Episode 1468 Scott Adams: Fake News of the Day and Delicious Beverages. Join Us!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
COVID babies, significantly lower IQ?
CNN's persuasion by anecdote
COVID, obesity and age
Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium
COVID deaths and hospitalizations matter
COVID variants and vaccinations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Favorite part of the day? I just can't wait to see all of you.
It's actually true.
I know I have my lighting optimized today, but I'm kind of liking this low-light situation I've got here.
Makes it more intimate, don't you think?
Well, for those of you who are obsessed with my audio quality, on Locals today, I took the electronics out, going directly into my iPad with the lavalier.
Meanwhile, on YouTube, I'm going through a Rodecaster, so you're getting different audio.
If you like one of them, well, watch the one you like.
I don't know if there's any difference, really.
But I'll know later when I look at it.
And if you'd like today to go up a level, get a little bit better, I think you do.
All you do is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tank, a challenger, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Everything. Except my lighting.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it goes like this.
Go! Well, a funny thing happened yesterday.
People on Locals already heard this story because they're special.
But yesterday I was threatening to throw my HP printer out the window because I was having some trouble with it.
Well, it turns out that if you do a popular live stream and you threaten to throw a product out the window, you will get a call from the people who make that product.
So I get a call from Hewlett-Packard, They have an executive rapid response team for exactly these social media situations.
And they asked me if there was anything they could do.
Could they possibly help me get my product running, or if there's something they could do to maybe discourage me from throwing it out a window on livestream, which I understand would be bad for business.
Bad for business. So, I'm not going to throw my HP print around the window, and I will say, let me say for those who sort of were missing the fun part of this, HP is a great company.
And they make really good products.
Great American company.
And I had already ordered an upgraded HP printer.
So every three years or so, you have to get rid of a printer.
They're mechanical. It's a mechanical device.
It's not going to last forever.
It was time to upgrade.
Anyway, so I've got a new HP printer on the way, but HP was on it.
I've got to say, when you see a big corporation...
It says we've been played.
No, I actually did plan to throw it out the window.
If any of you were thinking that I was bluffing about that, not at all.
No, I was actually, I was only looking for the right time of day, and I was trying to figure out how to film it right, everything.
I was totally going to do it, just for fun.
But I also didn't want to clean up all the shards, so that was part of it.
Anyway, fake news of the day!
Fake news of the day.
We've got a lot of it today.
New York Post is reporting that there's information coming out that a new study says babies born during COVID, the pandemic, have lower IQs and not just a little bit.
Like really, really lower IQs.
Now, true or fake news?
The explanation given is that it's not...
Biological, rather.
It has to do with the situation.
And the thinking is that maybe the parents were all frazzled and stressed and staying home too much and there wasn't enough stimulation for the kid.
Do you believe any of that?
Does any of that sound true?
Do you believe that babies who were raised in the situation where everybody's home around the baby...
That they get less stimulation than if everybody's going to work and you leave the baby with the caretaker or, I don't know, where?
Whoever takes care of the baby?
Or if one of you goes to work and one of you stays home with the baby, that baby is smarter because there's only one of you home?
Are you telling me that a baby with a house full of people is going to get less stimulation and be less smart than a baby that stays home with one person all day?
I don't know. I would say at the very least, the explanation with which they hypothesize doesn't sound right to me.
I mean, just on the surface, it doesn't sound right.
And then I think some of you are asking in the comments, how exactly do you measure the IQ of a newborn?
Can you even do that?
How old does the baby have to be before you can get a good read on its IQ? Yeah.
Yeah, how do you measure that?
Now, I imagine it's something like, you know, does the baby recognize a sound?
Or, you know, does it turn toward a thing?
Or does it know that the toy is under the cup?
I don't know. Something like that.
But I got real questions about the accuracy of this study.
If it's true, it's the biggest news in the world.
Right? If this were true...
It's the biggest news in the world.
Because this would indicate you can totally manipulate the IQ of your baby by what's happening the first year.
If that's true, we can turn all of our babies into super babies by figuring out what was different about the pandemic, and then you do more of the stuff that's different from that.
You got super babies. And all the people in other countries we're competing against, well, they'll just have normal babies.
And their babies will never compete with our super babies.
