Episode 1487 Scott Adams: Talking About All the Brainwashing and Propaganda That We Call Today's News
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
MAJORITY of Afghan interpreters left behind
State Department preventing rescue of Americans?
Some mouthwashes disrupt COVID
Did Chuck Schumer warn us IC could rig elections?
Joe Rogan has COVID
Biden asked Ghani to lie about Taliban situation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time for one of the best experiences that you will have over your entire life.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't have to tell you it's the best thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe, because if you've ever been here, you already know it's true.
But let's say, hypothetically, you wanted to take it up another notch.
I don't even know if it's possible.
But let's try it. And all you need is a cup of our glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or 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 here of the day, the thing that makes really everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it happen now.
Go! Yeah, it's the after-ah that I think says it.
It's very much like making noise when you have sex.
If you've ever tried having a silent orgasm, it's not as good.
You're like...
Don't want the kids to hear it.
But if you've ever had the experience of nobody home...
Yeah, it's the screaming that sells it.
So it's just like the simultaneous sip.
A random internet user is thanking me for being more upbeat lately.
And I have been trying to be.
Not only that, but listen to this.
Talk about good news.
You want to hear some good news?
How about some great news?
Want to hear some great news?
Here it comes. Lawrence Livermore Lab, which is practically a walking distance from me, they have done a new experiment in which they have gotten closer to full fusion technology.
Now, if you don't know what that is, it's different than regular nuclear fission, the normal way that we do things, because fusion, should we ever be able to solve this nearly unsolvable problem, would give us free unlimited energy.
Everywhere forever. Free unlimited energy.
Well, not really free. But the cost would approach free over time as the cost of the electricity would keep going down.
Now, it's a complicated area, nuclear fusion.
So let me try to explain it to you in layman's terms.
Because a lot of you, you're not scientists.
Like me. So this would be all confusing to you.
So let me break it down.
It's fusion technology.
And what you do is you shoot a laser beam into a thing.
And then the laser beam briefly creates a temperature that indirectly...
It creates the proton molecules of the atoms to wrap around the electrons in a way that frees the energy, E equals mc squared, and I don't know if I can explain it any clearer than that, but we're getting closer to fusion, is what I'm saying. I think that made sense.
Rasmussen is saying that they did a survey...
That says 62% of likely voters think Congress should investigate how the Afghan pullout was handled.
Do you know why we need to ask Congress to investigate that?
Because there's nobody else who will investigate it.
Do you remember when we used to have investigative journalists who would, like, look into things and tell us what really happened behind the scenes?
Apparently we don't have that anymore, do we?
All we have is Congress.
Congress can look into stuff.
That's it. That's it.
That's all we got. We got Congress to look into stuff.
That's how broken our news industry is.
That the only way you can find out what happened was to ask Congress.
Now, if you're depending on Congress to tell you what's true...
Instead of the news business, you've sort of gone from the least credible entity that isn't in the public domain, meaning not elected officials, into the least credible people who have been elected.
So could we get any information from, let's say, some entity that doesn't totally suck?
Wouldn't that be cool?
Well, let's talk about our national disgrace, the Afghan pullout.
I'm reading today in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. says it left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters and others who applied for visas to flee Afghanistan.
What? We left behind the majority?
I thought it was a national disgrace to know we left anybody behind.
Anybody. Not just the Americans, but the translators and such who are helping us.
But really?
We left the majority of them behind.
Have we ever had a national disgrace of this size in the past 40 years?
Well, I mean, if you go back further, you know, you've got the Tuskegee experiments and stuff, so you've got plenty of disgusting things if you go far enough back.
But in the past 40 years, give me an example of something more shameful than this, more disgraceful in the last 40 years.
Can you think of one?
Watergate was nothing compared to this.
Wouldn't you say? You know, we always joke about worse than Watergate.
I don't know. Benghazi?
All the people who died in Benghazi will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what's going to happen in Afghanistan, we think.
WMDs? I don't know if that was a disgrace.
That was just a huge mistake.
But the Afghan thing looks like some intention involved.
And that looks like a disgrace.
Fast and Furious?
No. I don't really see that as being as big.
Vietnam? That's more than 40 years ago.
