Episode 1491 Scott Adams: Biden Regret Syndrome (BRS) is Sweeping the Country. Find Out How Bad it is
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Regeneron drip anecdotal reports
Dr. Pierre Kory on [the "i" word]
Obama on being the power behind the throne
BRS: Biden Regret Syndrome sweeps the country
20% of Biden voters want their vote back
Wendy Rogers, Arizona election audit update
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Once again, for the best thing that's ever happened in the history of the universe, it's called coffee with Scott Adams.
And it features a very special thing called the simultaneous sip.
Some people love it, some people hate it.
But eventually, you'll all love it.
You just haven't tried it yet.
So... All you need to enjoy this simultaneous sip is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid and I like coffee.
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's going to happen now.
Go. Well, my goal is to make sure that you learn something each and every time you join me here on Coffee with Scott Adams.
And we'll see if that happens again today.
Speaking of anecdotal persuasion, why is it that the news tells us we should use data and science to make decisions?
Are you with me so far?
Wouldn't you say that CNN, MSNBC, it's one of their main themes...
Is to use science and data.
Right? What is their other major theme besides, you should use science and data?
Their other major theme is, look at this anecdotal story and draw a conclusion.
That's the opposite, isn't it?
So, make up your mind, mainstream media.
Either we should use data and science and logic...
Which sounds good to me.
Or you can feed us continuous stories about that one time that one person had that experience and we'll make our decisions based on that because you know we will.
Do you know why you know that the anecdotes will influence us more than the data?
How do you know that?
Hmm. Science.
Yeah. Science can pretty much guarantee that the anecdotes are going to be more persuasive than the data.
And yet, while claiming that data is important, they work as hard as they can to make you ignore it with their anecdotes.
Here's another one.
This one, I forget which news source I got this from, but it doesn't matter.
It says that Mississippi's latest COVID surge sees four unvaccinated pregnant women die of a virus in a week in America's least inoculated state.
Four unvaccinated pregnant women.
They're really taking the anecdotal persuasion up to a 10.
Because it's bad enough that somebody dies, but when you throw in the unvaccinated and then pregnant and then woman, they're really going deep now for the serious anecdotal persuasion.
Well, Rasmussen had a poll.
And ask people what they thought about rescuing Americans left in Afghanistan, should we need to do that?
And 69% of likely voters say the U.S. should use military force to rescue Americans left in Afghanistan.
So that's a supermajority.
How would you like to be the Taliban and know that even though the war just ended, a supermajority of American citizens are willing to Turn Afghanistan into glass to get our 100 Americans back.
It should give you pause.
Because if you were to ask also how much would you be willing to spend to make a military action to get our hostages back, I would say...
I'd say the wallet is open, right?
So Afghanistan, if you're worried that we're not willing to spend...
To send some military back there to get them out?
You should think about that twice.
Because we are willing to spend whatever it takes to get them back.
If it makes a difference.
I don't know if a military operation could possibly work.
Only 52% of liberals think we should use military force to rescue Americans if it comes to that.
Now, I ask you this.
Is this another example of liberals not understanding how human motivation influences systems?
Because that seems to be the biggest problem on the left.
Consistent. And it influences all their topics.
It imagines that you could build a system where people just have good faith and they just operate according to what's good for the whole instead of what's good for themselves.
But of course nobody operates that way.
People operate for themselves.
So once again, liberals don't understand that if you're not at least willing to send a very big-ass military operation back into Afghanistan, if you're not at least willing to do it, you're not going to get any hostages back unless you pay for them or something else.
So, once again, liberals don't understand human motivation.
Or at least they don't incorporate it in the same way that Republicans do.
Or the right does.
There's an Emerson poll that says that if Biden and Trump ran right now, Trump would win.
If Biden and Trump had a rematch today, Trump would win.
Just barely. 47% to 46%.
And among Democrats, 60% of voters said they would like to see Biden as the presidential nominee.
What? 60% of Democrats are pretty happy with what they got.
Really? You can't find one Democrat who might have similar capabilities but had all of his mental faculties and he wasn't 100 years old.
Nobody? Nobody? Nobody in the whole Democrat Party could do better than Joe Biden.
So 60% of people say, yeah, let's go with that again.
Okay. Now, to be fair, if the situation were reversed, if Trump were in office, probably the poll would look opposite, because whoever's in office is going to look worse, right?
