Episode 1505 Scott Adams: Today I Will Trigger Massive Cognitive Dissonance in My Audience. You Should Not Watch.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
47% believe economy weaker next year
Bob Woodward's credibility?
Why the 2021 mortality is BELOW average
Flawed vaccination conclusions
The ONE key variable for vaccination decision
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Welcome to the most provocative and annoying livestream you'll ever see for the rest of your life.
Today, unlike most of my livestreams, where I try to entertain you and make you happy...
Today will make you very unhappy.
In fact, so unhappy, I recommend you turn it off right now.
This will be the...
I don't know, maybe I've done this before.
But quite literally, it's going to make a lot of you really mad.
Like, really, really mad.
If you don't want to have that happen to you, just turn it off.
Because you don't need that kind of trouble in your life.
Probably. Here's what's going to happen.
I'm going to take apart some of the arguments about COVID. We'll do that at the end, so I'm going to do the general stuff first, if you want to hang in here for that.
But when we talk about the COVID stuff, I'm only going to be talking about decision-making.
I don't care.
Let me be as clear as possible about this.
I love you all, and I don't care if you live or die.
Can you accept that?
I love you all, and I don't care if you live or die.
As long as you're pursuing your life the way you want to pursue it.
If you want to do some extreme sports and you die, I love you, but I also don't care.
Because you did what you wanted to do, you died the way you wanted to die.
And I'm all for that, completely.
So if you can't accept the fact that I love you, But I'm totally okay with you killing yourself any way you want to, really.
That's just your business. So I'm not going to try to shill any vaccinations or anything like that.
And let me even go the extra distance.
I am so much into your personal freedom that I will risk my life for you to have that right.
Because in some small sense, you know, we all take a little extra risk if you take a little extra risk, with the virus anyway.
Because if you get sick, maybe you get other people sick, etc.
But I'm not going to stop you because your freedom might cost me a little bit or be dangerous to me.
I let you drive a car.
And yet you might take a drink and drive your car into my car.
But that doesn't stop me from letting you drive or trying to stop you from driving, as if I could.
I don't care that you do dangerous sports, even though I know that raises my health care costs.
You know, if you hurt yourself, it raises the expense of health care for everybody in the country.
I'll take that. I'll take that risk for your personal freedom.
So I'm very, very strongly in favor of your personal freedom, even when it affects me or has a risk that I accept.
Because I figure you do the same for me, right?
I take risks.
You pay for my risks, too.
Part of the deal. All right, let's talk about some other stuff.
Rasmussen asked people if they think the economy will be getting stronger or weaker in the coming year.
29%. Thank you, Hannah.
We will do the sip in a moment.
I have not forgotten.
29% said the economy will be stronger, but 47% said they expect it to be weaker next year.
47% of the country thinks the economy will be weaker next year.
Remember what I told you about economics?
One of the few things I know something about.
If anybody's new to me, I have a degree in economics and an MBA. So one of the things that economists know is that economics is an optimism machine.
Optimism, specifically your expectation that next year will be okay, is what drives economics.
Because you won't invest in anything...
If you think it won't pay off.
So you have to have optimism in order to invest.
And you have to have investment in order to have an economy.
So optimism drives everything.
If I make a deal with you, any kind of a business deal, it's based on optimism that you will pay me back or you'll do your part of the deal.
Without optimism, everything falls apart.
So I've argued that Trump brought the optimism in a way few people could.
He was a salesperson for the economy, for the United States, America first.
And I feel as if Trump was unambiguously the better optimism president.
He said it directly.
I'm going to be the cheerleader for the country and for the economy.
And then he went out and did it.
And even people who didn't like Trump...
Still thought the economy was going to do well.
So I don't think you can ignore this, that the president is pretty directly a cause of what you think about the economy.
Now, suppose Trump had been president, but we still had all this debt.
You know, debt's something you've got to worry about.
It's not exactly like personal debt.
We don't quite understand national debt.
Economists, I think, would agree that they were completely wrong about how much debt we could take on.
Completely wrong. I mean, like, maybe by a factor of 10, they've been wrong?
