Episode 1451 Scott Adams: The Worst Arguments For and Against Mask Mandates, Simone Biles, Biden Quote, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Primed for "My butts been wiped"
CDC wants vaccinated to wear masks
PCR test can't distinguish COVID vs flu
Simone Biles Olympic withdrawal
Debunked mask arguments
Larry Elder leads in Governor race
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
For the best time of the day, every single day, no exceptions.
And if you came here to watch Coffee with Scott Adams, congratulations.
Part of your day is going perfectly because you nailed it.
Here you are and everything's working.
Now, if you'd like to make it special, all you need is a tankard, chalice, or a stein.
No, wait. Let's read from the top.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
You'd think I'd have that memorized by now, but that's not how my brain works.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And watch it happen now.
Go.
Let's see.
Huh.
Thank you.
Having a little technical difficulty on one side here, but I think it's solved.
All right. My favorite fake news of the day, and this is a good one.
Do you remember the, of course you do, the famous Laurel and Yanni, where some people could hear the word Laurel and some people could hear the word Yanni on the same recording?
And we thought to ourselves, how is that possible?
And it must be like a trick that only applies to this one weird set of sounds that they can sound the same while being different.
It turns out it's really easy to reproduce this effect, and it happened with a Joe Biden video.
So somebody cleverly took his video where he was talking to the press, and reportedly he's saying, what must be what?
Asking for a clarification of a question that he didn't hear because the helicopter noise was above it.
Now, when you watch it, can you hear him say over the noise of the crowd and the helicopters, what must be what?
No, you can't.
Because when the first time you heard it, you were probably primed by the social media video to hear my butt's been wiped.
So you see Biden walking up to the photographers and the reporters, and he goes, my butt just got wiped!
My butt just got wiped!
And you really can't hear anything else after you've been primed.
Even after I heard what the White House claims, he really said, it doesn't look like that.
It doesn't sound like it.
And I just watched it over and over again, and I'm thinking...
Nope, even his lips are not going the right way.
Right? Even his lips didn't seem to match up with what must be what.
It looked like my butt's been wiped.
Now, I think that he did not say, my butt's been wiped.
But how many times are we going to see this trick?
This trick is going to happen a lot in politics.
As soon as you've been primed, All you need is an indistinct sentence, any kind of indistinct sentence, and you can prime it with anything.
You're going to see a lot more of this, and it's kind of fun.
All right.
Is there one topic that you're so damn sick of?
Not only in the real world, but talking about it?
My God! Do we have to talk about masks again?
Yeah, we do. We do.
But we're going to try to take an angle into this that's a little more interesting than the normal one.
And so the CDC is now saying that the Delta variant is raging through the country, which it is, and that they want school kids to get to wear masks even if vaccinated.
Even vaccinated people should wear masks indoors if they're in a higher substantial transmission area and...
Of course, they want vaccinations as much as they can get.
Now, how do you interpret this?
Is your interpretation that the CDC looked at the data, they looked at the mask effectiveness data, and they said to themselves, this is a good time to apply the science.
Let's put some science on this baby.
And we got our new data...
We've got data on mask effectiveness.
Oh, the infections are rising.
Masks work. Boom, put them together.
Is that what happened? Sounds right, doesn't it?
You know, when I describe it that way, it sounds perfectly natural.
Infections are up.
Science has shown that the masks do work, according to science.
That's their claim, not mine.
And so you put them together.
Or... Or what would be another interpretation of why the CDC is requiring masks?
Because my first instinct was, wait, you're punishing the people who did the right thing.
I got the vaccination, which is the right thing according to my government.
And so if I did the right thing, why am I being punished?
Well, of course, it's because we have new data that says that even if you're vaccinated, you can transmit the virus, you can even get the virus, which, of course, you'd have to get to transmit.
And so it's new data.
So that's what's happening, right?
Let me suggest that there's another reason for the mask mandate.
