Episode 1455 Scott Adams: I Dismantle My Haters While You Watch
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
My "bad take" on vaccinations, I reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, people, today will either be the best or the worst coffee with Scott Adams of all time.
Because what we're going to do is I'm going to address some of my critics.
Yeah. I'm going to address my critics.
And I'm going to take some of their comments off of Twitter and address them in real time.
That's right. Listening from death row...
Carl, are you really on death row?
Is that true? I think I have somebody on death row watching this.
Well, good luck to you.
And if you would like to enjoy your last moments on Earth, whether you're on death row or not, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
What do I like? That's right, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go. Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah. So, some of you may have seen a tweet by Jack Posobiec.
Who said something kind about my, let's see, work ethic, I guess.
That caused a lot of people to jump in and say, well, they used to like me until my bad take on vaccinations.
My bad take.
That seems to be the phrase people are using.
I got a bad take.
So I said to myself, huh, I better find out what my bad take is.
Because that's kind of generic.
There are people who are stopping from listening to me.
In the comments, how many of you would say the same?
How many of you in the comments would say, oh, I liked him up until the bad take?
Oh, the bad take.
Looking? Looking?
All right. Well, I'm seeing lots of no's, but lots of yes's.
Right? So, there are many of you here who believe I have a bad take.
And I'm going to read a few of them from my Twitter feed.
So here's what I said.
I said a lot of people say I have bad takes, and I invited people to tell me what I got wrong.
So these would be people who are going to tell me either what facts I got wrong or what logic I got wrong.
Okay? Now, I contend...
That nearly all of them will be hallucinating.
Do you think that's possible?
Is it possible that nearly all of my critics will actually be hallucinating in a way that you can even plainly see?
Let's find out. Now, of course, this will not be my normal snappy show.
Let's see. Some people agreeing with me.
I'll skip those because they're so smart.
Here's one. The blonde king is disagreeing me by saying, taking the vaccine instead of ivermectin clearly is a bad take.
Why? You left out the reason.
Will you notice that most of the people who disagree with me leave out the reason?
Let me give you some more.
I'd rather wait for a vaccine with less side effects and more efficacy.
What? Okay.
You can wait, but we're in the pandemic now.
I'd rather have a vaccine with more efficacy and less side effects, but the next one that comes along, you're not going to have much more information.
I don't know about that.
Let's see. A lot of people who just went silent when I asked them to give me real evidence of where they disagree.
Oh, here's one.
Justavo says about me, you literally said I wanted vaccinations to be forced into U.S. citizens.
LOL. But okay.
Does anybody think that I said that I think vaccinations should literally be forced into citizens?
No. No, this is a typical critic of mine.
I've said the opposite of that lots and lots of times, right?
So here's somebody who took the time to come in and criticize me, whose belief is that my belief is the opposite of what it is.
Now, so here's the first one who's clearly hallucinating, or uninformed, right?
Let's see if anybody else who disagrees with me has a reason, or are they hallucinating?
Let's see. Some people changing the topic.
That's usually a tell.
Okay, here's Cecil.
William says, the idea that any long-term effect studies could be considered hard science for a virus that has only been around for the last 18 months seems preposterous.
What's that have to do with me?
This has nothing to do with me.
Right? So, I don't know, is that a hallucination?
I don't know what that is. Also, you have the same level of expertise as I do on this issue, regardless of your track record.
What's that mean? If my track record is the best in the business, which I actually contend it is, on medical decisions, I have the best track record in the pandemic.
Now, that's partly because there are lots of issues I haven't weighed in at all.
I get to pick and choose the ones that I weigh in on.
But I have the best track record, medically, of the whole pandemic.
And I'm an idiot. It's just a true fact.
Well, facts are usually true.
All right. Let's see.
Here's somebody just saying some things.
These are not even criticisms.
You said everyone is responsible for managing their own risks.
Okay, I did say that.
Is that a criticism?
What's the point? Then he said, the risks of COVID are not fully knowable, which I say all the time.
So far we're in full agreement.
The risks of the vaccination are not fully knowable.
Of course, I agree.
I'm still looking for the disagreement.
You shared how you made the decision to get vaxxed and how that framework may help.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
This is somebody who's actually agreed with me by being sarcastic.
Hard to tell. Hard to tell.
A lot of people just didn't give me any reasons here.
All right. Oh, please, why would someone follow you for or consider you for vaccine advice?
You draw cartoons.
Well, I'll tell you why.
Because I have the best track record of analyzing the situation of anybody in the pandemic.
That's why. And that doesn't mean you should follow any advice I give.
I don't even know if I give advice.
Per se. I just break things down and let you decide, but okay.
So why should you follow me?
Because I have the best track record of the pandemic.
Isn't that a good reason?
Who would you want to follow?
Somebody who has the worst track record?
Why wouldn't you follow somebody with the best track record?
All right. Somebody says, you took the vaccine and it was barely tested.
That's a horrible take.
That's not a reason, because you have to compare the risks and the rewards and the benefits and look at me individually, and you'd have to know what's in my head.
It's not a horrible take to make a different decision than you did, because I get a different risk profile.
What do you know what's happening in my head?
If you don't know what's happening in my head, you don't know what my variables were to make the decision.
So you can't make that.
Because part of what's happening in my head is not just the thinking about it, it's which one is more scary.
All right. Somebody says, why not just save us all the time and actually clearly state your opinion first?
I don't know how much more clear I can get, but I'll satisfy this.
For the vaccination, there are two types of risks.
There's the risk of dying right away from the vaccination or from the coronavirus.