Or were they wrong? Maybe we can't handle the debt.
Maybe we'll be surprised.
But certainly, you know, national debt doesn't operate the way personal debt does.
With personal debt, you kind of know what's too much.
At least within a narrow range.
But with national debt, we don't know.
As long as you have nuclear weapons and people like your currency better than other currency, I don't know.
Maybe you can just inflate away most of your troubles and nobody notices.
Somebody's suggesting that we all pray for rain.
Worth a shot. Pray for rain for the whole country.
So how about this Woodward book?
So the book Peril that we're all talking about, I learned yesterday that in that book, Woodward treats the fine people hoax as though it's a historical fact.
Not a fact that it's a hoax.
Woodward treats the fine people hoax like it's not a hoax.
Like it actually happened.
And he reports it as one of the reasons that Biden was so interested in being president.
Now, There are many sketchy things in this and other Woodward books.
Things which are quotes that people say, I didn't really say that, etc.
But here's the thing.
I'm starting to wonder if Watergate really happened.
Right? Because everything we knew about Watergate came from Woodward and Bernstein.
At least originally.
And they don't have any credibility...
I mean, I suppose they did when they did the Watergate stuff.
But at the moment, we know that Woodward, at least, is not a credible character.
He's not even close. I mean, if you believe the fine people hoax and you put it in a book, in 2021 it's in a book, that's embarrassing, really.
It doesn't seem like there's any interest in the truth.
And I'm semi-joking about doubting Watergate, but here's what I do think.
I wonder if the details of Watergate are even close.
Probably the big picture is right.
Well, I bet the details are all wrong.
If these guys were the only source of those details, I suppose a lot of it could be independently checked.
All right, we've got a little mystery here with excess mortality.
Who knows if the data is right, but it comes from ourworldindata.org.
And Adam Dopamine was tweeting about this.
Apparently the numbers show that 2020 was a much higher-than-normal excess mortality.
Completely understandable, because we had a massive pandemic.
So the 2020 numbers make complete sense.
Way higher than the baseline.
We had a pandemic. Perfectly explained.
But 2021 is below average.
Can you explain that?
How do you explain that we're below average mortality?
How do you explain?
Well, let me give you an explanation that I think makes sense.
That the people who are going to die this year died last year.
Right? Right? The pandemic took out all the people closest to death.
If you take out all the people closest to death, the obvious outcome of that should be a lower than normal death rate for the next three to five years.
Probably three. Wouldn't you say?
Yeah. The vulnerable died early.
So I think this number actually makes perfect sense.
Doesn't mean it's right.
Could be there's a lag.
Could be the data's wrong. Any of those are a possibility.
But it makes sense.
Based on what we know, it's a perfectly sensible outcome, even if it turns out later to be wrong.
That's some weird things happening with my printer here.
Oh, here we go. All right.
We're going to talk about...
COVID stuff now.
So those of you who don't like this conversation, I would invite you to leave because you don't need to have any bad feelings about me.
Just come back when I'm not talking about this.
Now, I did hear your...
I have heard all of your complaints.
Yeah, we will do this simultaneous sip before I do this.
That's a good idea. Thank you on locals for reminding me.
Actually, why don't we do that now?
You know, if you'd like to enjoy this morning to the maximum potential, what you need is a simultaneous sip, and all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chelser stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now, commercial-free, for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah, yeah.
Yeah, so good.
All right, we're going to talk about COVID stuff, but as you know, my beat is not health.
Health.
My beat is not health.
So none of this is about your health choices, okay?
It's only about how you think about it.
The only thing I care about is how you think about it.
Don't care if you die, as long as you're living your life the way you want it.
So, here's the first question.
If hearing that some percentage of vaccinated people are still getting COVID makes you conclude that vaccinations don't work, I've got one question for you.
How does confirmation feel when you're in it?
Now here's the thing you need to know about confirmation bias.
The people who have it don't know it.
But the people who don't have it, because for whatever reason they're uninterested in the question usually, they can see it.
It's like really obvious to the observer if you're being irrational.
It's just not obvious to you.
So I'm telling you that if you have this opinion, you're experiencing confirmation bias.