Anybody? Anybody? In the comments, see if you can beat me to it.
What's the other reason for the mask mandate that they're not telling you?
Let's see if...
Let's see if you can get that.
What's the real reason?
All right. The real reason, I think, is to create one more reason to get a vaccination.
Now, you're saying to yourself, but wait, that's opposite of what's happening.
Because the people who did get vaccinated didn't get the benefit that they thought they would get, at least in terms of freedom from masks.
So isn't that the opposite, Scott?
Like, you're actually just penalizing people for getting vaccinated.
They got vaccinated, and then they still have to wear a mask.
A penalty. I don't think so.
I think this is a PSYOP. I think this is so that the government can say, well, we told you all to get vaccinated.
Did you listen?
Because if you had listened to us the first time, nobody would need a mask.
But sorry, we know you hate the masks.
We know you hate it more than you hate anything.
So we're going to require the masks because you didn't listen to us the first time.
I think that's what's happening.
Now, I also think masks work.
Can you handle the fact that I think masks work at the same time that I don't think that a vaccinated person should be forced to wear one?
Can you handle that?
I mean, this is the smart group here, the people who follow me on livestream.
So there are not many people in my category.
Most people say, I don't like masks...
Because they don't work.
But can I say they do work?
I think. You know, that's my judgment at the moment, that they do work.
But if you're vaccinated, you shouldn't get one.
I think I can have that opinion.
All right. We're going to talk about the worst arguments for masks in a minute, but let me do a few other things here.
So I read just in one source, so I'd like to see a confirmation of this.
That the CDC is going to replace its PCR test, the virus test, with one that can differentiate between the coronavirus and the seasonal flu.
Is that true, first of all?
Anytime I see a story in one source, doesn't matter what the source is, my first thing is, why is this not in all the other sources at the same time?
So if it's true, we're going to learn something interesting.
And I'm going to go with my personal...
It's a conspiracy theory that I don't know if there's more than one or two people in the world who share it with me.
And it is that the regular seasonal flu didn't really kill anybody.
And that it was just a statistical...
I don't know, a statistical data-gathering artifact that made it look like the flu was killing people, the regular flu, the normal seasonal flu.
I think that if we had actual data, we would find that, sure, you know, a few hundred-year-olds die with the seasonal flu, but basically it doesn't kill anybody for all practical purposes.
All right. That's what I think we're going to find.
Let's talk about Simone Biles.
So she dropped out of the Olympics.
She had some more competitions that she would have done well in if she had not dropped out.
And she dropped out because, she says, she had a tough day yesterday, I guess, or the day before.
And she said she was having mental health issues.
And so she was dropping out for her mental health.
What did America say about their champion who dropped out because she wasn't feeling well?
Well, a lot of people said, uh, you know you're representing the country, right?
You do get that this isn't about you, right?
And maybe if it's tough, you should just suck it up.
I heard a lot of that opinion this morning.
That's not my opinion.
My opinion is...
I think I saw Dave Reboy, if I'm pronouncing his name right, say the same thing I'm going to say right now, which is, we don't know what's going on in her head.
We don't know. We only know what she told us.
You don't know what's happening in her head.
If what's happening in her head is really, really bad, then she made the right decision.
If it's not that bad...
Well, then you could argue that she should have sucked it up or something.
But you don't know how bad it is.
So how can you have an opinion on whether she did the right thing?
It's just pure mind-reading.
If it was horrible, and it was just some living hell, and she was genuinely concerned about her health, that she might hurt herself competing in that way, or at least embarrass herself and embarrass the country.
If that was her honest opinion, based on her internal mental state, Who am I? Who am I to doubt that?
Now, of course, I have a larger filter on the Olympics, which is the Olympics are useless, anachronistic, probably more bad than good at this point.
And then it ruins the lives of young people, such as Simone Biles, although she had a great life from her skills so far.
She now has that thing about the Olympics where her life will never be the same because of this.
So the Olympics, you train your whole life for it.