Being in office makes you subject to more criticism, so I think whoever's in office is going to look degraded compared to whoever is just an idea in your head.
Okay. Now, what other poles do we have?
Hmm. I think there's another one coming up here, too.
Let's talk about Ron DeSantis.
You know, he set up all these Regeneron treatment centers so you can go in if you've got some symptoms and you've got a diagnosis of COVID, you can go in and get the drip.
They'll hook you right up to the Regeneron and get it to you early.
And there's, of course, anecdotal...
Anecdotal report of this guy, Britt Noel, who said that he was feeling bad with the COVID, but they put him on the drip and he immediately felt better.
Now, that's not the first time I've heard that.
I won't tell somebody else's story, but I did hear somebody else say that nothing worked until the drip, and as soon as you got on the drip, you just felt better.
Just like immediately you felt better.
So... Let's combine two things.
Let's say that the Regeneron, according to science, as well as anecdote, don't you like it when science and anecdote agree?
Because here's a case.
Anecdotally, we hear that Regeneron works, but scientifically it seems to work as well.
If we have enough of it, I think the problem might be supply, actually.
But here's my question.
You know, Michael Mina has been talking for over a year, I guess, a year and a half, I think, about we should be doing rapid tests, which are not as accurate as the ones you could get at your doctor's office, but they're 90% accurate.
So suppose everybody had a cheap rapid test and also access to Regeneron, On demand.
As soon as they got symptoms, boom, just go get your Regeneron.
What would happen if we could catch 9 out of 10 infections earlier than they normally would have been caught, and all 9 of those 10 people go get Regeneron right away?
I feel like we're done.
Don't you? I feel like that's the end of the pandemic.
Nine out of ten catching it early, if in the hypothetical situation, which we don't have now, where you have cheap, ubiquitous testing and everybody's just testing all the time.
If you've got nine out of ten people, but you missed that tenth one, which is the one you're going to miss, probably?
You're probably going to miss the one that didn't have many symptoms.
So if the 9 out of 10 are, on average, the ones who have most symptoms, they're probably the ones with the big viral load, probably the ones who are going to be coughing all over you.
I feel like if you've got 9 out of 10, it's closer to 10 out of 10 than you think, because that one that they don't get...
I'm guessing that the reason they wouldn't get them is because their viral load would be too low.
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
Are the tests somewhat inaccurate...
Only based on how much viral stuff there is, or is there another source of inaccuracy besides the operator?
So, Michael Mina is pointing out once again that we have not treated the rapid testing the right way because I guess we treat it as a medical decision.
And therefore it goes through some approval process and therefore we can't have nice things in this country.
So other countries have these rapid tests available.
But if you do what Florida has done, which is set up these Regeneron sites where it's easy to just go get the drip, and then on top of that you do the Michael Mina cheap but not perfectly accurate testing, I feel like you're done.
Honestly, that feels pretty close to done with the pandemic.
It turns it into endemic, where it's just always here but doesn't kill you.
Talk about your two movies on one screen.
I'm going to read you something from a source that I think is credible.
But only credible for this topic.
Not credible in general.
But just specific to the specific point I'm going to make is credible.
And is completely opposite of everything I believe to be true.
So here's the fun part.
Is this my blind spot?
Because some of you are going to have the same experience in a moment when I tell you what the topic is.
You're going to say to yourself, wait a minute, that's literally 100% opposite of everything I think to be true.
But it comes from a strong source.
I don't know what to do with this.
So here's the situation.
Dr. Pierre Corey, K-R-Y. You've heard of him because he's provocative and he's been saying things that are opposite of mainstream medical opinion.
And specifically on the I-word.
Ivermectin? I'm not going to say it because I'll get banned.
So he's a pro-Ivermectin?
Okay, I'll just say it.
Ivermectin guy. And here's what he says about the evidence for Ivermectin.
Which I believe is literally the opposite of true.
And still believe it.
But at the same time, I don't see how he could be wrong about this because it's his field and he's looked into it and he has a deep interest.
So let me tell you what he says.
He says that ivermectin evidence has 31 randomized controlled trials that And 32 observational controlled trials, including 26,000 patients and finds, according to him, and this is opposite of mainstream medicine, but he says this, finds large statistically significant reductions in mortality, hospitalizations, time to recover and viral clearance.