I'm a third party, and I'm not terribly interested one way or the other.
Because like I said, I don't care if you live or die.
I don't care if you get vaccinated or not.
Moreover, I'm not even so sure I made the right decision.
Hear this really clearly.
I got vaccinated.
I made that decision.
Am I sure I made the right decision?
Nope. Nope.
If I were sure I made the right decision, then you could say to me, hmm, hmm, might be confirmation bias.
But I'm telling you I'm not sure.
That's almost a guaranteed get-out-of-jail card.
If you can say unambiguously, I don't know.
I could be wrong. It could be that getting vaccinated was a big mistake.
Maybe. I mean, I don't think so.
I'm playing the odds. I think the odds are strongly in my favor.
But I don't know.
And the people who are skeptical are not crazy.
Are they? Are they?
Is anybody who's skeptical crazy?
We do have a vaccination that, you know, we don't know...
If anything could pop up in the long term, who knows?
I don't think so.
I think the risk was worth it.
But I don't know.
So here's your first tip.
Remember, I'm not telling you anything about vaccinating or not vaccinating.
I'm just talking about the psychology of it.
If you can say out loud, I made a choice, but I really don't know if it's the right one, You might not have confirmation bias.
That would be one way to tell.
But if you say to yourself, I didn't get the vaccination and damn it, I'm right.
I'm really right.
You might be right.
That's one possibility.
But you might have confirmation bias.
The person who says, I don't know if I'm right or not, almost certainly doesn't.
Because the conditions for it don't exist.
But here's the problem.
What if... And I'll just put this the way I put it to my critic.
It looks like the page didn't print here or something in my notes.
If you think that the vaccinations don't work because you need a booster...
Does anybody think that?
Is there anybody here who would say to me, the vaccinations don't work because you need boosters?
Or I'll modify that. They don't work as promised because you need boosters.
Does anybody think that?
Who has that opinion?
That vaccinations don't work, or at least don't work as promised, because of boosters.
Well, do you know that tetanus shots are vaccinations and they require boosters?
Did you know that? There are other shots which require boosters.
It's not the only one. Now, if you get a tetanus shot, you might need it only every 10 years or some say even 30.
Is the tetanus shot just as good in, let's say, the 8th year as it was the first year?
What do you think? Is that tetanus shot just as good in year 9 as it was in year 1?
Well, apparently not, unless booster shots are 100% until the day they're not.
I don't think that's the case.
Seems like they probably just wear off slowly, and after 10 years, it's smart to get another one.
But could you say that somebody who has the tetanus shot could still get tetanus?
Well, yes, right?
Because otherwise there wouldn't be boosters, would there?
If you couldn't get tetanus while you also had a tetanus vaccination, you would never need a booster.
Somebody fact-check me on that.
I mean, it sounds logical, but with this medical stuff, there could be some non-obvious explanation for things.
All right? So, I would say the fact that the vaccinations do not work perfectly, and for as long as you'd like them to, is not uncommon.
And therefore, not a question of whether they work or don't work.
Now, if you disagree with what I just said, probably you're having some kind of confirmation bias problem.
Right? And some of you said, but wait, Scott.
Ten years for a booster, that's way different than six months.
Yeah, that's way different.
Not in a way that matters.
It doesn't matter to the argument.
I mean, it matters to your life, of course.
Right? But it doesn't matter to the argument.
The argument is, can it be called a vaccination if it doesn't completely stop the thing it's vaccinating?
And the answer is yes.
That is the standard.
The standard is you can call it a vaccination even if it doesn't completely stop the thing that you're trying to stop.
Does every person who gets a vaccination not get, I don't know, chicken pox?
Are there any doctors on here who can answer that?
Do you think that everybody who got the chickenpox vaccination, do you think none of them got chickenpox?
I'll bet some did.
I'll bet they did. So the fact that a vaccination is not 100% doesn't mean it's not a vaccination.
It just means that it's a little less than it could be.
It's leaky. It's a leaky vaccination.
Now, did they lie to us?
Here's the next question. Did the experts lie to us?
I'd say no.