Iraq War? Again, the Iraq War was awful, but I don't know if disgrace is the right word for it.
It was like an awful mistake, which is different.
I put a different standard on people who make mistakes...
Because those are somewhat unavoidable in the big picture.
They're unavoidable. I don't know.
I'm going to rank this the biggest national disgrace in 40 years, and I don't see any pushback that I would consider valid against that point.
Let me ask you this.
If Trump had been president and had left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters, would we be labeling this racist?
In the comments. That's my question.
Would we be only talking about it's racist if we got all the mostly white people out of there, the Americans, and left, well, I guess the Afghans would be technically white people, although in America we would refer to them as brown because we're all fucking racists.
That's why, right?
There's no other reason.
But in the United States, we would refer to the Afghan people as brown because we're racist.
There's no other reason, right?
It's not because they're brown.
This is one of those moments you just realize what a damn racist you are, even if you're not trying.
It's always been my belief that you can't not be a racist because your brain is built to do pattern recognition, but not very well.
If it was really good at pattern recognition, maybe you'd be less of a racist.
Well, it's not very good at it.
So you end up...
You have to try hard to overcome your natural brain bias.
Here's an example of it.
All right. I'm hearing today, and I don't know if this is a scoop or not, but apparently the State Department won't let private aircraft take off with American allies and Americans on it in Afghanistan.
What? The State Department won't let private aircraft take off with Americans and Afghans that we're trying to rescue?
Like right now?
And apparently Tom Cotton's office is working on this.
Among others.
I heard this from Jonah Shumate.
And... I don't know.
You know, every time I hear Tom Cotton's name, he's doing something useful.
He's either, you know, fighting against China or against something.
But why is it that every time somebody is doing something useful, it's one of three or four elected officials?
Why is it always the same people?
Should we even be looking at anybody else as a potential president?
Seriously. I mean, you're looking at DeSantis, he's doing real stuff, so yeah, potential president.
Tom Cotton, doing real stuff.
Potential president.
All right? So, anyway, I don't know the details behind this story, but the State Department has some explaining to do, and I don't know if they're explaining it well enough for Senator Cotton to be happy, but I'd like to hear a little bit more from Senator Cotton's office on what he needs from us.
Might need a little more public support.
You know, I've told you before that our form of government is largely...
Basically, it's a social media government.
Because social media determines what you can and cannot get away with.
If social media is against something, it's just not going to happen.
And if social media is for something strongly, it's probably going to happen.
So maybe we can help.
We've got stranded people in Afghanistan that we'd like to get out.
Senator Cotton, if you need any help, can you tweet something?
We'll help you retweet it at least, get some more attention to it.
Try to be helpful. I have a theory or a hypothesis that the biggest medical problem in this country is a well-deserved lack of trust in the media.
The biggest medical problem in the country is that we don't trust the media.
Now, that wasn't always true because we weren't in a pandemic.
But during a pandemic, if you can't trust the messenger...
Forget about who's the source of the message.
If you can't trust the messenger, that's a gigantic health problem, isn't it?
Because we don't trust CNN to give us health-related news because we've seen them lie so many times on other news.
So I feel as if it's the biggest medical problem in the world, or at least the country.
The biggest medical problem is the news.
And that's a sad thing, but I think it's true.
All right, how about some potential good news?
Anybody? Anybody? Would you like some potential good news?
Here's something that, I don't know, I've got a feeling about this one.
Let's call this a hunch that this is a really big deal.
Now, it's a really small deal now, but here's my hunch that what I'm going to tell you next could be A really big deal.
Apparently there was a test on mouthwashes to see if mouthwashes would cancel out the virus in your mouth.
Turns out that some of them do, so not all of them.
Don't assume the one in your medicine cabinet is going to help you at all.
But two that they did find is that Listerine and a prescription mouthwash that has chlorhexidine in it can disrupt the virus within seconds.
And that's a big deal because we know, especially with the Delta variant, that your mouth and nose are just full of virus compared to, I guess, the original.
So you've got a lot more in your mouth and nose.
How much less would you be affected and how much less could you spread it if you could kill all of it in your mouth?
Let's say you didn't even know.
Let's say you didn't even know you had it, but you just did mouthwash every day.