And then there's the long-term risk, both from the coronavirus and from the vaccination.
Would you agree with the setup, first of all, that a reasonable way to look at it is immediate risk versus long-term risk?
And that if you've compared those, you've kind of covered it all, right?
Now, what do we know about immediate risk?
The risk of dying...
We're getting a serious illness within, let's say, a week of the vaccination.
We're well past the point where we have to wonder about that.
Because it's at least 10 to 1, 100 to 1 advantage, safety advantage overall, for getting the vaccination.
Is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that now that lots of people have been vaccinated for over a week, that we know for sure That getting the vaccination is absolutely 10 times or maybe 100 times safer in general, not for any one person.
But in general, we know the vaccination is about 10 to 100 times safer than the virus itself for the first week or two.
Would anybody say that that's...
Anybody disagree with that?
Because if the vaccination were killing more than the virus...
That would be so obvious, we would know it.
Now, so we do know about the short-term risk, but that's not all of the risk.
You'd all agree, right? Somebody's disagreeing with that.
Donald, do you really think that we have evidence that more people are dying from the vaccination, of which the VARS database only has 12,000, and those are just suspected, so it might be a few thousand?
We don't even know that from the vaccination.
A few thousand. That's it.
That's the whole reported maybe died.
The number of people who died from the virus is 275,000.
They're not even close.
They're not anywhere in the same neighborhood.
We're talking orders of magnitude difference.
So at this point...
So let's back up in time a little bit.
If you go back to before the first vaccination was given...
Would it be a rational thing to say, hey, I'm worried about people dying in the first two weeks of getting the vaccination, so I'll wait.
I'll wait two weeks.
Who did that?
I did. I did that.
I had heard from scientists that the biggest risk of any vaccination usually happens pretty quickly.
So I said to myself, I'll wait a couple months.
I won't be first. Was that reasonable?
I waited a few months.
So the risk of dying right away, I believe that's gone now.
For all practical purposes, you don't have to worry about the short-term risk because we know the short-term risk is way, way better to get vaccinated.
But what about the long-term risks?
Can't ignore that, right?
Well, here's what we know. As of today, I tweeted around an article from April of this year.
So the Lancet psychiatry...
Now, do we trust The Lancet as a publication?
No. No, we don't.
Because we don't trust any publications, because half of the things that get published in scientific journals are bullshit.
Now, I'm not making up half.
Based on the study, half of the things that get peer-reviewed are just not true.
In the long run, you find that out.
Now... The Lancet Psychiatry, I think, is different than The Lancet.
It looks like some kind of cousin publication.
But they found, let's see, they looked at 236,000 patients.
They found that 34% of them were diagnosed with a neurological or mental health disorder following their bout with coronavirus.
For nearly 13% of those patients, it was their first time receiving such a diagnosis.
Now, do you believe that?
Well, I don't think that's totally credible.
And first of all, if only 13% of them were getting that diagnosis for the first time, isn't it more like 13% had a problem?
If all of the other people have had these same mental health diagnoses in the past...
Well, are you surprised that they had it during a pandemic?
It should be the least surprising thing in the world, because everybody was mentally stressed.
So I'm not sure I believe 34%, but there's clearly some indication of something to worry about.
So I would say, rather than believing it, I'd say that there are a whole bunch of scientists who think, oh my God, there's something to worry about.
Now, I told you that there's another study that says up to 25% of COVID recoverers have long-haul symptoms, and it involves brain inflammation and organ inflammation and stuff that sounds pretty bad.
So, what do we know about the long-haul risk of COVID versus the long-haul risk of the vaccination?
What we know about the vaccination long-haul risk is nothing.
Except that the people involved with it think that the risk is low.
Don't know. That's why you test things.
Don't know. And it would be why we'd love to have five or ten years of experience, but we don't have that option.
You have the option of you have to make a decision.
So the vaccination, you don't know.
Maybe. Maybe dangerous.
Maybe not. But you have zero information about it.
The long-haul COVID... We're pretty sure, or science is, pretty sure that that's real.
The size of it is a little unknown, but less than half, more than 10% probably.
It's pretty big.
We don't know how bad that is.
So how do you make a decision there?
Let me ask just the first question.
How many of you would accept the first part of my statement that the short-term risk is now solved?
We don't have to wonder about it.
How many people think just the short-term part, forget about the long-term, that's separate, but the short-term risk, would you say it's true beyond a doubt that the vaccination is better in the short-term than the COVID itself?
I'm seeing people say no.
Mostly yeses, but I'm seeing some noes.
What would be a possible reason for the no?
Because it's really well studied at this point, and we have solid, solid data on this stuff.
I mean, we would know if 275,000 people died from the vaccination, don't you think?
How many people would have to die within a few weeks of the vaccination before it would be obvious to everybody?
1,000? 50,000?
If even 50,000 people had died from the vaccination...
I'm making that up.
There's nothing like that that's happened.
But even if 50,000 people had died within a week of the vaccination, you still know it would be way safer than the virus, right?
Do you know that? Now, of course, it would depend on age.
Of course, you're factoring in that stuff in your head.
But if you didn't know that, that even if 50,000 people had died from the vaccination...
It would still be safer to get vaccinated?
It wouldn't be close.
Now, I suppose you have to adjust for time because the vaccinations haven't been out as long as the COVID has.
So you'd have to adjust those things.
But still, it would still be safer.
All right. Everybody who uses the Sweden example, you should know that people laugh at you when you do that.
Because the Sweden example proves exactly nothing, because we don't know why Sweden did what they did.