Because they probably were optimistic and might have actually thought it would be closer to 100% than it is.
Now, do you think that they knew that you'd need a booster?
Let me ask you this.
How many trials of the vaccinations were there?
Like Moderna, how many trials did it do?
And Pfizer, how many trials did it do?
Because if they only did, I don't know, one or two, however many each of them did, how many different doses did they test?
Probably one or two, right?
And how did they know what to test?
Like, how did they know what dose to test?
They didn't. They didn't.
They couldn't have. Educated guess.
It was an educated guess.
So what are the odds that their educated guess hit exactly the right amount of vaccination you need?
Very low. Very low.
Common sense tells you that they were guessing a little bit, a little bit, and that there might be some adjustments needed.
So if they guessed on the low side, meaning they didn't want to kill you with the vaccination itself, so they made it low enough that maybe it gave you some side effects but didn't kill too many people...
Yes, I know that vaccinations have side effects.
Yes, I know that every vaccination kills people and that more of them, apparently, with this vaccination perhaps than others.
But there's no such thing as a vaccination that they can guess accurately the right amount, test it once, and then they just got lucky.
They got the right amount.
So the fact that they have to...
I'm seeing the VAERS database being...
Shown to me about all the alleged adverse events.
Most of you know the VAERS database should not be used, right?
Do any of you think the VAERS database gives you useful information about the adverse side effects?
It does not.
It's not for that.
It's self-reported.
So what it is, is to raise flags, right?
Such that you would more quickly notice if there was something to look into.
So the VAERS database tells you there's something to look into.
It doesn't tell you there's a problem.
It's not meant for that. It's not designed for that.
The reason you have controlled experiments is because self-reported stuff is so wildly inaccurate that it's not useful for scientific decisions.
Yeah, so would we all agree that the VAERS database has raised important questions which we should really look into?
Everybody agree with that?
The VAERS database, where people self-report the side effects, it absolutely raises a flag that we should look into.
There's nobody who disagrees with that, right?
But do you also also agree that it's not intended to give you the answer, it's just supposed to raise a flag so you look into it?
We're all on the same page on the VAERS database.
And if you weren't, you are now.
Because if you thought that it was telling you something, it isn't.
It's just raising a question, basically.
All right. Isn't it kind of too late?
Well, that's an important question, too.
So here are some cognitive dissonance that got triggered when I started asking these questions on Twitter today.
And I'll tell you how to recognize cognitive dissonance in case it happened to you.
Here are some of the comments from people who are almost certainly experiencing cognitive dissonance.
You ready? A tweet that just says, I had a bad take.
It's a bad take. No other reason, it's just a bad take.
When you see an attack on the person without any reference to the reason, that's almost always cognitive dissonance.
Because people will include a reason if they have one.
And if they don't have one, it's cognitive dissonance.
So why would you say I had a bad take instead of saying, for example, you're underestimating something-something?
Hey, Norwood? Norwood says I have two states and they're both boring.
And yet, he's decided to stay here.
So we're going to hide you from the channel because you're an asshole.
Also very dumb because you do things that you don't like repeatedly.
Like listening to me.
Very dumb. If you don't like it, probably stop doing it.
Probably. All right.
Another comment I got today, somebody said, you should have thought this through before sending.
In other words, before tweeting.
Do you think that this person couldn't have put any reference to what was wrong with my thinking in a tweet?
Wouldn't fit? Not enough words?
No, easily you could put what's wrong with it.
You underestimated this.
You have a wrong fact.
Your logic connecting this to this doesn't work.
Lots of things you could have said.
Another one I got today was, that's not how it works.
And then a reference to my Dilbert cartoon career.
That's not how it works.
Or, that's not how any of this works.
The Dow is down 600?
Jeez. So, these are the arguments that are pretty much tip-offs for cognitive distance.
Here's an economist's tip.
One of the things that economists learn is how to accurately compare the right stuff.
If you're comparing the wrong things, you're always going to get the wrong decision.
You have to compare the right things.
That's just basic. Here's what people are doing wrong in their comparisons.