And then I added to this story my own little twist.
Because the mouthwash would take care of the mouth, but not the nose.
Could you put some kind of chemical like that?
You know, a normal, over-the-counter chemical.
Could you? Please don't do this.
I don't even know if I could say this.
I just realized I was going to say something that might get me banned forever from social media.
So I'm going to try to figure out a way to say it that it doesn't sound like a recommendation.
Are you all adult enough that you can handle a speculation without going out and taking dangerous drugs?
Can I trust you to do that?
Can I trust you that if I say, hey, I wonder if this would work, don't go out and do it.
Please, dear God, don't go out and do what I'm going to say right now.
Please? Do you hear this as clearly as possible?
Don't do this.
But is there any way that we could put this stuff in a neti pot?
Do you know what a neti pot is?
You fill it with salt, usually just salt, and water, and warm water, and you shoot it up one nostril and it goes into your nasal cavity and comes out the other nostril.
It's for preventative stuff, for allergies and whatever.
Now, If a mouthwash can clear out your mouth, could the neti pot clear out your nose with some kind of a formula?
And again, don't do this.
Don't do this.
Don't put anything in your neti pot.
Please don't.
I'm just speculating.
So here's what I think might happen.
Suppose we found out two over-the-counter drugs that would easily take care of the mouth, and then something you could easily put into your neti pot that would also take care of the nose.
Do you think we could find an over-the-counter thing that would do that?
Probably. Probably.
I mean, if this research bears out, probably.
Then, UV light, wiseass, James.
Then, suppose you said, for one month, I would like all the citizens of the United States, maybe just the adults, because the kids wouldn't do it, I'd like all the citizens of the United States to use mouthwash and a neti pod for one month.
What would happen? Right?
Right? If everybody did it for a month, even if they had some COVID and they didn't know it, they'd be knocking it back pretty hard, and it'd probably make a difference.
I mean, it's not going to cure the pandemic, but I feel like it would make a difference.
So anyway, if this mouthwash study has any validity, and we don't know that yet, it could be a big deal.
Christopher Hill tweets on Twitter, which is exactly where you go to tweet.
We've been talking a lot about the...
And I'll tell you why in a minute.
But remember the Schumer quote about how our intelligence people have, quote, six ways from Sunday to get back at you?
They were talking about Trump.
Now, here's my question.
Somebody asked if I think that our intelligence services have corrupted the election.
If Chuck Schumer can say in public...
That our own intelligence agencies have six ways from Sundays to get back at you if you're president.
He was talking about Trump.
The intelligence agencies have a way to get revenge on you if you're the president of the United States.
So forget about you.
It's dangerous enough.
But was Chuck Schumer warning us that our own intelligence agencies could rig an election in this country?
Was he? Because is six ways from Sunday...
These are all the ways that an intelligence agency can get back at a president.
Six ways from Sunday.
Is the category six ways from Sunday, which is a pretty big category?
Because Sunday is a big category.
But six ways from Sunday?
You know, that's the whole week.
It's the whole week. So they've got lots of ways they can get back to you.
Are you telling me that we're going to rule out...
That one of the ways is to rig an election.
Really? Why do we rule that out?
Do we rule it out because there's no proof of it?
I've seen no proof of it.
But you know my take.
My take is that all elections, certainly if they have electronic voting machines, they're either already corrupted or they will be.
Because there's no scenario in which they won't be in the long run.
Do you know why you can guarantee that elections will be corrupted?
Because it's possible.
That's the one and only thing you need to know.
Now, does anybody disagree that it's possible?
Let me tell you how.
You get an insider in one of the technology companies that's counting votes, you corrupt the insider, you turn them, you own them, either blackmail them or bribe them, whatever it takes, and then the insiders do the rest.
Standard intelligence operation.
You get the insiders to do the work for you.
So, are you telling me that that's not possible?
Are you telling me that an intelligence agency, working for 100 years, couldn't penetrate an election?
Now, most of the time they couldn't, probably.
I'm guessing it would fail more often than it would succeed.
But because it's possible, and because history will just keep going on and Presumably people will try until they get it right.
It's pretty much guaranteed.
The only thing you need to know is that it's possible.
And then you can guarantee it.