You don't get the gold medal.
It's sort of a waste of time.
So I don't think the Olympics should be respected.
That's my view. Well, well, well, there's new news on ivermectin.
What do you think? If I told you that there's a new, highly credible, something called the Cochrane Review...
On ivermectin, where they looked at the existing studies.
So it's not a new, randomized, controlled trial, which would be great if there were.
It's, again, somebody looking at the existing evidence.
And you know that people who have looked at the existing evidence say, oh, it's really strong.
The existing evidence very clearly says you should at least take a try on the ivermectin.
And you've heard Brett Weinstein say that famously.
You may also know that Andres Beckhaus, my favorite critic of all things data and analysis, said at the time that he wasn't convinced and he thought one of the larger trials that was in the review, the meta-review of all the trials, that one of the ones that probably influenced the average the most, because it was a big one, was weak.
So there might be one weak study that's biasing the whole thing.
And the Cochrane Review, I think, agreed with that and said that the quality of the evidence is so low that they essentially say that there's no evidence that ivermectin works.
So the newest, respected meta-analysis says that there were two bad quality studies that were skewing it and that we don't have evidence that it works.
Now, let me be clear.
They did not say the evidence shows it doesn't work.
They didn't say that.
So they haven't debunked it.
They've only debunked that the evidence shows it does work.
Because apparently the range of possibility, given the low quality of the evidence, the range of error is so big, it might work and it might not.
They're just saying there's no evidence that it works.
Now that's what Andreas Beckhaus said early on.
So if you're keeping score of who gets things right early, there you go.
So I don't have an opinion on any of this analysis because it's all a little bit beyond me.
And I haven't looked into it, of course, in any detail.
But... Somebody says, Brett dealt with this by removing that study, and it still works.
Well, now there's two.
Two studies. So I don't know if he removed the second one.
But the second one has the same problem, allegedly.
And that this Cochrane Review says that if you consider the quality of the studies and everything else combined, their opinion is there's no evidence that it works or doesn't work, really.
Just no evidence. All right.
I saw a great tweet thread that I retweeted, and you should read it too, on the question of mask mandates.
And it's from Tricia Greenhalgh.
I'm not sure how to pronounce her last name.
She's a professor of primary care at Oxford and does a great job of just laying out what we know and what we don't know.
And most, not most...
Maybe 100% of all the arguments I've ever had about masks are with people who are not well informed.
Or they have a logic problem.
And I'm going to run through that. Because I want to see if you're in any of these categories that are logic errors as opposed to data errors.
Now, we could argue all day about who has the right data, and sometimes we'll just never know.
But you can really know if somebody's logical.
That's something you can know for sure.
It's pretty clear if you've got somebody who can help you sort through it.
So I'm going to do that for you.
And I'm going to start with the most debunked mask arguments.
So what follows is my opinion of what the consensus of science says.
So there's two things that could be wrong here.
One is my opinion of what science said right, and that is science right.
So two ways I could be wrong.
One is I could be wrong, and then also science could be wrong.
So you've got two potential errors.
So I'm going to keep my humility while I say this, because I know people get really mad when I act arrogantly certain.
I have to tell you that lots of times when I appear certain, there's always a recording in my head that plays and says, well, you could be wrong.
And by the way, I recommend that as a strategy for you going forward.
Just always have a little recording that plays in your head that says, well, but I could be wrong.
I mean, I'm pretty sure, but I could be wrong.
It's just a good thing to have playing in your head all the time.
All right, so here are the debunked anti-mask arguments.
If you hold one of these arguments to be true...
Just know that science disagrees with you as best I can determine.
But I might be wrong.
Number one, science says masks don't work.
How many people think that's true?
How many people think that if you researched what science says, that you would discover that science in general, not just one study or a study here or there, but how many of you think that science says masks don't work?
If you think that science says masks don't work, that's just wrong.
That's just wrong. You won't find any actual scientist who says that.