They did a lot more lockdowns and social distancing than we generally know, because a lot of it was voluntary.
They've got a whole different social distancing standard.
Basically, everything from Sweden is useless for understanding the rest of the world.
But if you still think it is, you're a little bit behind it.
It might be someday, but we don't know why anything is different from anything else at this point.
For example, we don't know why Africa's not doing poorly.
We don't know why some people are doing good.
We don't know why the spike went up and went down.
We don't know any of that. So if you're saying, look at Sweden, you're just looking at one of the other things we don't know anything about.
It's just one of the things we don't know why anything did what it did.
We don't know anything about Sweden.
Nothing. All right.
Here's a criticism of me.
Do you wonder why many nurses who work bedside are not getting the vaccine?
Well, that's not a criticism of me, is it?
Right? It's because we...
Oh, I guess it's a nurse...
have seen who this virus is affecting and who the vaccine is affecting.
So... this is an anecdotal report.
So here's a nurse, a person of science...
Who believes that anecdotal observations should override the data that we have on this.
Everybody who thinks that anecdotal data should rule, that's not a good take.
Let's see what some more critics are saying.
Somebody says, you took the vaccine N-word...
This person is calling me.
That's a bad take.
Okay, that's not a reason.
A guy learns a phrase, cognitive dissonance, and all of a sudden he thinks he is smart.
Now he feels he's attained that position he's always tried to achieve, being above everyone else.
His arrogance goes so far to tell everyone he is also going to see the future.
What a tool. Where was the disagreement with me on fact or opinion?
See, this is the sort of thing you get.
If you've ever studied narcissists, and the person writing this is obviously one, this is a case of projection, and when found wrong, getting angry at the messenger.
These are two tells for narcissism in this tweet.
Let's see. You just keep saying they are safe and no reason not to take them.
This is from Todd, my critic, saying to me, you just keep saying they are safe and no reason not to take them.
I've literally said nothing like that.
I've never said that they are safe.
I've never said that.
Have I ever said vaccines are safe?
I've never said that.
I've said we don't know what the risk is, but you have to compare it to the other risks.
I think you have two unsafe things.
Getting the virus is unsafe.
Getting any kind of medical treatment is unsafe.
So, again, this is a hallucination of my opinion.
Or how about this one?
I think you're the one suffering from cognitive dissonance as the narrative you favor is falling apart.
What? Give me a fact I got wrong or an argument that doesn't make sense.
Anything. These are my best critics.
Do you think the timing of these mandates and the Olympics...
Okay, that's not really on point.
Um... I don't take...
Here's a critic says, I don't take medical advice outside of the medical field.
Good thinking.
But also, am objective enough to not take an experimental vaccine over a virus with 98% survival rate.
What is the logical flaw with this person?
Who says he's objective enough to not take an experimental vaccine...
Over a virus with a 98% survival rate.
What's wrong with the analysis?
The long term, right?
Pretty much, there's a very strong correlation that the people who disagree with me are unaware that the long-term risks are pretty well established at this point.
Just unaware. So this is a case of somebody who thinks I have a bad take who has never heard of long-haul risk, right?
Okay? If you've never heard of long-haul risk, you shouldn't be disagreeing with anybody.
You shouldn't be even in the conversation.
All right, and how about the virus with a 98% survivability rate?
Yeah, forgetting the long-haul, blah, blah, blah.
All right. I'm looking for some more clinics.
Remember, all these critics, and nobody's come up with anything except a lack of understanding that there's long-haul risks.
That's it. Or a hallucination.
All right, here's Patrick says, I have this suspicion that suggesting that the vaccines do more good than harm will prove to be misguided.
I didn't do that.
Did I do that?
Again, it's a hallucination.
Or Stephen Poley says, it's been a great few years following you, and I really appreciate all I've gained, but it's at this juncture in history where we must part ways.
I wish you the best of luck.
Really? You can't even tell me what I did wrong?
Something about vaccinations?
All right. Let's see.
My takes are all over the map.
So I claim to have no bad takes because my takes are all over the map.
Could you give me an example?
This is just a hallucination.
Pure hallucination.
My doctor said, no, don't take it.
Not enough information and it's experimental.
Is it experimental?
Is that the word that you think works?
I would call the vaccination something that is extensively tested for the short run and something for which the experts think the long run should not be a big risk, but we don't know.
What part of that is wrong?
Extensively tested for the short run, not tested for the long run, but the people who know the most about this field are not too concerned about the long run.
It looks like that's a small risk.
What part of that did I get wrong?
None. Let's see.
There's a lot of people who said to me, Dr.
Robert Malone's talk about how the vaccinations could be making things worse.
Now, I've talked about that.
I fully explained him on this show.
So he has a take that is worthy of research, and I agree with him.
I agree with his take that there's just enough of a hint that there might be a big problem, like a really big problem, that you should do the blood testing and find out.
Now, if we got new information, would I change my...
Oh, so somebody's using the experimental word in some technical use.
So it doesn't have any meaning for an argument.
It's just a technical description.
So you're not arguing it's experimental.
That's just the name they put on it.
Let's see. More importantly, dude, get a new game.
It has gotten stale. Somebody here cures cancer.
that's one of my critics I stopped listening to your propaganda on vaccines and skip over it What exactly was my propaganda?
So the people who think that I'm pushing the vaccines are having a certain reaction.
And the reaction is that...
They can't figure out what's wrong with my opinion.
They just know that they don't like it.
And it would make them feel dumb for disagreeing.
And so they have to stop watching me.
I think that's all that's happening.