But I'm going to say, because it's not the biggest story in the world, that the experts are maybe not buying this.
Because if they were...
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong.
If our babies born during the pandemic were really noticeably dumber, we wouldn't be talking about anything else.
By far, that would be the biggest problem.
So, apparently, other people are not buying this story, but here it is.
All right, here's some more CNN fake news.
And this is fake news by intentional lack of context.
So there are lots of ways to fake the news.
Here's one of them. So Adam Dopamine found this on Twitter.
And this is CNN in a written piece.
They talked about Alabama Hospital and says, we're seeing a lot of children that are very, very sick admitted to our hospital.
We have almost twice as many right now as we did at the previous worst part of the pandemic.
It's pretty bad.
And So how bad is that?
It's twice as bad.
What's missing? The number.
What about the number?
Okay, it's twice as bad.
And? I don't know.
Do I care? Because if it was one person last year and it's two people today, do I care that it's twice as bad?
I kind of need a little context.
Well, somebody else on Twitter found another local source for, I think, the same story.
But a local source said 33 children are hospitalized in Alabama with COVID. 33.
So let's say the number went from, I don't know, they say almost twice.
So let's say it's, I don't know, 15 extra children.
So let's say 15 extra children.
Is that enough to change your national policy?
Because of the 15, most of them won't die, right?
So there might be 15 extra children.
Maybe five of them will die.
Anybody dying is a tragedy.
Extra so if it's a child.
So not to minimize the fact that these are real people, not just statistics.
Five people being a tragedy, of course.
One person being a tragedy.
But we do need to manage the country to these risks.
And I don't believe that they've been given to us straight by CNN. Tell us the number next time.
All right. And then here's another one from CNN. Some hospitals now report their intensive care units, which are usually reserved for the most critically ill patients, are full.
Some hospitals? How many is some hospitals?
How many hospitals are there?
Are there, let's say, 10,000 hospitals?
I don't know. Does anybody know how many hospitals there are in the country?
1,000? 10,000?
What would be... Anybody?
Just tell me the number of hospitals.
Do a fact check.
But what are...
Some hospitals are impacted.
What if there are 10,000 hospitals and five of them are...
Somebody has a number here.
1,500, 770...
There are about 4,000 acute care hospitals.
Well, your numbers are all over the place, people.
But let's say it's in the low thousands.
If you have hospitals in the low thousands, how many of them are impacted?
Some? Some?
Three? What would be some?
Three or four? How big is this problem?
We're literally being managed and manipulated because they don't want us to know the number.
Obviously, it would be easy enough to find the number.
How hard would it be for CNN to say there are, you know, say 5,000 hospitals in the world, whatever it is, in the country, and seven of them are impacted?
And we think...
You would also say your prediction.
Seven of them are impacted.
We think there could be...
Bing says there are 6,090 hospitals.
All right. So let's say you say there are 6,000 hospitals and seven of them are impacted.
That would tell me something. And maybe we think there'll be 100 impacted.
And if they're in the big cities, of course, that's a bigger deal.
So now we're seeing the stories about the people who had medical problems because their surgeries, etc., were delayed.
Let me tell you my story, just so you can add an anecdote.
And it's dangerous to add anecdotes to To your knowledge set when you're trying to make decisions because they're too influential.
But I'll give you one example.
Last year, during the pandemic, I was scheduled to get sinus surgery.
Now, sinus surgery to remove some polyps.
Now, sinus surgery is not the biggest deal in the world.
But because it got delayed, I had to be on prednisone for way longer than normal to keep things managed until the surgery.
And I would say that there's a good chance that that ruined my life.
Now, I won't give you the details, but let's just say that it caused a series of events directly from the delayed hospitalization that I think may have ruined my life.
You know, through a series of related events.
Now, not health-wise.
Health-wise, I'm actually fine.
But you can really fuck up your life by being sick for six months that you didn't expect.
So for six months, I could barely walk up the fucking stairs after I got off the prednisone because you get addicted to it.
So that was a problem. So I lost six months of my life.
You didn't notice so much because I could fake it on camera pretty well.
But I was in bad shape.
For about six months.
And it had a consequence in my life.
So these are pretty big things going on with people delaying hospitalization.