You might find a scientist who says that they don't work, but you won't even find a scientist who could agree with the statement that other scientists don't think they work.
So the worst argument you could make is to say that science says they don't work and it's been proven in a study.
That's just not true. As far as I can tell.
Now, that doesn't mean science is right.
Okay? So we're still allowing that science can say maths definitely work, but science could be wrong.
Science has been wrong before.
But don't confuse that with what science says.
Science is very clear that they work, even if they're wrong.
All right, how about this? Masks only make a tiny difference.
Well, the tweet thread I referenced talks about how these tiny differences multiply.
So even if masks only made a tiny difference, still totally worthwhile in a pandemic.
The math makes that true.
So if that was your argument, that's been debunked.
Again, it doesn't mean you're wrong.
It just means it's been debunked by people who know more than you and I know.
All right, how about the masks harm people?
Either because you're not getting enough oxygen or you're breathing in your own germs too much or you left your nasty mask laying in a drawer for three weeks, breathing germs and put it back on.
So how about that?
Well, there's no evidence that masks have hurt anybody.
So now we've got people all over the world wearing masks for a year.
And no evidence at all, according to at least this professor in Oxford, there's no evidence that the masks have hurt anybody.
So if your argument was wearing the mask itself could hurt you, no evidence.
Now again, is that true?
I don't know. I'm just telling you it's been debunked.
Doesn't mean the debunk is true.
How about this argument, that masks don't block viruses because viruses are too small and they can't go through these.
The viruses are so small that they easily go through these gigantic holes in the masks.
Debunked. Totally debunked.
Because the virus travels on water particles, most of the water particles, or at least a lot of the big ones, It's true that masks leak...
It's not relevant. It's true that viruses are way smaller than the holes in the masks.
It's not relevant because they travel on water particles, many of which do get stopped, and you don't have to stop them all.
Masks do not stop all of the virus because plenty is getting out the sides.
Let's say you're fussing with it and you wear it improperly.
That's not an argument because science has shown that masks work.
If science had shown that masks don't work, in other words, the population shows no difference, masked or unmasked, if they'd shown that, then you could say to yourself, well, probably the reasons are because the masks are not stopping all the virus.
But if the masks work, and science knows that, let's say they're right for argument, then you don't have to argue about the little stuff.
You don't have to argue about the people messing with it with their hands, wearing it improperly, it's not the best mask because it gets out the side.
None of that matters if you've looked at the whole population and they drove down infections with masks, but all the places that they didn't have masks, it didn't work.
Now, you can argue with the data, but if you accept that masks worked...
To lower infections, then all of the arguments about the holes in the mass and the size of the virus and the sides and all that is irrelevant.
So if you made your argument against mass based on any of the minor parts about the leakage, the size of the mass, the fussing with them, the wearing them right, none of those are relevant if, this is a big if, if it's true that science is right and That we see the big difference when people wear the masks.
So you would not be rational or logical to consider the smaller things if we've tested the big thing that it worked.
All right. Here are some of the worst arguments I saw this morning.
Here's one. The Mayo Clinic tells you how to properly wear a mask.
Therefore, masks don't work because people will not wear them properly.
So the argument is, why would the Mayo Clinic make such a big deal about how to wear them properly unless they knew that people would wear them improperly in a large amount and therefore would make them a waste of time?
That's the worst argument I've ever heard.
Because again, if the data shows that they do work on average for any population that uses them, it just doesn't matter if somebody or some number of people are not doing it right.
Because it still works. The numbers show it.
And here's another bad thinking.
I have links of studies from before the pandemic saying masks don't work.
What? What good is your data from before the pandemic?
If the data from the pandemic clearly shows they work, and again, they could be wrong, but that's what science says, If it clearly shows it does work during the pandemic, why are you trying to convince me with links from before the pandemic showing the masks don't work when it's been proven they do?
I don't know. Now, I suppose you could say that studies of masks, it might be hard to sort out what is the social distancing because that works too.