I think that people who can't reconcile that my opinion disagrees with theirs...
By the way, this is the only topic today.
So... For those of you who say, I hate this vaccination topic.
I'm not really talking about the vaccination so much as the logic of it.
And I remind you again, I don't care if you take a vaccination.
I don't care. Seriously, don't get it if you don't want it.
And I don't care if you spread it to other people.
As long as everybody has the access to the vaccination, we're done.
There's nothing else to talk about.
Now, the hospitals are going to get crushed, you know, more so than they would.
I think they'll be fine in the long run.
Can you please change the topic to the price?
I don't know what that means.
Let's see. You strongly implied the unvaccinated are dumb.
I don't know if I applied that, but I'm sure it's true.
What do you think of this statement?
If you were to do IQ tests of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, what would you find?
What do you think you would find?
Seriously, what do you think you would find?
Do you think... Tell me in the comments, if you were to do an IQ test...
And by the way, that doesn't mean that the people with high IQs are right.
I'm not making the claim that people with high IQs are right.
We'll find out. But what do you think would happen?
Do you think it's the high IQ people getting vaccinated or the low IQ people?
Yeah, let's all agree IQ is overrated.
But I'm asking a specific question.
Somebody says I've implied that the smart people are getting vaccinated.
Have I? And is it true?
It's true. Let me tell you something that I feel I can say with some confidence.
The high IQ people are getting vaccinated.
I'm sorry. But...
I would bet 100% of all the wealth I've acquired in my life, I'd bet all of it, that if you did a study, the high IQ people would be the ones getting more vaccinated.
I don't think there's any doubt about it, is there?
Does anybody doubt that?
Now, of course, there are exceptions, blah, blah, blah.
You know, maybe Elon Musk, who knows?
And he'll probably...
Well, I don't want to talk about individuals.
But statistically, it's not even close, is it?
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't lots of exceptions.
Now, keep in mind that if you're arguing exceptions, you're not making an argument.
That's the standard that you should probably take.
That if you're arguing from anecdote, I knew this one guy, or I saw this one person had this experience, that's not an argument.
You might as well just not even say it.
My doctor's not vaccinated, but I agree with you.
Now, again, let me be very clear.
I'm not saying that the high IQ people get the right answer all the time.
I'm not saying that the high IQ people have this answer right.
We'll find out maybe in the long term.
But I'm just making an observation that the smart people are the ones getting vaccinated.
It's not my fault.
I'm just observing.
And I think that you can say that with high certainty.
But again, it doesn't mean they're right.
They could be the most hypnotized of the group, easily.
All right. How about...
So somebody said they didn't know that the vaccination reduced symptoms.
What? How could you not know that the vaccination reduces symptoms?
Isn't earned income the best circuit for intelligence?
I don't know if it's the best, but it correlates.
Right? All right, let's see.
I've now given you three bad takes that did not represent you.
Okay, let's see where they are.
tweets and replies.
Here's somebody who's giving me three bad takes early on.
Let's see if I can even find them.
I wasn't suggesting you thought they were all real, the VAERS. My point was you thought that the actual number was less than the VAERS number.
In reality, whatever percent of reports are real, they're only a fraction of actual.
Well, what I've said is that They're highly inaccurate.
And that they're not meant as data, they're meant as warnings.
Which means that they could be much higher or they could be much lower, but it wouldn't be so much higher that it would change my opinion.
So here is a...
I would say this is a minor point that doesn't really change the conclusion.
But this is a good correction.
I would say, yes, the odds of the VAERS thing being bigger than what is reported is a certain possibility.
The odds of it being lower than is reported also are possible.
Let's see.
You don't need to...
All right. I'm looking for his other...
You should include...
All right.
So you're just talking about VAERS. So my take on VAERS is that if the VAERS number was actually anywhere near as big, or let's say if the number of people who had been injured by the vaccination was anywhere near as big as the number had been saved...
That you wouldn't even need a VAERS database.
It would just be obvious. Like, every doctor would see it.
I mean, it would just be obvious. So, yes.
So, I said that the VAERS database is wildly inaccurate.
And, heck, big criticism is that I only thought it might be inaccurate in one direction, which I never said.
Which I never said.
But wildly inaccurate does, of course, include.
It could be bigger or smaller.
But being bigger wouldn't change anything about the analysis.
Somebody's saying that the fact that with 175-plus million adults vaccinated, it's a failure of the FDA to not issue a full approval already.
I don't know how...
I don't think that's how it works, is it?
I think the FDA probably needs to wait a while, right?
If their standard is they wait a while to see if any problems come up, don't they just need to wait a while?
And what you do in an emergency is different than what the FDA would do in normal days?
I just don't know that that's important.
I don't know that they can say that they've...
That it's approved before they wait a little while.
All right. Flu has about...
Okay. Let's see some more complaints about me.
How about... Let's take some haters in the comments here.
Here's one. Here's Big Bird Brain.
It says, Scott's having a mental breakdown.
Is that what a mental breakdown looks like?
You fucking idiot.
You know, there's some trolls that are worse than others.
I think Seinfeld had an episode on this where Seinfeld had this agent who used to say, Jerry, stop freaking out.
And he would never be freaking out.
So I'm making this up from memory, but it was stuff like...
You know, your flight might be ten minutes late.
And Jerry would be, all right, ten minutes late.
Stop freaking out, Jerry.
I'm not freaking out.
No, stop freaking out.
I get that all the time.
Stop freaking out.
You're having a mental breakdown.
I'm not doing anything different than I always do.
Can you imagine what a mental breakdown would actually look like?