If you're comparing the COVID vaccination to your original belief of how good it would be, You haven't done anything good or useful.
And most of you are doing that, right?
A lot of the anti-vax people, the vaccination skeptics, are saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, if you compare what they led us to believe about the effectiveness of the vaccination and its safety, if you compare that to what we got, whoa, whoa. We didn't get what they promised, so therefore it's all a scam and a shill and it'll kill you.
Does that make sense? No.
That's the wrong comparison.
Because the thing that you imagined it would be never existed.
You get that? The thing you imagined it would be, 100% effective or whatever you imagined, that never existed.
That was in your mind.
It wasn't in the real world.
In the real world, here's the comparison that makes sense.
Getting vaccinated versus not getting vaccinated.
That's the comparison that matters.
Because your decision is vaccinated or not vaccinated.
That's all that matters. Vaccinate or not vaccinate.
If you're still comparing how you felt about it in the beginning to how it turned out, a little less than you hoped, closer to 80% to 90% effectiveness against hospitalization and death, maybe 80% effective in keeping you from getting it in the first place, but not 100% and not 99%.
We hope for that.
So don't compare it to your expectations.
That's nothing. That's nothing.
I saw people doing that today, and it's just purely irrational.
Your expectations are always disappointing compared to reality.
So there was a troll this morning who learned that the fine people hoax was a hoax for the first time.
And that was kind of fun, watching somebody fall into that trap.
But And here's how you know that you've triggered somebody into cognitive dissonance.
Now, for anybody who's new to me, live streaming, I'm a trained hypnotist.
And so I know how to trigger people into cognitive dissonance.
I can do it intentionally.
And I can do it almost at will.
Most of you do it too, but less directly and less intentionally.
Anybody can trigger somebody into cognitive dissonance.
But when...
A Twitter user named WhoRadiation found out today that the fine people thing was a hoax.
Here's one of the tells.
Word salad. Word salad.
So they will say something when they're experiencing cognitive dissonance, but they're the only person who thinks it makes sense.
Everybody else reading it would say...
All right, here's another example of cognitive dissonance right here from El Diablo Locopoco.
So here's the classic one.
Scott, Scott, Scott, it sounds like you are suffering cognitive dissonance and are rationalizing your decision to be vaccinated.
Now, what's wrong with that comment, and why do I say that is cognitive dissonance?
I'll read it again and see if you can feel the sound with me.
Scott, Scott, Scott, it sounds like you are suffering cognitive dissonance and are rationalizing your decision to be vaccinated.
Did I not just tell you that I could be totally wrong about getting vaccinated?
Why do I need to rationalize it?
I told you what I looked at.
I told you what the odds were.
If the facts were wrong that I used, I'll say, whoa, damn, those facts were wrong.
So I got the wrong decision.
What would be my trigger for cognitive dissonance?
You have to look for the trigger.
I don't have a trigger.
There's nothing that can cause me to have cognitive dissonance because I'm not committed to a side.
You have to be committed to an opinion before you can be triggered.
I'm as non-committed as you could possibly be.
Now, I'm also allowing that I could have made the right decision and had the wrong outcome.
Will you allow me that?
Let's say I looked at the odds, and the odds were, hypothetically, you don't have to agree with this, but let's say I looked at the odds and I thought the odds were that I should get vaccinated.
And then maybe I'm one of the people who has a bad outcome from the vaccination itself.
Did I make a wrong decision?
I'd say no. Because if you make a decision based on the odds, it's the right decision.
It's just a bad outcome.
Now, given that I make that distinction, that I can make a good decision and still have perfectly reasonable to have a bad outcome, I don't have anything that can trigger me into cognitive dissonance.
Because everything that can happen is within my model.
Right? That's the best way to say it.
Everything that's possible fits within my model of the world.
Because my model of the world says, well, I followed the odds as best I understood them.
Data was probably wrong.
Maybe even some of my thinking was wrong.
But, you know, I had to make a decision.
So if it turns out I'm completely wrong about everything, it's still in my model.
It's still consistent with everything I've said.
Oh, I could be wrong on those facts.
I could have made the wrong decision.
But if your model says...