I don't know. I'm guessing they probably figured out how to sort that out of there.
All right, so... Here's my final take on masks for today.
I'm an anti-masker for people who are vaccinated.
In my opinion, if you've been vaccinated, you know what your risks are.
Very, very low.
And if you're unvaccinated, you also know what your risks are, or should.
I mean, it's on you if you don't know it at this point.
And what about freedom?
What about freedom? If you don't want to wear a mask, I'm fine with that, vaccinated or not.
Now, of course, you have the problem of keeping the hospitals from being overrun, but I'm going to make an assumption that needs to be checked.
Which is that our therapeutics are so good now, and there's a learning curve about how to handle COVID, etc., that probably the odds of getting overrun in our hospitals is probably low in the United States.
Can somebody give me a fact check on that, if in fact that's fact checkable?
I'm going to say that we've done so well with therapeutics that...
We won't overrun the hospitals, with or without masks.
It just won't make any difference. I mean, there will be a difference in level, but it won't overrun the hospitals.
And, oh, our hospital is currently overrun, eliminating overnight surgeries, and they say it's from COVID. Interesting.
I don't know where that is, Derek, in what some seeing hospitals in New Jersey are finding.
You know, I don't know if the hospitals are overrun.
It has to do with the fact that some hospitals are specializing in COVID. Could it be that only the specialized ones are overrun?
Or the ones that have a focus on that now?
Or is that not a thing? All right, so this is an open question.
We do see that there might be some hospital problems.
And I think the degree of the hospitals being overrun would definitely have an impact on my opinion.
But I don't have a confirmation on that.
Boston hospitals are fine.
Could be more obese people in some places.
Yeah. Does anyone know anyone with COVID right now?
I do. Yes, I have a family member with COVID. Not my house.
Extended family member.
All right. Best friend got it?
Yeah, so some of you do. All right, there's a Rasmussen poll coming up today that's going to show Biden at a record low presidential approval.
Now, record low just means it's lower than what's been.
It doesn't mean it's in the toilet.
But I don't know.
It seems about right because COVID is what...
Completely took Trump out, don't you think?
Imagine Trump running for re-election without the coronavirus.
I think he would have just waltzed into a second term.
Would most of you agree with that?
That without the coronavirus, Trump definitely would have got a second term?
I think so. But I wonder if Biden will have the same problem, which is if he puts in mask mandates and does a bunch of things that people don't like, that even his own party will get turned off.
And we might see the beginning of that a little bit.
I mean, I don't think more than 5% of the public ever changes their mind on presidents.
But we might be seeing our sub-5% change, and we might get to that.
All right, here's a question for all of you.
Oh, and it might be because of China.
You're right. Yeah, Biden has a China problem.
And how have we gone so long without a Hunter Biden scandal blowing up into some larger thing?
It's really amazing what the deep state and the news can keep out of the news.
Anyway, all right, new question.
This is a question for all of you.
I want to see your answers in the polls.
For those of you who got the vaccination, is it my imagination that the coronavirus vaccination was unusually unpainful?
Meaning I barely knew what happened.
I was literally...
I didn't know that they gave me the shot.
Now, did anybody have that same experience?
And somebody speculated that the needle is smaller or that...
It's a micro-needle, and...
Oh, that's a good word, a micro-needle.
Oh. Now, of course, we had side effects after in many cases, but I'm not talking about after the shot.
Somebody says mine hurt badly.
I'm talking about the actual shot itself.
As it goes into your arm, I couldn't even feel it.
And what I did feel was like not even a pinch, really.
It was just a feeling. Yeah.
Now, I wonder if people who are afraid of needles, and since I'm not afraid of needles, I can't really get in the heads of people who are.
I don't like them, but I'm not afraid of them.
I wonder if people would be more inclined to get the vaccination if they knew that the vaccinations are unusually unpainful.
In terms of the vaccination itself.