It's a big deal. And I can confirm that.
Now, of course, CNN is trying to persuade us by anecdote.
Let's see how they're doing. One of the things that CNN is doing is they're sending Don Lemon out.
He went to, I think he was raised in Alabama, and he went to Alabama hospitals.
And he's talking to somebody who's like in the intensive care, might be on oxygen, I'm not sure.
But Don Lemon asked this COVID patient about not getting vaccinated and says, do you regret it?
Do you regret it?
So see the scene in your head.
Don Lemon in the hospital talking to a guy who's in bad shape from the COVID. He says, do you regret getting the vaccination?
Now, if you were to evaluate that as news, that's a failing grade.
As news, it's a failure.
Because it's showing you an anecdote that That will mislead you about things without the statistics.
Statistics would be good.
That would be news. And we certainly know if the news says there are lots of people in the hospital, we know what that looks like.
But if you show one person on camera suffering with regret, I didn't hear the answer, but I imagine there was some regret there, that's persuasion.
That's pure persuasion.
Now, how much good persuasion is there?
You've got visual, because it was actually video of a guy in the hospital.
That's A +, visual.
You've got fear, because it's the fear you put yourself in that person's place and you say, oh, that doesn't look good.
Fear is visual.
And then the last thing is you can put yourself in...
It's personal. You can put yourself in the scene.
So even though it's about somebody else, you pretty easily put yourself in the bed, right?
Your brain just does that automatically.
So how good is that for manipulation?
A+. A+. If you were to give that a grade for propaganda, persuasion, and manipulation, A+. Now...
Let me correct myself.
I just made a terrible mistake that I'd like to correct.
I called it manipulation.
Is that fair? Not by my own definition, so this is what I'm going to correct myself in.
It's manipulation if you're trying to make somebody do something that's good for you and bad for them.
That's my definition. If I try to get you to give me money and it's not going to be good for you...
Well, it's going to be good for me.
Well, that's manipulation. If I can convince you to do that like it's your own idea or something.
But what if I try to convince you to do something that's good for you?
Let's say exercise and eat right.
If I use persuasion to get you to exercise and eat right, and you wanted to do those things, am I manipulating you or persuading?
Now, I would call that persuasion because it has a good intention and everybody's on the same page.
Manipulation is when you're trying to change somebody's mind and they don't want to change their mind and they don't see what's good about it.
That's manipulation. And that's what CNN was doing.
CNN was changing your mind and you're not sure that's good for you.
It might be. I'm not saying it's not.
I'm just saying you're not so sure.
So that gets into the manipulation.
But my guess is that CNN is not intending for a bad result.
I don't think they intend a bad result.
I think they want people to...
Have good outcomes. So I actually believe that they're sincere in the sense that they would like people to have better outcomes.
So maybe that's not manipulation the way they see it.
It might just turn out to look like that.
How many non-abese people in the United States died of COVID today?
Anybody? Anybody?
Can you give me a number? What would be the most useful data you could have?
You should have a number of people who died...
Number of people who were hospitalized was intensive care, let's say.
You need to know that.
But after you knew that, don't you need to know how many were obese?
And their age. Their age would be good.
But I'll bet the obesity is just as important.
Because your risk and how you run your life will depend entirely on how many people are getting hurt.
If it's a tiny, tiny number, you're going to do one thing.
If it's a big number, you'll do another.
And if you're not obese, and the only people who are getting bad outcomes, or mostly, are the obese, well, you make different decisions, maybe.
So here's a question I asked online.
I said, imagine a president who persuaded people to get fit to protect themselves and protect the country at the same time.
I don't know if we can handle that.
At various times, we've had presidential and physical fitness initiatives and stuff, like JFK, etc.
But they didn't really go very far, did they?
Now, we've had Obama, who was a smoker, very suboptimal.
We should never have a president who's a smoker, in my opinion.
I think that's just such a bad look.
Then we had Trump, who literally doesn't exercise.
And eats fast food. We've got Biden who, let me give him some kudos.
Biden is very fit.
Always has been. I believe he's a runner, or has always been a runner.
So Biden is actually at least a good role model, but he doesn't do anything about persuading people to get fitter.
And I think an excellent president would do that.
