memory, anybody who's been following me for a while, who was the only person in the country who I think, the only person, public person, who was the only public person in the country who said, as soon as I saw the 17 intelligence agencies, that really means one.
Who else immediately said no?
17 agencies means one.
The other 16 didn't reproduce the work.
They just looked at the one.
Something's happening. There's some noise happening here.
Right. So if you worked in a large organization, as I did, and you happen to be the author of the Dilbert comic, if you're the author of the Dilbert comic, you know how bureaucracies work.
That the agreement is just people agreeing with other people, right?
So, and I see some other names in the comments, but I think I might have been the first to say it out loud.
Yeah, a lot of people who were maybe not in the public eye were saying it privately.
So I don't claim that nobody else thought of it, but I don't think anybody was dumb enough to say it out loud as soon as I did.
So whenever you see that, just keep in mind that you're not talking about experts looking at experts.
You're talking about people just like you looking at experts.
Now Andres Bacchus weighed in on this and he said in a tweet, I was recently reminded by a German MD that medicine as a study program doesn't aim at qualifying for scientific medical research.
Meaning that if you study to be a doctor, you have not learned how to do medical research.
And therefore, you haven't learned how to read it either.
So you can get through the program, says Andres, without having read a single paper or having analyzed data.
You can become a doctor without ever looking at a published study and learning how to read it correctly or analyze it or be critical.
So those are the people who are telling you what to believe.
People you believe are qualified but have never even taken the courses.
Who would you trust?
Somebody like Andres, somebody with an economics background who has studied, you know, at least can look at data and studies and know if at least the math is done right.
Who are you going to study? Who are you going to believe?
Somebody who's not a doctor but knows how to look at a study?
Or somebody who is a doctor who doesn't know how to look at a study?
So those are your choices.
I would like to nominate myself for a Nobel Prize in either science or medicine, and I'm open to whichever one they'd like to give me.
Maybe both. So I'm going to present to you now my proposal for why I should receive a Nobel Prize in science or medicine.
Either one. Both would be fine.
And I'm going to give you my scientific theory that will change everything.
Are you ready? This is based not on my medical understanding, of course.
This is based not on my scientific understanding, of course.
This is based on pattern recognition and being pretty good at hearing a dog that doesn't bark.
And it goes like this.
And I'm going to lay out my argument.
There is a mystery about viruses, which is why they go away.
Why do they ever go away?
Now, if I said to you, why is it that viruses go away in the summer?
I know from experience, every one of you who are not doctors and not virologists will be quite sure you know the answer.
And you'll say to me, well, Scott, it's obvious.
It's warmer, and viruses don't like that.
People go outdoors. They don't have the indoor air conditioning circulating things.
They get more vitamin D, so they're healthier.
The virus has mutated by then.
Scott, don't you know that people have reached herd immunity by then?
Right? You would have lots of reasons why viruses go away.
But did you know that the experts don't believe any of them?
Meaning that everything you can think of for why any virus goes away, forget about coronavirus, just any virus, Spanish flu, any virus, any seasonal virus, why does it ever go away, the experts don't know.
The experts don't know.
So when you say it's obvious it's vitamin D, the experts thought of that, right?
You're not the one who thought of it.
The experts looked into vitamin D. They looked into everything.
And they can't find it.
They can't find the reason that a virus goes away.
Did you know that? It's a fascinating fact.
Now, it could be the combination of things.
But here's the problem. Every time you say the reason the virus goes away is that it has something to do with seasonality, here's the problem.
It's always winter somewhere.
And these viruses are global.
The virus should always be able to hide wherever the conditions are still good, and then because people are traveling around the world routinely, that the virus would just go wherever it can live the best and might...
Hello?
All right.
And it would just go wherever it needs to live.
So, in theory, any virus that has not reached herd immunity, and that appears to be everything, Because even the Spanish flu, I don't think ever came close.
I don't believe it ever came close to herd immunity.
So things are going away for reasons we don't know.
Here is why I will get the Nobel Prize, because I'm going to tell you what the secret is.
You ready? Here are things we know.
Number one, We know that the amount of viral load you get initially determines how sick you get.