How many of you, let's see, for those of you who might be afraid of needles, would you be persuaded by the fact that if you were looking away, you just don't see it, you wouldn't even know it happened?
Barely. They'd have to tell you it happened.
Would anybody be persuaded by that?
Oh, I'm seeing some yeses.
Oh, my goodness. I'm actually a little surprised.
I didn't know if that was actually part of the psychology.
So some of the psychology about fear of needles has to do with the needle itself and how it feels, the pain, would reduce the anxiety.
All right, and I'll go one level further.
If you heard that the vaccination won't hurt when you get it, just the point of vaccination, because they were using a microneedle instead of a regular needle...
Now, I don't know what a microneedle is.
I don't even know if that's a thing.
I'm just making up a word, right?
I saw somebody say it in the comments.
But if somebody said, oh, this isn't a regular needle, for the vaccination they use a microneedle and you don't feel it.
Wouldn't that change your psychology of it?
They don't use a regular needle.
They use a microneedle and you can barely feel it.
Now, remember...
Everybody has a different trigger for persuasion.
So if I said something might be persuasive, but 90% of you would be unpersuaded by it, it's still a good idea.
If you could persuade 10% of people on anything, just any topic, if you could move 10% of the people, that's gigantic persuasion.
That's really big.
So it's a regular needle.
Somebody says it's a regular needle.
And whoever says it says I administer the vaccine.
Is it the same size as the needle you use to draw blood?
Because when I think of needles, the needle I see most often in my adult life is when I'm just getting a blood test for one thing or another.
And they put that blood drawing needle in you and it kind of hurts.
It's kind of scary.
Yeah, I think the blood-drawing needle is probably a thicker needle, and they've got to find the right place to put it and all that.
So I guess calling it a micro-needle doesn't help, but I have to believe...
Is it because they don't have to find a vein?
Maybe that's it. So the blood-drawing needle is larger, which makes sense.
So I've got a feeling that people...
People think of that blood-drawing needle when they think of the vaccination.
Microneedles are patches, if that makes sense.
Blood cells...
Blood-donating needles are bigger.
Okay. So there is such a thing as larger and smaller needles.
Well, I don't know about...
Okay, here CapCat is saying something I was looking for.
It's intramuscular. Suppose you knew that they didn't have to find a vein.
It's intramuscular, so you won't feel it at all.
All right. I was just testing that out.
So that's about all that's going on today.
Is there any topic I missed today?
If there is, I'll jump into it.
Hey, Dean. So there are a variety of needle sizes.
Well, anyway, the way persuasion works is that you get a hypothesis of what might persuade people, and then you just try it.
You see what reaction you got, and if it works, you do more of it, and if it doesn't work, you try something else.
So in A-B testing, I think...
The government, if the government wants to persuade people to get vaccinated, they should put a little bit of effort into finding out if describing the actual needle situation gets you a little bit more compliance.
And again, if you don't want to get a vaccination, that's okay with me.
All right. Oh, talk about Larry Elder.
It looks like Larry Elder is shooting to the top of the pack...
For a possible replacement for Gavin Newsom in the recall election.
And I have to admit, I haven't done any kind of a deep dive on Larry Elder, but everything I know about him, just from observing him on TV for years, etc., is he's a really good communicator.
And he seems to be very commonsensical, meaning that he doesn't buy into crazy stuff.
So I don't know if that makes a good governor, but I know that what we're doing now is not optimal.
So I feel like he could win, and I feel like maybe it's time to try something else.
Oh, Ed Buck, I guess Ed Buck got prosecuted.
A Democrat... Fundraiser was doing some bad things with some men in his home.
But that story isn't very interesting.
That's just a criminal story.
All right. Yeah, the Ed Buck story has lots of intrigue and drama and stuff in it, but ultimately it's not important to us.
Except that Adam Buck is Adam Schiff's friend.
All right. Oh, somebody says Alex Berenson was banned on Twitter.