He says the IDSA, which is the Infectious Disease Society of America, won't or can't recommend it because they're captured by You know, research dollars from the NIH. Now, how could my understanding be so opposite?
My understanding is that there might be one or two randomized controlled trials and that one of them has been debunked as garbage.
That's my understanding.
I don't think it's true.
But that's my understanding.
Just maybe two randomized controlled trials?
And he's saying there are 31 of them.
Could that possibly be true?
That there are 31 randomized controlled trials for COVID? Yeah, I know you're saying overseas.
But I don't feel like it.
So, yeah, and then 32 that are observational.
So, Brett...
Weinstein has been saying the same thing.
Why is it that we don't even know this?
How could we think there might be one or two and one of them is clearly debunked and then people who clearly know what they're talking about say there are 31?
What the hell is going on?
I don't even have an opinion.
I don't know which it is.
Is it two and one of them is bullshit or is it 31 and they're pretty good?
What the hell is going on?
I have no idea here. This is completely baffling.
No idea. All right, here's something to scare you.
TikTok has overtaken YouTube for most minutes watched.
Did you hear that?
TikTok just overtook YouTube for most minutes watched.
And TikTok is a Chinese brainwashing app.
Now, they don't say that.
That's my allegation.
And there are some assumptions and speculation built into this allegation.
So when you sue me, TikTok, I'm going to back up and say, whoa, I didn't say it was true.
I said it looks like it's true.
Sure looks like it.
That's all I know. I just know it looks that way.
And the interesting thing is the content on TikTok.
I would like to give you my impression...
Of everybody on TikTok.
Can you handle it?
My impression of every video on TikTok.
Now, I'm not very good at dancing, so you'll have to look past my dance moves.
I want you to concentrate just on my impression of the facial part.
So I think from, you know, chin to head, I'm going to be nailing this impression.
The rest of my body, well, not so good.
But let me see if I can get into the mode for your first every single TikTok video that you've seen.
And scene.
Now, my understanding is that in order to make a perfect TikTok dance video, you've got to have many elements.
One of the elements you should have is an attractive person, male or female, ideally younger, but attractive.
That attractive person should have some dance moves.
That makes it a little bit more viral.
You know, you can move pretty good.
But on top of that, they have to do something with the face...
That makes you want to punch them with a brick.
Now, don't do that.
I'm very much opposed to violence.
But you can't really watch a TikTok video without wanting to smash the people in them with bricks.
Am I the only one who thinks that?
It's not just me.
Come on. Come on.
It's not just me. Yeah, you want to kill all of them with a brick.
You do. You just want to murder them.
Now, I assume that this is what China's master plan is.
I think the master plan is to make us hate each other with such a passion because that face you've got to hit with a brick.
I mean, you really just have to hit that with a brick.
Don't do that, though.
It's violent. Have you seen the video of Obama?
I think it's a real video.
But, you know, you have all these deepfake videos of Obama, but it looked real.
So if somebody can fact-check me on this, apparently he was talking to Colbert about a hypothetical third term, and he said if he could just be behind the scenes, sort of as a puppet master, and tell other people what to say...
But he didn't have to be president.
He could just have somebody as a front for him and his opinions.
That that would be his ideal situation for a third term.
Now, I hear people saying that it looks like a real clip.
Now, I think he was somewhat joking, but maybe not so much.
Because it does look like he might be behind the scenes pulling some strings.
Now, I don't think he's going to admit it after Afghanistan, but maybe.
Now, let's talk about BRS. Have you heard of BRS? It's a medical condition.
It's sort of sweeping the country.
And it stands for Biden Regret Syndrome, BRS. And there was a poll by, let's see...
Somebody. It says one-fifth of voters who voted for Biden now want their vote back.
What? One-fifth of the people who voted for Biden wish they could change their vote now.
One-fifth. Do you know how not close an election would be if one-fifth of the people really did change their vote from Biden?
Wouldn't be close.
It would be the biggest landslide of any election, probably.
Now, I don't know how much to believe that, about this 20%.
It sounds high, especially when there was the other poll I mentioned that showed that they're running neck and neck.
So I'm not sure I believe both of those polls.
I think you have to pick one, because they seem a little bit conflicting.
So it was Zogby that found that 20% of Biden voters have some regret.
But... Nearly 3 in 10, or 29% of Republicans who voted for Biden, regretted it.