You just don't know when. That's the only thing you don't know is if it happened already or if it's in our future.
But it's guaranteed. That we know.
All right. And Chuck Schumer has confirmed that.
CNN is trying to equate the Taliban with white supremacists in this country.
Of course they are.
Here's how they equate them.
They're equating the white supremacists and the Taliban because the Taliban is, or at least the white supremacists on social media are saying some things like, you know, they're praising the Taliban for being anti-gay and anti-Jew because they are too.
Okay. There's a comparison.
And they quickly took over the country and applied their religious rule.
So I don't think white supremacists are exactly praising the Taliban.
I think they're praising them by analogy, which is very, very different, right?
They're not saying we support the Taliban.
They're saying, hey, by analogy...
They did some bad things to people that we'd like to do some bad things to or like to avoid or whatever.
And so it's just sort of like an analogy.
But it's just an analogy!
It's literally an analogy.
It has nothing to do with white supremacists teaming up with the Taliban or anything like that.
Just crazy news.
Well, Texas is continuing to morph into becoming its own country...
Not only do they have, you know, they're a little different in terms of dropping their COVID restrictions.
Not so different than Florida, but different than most of the rest of the country.
But now they've got, Texas has its own social media bill that would stop social media giants with more than 50 million users from banning any Texans for political statements.
So in Texas, you just got freedom of speech, assuming it stands up.
So Texas has instituted a freedom of speech rule.
We'll see if that stands.
But it's not happening elsewhere yet.
Or is it? Give me a fact check on that if it is.
Also in Texas, they have their own unique abortion ban.
In fact, it's an abortion ban because it limits you to the first six weeks or before the heartbeat or something along those lines.
And the Supreme Court has denied a request to overturn it.
So Justice Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in dissent, but they did not win.
And that means that getting an abortion in Texas will be really hard.
Really hard. Now, my prediction is that this is bad for the Texas economy.
Maybe not in a way they'll notice.
Because they won't notice what could have happened.
They'll just notice what did happen.
So I would think that a lot of young people will avoid Texas for this reason alone.
Actually, let me put that stronger.
A lot of talented people will either move out of Texas or not move there if they were planning to because of this law.
So whether or not you think the abortion change in Texas is good or bad, and I'm not going to debate that today.
That's up to you. It's bad for the economy.
I would think. Because nobody's going to move there to ban their own abortion, right?
There's nobody who's going to say, oh, good, I can go there and have fewer possibilities of abortion.
Because people will just not get an abortion if they care about it for themselves.
So it can only hurt their economy.
There doesn't seem to be any feasible way it can help.
And we'll see if that makes a difference.
Texas also has a pro-gun law that lets you openly carry your firearm in public without a permit, even if you don't have any firearms training.
Now, here's what I love about this.
I love the fact that Texas is testing this out.
Because Scott is misunderstanding the law, in all capss.
I'm not misunderstanding the law that it will prevent 85% of the abortions.
So, I mean, that's the only part that mattered here.
But the Texas pro-gun law, I think that's really worth testing.
I like the fact that our states are like little laboratories where one state can say, we want to try something different, see what happens.
Now, if I had to make a prediction...
I feel like the pro-gun law and the open carry is going to reduce crime and death.
I think.
I wouldn't say I'm 100% confident about that or anything else.
But I feel like, I don't know, if I had to put odds on it, 65% chance it's going to reduce crime.
What do you think? I'm going to say 65% chance it will reduce crime.
But... You can imagine there would be individual cases where something happens that wouldn't have happened otherwise.
If you have access to a gun, you're more likely to use it than if you don't.
Yeah, I mean, you could be skeptical of that.
We're just guessing. But I'm glad it's being tested.
That's all. All right, Joe Rogan has COVID. And we're, of course, hoping for a speedy recovery.
Joe Rogan, one of our national treasures.
I think he's...
Can we say that yet?
Is he too young for that?
He may be too young to refer to him that way.
But he's certainly well on his way to being national treasure.
We value him a great deal.
But even if you don't agree with him, you have to value what he's doing.
And... How much of our medical advice are we going to get from Joe Rogan's experience?
I feel like a lot.
I feel as if, and this isn't Joe Rogan's fault, but he's just a public figure and he has a lot of credibility with a lot of people.