Everybody agree with that? The amount you initially get is very highly correlated with how sick you get.
I think everybody agrees with that.
Therefore, if you got just a small exposure to it while you were otherwise healthy, would you get immunity that didn't show up When you are being tested for immunity.
So here's my hypothesis and why I'll get the Nobel Prize for science or possibly medicine or possibly both.
I believe that what's unique about this summer Is that people get exposed to micro doses of the virus.
And that they develop something like a pre-immunity.
Meaning that if you check them for antibodies, maybe you wouldn't find them the way you're expecting to find them.
But that your body has been warned, essentially.
Basically, it's been prepped by tiny little exposures, but not enough to make you sick.
Because you're out in the sun, and you're outdoors, maybe you get a little whiff of it from passing somebody.
So my hypothesis is herd immunity, but not measurable.
Meaning that if you measured antibodies in the normal way, you just wouldn't find it.
But that there's something about the micro-exposure that preps some bodies in a way that maybe is hard to detect to just be a little bit more alert for this specific problem, and it just gets on it faster.
Because that could be it. It could be nothing more than some bodies are responding faster.
Now, I suppose the other possibility is that some people have natural immunity to anything, and that herd immunity doesn't really have to be 70%.
Maybe it needs to be 35%, and we've never been right about herd immunity.
That's the other possibility. Somebody says, nope, no Nobel for you.
All right, well, I'm going to stick with that hypothesis that it has to be something about somebody's prepping, but not in a way that we can detect.
All right, it'll probably take 10 or 20 years for me to get that Nobel Prize, but I'm patient.
I can wait. I would like my critics to make up their minds.
My critics call me a coward.
Sometimes they call me a coward for saying that face masks work in some situations.
And that I'm a coward for taking that position.
But at the same time, the fact that I got a vaccination with this so-called risky experimental vaccine makes me foolhardy.
So I am simultaneously a coward about masks.
At the same time, I should be much more afraid...
But I'm not, about vaccines.
So could my critics make up their mind, am I a coward or am I foolhardy?
Because I can't be both.
And if you're going to criticize me, at least be consistent, will you?
Am I foolhardy or am I a coward?
Please make up your mind.
Well, I would like to add this.
If you would like to find who the dumbest people in the world, they're the ones who call anybody a coward, For a risk management decision.
All of us are making risk management decisions.
All of us are trying to make the decision that lowers our risk.
If you're trying to make decisions that lower your risk, Based on incomplete data and the best you can do about making you a guess, are you a coward?
Or are you like every fucking person in the world with every fucking decision for every fucking year, every fucking minute of the whole fucking civilization?
All of your decisions, yours, mine, everybody's decisions, are comparing risks...
That's everybody, all the time, with every decision.
If your best analysis is that somebody was a coward, you're a fucking idiot.
And I hate to be the first to tell you, you don't know how to analyze anything.
You're just a fucking idiot.
If that's your filter on life, it's like, oh, this one's a coward.
He got a vaccine.
He's so afraid.
He's so afraid of the coronavirus.
Or, he's wearing a mask because it's the law.
He must be a coward.
What kind of a coward is he?
Please, if your best analytical approach is calling somebody a coward because they made a different risk management decision than you did, don't talk in public.
Please, don't ever talk in public.
You do not have the brains to say things out loud.
At the very least, talk in terms of risk management.
Perhaps you have a different opinion of the risk.
Let's say you're one of these people like Sticks and Hex and Hammer or C66, who apparently has decided that the risk of getting the vaccine is higher than the risk of getting the coronavirus.
Is he right? No.
What do you think? Is Sticks and Hecks and Hammer of 666 on Twitter?
A lot of you know him. Very reasonable guy, right?
If you've watched his show, you know he's very reason-based, very rational.
Is that the right decision?
How the fuck would you know?
How the fuck would you know if the risk of getting the vaccination is higher in the long run than not getting it?
You don't know that.
Now, I made a decision, but is it because I know that my risk management is right?
No! No!
Am I going to tell you that sticks and hex and hammer 666 got it wrong?
No! No!
How the fuck would I know?