Well, only 20% of Democrats regretted it.
And only 14% of independents.
So independents seem pretty happy with their vote.
So the independents who voted for Biden are like, yeah, I think we nailed it.
I think he's doing a fine job.
Well, here's the funny part.
Vice President Harris is going to campaign with Gavin Newsom in California to try to get him to prevail against the recall.
And I wonder how that conversation went.
Hmm. Imagine little noise that is the noise that indicates I'm thinking.
Or imagining the scene.
Ding-a-ling-a-ling-a-ling. Imagine...
Imagine the White House contacts Gavin Newsom and says, Hey, Gavin Newsom, we want to make sure that you win and you recall.
We'd like to have President Biden come out and maybe campaign with you and give you a boost.
And you can see Newsom on the phone.
That is very generous of you.
Very generous to send Joe Biden right after the Afghanistan debacle so that I will be thought of in the same vein as the most incompetent president of all time.
No thank you. And then the White House says, OK, OK, we get it.
It's a bad time. But we've got a backup plan.
We have a backup plan.
And Gavin Newsom says...
Thank goodness. I don't need to hear the details, but please, don't do my campaign by sending me Joe Biden.
I mean, nobody's going to give me an extra vote because Joe Biden, the architect of the Afghan disaster, don't want that.
So just send somebody good.
Next thing he hears is that Kamala Harris has been chosen.
Literally, the vice president that most people think isn't up for the job.
The person, the only person in American politics right now, fact check me on this, but probably the lowest regarded politician in the national domain, Would you say?
Could you think of anybody in the national domain, not the states, not governors, but in the national domain, is there anybody with a worse reputation right now?
Pelosi? I don't know.
Pelosi is probably really popular with their own team, though.
I can't... Well, Omar, okay.
That would have been...
Yeah, Omar might be less popular.
Okay, that would be a good example.
But poor Governor Newsom, he seems doomed, because if you have to rely on the glow of Kamala Harris's reputation to pull you over the finish line...
You might not make it over the finish line, so it's not looking good.
Meanwhile, over in Chicago, 46 people, including eight children, have been shot over the weekend.
46 people shot in Chicago over the weekend.
Question, how many people were shot in Kabul over the weekend?
I mean, actually, seriously.
How many people in Kabul were shot over the weekend?
I mean, it might have been more.
But you're not sure, are you?
It might have been more.
Could have been a lot more.
But you're not sure.
Just think about that.
Think about the fact that off the top of your head, you're not sure if Chicago had more gun violence than Kabul this weekend.
I don't know. Yeah.
Well, here's the fun part.
I know, you're waiting for the good part.
I took you through all the bad part to get to the good part, to make it feel extra, extra good.
And watch how good this feels.
We have some news about the upcoming Arizona audit results.
And from this tweet, whose name I didn't write down, Wendy?
Wendy? I don't know.
And... The tweet says, the audit is coming, guys.
I promise you. Now, here's what we're going to do.
We're going to read between the lines, okay?
So I'm going to read you the tweet and the rest of the thread.
And then I want you to see if Wendy Rogers...
Yes, thank you. It's a Wendy Rogers tweet.
And I want you to see if you can read between the lines and tell me if Wendy Rogers is hinting to you that there's something big coming.
Or is she hinting that they didn't find anything?
All right? So we're going to read between the lines and see what you think.
Did they find the goods or did they not?
Because at this point they'd be signaling to us in advance, I think.
All right? So I'll read it again.
Look for that. The audit is coming, guys.
I promise you. I get a lot of comments asking and people think I can speed it up, but I can't speed it up.
It is a process and it is coming.
Also, other information is coming out I can't disclose.
All right? Just know that it is all going to happen.
And this is real.
Keep the faith.
Make sure your state is doing an audit because when our audit comes out, the next steps are to get this done in other states.
Start pushing that now.
Okay? Now, did you hear in any of those words an indication that they found enough fraud that would change the outcome of the election?
Okay. How many people think that this is hinting that they found it?
They found the goods?
I'm going to look at your comments.
I'm saying no's, yes's, no's.
Maybe nothing.
Huge, nope, yep, yep.
I'm saying yes's and no's.
So you're kind of split, but I think more no's than yes's.
Here is my official opinion.
This looks like a no.
Now, we can't know for sure, so we're all just guessing and trying to calculate the odds here.