So whatever his experience is and whatever he says about it is probably going to be pretty darn influential.
More so than the rogue doctor viral video.
That, you know, is disagreeing with everybody.
And what makes this interesting is he's taken a little...
I guess he was not vaccinated.
That's part of the story.
I'm assuming that because I didn't see it in the story.
But he took some monoclonal antibodies and some ivermectin, controversially, and some prednisone and, I don't know, something else, and says he's feeling better.
Now, this raises, of course, the question about ivermectin.
Is ivermectin the real deal?
Is Joe Rogan being smart by taking it?
Well, let's talk about it.
Number one. Here's something that if you lean politically right, and I think that describes nearly all of my audience, even though I don't lean right.
Most of my audience does.
Most of you have never seen a CNN-cited paper...
In which the studies on ivermectin, the good ones, the randomized controlled type studies, have been evaluated, and when they take out the ones that have obvious bias, there's no evidence of ivermectin working.
How many of you know that there's a July study, a study of studies, looking at all the other ivermectin studies, and they throw out the ones that are obviously biased, and And they use the ones that are the most unbiased.
And when you do that, it shows there's no evidence that ivermectin works.
No clear evidence.
There's ambiguity, but there's no clear evidence that it works, based on this.
Now, I linked to this study on Twitter just before I got on, and what happened?
The link went to a dead page.
Now, the page is not dead.
But I must have sent so much traffic there, I killed the server.
So wait for the server to go up, because a lot of you think I was doing a prank.
It looked like it was a prank, because it sent you to a blank page.
But it's a real page. I checked the link myself again to make sure I had the right link, and I did.
And... We'll talk about the risk in a second.
So... But I'm just going to ask you how many of you were aware.
If you lean right...
So that's most of you.
How many of you were aware that there's a study of these studies and it shows that the studies don't show it works?
How many of you even knew it existed?
Because I didn't, until today.
Today is the day that I learned there was a study of studies, a brand new one, I mean it's July of this year, that shows ivermectin doesn't have any obvious benefit.
Now, I'm not saying that study is accurate.
I make no claim of the accuracy of that or any other study.
But I didn't know it existed.
Did you? I'd been listening to the Weinsteins, you know, Brett Weinstein.
I'd been listening to him talking about the meta-studies, and I didn't know there was another side to it.
So I had an enormous blind spot, and I read CNN literally every day.
Every day I look at news on the left, and I study it pretty completely.
And I didn't know it.
Now, how does that make you feel?
I mean, most of you are news junkies, or you wouldn't be here.
But I read all of the news, and I didn't know that.
It's such a big deal, and I didn't know it until today.
It's so easy to miss something of that size.
All right, so most of you probably missed it too.
Now, I'm not claiming that that study is the good one.
I'm just saying I didn't know it existed.
All right, here is how the propagandists and brainwashers are treating the ivermectin story, and I think the Joe Rogan situation is causing them to be a little more active.
The FDA is warning us today that taking too much ivermectin can be dangerous.
That helps you, doesn't it?
That's some good medical advice.
Taking too much ivermectin can be dangerous.
It's a good thing that the FDA warned me that taking too much of a drug could be dangerous.
Did you know that? Did you know that overdosing on a drug could be dangerous?
Huh. Do you know what else could be dangerous if you took too much?
Water. Water.
Yeah, if you drink too much water, you'll fucking die.
Sun. If you go out in the sun too long, you'll get sun cancer.
You'll die. Is there any drug that won't kill you if you take too much of it?
I don't know. How about too much candy?
Can you die from eating too much candy?
Yeah. Pretty much everything.
Pretty much everything will kill you if you get too much of it.
So you can tell that that's propaganda because they're not telling you about too much of anything else.
Just too much of this.
They also say that you shouldn't take a horse dewormer.
Don't take any horse dewormer.
Except that's not what we're talking about.
Yes, there are idiots taking horse dewormer.
Don't take horse medicine.
But if you see the FDA or anybody else, CNN, for example, referring to ivermectin as horse dewormer, that's just propaganda, because there are two versions of it.
There's the human version, and then there is the horse version.
But if you're calling the human version horse dewormer, you're not reporting the news.
You're not trying to help.