I don't even have a problem today.
I'm literally sitting here with no problems.
Somebody here thinks I'm having a mental breakdown.
Your IQ correlation might have ended my marriage.
Tell your spouse that it doesn't apply to individuals.
And there's no reason to believe that high IQ is correlated with the right answer in this case.
Why do you trust the China COVID data?
Who the fuck thinks I trust China's COVID data?
I mean, these are all hallucinations.
Come up with a criticism about something I've actually sat or done.
Picking and choosing what data to trust?
I don't trust any data.
Why only pick stupid comments?
Because that's the only kind there are.
If there were smart comments, I would tell you.
For example, the person who said you should have mentioned that the VARS database could have been wrong on the high side as well as the low side.
That's a good comment.
Totally good comment.
It doesn't change the argument, but it's worthy of correction.
Um... Richard, do right-wing shills push vaccines?
I don't know. So a lot of people told me I'm a shill for the pharmacies or for the vaccination people.
Why would I do that?
Is there anybody here who thinks I'm getting paid by anybody or even have been approached by anybody to influence?
I haven't been. I haven't been.
And by the way, that would end my career if I told you I hadn't been and somehow you found out I had been.
Wouldn't you agree? My career should be totally over if I said in public, as clearly as I'm saying now, nobody's asked me to persuade, nobody's paid me to persuade.
Not directly, not indirectly.
I don't have, except in index funds, I don't have stock in any pharmaceuticals.
Do I? I don't think so.
So, I mean, who would take the risk?
I mean, it would be a dumb risk for me to shill for vaccinations.
Every death counted as COVID.
My guess on the COVID deaths is that it might be somewhere between 50% and 20% wrong.
Thank you.
That's my guess. Overcounted.
Because of the number of people who may have died coincidentally and had the virus at the same time.
But nothing would change in your strategy if it's off by 50%.
I don't think it would.
So nobody here wants to take me on?
I'm telling you, this isn't the regular show.
I'm just waiting for somebody...
To have an argument that's based on something I've actually said.
Regarding risk management, what about the incentives?
Pharma's incentives are for the virus to escape the vaccine, that's right.
So they can make another one, that's right.
But what about that?
Is that something that disagrees with me?
Since you know so much, Scott, you underestimate the big pharma government corruption.
No, I don't. How do you know what's in my head?
Have I ever said that I trust big government and big pharma to make good decisions?
I don't. I trust data, you know, because there are independent people looking at stuff.
We've clearly seen that the vaccines have worked so far.
The spike protein in the vaccine traveling to the ovaries sounds like something we should look into.
What part do I disagree with?
The problem is that this is about me being right, and so it's not interesting.
Let me invite you not to watch if this content is not to your liking.
I am genuinely curious, because I do this in public, I'm genuinely curious if there's somebody out there who has a good argument.
Because all the people who say, Scott, I had to stop listening because you have a bad take on vaccines, shouldn't I know what that is?
If it's affecting, it's probably affected my audience by a third.
If a third of my audience leaves for a specific reason and they don't say the reason, it's worth finding out.
Let's see. You can repeat yourself till you're blue in the face and the idiots still won't get it.
Well, there's that. All right.
It's cognitive dissonance, Scott.
Yeah. Efficacy, what about it?
Your actions say it all.
You jabbed yourself. Right.
Got it. Is there a criticism?
Yeah, I got the vaccination.
That's not a criticism. You got something better?
Experts are trustworthy in this case?
No. When did I tell you I trusted experts?
Nothing like that ever happened.
Here's a question. A scale of 1 to 10, where was that question?
These are going by so fast.
How can there be long-term data on mRNA?
There isn't.
That's part of your decision-making.
We're sick and tired of listening to you rationalize your decision to get the vaccine.
If you fully trusted it, you wouldn't talk about it incessantly.
That's a hallucination.
I don't trust the vaccination fully and that what I talk about is the risk and the psychology of it.
I would, of course, talk about it incessantly, whether I trust it or not, because that's my main topic, is the psychology of things.
Do guys with trophy wives tend to get vaccinated?
By the way, there's no news today.
If there were any kind of news today, I'd be talking about it.
But you're not missing anything. There's literally no news.
We're still talking about whether somebody in the Olympics can quit because they have a mental condition.
That's sort of a nothing.
A scale of one to my...
How much weight the fact that vaccine critics are censored?
Oh, the critics who are censored...
Are usually the ones who are pushing incorrect information.
But, as some of you know, Dave Rubin got, at least temporarily, limited on Twitter for saying something that the scientists were saying.
Basically exactly the same thing science said.
But the way he wrote it looked a little anti-vaxy just by its tone, and it got taken off.
But then Twitter said it was a mistake and put it back.
So, can you give me an example of somebody who's saying something that we should hear who's being censored?
Is that Dr. Malone one?
It's because the problem with him is that what he's saying is we should look into something, and it's being interpreted as we have looked into it and we know it's a problem.
So the problem with Malone is that he's being misinterpreted.
Brett Weinstein and Ivermectin.
Well, but we're talking about vaccinations.
If Trump wasn't president, do you think it would be so political to get the vaccinations?
Well, that's a good question. You know, I think you could make a good argument that because Trump was there at the beginning, it just became political.
But it doesn't make sense how political it became because it's the Trump supporters who are the least likely to get the Trump shot.
You know, the very thing that Trump will claim as one of his greatest accomplishments, and there's a good chance it will be one of the greatest accomplishments of any president to get the vaccines out, if it all works.
If it doesn't work out, it'll look terrible.