Hey, today is the one-year...
All right.
Well, I'll just finish up on YouTube here.
And so the Cyber Symposium isn't going too well.
Uh.
Mike Lindell tried to show his evidence, but there was a CNN expert there who said, I didn't see any.
He didn't say the evidence was wrong.
He just said he didn't see any.
So we've gotten to this point where Mike Lindell has done all this work, and at least according to CNN, they didn't agree or disagree with this evidence.
They didn't see any. All right.
I was suggesting today that we need something like a Supreme Court for fact-checking.
And, of course, as soon as I said that, then all of the...
Well, I won't insult people, but there's a certain type of thinking...
Who called this snap-to-grid?
Eric Weinstein? Snap-to-grid thinking?
Where if you give anybody any nuance about anything, they can't handle the nuance, so they have to snap it to the closest grid that's something they do understand.
I'm not sure if he uses it in the same context, but I like that analogy.
So a lot of people said, wait, a Supreme Court for fact-checking, you mean like the Ministry of Truth?
Scott, you mean like the Ministry of Truth?
That's really what you're recommending?
To which I say, no, that's what we have now.
The Ministry of Truth is the current situation.
Where the powers that be tell you what's true, and your side says, oh yeah, I guess that's true.
And then the other side says, it's not true.
So we have the ministry of truth, but there are two of them.
There's one for the left and one for the right.
So it's the opposite of anything useful.
So imagine, if you will, a Supreme Court for fact checking, something that we wouldn't have needed in the past, and so the founders never would have imagined that they needed a special department for it.
But imagine if you had facts that were presented by, let's say, the media or even the public, and they could just submit stuff for fact checking.
And imagine, if you will, that the process for arguing the facts was public.
So you'd see the people on both sides arguing their facts.
You would see the members of the fact-checking Supreme Court ask them questions.
And then when it was done, they would issue a ruling, and there would be a minority report.
The minority report is really important.
And certainly we don't have anything like that.
Wouldn't you like to see seven justices say, well, we looked at the data and we're, let's say we're trained economists or we're trained in statistics or whatever, and seven out of nine of us say, yes, this is true.
But you should know that two out of nine of us weren't so sure and here are their reasons.
Wouldn't that be way better?
Then nobody trying to figure out what's true, or partisans figuring out what's true.
Now imagine, too, that you had life appointments, which is one of the things that makes the Supreme Court work.
Life appointments, so nobody has to answer to anybody.
And you make it a high-paying job, prestigious, so that people don't need to take bribes.
So whatever it is that makes the Supreme Court work, We could borrow a lot of that to make some kind of a, not ministry of truth, but a Supreme Court for facts.
And don't reject it on a hand, just because you can't think of the exact way to do that.
Just think that everything that's wrong right now is because we don't have this.
Let me say that again.
Everything that's wrong with the country It's because we don't have a Supreme Court for fact-checking.
We can't agree what to do.
Now, some of the things we can't agree on are strategy and nobody really knows the future, so you can't tell if strategy is a good idea, usually.
But facts...
We ought to be working on the same set of facts.
So let's fix that. It's fixable.
You just need a better system.
Birth rate is falling since 2007, and I guess a big part of the problem is that parents don't want all the responsibility and all the work.
Here is another case where we have drifted into a world that doesn't work at all, and we should just tear it down and start over.
The average way that parents raise kids in the United States is so messed up.
It's not good for the kids.
It's definitely not good for the parents.
It's just sort of what we do.
Let me give you an example.
I might spend two hours a day driving kids to school.
Two hours. Because everybody drives out here and there's gigantic lines.
You've got to go early. It's across town.
There's just all kinds of complications to it.
That's just every day. Now, that's all just completely wasted time.
Completely wasted time.
Because you should build a town where kids can walk to school.
When I grew up, we just walked to school.
It wasn't close. I mean, not that close, but it was close enough.
Imagine building a town where there are bicycle paths and it's safe and lighted and there are, say, video cameras.
And any kid, even the young ones, can just leave the house with their little lunch box and walk on the path and just walk to school.
There'd be big kids there.
Everything would be safe enough.
So you can imagine like a hundred different ways the classes would be better.
They would teach better things.
They could get back and forth easily.