That what you did is the only thing that's possible?
As soon as something outside of your model happens, you're triggered into cognitive dissonance.
So you've got to make sure that your model of reality incorporates all the possibilities.
That's the only way you can keep yourself at a cognitive dissonance.
Did you get that? So now, how many of you are asking yourself, hey, I think I trapped myself.
I created a trap for myself.
By creating a worldview that doesn't allow the other one in.
Did you do that? Did you create a worldview that just doesn't let the other one in?
Because if you did, you're setting yourself up.
You're setting yourself up.
Are comments off? No, comments are on.
Comments are on. I am reading them.
I don't comment on all the comments, but I am reading them.
Somebody says, find the clip of Norm MacDonald saying how he wants his funeral to be.
You know, I actually had some instructions in my estate and my will at one point for having a funny funeral, but I took those out.
Would you make the same decision today?
Yeah, I would. Because I don't think the data changed enough.
And remember, I'm in a higher-risk category.
So any decision I make about vaccinations doesn't apply to any of you.
You get that, right? Do you get that my decision about vaccinations should not apply to any of you?
Like, you shouldn't be influenced by it at all, because I'm in a high-risk category.
And my high-risk is different than your high-risk.
It's different than everybody else's.
So you definitely should not be influenced by my decision.
That would be irrational. You don't have the same variables.
Here's a comment from Mr.
Janus Esquire.
A lawyer, I assume.
First name Hugh. Last name Janus.
He's a lawyer. How does that sound if you say his first name and his last name together?
First name Hugh, last name Janus.
Hugh Janus.
Hugh Janus, Esquire.
So Hugh Janus says to me, he goes, that Scott is having another one of his vax spells where he thinks if people don't vax, they will die.
Does that sound like me? Does this sound like something that happens to me on a regular basis?
That if I get into this vax spell, where I think that if people don't vax, they will die?
Nope. I think you're all going to die.
Me too. I think you'll die if you get vaxed.
I think you'll die if you don't get vaxed.
I think you're all going to die.
And do I care if you die soon?
No. Nope. As long as you're happy.
As long as you lived the life you wanted to live.
I'm good with that. So, a complete hallucination of my opinion by Hugh Janus Esquire.
And he says that I'm a vax shill.
Do you know any vax shills who advise you to do whatever you want and die?
I would be the worst vax shill in the world if I told you, I don't care if you get it.
You can die. Any way you want.
Any way you want.
As long as you allow me the same.
Let's talk about Hunter Pepper, the 19-year-old council member.
Who vowed to, quote, fight to the end against a mask mandate in Decatur, Decatur, I guess Decatur, Alabama, revealed he's been hospitalized with shallow breathing.
And, of course, the photo of Hunter Pepper.
And we do not do fat shaming.
No fat shaming on this channel.
And we don't do addiction or alcoholic shaming either.
They're all in the same category, in my opinion.
Which is, we think we have free will, but addiction is kind of a different thing.
And I do think people can be addicted to food and addicted to all kinds of stuff.
So I don't make fun of people who have addictions because I don't believe in free will the way other people conceive of it.
And I would appreciate it if you did not make fun of people who are overweight just for being overweight.
Because they just have an addiction you don't have.
If you're lucky. But how in the hell...
I mean, I just have to say this every time they do that.
How in the hell do you not mention his weight?
You know, he's clearly quite overweight.
And every time they show this picture, I feel like it's doing the opposite of what they want.
I feel like they're doing these...
I feel like they're doing these...
These anecdotal stories about the person who thought the vaccination was bad and then got hospitalized.
But it's all a story of overweight people.
They're all overweight stories.
And if we don't treat them that way, I don't know how we get through this any smarter.
Like if we're trying to get through this alive and smarter, we're not doing the right thing for that.
So And I got a tweet from D.O. Genius.
So this is somebody who puts the word genius right in their Twitter handle.
May I make a recommendation?
Brief recommendation.
If you're going to brand yourself with the word genius, it does...
Sort of give you the responsibility to up your game a little bit, you know, to act a little genius-y.
Because people are going to be watching, if you call yourself a genius.