But Trump, he was the vaccine guy.
So... I don't know.
I don't know how Republicans became anti-vax.
Somebody says, wrong, it's blacks, not Trump supporters.
No, it's both. Trump supporters are a little higher on the list of unvaccinated than the black adult public, but they're both way up there.
My concern is censoring the critics.
Yeah, the censorship is a problem.
Yeah. Yes, after Trump left office, he did go radio silent on vaccines.
A little bit. I mean, he still says consider them, but he's not pushing them because of freedom.
Were you or your mom influenced by Napoleon Hill?
I was early on.
What are your thoughts on mandatory vaccinations?
I oppose them.
I oppose mandatory vaccinations because the people who got vaccinated don't have a pandemic anymore.
Do you believe in data over common sense?
I don't believe in either one.
I don't believe in either one.
Because data is often wrong, and common sense is almost always wrong.
So you've got two unreliable standards there.
Conservatives, by nature, are more skeptical things.
Yeah, I think that explains most of it.
Why do you trust China's COVID data?
Why does somebody keep asking me why I trust China's COVID data?
Stop hallucinating.
Whoever thinks I trust China's data on anything, just stop hallucinating.
I'm the number one China fuck you person on the planet.
I don't trust China for anything.
Stop saying that.
Please. All right.
So, have we seen any, even one criticism of my vaccination hypothesis or opinion that's backed by a fact?
None. Not a single one.
You have said China is not having a resurge.
No, I didn't.
No. They're having flare-ups, but they don't have much of a problem.
All right. Relative to other countries.
What is this?
I didn't hallucinate when you used the China-speak incorrect data.
What? Like, your comments don't even make any fucking sense.
All right. We know for certain arguments, or Scott, it's like wrestling with a pig.
All right, so there's more like insults about me.
Bad data.
Vaccine is the mark of the beast.
I don't think so.
Can you call in?
No. No. It stopped raining there.
How did I do that? Well, it's just one of those things.
You keep asking why China is doing so well.
I am. Because they're doing so well.
What? Can you at least...
I mean, your criticisms are just, like, literally insane hallucinations.
China has some flare-ups.
But overall, they're doing great.
You can reword that a hundred times to make it look like I didn't say that, but everybody has the same opinion of China.
They did great.
We don't know why.
They have some flare-ups now that are a problem.
All right. I swear to God, I have to stay until I see at least one person who disagrees with me with an actual fact or an argument.
Because here's what I think happened.
So here's my hypothesis that I'm chasing down.
And it goes like this. And I had to see if there were any real arguments that I missed, and evidently not.
So I think this is what happened.
I think there are a number of people, mostly conservatives, who are at least interacting with me, who have a, let's say, an irrational, meaning that we don't have any data, so whatever decision you make about the vaccination, you could argue it's irrational no matter which way you go, because we don't have enough data. But I believe that people disagreed with my take on vaccinations, but they couldn't find a reason.
And so they turned the disagreement against me.
So I believe that when you disagree with somebody and they don't know why, they can't figure out what's wrong with your opinion, but they don't want to change their opinion, that it pretty much makes them think you had an opinion you didn't have.
So I think that cognitive dissonance...
It's causing people to hallucinate, literally, that I had a whole bunch of opinions that I've never had.
In fact, I've had the opposite of those opinions in most cases.
But it's because you can't change your opinion based on data or argument, which is everybody, really.
People don't really change their opinion based on data and argument.
And when you hit that argument and better argument, and you don't want to change anyway, And you have to assume that the person saying it is broken.
It's your only defense.
So I think that's all that's going on.
And that's what I wanted to sophistry.
Yeah.
Usually the people who claim sophistry are the ones who don't understand what I'm saying.
Do you think the vaccine nanobots are making me say this? - Yes.
Maybe so. Yeah, sophistry is just an attack on the speaker.
It's not any kind of an argument.
All right. How did the bad takes on YouTube compared to locals?
Well, the...
The commenters on YouTube tend to be more jerks.
The comments on locals are people who tend to be more respectful but will disagree.
So generally there's a big difference in just respectful behavior.
Locals is more respectful because people pay to be there.
Makes sense. Scott, I think you tend to underestimate vax risk for young people.
What would make you say that?
What makes you think that I have underestimated the risk of vaccines for young people?
Nothing I've said would suggest that.
Nothing. Nothing.
That's pure imagination.
And I think your point is that if somebody has a very low risk of COVID... And a non-zero risk from the vaccination, that maybe there are some situations where the balance of risk and reward is different.
Of course I agree with that.
Of course. Every person has their own individual risk and they have to take that into account.
Of course. Can anything persuade you to go all in on promoting therapeutics?
Which ones? See, the trouble is that the therapeutics don't have data supporting them that the medical community agrees with.
Now, if you think that I can look at an argument between Brett Weinstein and the scientific community and do my own research and come to a decision about which one of them is right, that would be crazy.
That would be crazy. Do you think I could keep up with Brett Weinstein on an analysis of a study?
No. Not even close.
Do you think I could keep up with a scientist who might or might not agree with Brett Weinstein?
No. No.
I can't keep up with either one of them.
I just know that there are two entities telling me something and no way to know what's right.
That's all I know. So why would I go all in on that?
Sophistry again. All right, goodbye, you asshole.
Goodbye. You're gone from the channel.
Sophistry again. I've got to do that with the Dale impression.
I can't find my Dale beard.
So, no, nothing could convince me to go all in unless science backed it.
Oh... So I like therapeutics, of course, but I also see the vaccine as a therapeutic.