But if I had to place a bet, I would bet that the outcome, just based on reading between the lines, my bet is that they will find some fraud, or they will find that there could have been enough fraud, but they couldn't prove it.
So I think where this is going to come out is there could have been fraud, but we couldn't look at everything.
But we didn't find enough.
We found a little, and that suggests that there is fraud.
Not necessarily enough to change any result, but we think that it could be there because we couldn't check everything.
You want to bet against that prediction?
I wouldn't bet against that prediction.
As predictions go, That one's probably as accurate as any prediction will ever be.
If you've lived in the real world, you know that they didn't find it.
Because if they found the goods, Wendy would have tipped us off.
Absolutely, you would know by now that something's coming.
But instead, instead of telling you that they found something in the audit, here's what she teases.
She said, also, other information is coming out I can't disclose.
So that's the part that made you think, oh, she's got some good stuff, right?
She's got other information, and she's hinting at us she can't disclose.
There's no way that she's referring to finding a bunch of fraud, or at least enough fraud to change the election outcome.
There's no way that's what that means.
What it means is...
They may have moved the goalposts.
It might mean that they're trying to find a shiny object to concentrate on so it looks like the audit found something.
That's what it looks like.
So if I had to put money on it, I'd say they didn't find anything.
Or they didn't find enough to change the result.
But they might try to paint it as if maybe they did, almost sort of, kind of.
Let's talk about climate change.
So the news is saying it's affecting people's health.
And that world leaders need to address the climate crisis now because we're all going to die from the climate crisis.
And why it matters.
So a bunch of publications got together to issue a joint statement to world leaders.
And apparently it's the first time so many independent, well, so many organizations got together with the same message.
So here are the ones that are saying that the climate change is going to cause severe health care bad outcomes.
Among them are the American Medical Association, the Lancet, And the British Medical Journal.
So those were among the many, many entities that were saying that climate change is a big problem.
How do you feel about that?
Because the Lancet?
The Lancet says it's a big problem.
So they're credible, right?
No. No, they're not credible.
Not at all. American Medical Association?
Not so much.
Not so much. No, I would say these are not credible organizations.
Now, that doesn't mean they're wrong.
I'm actually concerned.
I think that the concern that climate change could cause medical problems around the world, that's something we should really worry about.
Because whether or not it's human-caused or not, you're going to end up with the same health problem.
So, yeah, it's a little like...
Exactly. Somebody's saying in the comments on locals.
It's a little like these 17 intel agencies all agreeing...
It's never 17 Intel agencies agreeing.
It's a few people in one of them looked into it, and the other Intel agencies said, well, that guy looks competent, so we agree.
That's it. A few people in one organization, and then all 17 say, yeah, that sounds credible.
Yeah, we're in. So that's what that looks like, too.
All right.
That is everything I wanted to talk about today.
I think there were, what was it, 64 people died in Hurricane Ida so far?
Isn't that more than you expected?
I think that was the number, 60-something.
And that's way more than I thought.
I thought the number was going to be closer to, you know, two to four.
Because didn't we have a lot of warning?
I feel like we had tons of warning.
So there's something wrong with our ability to evacuate if people are dying when we know trouble's coming.
New York was unprepared.
Yeah, that's true. I guess there were some floodings that were hard to predict.
All right. Would you like to drum for the Rolling Stones?
Yeah, you know, true story.
My drum teacher and I had decided that Charlie Watts, the now-deceased drummer for the Stones, was going to be sort of my role model, because he'd be relatively easy to imitate, and that would get you started.
And then he dies. As soon as I pick him as my role model, he dies.
All right.
Read the fact, inconvenient facts, all right?
Please don't choose any more role models.
Oh, what am I going to do?
An e-bike live stream?
And Yeah, you know, maybe I should just tape my phone to my e-bike and go for a ride.
Would you like that? I've been waiting for the smoke to go down because I can't really exercise outside.
Oh, should I paint my nail?
People are saying that my bruise on my fingernail is distracting.
I should just paint my nails.
That does look pretty ugly.
It lasts a year. It'll take a year for those bruises to grow out.
Do I pedal? Yes.
In California, you have to pedal an e-bike so that it's just an assisted bicycle.
Otherwise, it's a motorcycle.
And then you have to license it.
How is Boo? I don't know.
I mean, she seems happy, but she's different, definitely.