There wouldn't be all that paperwork.
You wouldn't have these after-school activities that don't really help anybody.
There's just a million things you could redesign.
So we've actually got our systems for raising children.
So here's the major point.
The system for raising children is so bad...
That women won't do it.
It's just too inconvenient.
And I actually agree with them.
If I look at what it takes to raise a kid today versus what it took, you know, when I was a kid, they're completely different.
We were raised almost like feral, free-range chickens.
At a fairly young age, we were allowed to leave the house, let's say the summer.
In the summer, you could leave the house on your bike, and your only requirement was to be home for dinner.
Five o'clock. That's it.
That's the next time your parents would see you, is when you sat down at the dinner table.
Now... I'm not saying that's a good or bad system, but I'm saying that our system for raising children is completely broken.
And if we don't fix it, our birth rate is just going to fall through the floor.
Because having a child today is just really not a good deal compared to what it was.
Here's a provocative statement I made that...
The least credible thing you can see on the internet is the rogue doctor who disagrees with all the other doctors.
This is going to be a tough conversation here, I know.
The rogue doctor who disagrees with all the other doctors.
And there's a viral video.
Now, you're thinking of specific ones in your head right now, right?
It's not about a specific one.
It's about the category.
Right? Because part of your risk management decision is to look at the category.
So let me give you an example.
Somebody tells you that they have figured out how to make nuclear fusion work in their garage with components that they bought at the hardware store.
Now, that's a category of claim that's always untrue.
So you don't need to look at the details.
I mean, you should probably. Maybe you should look into them a little bit.
But you don't need to.
To know if it's probably not true.
There's some things that are in that category of probably not true.
And the rogue doctor who sees what nobody else can see, only I have seen the truth, and all the other experts in my field have not seen the truth.
And let me tell you, I've treated 15 people, and so I know what the randomized controlled trials do not know because of my 15 anecdotal examples.
All right? Now, forget about the fact that I called them rogue.
Let's say they're the ones disagreeing with the mainstream, whatever you want to call that.
In my experience, I can't think of a single time that the lone doctor with the viral video has been right in the end.
Can you? Now, I know you can think of some examples from all of history...
So, for example, you'll say, well, for every big change, there was somebody who got there first.
So, yeah, for everything that we didn't have right in the past, but now we do, there was a rogue doctor.
Somebody went first.
But how about the last 10 years?
In the last 10 years, how many videos have there been of the rogue doctor...
Who's the only one who sees everything the way it is?
How many of them turned out to be right?
Once enough time had gone by that we know if they're right or wrong.
None? None, right?
So the odds of the rogue doctor being right are close to zero.
They're not zero, though.
They're not zero. So the trouble is that they're very convincing.
Very convincing. And somebody says, Rand Paul.
That's a special case.
Rand Paul's a politician who also is a doctor.
I don't know if I would count that one.
That's sort of a special case.
So anyway, I would just say this.
If you believe that that doctor you saw in a video, whichever doctor it was, and whichever video it was, if you believe them when they're disagreeing with all the other experts...
They could be true. It could be true.
But I'd say the odds of it are under 10%, let's just say.
Does anybody disagree with that, by the way?
Does anybody disagree with the sort of general notion that 9 out of 10 are these doctors who have the secret and nobody else has it?
9 out of 10 are bullshit.
Right? So keep that in mind.
Here's an interesting thing that happened on the internet today.
There was Ken Kalanian, who works for NBC News, he tweeted that at least 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans have tested positive for COVID. 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans still got COVID. So what would that lead you to imagine about the vaccinations?
It sort of suggests they don't work that well, doesn't it?
Now here's Fox News.
They reported that of vaccinated people, the total number of vaccinated people who died were.001% of the total.
That's called context, good context.
How about hospitalizations?
.003% of all the hospitalizations for COVID were of vaccinated people.
Now that's data.
And the comments were fascinating, because any time Fox News is on social media, especially Twitter, all the anti-Fox News people will come in and say, Fox News is wrong about everything.
Except this time that didn't happen.
This time the critics of Fox News in the comments said, uh-oh, Did Fox News just get this right with the accurate context and NBC News is misleading us?
Even the people who don't like Fox News said, oh, this is right.