I don't think you'll see me go all in on any medical stuff, because that would be unethical.
Am I getting a divorce?
No.
Thanks for asking.
Why do they dismiss natural immunity?
Nobody does that. Why do people dismiss natural immunity?
Nobody does. Literally nobody.
We're ignoring the biggest issue.
Vaccine hesitancy is pushed back to government overreach.
Not at all about science.
I think those are separate.
I think those are separate. I think you could certainly have a government over each opinion that's completely different from whether a vaccination works.
It's just separate. Some people think the trolls on here could be Chinese trolls.
Maybe, but they don't all look like it.
Science hasn't solved the common cold.
You know what's funny about that?
All right, so one of the comments was, science hasn't solved the common cold.
The mRNA platform might actually do that.
That's one of the things it might do.
Might cure cancer, might cure the common cold.
So, yeah, we haven't cured the common cold, but we might have gotten a lot closer just by having an emergency use of the mRNA platform.
All right, I need to ask particular people questions, but I'm asking for any kind of sense of something that people are disagreeing with.
What's that? Okay.
China doesn't ship fentanyl.
Well, I guess I know where you're from.
Scott, my only criticism, you forgot to count the deaths as long-term side effects.
I don't know how that matters to any of my arguments.
I'm pretty sure we all know that death has a long-term consequence.
So you'd have to say more about that because I don't understand how that has anything to do with anything I've said.
Do I think Trump might get in real trouble?
Yeah, of course. There's always a risk.
There won't be any different topic today, because there's no news today.
There's nothing to talk about today, frankly.
If you ejected, yeah, people with a placebo, a lot of people would die.
That's true. Let's see.
I disagreed with you before, and I made it your own.
So we're good. Okay.
Oh, recommending vaccines for those with natural immunity is a crock.
Well, have I ever said otherwise?
Chance of the Norm MacDonald novel review?
I can't remember the last time I read a novel, honestly.
So if it's fiction, there's no real chance that's going to happen.
All right. MRA is into non-reproducing people.
What is the big deal?
Why did it only take six months to find a vaccine for COVID, but it's been 40 years and no cure for HIV?
You know, I think HIV is one of the things that's on the list for mRNA.
So I think it has more to do with mRNA technology reaching its maturity at exactly when we needed it.
So had it reached its maturity during the AIDS, you know, the biggest part of the AIDS pandemic, then I think it probably would have been first.
What's your opinion on banning unvaccinated people from public spaces?
I don't care where anybody goes.
If you want to be unvaccinated, that's fine.
It's your risk, not mine.
I mean, in a sense, I suppose I do have greater risk, too, because the unvaccinated could give it to me, even though I'm vaccinated.
But I'd get a sniffle for a week, and then I'd be happy that I had natural immunity on top of my vaccination.
So, I don't know.
I don't think... I don't care what anybody does in the public space.
Um... Scott, why is there no Chinese variant of the virus?
Good question. Maybe there is.
I'm imagining that there are lots of variants, but they aren't all a big problem.
How do you feel knowing they lied about the vaccine...
Can he give me anything else?
Really? You see, that's the kind of comments that are useless.
How do you feel about knowing they lied about the vaccine?
Who lied and what was the lie?
I can't do anything with that comment.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Between the three vaccines, which do you trust the most?
Well, that would just be a guess.
It seems like we've heard the least problem stuff from the Moderna, but that doesn't mean much.
We have so little data. Oh, they lied, saying that if you get the vaccination, you won't need to wear a mask.
Well, I think the mask thing is persuasion to make you get the vaccination.
So I don't think that the mask thing is based on science.
I think it's based on persuasion.
It's a way to guilt the unvaccinated into getting vaccinated.
That's what it feels like to me.
It doesn't feel science-based.
Meaning that it does have a science-based.
In other words, the things which they say about it are true enough, but the risk-reward doesn't make sense.
Yeah, I don't think we would have had a golden age without a pandemic because it shook everything up in a way that needed to be.
Scott changing his tone quickly about masks.
So, Roger, I'm going to block you from the channel, because this is the most annoying comment I get, is people telling me that I've changed my stance when I've never changed my stance.
Little hide user on this channel.
So, and I guess that's the biggest problem I have, is people literally imagining my...
Now, it's not fragile. You can say anything you want about me if it's just, like, insults.
I don't care about that.
You can call me, you know, short, bald, old, anything you want.
But the blocking is, and it's just the comments that got blocked, you can still watch.
The blocking is when somebody say in public what my opinion is and it's not right, and then they criticize it.
That's a meltdown.
You can get rid of all the assholes.
All right, meltdown guy, you're gone.
Anybody else? Israel data shows no reduced hospitalization for the vaccinated or infected.
What are your sources?
Well, every source I've seen says exactly the opposite of that.
So show me a source that says what you said.
Oh, actually, I'm sorry.
In Israel, most of the hospitalized should be vaccinated.
Does anybody not know why that's true?
It's because they're all vaccinated.
The only people who can go to the hospital in Israel are people vaccinated, because they all got vaccinated.
I'm exaggerating, not all of them, of course.
So if you have a country where 100% of the people have vaccinations, the only people who will die from it are vaccinated people.
It would be 100%. There just wouldn't be many of them.
So Israel's in good shape, but yeah, your statistic is misleading.
But if the percent of vaccinated is not the percent of infected, what does that mean?
I don't understand the question.
All right.
Troops in Australia.
Yeah, Australians...
Australia's getting pretty badass about this.
You know, the one thing about having lots of countries doing lots of different things is that we're going to figure out what worked.