So let me explain what this genius tweeted today.
He said to me, if learning that 80% of people dying from COVID in the UK are fully vaccinated, according to the public health, blah, blah, blah, makes you conclude that vaccinations WORK, How does confirmation bias make you feel, Scott? So here he's calling me out for my own confirmation bias by saying that 80% of people dying in Great Britain or UK are fully vaccinated.
So how does that work, Scott?
How does that work?
Well, let me ask you some questions in response.
D.O. Genius...
I'll answer your question after you answer a couple of mine.
Number one, why do bank robbers rob banks?
Why don't they rob, let's say, trash dumps?
Why do they go to banks?
Could it be? That's where the money is.
Yeah, that's where the money is.
Willie Sutton allegedly said that but probably didn't.
Yes. Here's another one.
Were you aware that almost 98% of all the people who die in China are Chinese?
Did you know that?
Why? Why is it that almost everybody who dies in China is Chinese?
Like, what causes that?
Is it some kind of weird disease?
I'm all confused. And so would D.O. Genius be confused.
Now, let's take the UK, where most people are vaccinated.
Let's see. In a world where most people are vaccinated, what kind of people would be dying?
Could it be the people who are vaccinated?
Because that's almost all there is.
If... If all you have is people who are vaccinated, who the hell else is going to be dying?
Right? My expectations were there were 0% chance it would be completely safe.
Yeah, well, 0% chance it's completely safe.
So here's the thing. If your country is entirely vaccinated, then only vaccinated people will die of COVID. Because we do know that people get it and they die, even if they're vaccinated.
So don't call yourself genius if you don't understand why most of the people in China who die are Chinese.
They're Chinese. Because that's who lives there.
Um... Let me take it to the next extreme, in case Mr.
Genius wasn't following that.
I'll make it a little simpler.
If 100% of the people in a country, whatever country it is, are vaccinated, 100% are vaccinated, what percentage of the people who die in that country would be vaccinated?
Work on that and get back to me.
If 100% are vaccinated, what percentage of the people dying in that country would also be vaccinated?
I know it's a tough one, but see if you can get that right.
All right. That is my lesson on cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
Now... I think I touched all my incredibly important points.
Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
So... Let me look at your comments.
Scott, if you get COVID, will you get Regeneron?
Yes, I will. And do you know why I'll get Regeneron?
Will it be because Regeneron was tested in long-term trials...
Did anybody do a long-term test of Regeneron as a treatment for COVID? What?
What? There's no 10-year study of Regeneron for COVID patients?
Why would you put that in your body?
It seems a little experimental to me, doesn't it?
So you would put Regeneron in your body, just because all the experts say it works, even knowing...
There are no long-term 10-year trials of Regeneron for COVID. You would put that in your body?
I would. Yeah, I probably would.
But all of your options are untested stuff.
Does everybody get that?
Every one of your options is untested for the long term.
For the short term, you actually know your vaccination risk pretty well.
Because we have millions and millions of short-term experiences.
It's the long term you're worried about, right?
You're worried about being infertile or whatever.
Yeah, same thing with ivermectin, same thing.
Now, we do know that a lot of these have been safe for other conditions for years.
But who exactly was tracking the long-term effects of ivermectin?
Is that a study?
Did somebody ever do a 10-year study of ivermectin?
For the other problems, not for COVID. I doubt it, right?
Do you think somebody did a 10-year study to follow up and see if ivermectin was for anybody 10 years later?
No, no.
Didn't do it for the vaccinations.
Didn't do it for anything you're going to put in your body.
Somebody says maybe. I don't think so.
Merck is coming out with therapeutic to replace ivermectin.
I'll bet. We know ivermectin is not 100% fatal after 10 years.
Well, we know it's not 100% fatal here.
Yes, ivermectin has been used for 10 plus years in other countries.
Why does that matter? They weren't studying it, were they?
I don't think any country studied how do all the people look 10 years after taking ivermectin.
Now, what do you think is the period beyond which a vaccination is almost certainly telling you everything that you need to know about side effects?
How long do you think that period is?
In the comments, we'll see how well informed you are.