Do you know how much the risk of the, I don't know, the variants that are caused by the vaccination, the long-term effects of the vaccination...
Somebody says he's right.
Paul, you don't know if he's right.
You couldn't know that.
Einstein couldn't know that.
All the smartest people in the world can't know that.
It's unknowable.
100 fucking percent unknowable.
But you still have to make a decision.
So I made a decision based on a number of variables, and one of the variables was that it would free me up to travel and not have to wear a mask and stuff.
Now, did I make the correct decision to get the vaccination?
How the fuck would I know?
It's impossible to know.
Nobody has enough information about the future to know which way is right.
I'll tell you what I was influenced by.
I was influenced by the fact that apparently most side effects happen early.
So I had waited a number of months and I saw how many side effects there seemed to be compared to how many people got the vaccination.
And it looked like if most side effects happened early, there weren't that many compared to what I saw as the risk of the coronavirus.
Am I right? Is that an, let's say, accurate or useful analysis?
How the fuck would I know?
It's unknowable.
I do know.
It made me feel better. So whoever says, John, you're dead wrong, everybody who has certainty about the risks of vaccination versus the risks of not vaccination, all the people with certainty are your idiots.
You're just idiots.
I'm sorry. And you should not watch this live stream anymore.
You're not smart enough to watch this live stream.
You could be confident that you made the right decision for yourself.
That would be fair. You could be confident that there are certain types of risks you're not comfortable with, but maybe other kinds that you are.
Oh, that would be fair. That would be a reasonable decision.
But if you say to yourself, you're dead wrong to get the vaccination, or you're dead wrong not to get the vaccination, you're an idiot.
There's no way around that.
That's like brain that doesn't work.
You can't fucking know what was the right decision.
You just have to take your best shot at it.
If I'm wrong...
And let's say I get a horrible disease from the vaccination.
I'm not expecting that.
But let's say I do. Would you then say, well, Scott, I told you.
Well, if you do, you're a fucking idiot.
Because you didn't know.
You got lucky.
Somebody's going to be right, right?
Somebody in the long run will look more right than somebody else.
It's not because you fucking knew.
You don't fucking know.
You're guessing. So get over yourself.
If you're confident that you're positive about vaccinations, you're a fucking idiot because nobody should be confident about this at all.
At all. Maybe I've taken that too far.
Here's what Queen of the Universe Elect says on Twitter to my points about this.
She said about masks and about vaccinations.
She says... Both are evidence of your cowardice.
You were so afraid of the pandemic, the pandemic, that you got the risky vaccine.
It wasn't out of foolhardiness.
It was out of cowardice.
This fear is so deep that you believe we should all be forcibly vaccinated to protect you.
It's very sad. No, I don't believe you should all be forcibly vaccinated to protect me.
Do you know why? I got the vaccination.
I don't need you to be vaccinated.
So opposite.
Opposite of that. I'm unafraid because I'm vaccinated.
Was I ever afraid of masks?
No, I just didn't like them.
You know, for a variety of obvious reasons.
Yeah, so it's a mind reading and it's someone who is sure that my bravery and my cowardice are exactly the same.
Thinking. This is people who imagine they can think, but they really can't.
These are really, really dumb people who have certainty about this.
So don't be the certain person.
You could be for vaccinations or against them.
That's fine. I think you could make an argument either way.
But don't be certain.
Don't be that person. All right.
Let's see. There's a study that says that the COVID can destroy your penis.
So there's a study that found that people who had recovered still had COVID in their penis, and at least a few cases, not enough to be statistically relevant yet, but anecdotally there are some people who seem to have become impotent after getting the coronavirus, and it's still in their penis.
Now, the doctors haven't been specific about this, but I think this is an obvious case like breast exams.
You should examine your penis on a regular basis.
I think that's what Jeffrey Toobin was doing.
A lot of people think he was pleasuring himself, but that was really a self-examination.
He was wondering if he'd been infected with the COVID virus.
The COVID virus, and he was just finding out, it was just an examination to see if his junk was still working, and apparently he was.
So, good for you.
Alright, now, how much should you put in your belief that coronavirus will make you impotent?
Probably not a lot.
Probably not a ton.