You're trying to be a brainwasher.
So that's how you know the brainwashing is happening.
It's real obvious in this case.
They speak of it as horse dewormer and tell you not to take an overdose of it.
Like everything. Alright.
Glenn Greenwald is calling out the deep state because somebody leaked a call with Biden and the ex-president of Afghanistan, Ghani.
And I guess this is what...
Biden said to Ghani on this phone call that was leaked.
I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban.
So this was prior to the Taliban taking over.
And there is need whether it is true or not.
This is the controversial part.
And there is need whether it is true or not.
There is need to project a different picture.
So Biden literally asked Ghani to lie.
And that got leaked.
Now, who leaked that?
Was it the intelligence people?
Did the intelligence people leak this?
And if they did, and I think Greenwald is suggesting that's a likely place to happen, and if it is true, what would make you think they wouldn't rig an election?
I'll just put these two questions together.
If you think it's true, and I don't know what that is, but if you think the most likely place that this leak came from is our own intelligence services, what would make you think they wouldn't rig an election?
Because they're rigging an election right now?
They're trying to get Biden out of office.
This is exactly the kind of leak that is intended to rig an election by giving you news you wouldn't have had otherwise that changes your opinion of what happened.
This is rigging the election.
Don't tell me the intelligence agencies are not trying to rig the election if they did this.
And that, I don't know, right?
Because we don't have proof that they did it.
Could have been somebody else. But if they did it, Don't tell me they don't rig elections.
That's just stupid.
Because we would be watching it right in front of us.
This is rigging an election.
If it's true. We don't know if it is.
But I would also defend Biden.
And let me say this again.
If Trump had said this, I would defend it.
Hear this clearly.
If Trump had made this phone call, I would defend it.
I would defend what he said.
And I'm going to do the same for Biden.
Because I like to be at least a little bit objective.
At least try.
You know, I can't do it every time.
Everybody's biased. But I'm going to try.
And here's how I defend it.
Because reality and impression are very connected.
If the Afghan president had done a better job of telling everybody everything was fine, what would have been the outcome?
Suppose Biden had gotten what he wanted, and the Afghan president had done what Biden asked, and told everybody that things were better than they looked.
What would be the outcome of that?
Well, I think the outcome Biden wanted was that it would give the Afghan army confidence to fight.
It looks like that's the obvious thing he wanted.
And if they had gotten confidence to fight, could they have lasted longer against the Taliban?
Maybe. I mean, we don't know, but it's a reasonable assumption.
If our leaders of our country are convincing a leader of another country to lead, to actually tell them something that's not entirely exactly accurate, but it might get them to a better place, I'm not sure that's wrong.
Now, it might have been wrong for Afghanistan, but it wasn't wrong for America.
And that's who Biden works for.
Biden works for America.
And if it was good for America, for our president to ask this guy to lie to his people, I think there's a pretty good argument that it would have been good for America.
It would have bought us some time, right?
That was the whole point. Now, would it be ethical?
No. No.
It's not even close to ethical.
Would it be impeachable?
I don't know. Because it would be in America's best interest.
And I think that's got to matter.
So let me say it clearly.
If Trump had said this to Ghani, I would defend him.
Biden said it to Ghani, and I'd defend him.
You don't have to like it.
But he clearly did ask him to lie.
And it would suggest that Biden was aware that...
The Afghan government was going to fall.
So that's a separate question, that Biden was more aware of how quickly things would devolve.
But there again, suppose Biden was aware of it.
Should he have told us?
No. No, he shouldn't have.
If Biden was aware that things were going worse than they looked, he should not have told us, because that would have accelerated how badly they went.
It's a tough place to be.
Um... So Glenn Greenwald is using this as evidence that definitely the deep state exists.
All right, let's talk about long COVID. There's a new study that says it's the world's biggest study on the issue for kids, whether kids are getting long COVID. So they studied 11- to 17-year-olds who had tested positive for coronavirus, and they saw how long their symptoms lasted.
The research suggests that somewhere between 2% and 14% still had symptoms from COVID 15 weeks later.
Now, they did have to get rid of all the, I guess, the There were a lot of people who had symptoms, but people just naturally do have symptoms for other reasons.