They got this right.
So, of course, I can't speak to the accuracy of any data, but the way Fox News reported it was exactly the way the public wants to see this.
We do also need to know that 125,000 vaccinated people got COVID. So that's a big part of the story.
But if they're not dying, that's the bigger part of the story.
So the other day I was saying that this is exactly how the news should report it.
They should tell us the deaths and hospitalizations.
And Fox News got it right.
Now, I'm not saying that I had anything to do with that.
I'm just saying that they got it right.
Now, I've told you this before.
This is sort of a big deal.
You could argue all day about CNN and MSNBC and Fox News and which one's the bad one.
But Fox News is continuously better produced.
You can talk about the on-air talent all day long, who you like, who you don't.
You do or you don't like Tucker Carlson or whatever.
But just the quality of the backroom, what would you call them, the support staff, the producers, every part of the design of Fox News is really well done, like substantially better done than their competition.
So if any Fox News producers are watching, you guys kill it all the time.
I mean, just consistently.
You're just killing it.
And I'm not sure if the public can tell, How much of the quality of your work makes it up on the screen?
Because the on-air talent tends to get the credit.
So that was my news of the day.
Somebody says, Fox News is right-wing propaganda.
Well, unfortunately we have a news business that does cater to its individual audiences.
So it can turn into that, yes.
Let's see, what's it say?
Um... I think they care.
Well, okay. I'm just looking at some of your comments here for a minute.
Scott, appear on Gutfeld Show, please.
I will do that. I took several months off from appearing on other media because I just needed to get some other stuff done.
Let's see. Proof that Dominion election machines in Detroit had Wi-Fi connections.
Go to this page.
Nope. Nope.
I'm not going to go to that page because I don't believe that there is...
I don't believe it's true.
I don't believe that the evidence exists.
So I do not believe that we have proof that Dominion machines were connected to the Internet.
I do believe you could prove that it's technically possible.
But proving that they were connected during the election or during any other time before or after?
So the question about whether the vaccinations themselves are causing the variants.
I don't really understand that argument.
I don't understand it at all.
Because... Wouldn't you get just as many variants with or without the vaccination?
If the vaccinations...
Somebody do me a fact check on this.
All right, I'll give you my dumb guy, not a doctor, not an expert, thinking through it.
Let's say you've got a big population and variants happen on their own.
So the vaccination doesn't trigger the variant...
It's just one part of the filtering system that some people imagine allows more variants to break through.
But... So viruses mutate.
But don't they mutate exactly the same whether you're vaccinated or not?
Why would it change?
Remember, even the vaccinated people get the virus.
So in theory, the vaccination shouldn't make...
Like, I don't see the mechanism that would cause a vaccination to increase the number of variants.
Because the number of variants, I just don't see...
It seems like it would decrease it.
Like, my common sense says if the vaccination causes fewer humans to have bad outcomes, it will cause them to spread it less, there should be less variants, right?
Just because there's less virus.
I would think that the only thing that causes variants is the total amount of virus.
And if the vaccination reduces the number of humans who have a virus, doesn't that reduce the variants?
I guess somebody needs to explain that better.
Let's see if there's somebody who knows this on the comments.
So it says the vax filters out, only leaving the variants.
Well, but those variants would be there anyway.
Right? So here's the mechanism.
So the mechanism that is suggested that I don't think is true, so this is just suggested by a commenter, is that let's say the vaccination stopped all the normal virus, but it couldn't stop a variant, and the variant would break out.
But the variant was going to break out anyway, right?
Because if the variant exists, and it wasn't the vaccination that caused it, right, nobody says that, We're saying that the vaccine simply allows it.
It doesn't cause it. So if it's simply allowing something that happened anyway, wasn't it going to happen anyway?
Because it happened anyway.
It didn't have anything to do with the vaccination.
The vaccination simply failed to stop it.
How does failing to stop something create more of it?
It only fails to stop it.
And with or without the vaccination, that would have failed to stop it too, right?
So I guess we need more information on this.
I see ADA, ADE, variants forever, the virus competes.
Yeah, I don't think any of you know how to explain that either.
So I'm not saying it's not true.
I'm just saying I don't understand how it could be true, which is a little different.