But you've got the long-haul problem with COVID, and But allegedly, people have had problems with the vaccination.
Which one is bigger?
So for all of you who are just positive, you are just positive in your opinion.
For all of you, tell me the risk of having a vaccination bad outcome versus the risk of having a long-term Coronavirus problem.
Remember, that's even if you live having a long-haul problem.
So what are the risks?
So many of you are very, very certain of the risks.
So for all of you who are so certain, please compare to me in the comments.
Give me the risk of a vaccination bad outcome versus the risk of a coronavirus long-haul problem.
What? What you don't know?
But you were so certain just minutes ago.
Where are all my convinced people who are so sure that one of those choices is cowardice?
Well, obviously you would know the risks because you couldn't compare the risks to know which one is the cowardice one unless you knew the risk.
Is it 1%?
All right. Um...
You know, and let me say, somebody said, I'm changing minds about getting the vaccination.
That's not my intention.
I'm quite adamant about the fact that you shouldn't get your medical advice from cartoonists.
I don't say that just as a bumper sticker.
Really, seriously, don't get your medical advice from cartoonists.
But if I can help you think about it a different way and you can talk to your medical experts more productively, maybe that's good.
But don't get your decisions from the cartoonist.
Don't do that. All right.
And I think I just lost the feed here because my laptop keeps dying.
So sorry about the screensaver going out on locals.
All right. I'm looking at some of your comments.
We're all good over there.
Good. Thank you.
It's back. All right.
Yeah, so the screensaver was knocking my live feed off on my laptop.
Doesn't happen on here.
So I'll have to So I've told you every time I add a complication to the live streaming, it does go bad.
The complication here is that using the laptop as the screensaver that I need to deactivate.
So that's one more thing I have to remember to do.
Still working on the microphones.
By the way, I'm going to try to get my Rodecaster working.
I figured out how to give phantom power to some microphones on it, which was not obvious at first.
But I figured out my phantom power problem, and now I've got to figure out how to get sound out of the Rodecaster.
So this is how far I got.
I've got a mixing board where I can get the sound into it now with all of my microphones.
I just can't get any sound out of it.
I've got to figure that out.
Here's a question. I might never get the virus.
Why risk taking the vaccination?
Donnie? I just don't know what to say to that.
I just don't know what to say to that.
If you don't know the risk of the vaccination, and you also don't know the risk of getting the virus, you don't know which one's bigger.
And nobody can tell you.
Nobody else knows either.
Nobody knows that stuff.
You're going to have to make the decision without knowing which one is the bigger risk.
Now, I happen to feel that given the fact that most vaccinations are going to show you a bad impact fairly quickly, that gives me some comfort, along with the fact that we know that it does create antibodies and it does work.
So we know it works, and we know that the period where you would see the most problems doesn't seem to be a big risk.
Of course, some people will always have problems with a mass rollout of any kind of new...
Medicine. All right.
Somebody says, Moderna gave you vertigo.
Well, keep in mind, if you're like most people, you get at least one mystery illness per week.
Is there anybody who doesn't get a mystery illness every week?
Like, I'll wake up and like, ow, my earlobe.
Ow. Ow. Why does my earlobe hurt?
And it'll hurt all day, and it'll just go away.
The next day you wake up, it's like, ah, my sinus!
My sinus! Pretty much every week, right?
Have you ever gone a week where you didn't have at least one mystery illness?
My ankle! Ah!
Ah, I can barely walk on this one ankle!
Eh, okay, it's okay by tomorrow.
How could it be possible that people, you know, tens of millions of people getting the vaccination?
Of course!
There should be millions of stories of people who got the vaccination and then, ow!
My eye! My eye!
Of course! It has to happen.
It can't not happen. You know, just the way numbers work.
All right. I think I have...
Anger at everybody. Those people who have certainty about their risk management decisions have all gone away because I've either shamed you or you'll never watch me again.
One of those two things is happening right now.
Somebody says a co-worker got vertigo badly.
I don't know that vertigo is necessarily a vaccination problem, but I'm open to it.
Could be. All right.
That's all for now. I'm going to turn off YouTube.
I'm going to talk to my local people here for another minute.