So somehow they could get rid of that effect and narrow it down to between 2 and 14.
Where did they get the 14%?
And where did they get the 2%?
Because that's a pretty big range.
The 14% is what the survey produced.
So their own data said 14%.
So why don't they report 14%?
Because that's what the data said.
Why did they say between 2% and 14%?
Because wouldn't you make a different decision if you thought it was 2% than if you thought it was 14%?
Wouldn't you? I mean, that would make a difference for your calculation.
And here's how they got it to 2%.
They looked at their own data and said, we think our own data is bad.
It's probably closer to 2%.
What?
What? That's like the opposite of science.
They looked at their own data and said, you know, I'm not sure people would answer the question right.
No, they said they think their data was biased by the people who answered the questions, meaning that if you had symptoms, you're more likely to answer the question.
So in other words, they did a survey, and then they threw away all their data and said, well, we think it would have went out differently if we had different data.
So I'm going to put the credibility of this as zero.
I saw it being used as evidence that we should not worry about kids and long COVID because it might be 2% or 3%.
But I don't think that's what the data said.
The data said it's 14%.
Now, if the people who did it are questioning their own data, I don't think you could just make up what you think it should have been.
Is that science?
Are you supposed to look at the science and say, you know, if we'd done this better, I think we would have gotten a different result.
So let's just go with that different result.
I don't know how much different from science you could be from that.
But anyway, there you have it.
I think the Joe Rogan situation is going to be especially interesting because whatever happens to him...
People are going to be more influenced by it because they know him and they'll watch the whole thing play out and everything.
So I have a feeling that whatever he says about his experience is just going to have a huge medical impact on this country.
And you've watched me try as hard as I can not to persuade anybody about vaccinations because I've got a problem with the ethics of it.
Because people like me can be influential, Even if we don't try to be.
It's just part of having a public platform.
And Joe Rogan's influence is almost unparalleled, isn't it?
In terms of reach and credibility.
So whatever he does, he's in a tough spot.
Because if he wants to be true and honest with his experience, it's going to have a side effect of influencing people to do whatever he did or thinks worked.
That's sort of an ethical...
Conundrum, isn't it? And I'll be very interested to see how he handles it because I would trust him to know how to handle this right, actually.
So let's watch him, see how he does.
And that is just about everything I wanted to talk about.
So I would call this one of the best live streams you've ever seen in your whole life.
There is one thing I would like to add.
I'm going to make a claim, and this will teach you some persuasion at the same time.
Okay? So I'll make a claim, but it's really a lesson.
It's two things. Here's the claim.
The most influential book on success is my book.
Had it failed almost everything and still win big.
And I'm going to claim that it's the most influential book in the last ten years.
Okay? For success.
Now, influential is different than best book.
I don't know what is the best book.
If I knew what the best book is, I probably would have written that book, I guess.
So nobody knows what the best book is.
That's a different question. But the most influential.
Now, influential is more objective.
Because you can just say, all right, did this person get influenced by it or not?
And you can see that they say they did.
And you'll see, for example, that when people do their top five best business books or success books, it's almost always in the top five.
And here's the other part.
There will be at least one book on that other list of the top five that was influenced by my book.
So when you see top five lists, 40% of it is my book.
I don't think anything's ever been close.
Maybe Seven Habits of Highly Effective People back in its day.
But if you look at the last ten years, I think that book is the most influential book on success.
Oh, Pippenberg just finished it last night.
Thank you. So I'm going to put that out there.
All right, here's the lesson on persuasion.
What lesson...
What persuasion trick did I just use?
In the comments, what persuasion did I just use?
Social proof. Correct.
Keep going. Social proof.
Visual? Not so much.
Think past the sale. Correct.
Think past the sale. Yeah.
I'm trying to get you to think about whether it's the number one best book in the entire world.
But in order for you to think about that question, you have to uncritically accept that it's in the top five.
Right? So if you're going to buy a book, knowing it's in the top five probably is pretty good.
But I do think, quite legitimately, this is not a lie, and it's not hyperbole.
I do think it's actually the most influential book on success for the past ten years.
I think that's actually literally...
Measurably true. Best book?
I don't know. But most influential?
Pretty sure. Alright, that's all we've got for today.