Can somebody confirm that?
Did that happen today? Now, when I did my...
What happened?
We have determined you have violated...
Oh, it looks like Alex Berenson was banned on Twitter.
Or at least suspended.
I think he was suspended for 12 hours, it looks like.
So... All right.
That's about all we've got for now.
We're still waiting for the Arizona audit.
Can somebody tell me what happened to the Arizona audit?
Weren't we supposed to know about that by now?
And I'm going to double down or triple down on my prediction.
If you haven't heard something from the Arizona audit yet that's just absolutely damning, I don't know that they have anything.
It feels like it would be deeply unlikely that the audit would have, you know, proof of fraud and that you wouldn't know it by now?
Really? Wouldn't leak a little bit?
I noticed that there's some leaks that come out, but they get debunked as soon as they do.
Airports are shut down.
What? I don't know what you're talking about.
Airports are shut down.
China forced mandatory testing...
All right. This comment keeps going by too quickly, and I can't read it.
Airports are shut down.
Yellow quarantine.
Okay. You can stop putting that in the comments because it keeps going by too fast for me to read it.
All right. They said no release of information until the final.
Yeah, but this is the real world.
In the real world, if they had the goods...
You would know it by now.
If I'm wrong about that, that would be shocking.
And I could be. Remember, I got that recording in the back of my head.
I could be wrong. It could be the first time somebody has world-changing news and lots of people are involved and they're mostly amateurs or people just working on this project and they don't tell anybody.
Maybe... You know, maybe, but I doubt it.
So if that's what's happening, that'll be the biggest surprise in the world.
I've got a feeling that what's...
Let me make a prediction.
What's going to come out of the Arizona audit?
Ambiguity. If you had to bet on a clear result in the future on any topic...
Versus an ambiguous result in the future where people are going to interpret it as two different movies.
Always bet on the two movies.
In 2021, anyway.
Maybe it was different in the past.
But the odds are that the audit will create what the people who already thought there was fraud will consider proof.
And the people who say there was no fraud will consider debunked.
You know that's coming, right?
You know that what's coming is two movies.
One that proves the election was fake, and one that proves it wasn't.
They're both going to be playing at the same time in a month.
I guarantee it.
I guarantee that whatever the Arizona audit says, it will form two complete movies that will live forever.
Does anybody disagree with that, by the way?
By now you all know that's true, right?
You've all seen the cycle repeat so many times.
Was there Russian collusion in the 2016 election?
Two movies.
We'll live forever.
Why do you keep saying China isn't affected by COVID?
Well, relative to how much the rest of the world is affected.
uh If you have other information, let me know.
But I haven't seen it.
All right, Gene.
I agree. This is boring.
And that's why I'm going to help you by hiding you on this channel.
Goodbye. All right, that's all.
Oh, Fox News is saying the Arizona audit finds massive fraud.
Turn on CNN. CNN will say, stories of massive fraud all debunked.
Doesn't mean it's true, but you know they're both going to happen.
Did you see Anomaly's debate with Stixenhammer or 666?
I didn't. When did that happen?
If that's on video, I'd watch that for sure.
Um... I keep telling you 9 million citizens of Nanjing mandatory testing.
Yeah, but, you know, that doesn't even come close to the size of the problem you would expect from that being ground zero.
So, yeah, 9 million people with mandatory testing means they're taking us seriously, but it doesn't mean they have the same level of problem with other people.
Wish Steve Crowder well, somebody says.
What's happening with Steve Crowder?
All right. The Styx debate is on BitChute.
Styx killed him.
I'll bet he did. I saw a little bit of their exchange on Twitter, so I would imagine that.
All right. So in China, you can't leave home without a red, yellow, or a green card, mandatory quarantine centers.
Yeah, but with all of that, with all of that, they're nowhere near where you would expect them, just commonsensically, in the pandemic.
There is still a giant mystery of what's going on over there.
What? Crowder is having complications in a collapsed lung?