Now, nobody wants the military in the streets to guarantee people are socially distancing.
In this country, we certainly don't want it.
But we also would like to know what works.
What happens if it works?
What happens if Australia ends up getting the best result?
Then things get complicated.
I think in this country, we'd still rather take the deaths than having the military in the street.
We're pretty well armed here, so I think things would go differently.
90% of those in hospitals, they are vaxxed, and they should be.
That makes sense, because most people are vaxxed.
So, you know, in this country, 100% of the people who die have polio vaccinations.
It doesn't mean the polio vaccination killed them.
It just means everybody has one.
What's your stance on kids getting vaccinated?
That, of course, it's a tough one because we would be vaccinating the children to save other people.
That's really what that's about.
I would have to say that seems unethical.
But the part we don't know, and I don't know, I guess, is if there are any long-haul risks to kids.
I'm guessing not much.
But vaccinating a kid to save a senior feels purely unethical.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Because a senior only has maybe a few good years of life.
A child has, you know, the whole life ahead of them.
Why would you put some risk on the child...
To reduce some from the person who's 80.
That doesn't make sense.
So, just vaccinate the seniors, yeah.
I mean, that won't protect all of them, but it gets there.
Somebody's got a Tony Heller question.
Using temperatures recorded from the 30s, higher than now, lends credibility.
Here's the problem with Tony Heller's criticisms of climate change.
Sometimes, I think he's right.
Meaning that some specific criticisms of a way something was measured...
Might be right. But climate change is a vast body of science right now, and I don't think there are any vast bodies of science.
Let's take evolution as a good example, where you wouldn't find somebody who can find some problems with the way things were studied.
That would be everywhere.
So Tony Heller can find a dozen different problems, and it doesn't really have much to do with whether climate change is real or a problem or anything else.
Those are unrelated problems.
You could always find a bunch of problems.
Did you say you think evolution is false and will be disproved?
Yes, and already has been.
So my prediction about evolution back in the 90s, I predicted that evolution would be debunked by science, not by religious people.
But it would be debunked by science in my lifetime.
And that's already happened.
Because the simulation argument debunks evolution.
And the simulation argument might be false, but there's about a trillion to one chance it's true.
Statistically, evolution has been debunked in favor of the simulation theory.
How do we know vaccinated people suffer less?
Well, that seems to be a universal experience in every country and every hospital, that people with vaccinations are getting less symptoms.
So the evidence is everything, everywhere, everywhere anybody's looked, every time, every single time.
That's the evidence. Evolution could be a feature of the simulation?
Yes, but it would only be written on demand.
So in other words, if we're a simulation, history is written when you need it.
It's not already there.
It's just designed as needed if we were a simulation.
Because that's how we would reserve resources in the simulation.
All right.
It's hard to see all these comments going by so quickly.
Doing my best. Could you give a persuasion grade on starting movement to end child abuse in two generations?
Probably not. I don't know that that one is too subject to persuasion.
Oh. On a scale of 1 to 10, how much does VAX censorship affect your trust in the data?
Well, I don't have any trust in the data.
So probably not much.
So I went from very low credibility given to anybody to more low credibility given to anybody.
All right. Here the ethical skeptic is saying that it's clear that something hit the world in 2018-19 and caused an exceptional rate of growth in deaths sometime in that year.
Okay. Well, I don't trust that data either.
Am I saying that simulation theory and time travel are the same?
No. I'm definitely not saying that.
I'm saying that the history doesn't exist if you're a computer program.
History doesn't exist unless you need it, so you write it as you need it.
Is there free will for choosing the vaccine?
Not in a scientific sense.
The death rate didn't change, Scott.
Sorry. Ha, ha, ha, ha.
What death rate? Give me a little bit of a hint what you're talking about.
Just a little bit of a hint what topic you're on.
Who is going to be the next president?
and Hard to say, but Ron DeSantis probably has the inside track if Trump doesn't run.
If Trump does run, all bets are off.
Who knows? All right.
Who will be the governor of California?
Don't know. Scott, watch the war room pandemic and you'd be as smart as us.
Again, a criticism with no criticism.
Do you think there exists a great designer?
Well, there might be a game designer, but not somebody who designed the specifics.
All right.
I think we've done what we need to do.
I've driven away pretty much all of my viewers now.
So I think I'm going to have more viewers on locals here in a minute.
Zero chance we'll go to paper ballots.
Yeah, I think so. How long does Biden last?
I think Biden does one full year at least.
So I don't believe there's any scenario if they can keep Biden on any kind of life support.
You've got to give the guy one year.
Because then he can say he did his job, right?
If Biden gets one solid year...
You can say, I did my job, I kept Trump out of office, handed it off to another Democrat, presumably.
So I think one year, because just psychologically, that feels like he needs to do that.
Yeah, the eviction moratorium is going to get interesting.
We've all ignored that until now.
If free will...
How does free will fit into this simulation theory?
How doesn't it?
Either way, we're programmed.
You're programmed one way or the other.
Oh, my God.
You don't believe the Chai comms, Chinese communists, but you believe they are doing well in terms of COVID. I believe that we would know...
If China had, like, a huge wave of death.
So, yes. I don't believe their data.
I believe we would know, and, you know, there would be enough information coming out of even China that we would know if it was a big problem.
All right.
All right, that's all I got for now.
Sorry today was not my usual program, but I did want to see if there were actual real criticisms to my opinions or if they were all hallucinated.
I think we proved they're all hallucinated, right?
Doesn't make any difference to anybody's decision-making.
But that's all for now, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