How many days, weeks, months, or years after taking a vaccination?
We'll say vaccinations in general.
How long do you wait before you really, really know you've got just about all the side effects?
Somebody says two weeks.
I'm looking at all your...
I see one month, one month, 20 years, 36 months, 15 minutes, 48 hours.
Why don't you all know the answer to this?
This is one of those...
Oh, my God.
This is one of those facts that should be the most important fact in your decision about getting vaccinated.
If I had to say there was one fact that you should know to make a decision about vaccination, it would be this, and none of you know it.
None of you know it.
Not one of you is right.
None? I'm watching all your answers.
I'm seeing two years, a lifetime, 15 minutes.
None of you are even close.
It's the number one most important variable.
The number one most important variable in your personal decision about whether to get a vaccination, and not a fucking one of you knows the answer to it.
This is public information.
I've seen it a number of times.
The answer is two months.
Two months. After two months, the odds of anything bad happening to you in the long term become really small.
They don't disappear.
But really small. And that first 15 minutes tells you a whole lot, right?
That's why they make you wait.
But two months, typically for all other vaccinations, that's where problems appear.
Now, I'm seeing Robert laughing.
Now, I'm not saying that everything has to fit into that model.
I'm saying that if you didn't know that and you made your decision on vaccinations, that was a very irrational decision.
If you are not aware that two months gets you pretty much everything you need to know about side effects, not all of it, not 100%, but close.
Oh, somebody said two months there.
Good for you. All right.
So I'm kind of blown away by this.
I really am. I'm kind of blown away that the most important variable, nobody knows.
It was like one person who knew.
And that's it. I would say that was the thing that made my decision.
I would say I based my decision on the thing that almost nobody knew here, but was public information, that after two months you'd know.
Remember I told you in the beginning, people ask me from day one, am I going to get the vaccination?
Do you remember what I said?
Yes, but not in the first two months.
Right? And I waited six months?
I think I waited six months.
Or five or something.
Before getting vaccinated.
What was my risk after waiting five months for other people's experience to tell me if it was dangerous or not?
Pretty low. Pretty low.
I mean, I don't know how to calculate it.
There's no way to do that. But low.
Now, that's low based on...
Living life and seeing that usually it's two months or so, it tells you everything you need to know.
It doesn't mean it's true with these.
I mean, MRNA stuff might be different.
But... Oh, and the fact that I'm...
Yeah, I'm fit and healthy, but I'm also 64 and I have asthma.
So I'm on the short list of people who die from COVID. If you have asthma, you're in bad shape.
I'm pretty sure the people who died from it had asthma and were fat, if we're being honest.
Probably.
So, yeah.
Thalidomide.
Thalidomide would be the counterexample of something that took a while for people to realize.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that current medical processes...
I need a fact check on this.
This is an important one.
So if you could really give me a fact check on this.
My understanding would be that we would not make the thalidomide mistake today.
That we have safeguards that would have caught that early.
In other words, we wouldn't have had to wait to find out it was bad.
Give me a fact check on that.
I think we would have caught that one...
If it happened today, I think we would have caught it right away.
But maybe not. Yeah.
And let's say you only had one example in which the vaccine did have some bad outcomes and they were pretty bad later.
Still, that would give you lots of vaccinations that didn't have that problem.
So you'd still be looking, well, one did, but 20 did not.
One in 20, 5% chance.
Smoking a lot of weed is protecting your lungs, you say?
That might actually be true.
We don't know. Yeah.
And then, yeah, I think there is a separate question about pregnant women.
That's a whole different calculation.
But, you know, pregnant women don't want to have COVID either, so...
Well, I think locals' comments are quite responsive, whoever said they're not, because they're in real time.
It's not a vaccine...
It is a vaccine. Tetanus is a vaccine, and you need a booster for tetanus, too.
All right. 40 booster, what?
All right, I've got to run, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.
How many of you...
I'm seeing people suggesting different drugs or things that may have had long-term...
I'd love to see a summary of that.
A summary of any meds or vaccinations that did have long-term consequences in relation to all the meds that have ever been improved.
