Episode 1507 Scott Adams: My Predictions Have Been so Good Lately That I Decided to Cure COVID-19
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The elusive sonic weapon
Bob Woodward's book claims
Trump versus Biden poll numbers
Biden staff wouldn't let him take questions
Foreign leader opinions of Biden
Airflow effect on COVID virus particles
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Highlight of your day. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Because it features coffee and, you know, Scott Adams.
So I don't know how this could be better.
Well, okay. There is one way this could be better.
Two coffees and Scott Adams.
But don't overdo it. Don't overdo it.
You don't want too much happiness all at once.
Yeah, I forgot to put on my YouTube microphone.
How many steps are there to make this work?
That was 17. How many do I do correctly?
14 or 15 every single day.
Well, now, if all things are working out...
YouTube is going to be able to join on the simultaneous sip because we made a little change, I think it's implemented today, in which you will be able to see the beginning and not have to wait for the pre-commercial on YouTube.
So, if that's the case, let's test it out.
Because all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, jealous, and a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
That's right. I turned off the pre-commercial.
For you. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. Ah.
Well, I don't know how much of my total revenue just got turned off by turning off that pre-commercial, but it was worth it.
I guess a lot of you were saying, we don't like to wait for the simultaneous sip, and I hear you.
I feel you. Well, Rasmussen did a poll and asked if they thought Biden or Trump is doing a better job on the border.
What do you think? What do you think?
Well, actually, they asked if Biden was doing a good job on the border, and not so much.
So it looks like even Democrats have turned against Biden on the immigration stuff.
Surprised? Nope.
Don't be surprised. San Francisco has decided to build what they call tiny cabins for the homeless.
Tiny cabins. Little cabins, basically.
They're portable. You can just set them up.
I think they're going to start with 44 of them to replace their tent city.
So going from tent city to tiny cabins.
Now, here's the important part of this.
I think this is the future.
You're seeing a lot of it.
Now, I don't know if it's just the tiny part, but the homes that are modular and built in a factory and then assembled, that's the way it's going.
The tiny ones will just be first, but I think that's the way everything's going to go.
Well, may I brag about one of my predictions?
Yeah, as if you could stop me.
Try it. Try stopping me.
You can't. Well, I go back to this every now and then just to show you how prescient I am.
The Havana Syndrome, you remember when the story said, well, there's probably some kind of a sonic weapon pointed at the embassy in Cuba because people are having a bunch of health problems.
And then it seemed to be spreading around the world.
Canada was next.
Somewhere else was next.
And it looked like, oh, my God, somebody's got a sonic weapon and they keep attacking our embassies.
Well, a group of 20 Cuban scientists got together to study all forms of this situation and decided that the only explanation that fit was mass hysteria.
That's right. The only explanation that fit all of the facts was mass hysteria.
Now, this is 20 Cuban scientists, and one could assume, okay, Cuba doesn't want to be...
You know, stained with this idea that they led some kind of a weapon attack an embassy.
So you can't totally trust the 20 Cuban scientists.
They may be influenced by the state.
But they did say, they made a claim that other people can look at, which is that the evidence doesn't support any other hypothesis.
That's it. There's only one hypothesis that you could even have.
And they made references to violating rules of physics and blah, blah, blah.
So the thing that people don't know is that mass hysteria is very common.
If you know that it's common, then you see a situation like this and you say, OK, what's more likely?
Is it more likely that a very common thing happened?
Or something that we've never seen before, a sonic weapon.
Which is more likely, the common thing or the badass, crazy thing?
It was kind of obvious.
Now, I'm not saying that the Cuban scientists are the final answer, but this is the final answer.
If there's anything I've been confident about in a contrarian prediction...
This is my most confident contrarian prediction.
You will never find a sonic weapon.
Right? The Lithuanian government urging its population to throw away their Chinese phones for security issues.
So Lithuania is saying, take your Chinese Huawei phone and toss it in the garbage.
Because there's too many security flaws.
And I say we should let Lithuania be a model for the rest of us.
That's right. Lithuania, model for the rest of us.
In the book, Peril, Woodward's book, So, you know, Woodward is the least credible journalist in the world at the moment.
His book actually, as you know, it treated the fine people hoax as if it were real.
That's all you need to know about the rest of the book.
The most obvious hoax in American history, the most debunked hoax, he just treats it like it's real.
So it makes you wonder if Watergate was even real.
But the latest ridiculousness is a report in the book that says Trump didn't want a golf course in Africa because he feared lions would eat him.
True or false? It's in the book.
It's in the book, so what do you think?
That Trump didn't want to build a golf course in Africa because he feared lions would eat him.
No. No.
He was not afraid lions would eat him.
Now, did he say that?
Probably. Yeah.
Did he make a comment out loud with actual words that lions might eat you if you had a golf course in Africa?
Probably. He probably said that out loud.
That sounds almost exactly like something he might say.
Do you think he was serious?
The entire project.
He just brushed away the entire project because...
Here's another possibility.
Can you think of one other reason not to build a golf course?
Any other reason?
What would be one other reason to not build a golf course?
Just one. I'll give you one reason to not build a golf course.
No golf course is profitable.
Do you need another reason?
Golf courses aren't profitable, are they?
I think that you build a golf course more for your brand because you want to play golf and you're rich enough to do it, etc.
But I'm pretty sure that golf is not a good business.
It goes good with Trump's portfolio.
I think he likes the golf.
But are you telling me that Trump is making money on his golf courses?
No. I doubt it.
I would imagine those are loss leaders.
I don't know. I mean, I'm speculating here.
But the number one reason to not build a golf course is that they're bad businesses.
Don't you think Trump knew that building a golf course in Africa wasn't exactly going to be a moneymaker?
Did he have to explain it?
Did he have to go through the numbers?
If you can't make money on a golf course anywhere else...
Are you going to make money on a golf course in Africa?
And don't you think that Trump's golf courses have a lot to do with where he personally wants to golf?
I mean, really. What's the point of owning a business with your name on it if you have to do projects in places you don't want to visit?
Do you think Trump wanted to go to Africa to play golf?
Probably not. Do you think he ever wanted to go to Scotland to play golf because he does have a golf course there?
Probably. Probably.
It's, you know, where his ancestors were, some of them.
So this is the most ridiculous fake news.
Here's some more fake news from the New York Times.
Today they tweeted, breaking news.
The Trump campaign knew.
This is the key word.
They knew. They didn't speculate.
They didn't doubt. They didn't ask questions about.
But this is what the New York Times is reporting as a fact.
They're reporting as a fact what the Trump campaign knew.
What was in their heads.
How did they get that scoop about what was in people's secret thoughts?
That's a pretty hard scoop to get, isn't it?
Or maybe it didn't happen.
Maybe. Let me read the rest of it so you can see the context.
It says, the Trump campaign knew, days after the 2020 election, that wild claims of voting machine tampering, pushed by Sidney Powell and others, allied with Trump, were not true, court filing show.
Really? Are you telling me that there was somebody in the world, not just the Trump campaign, but anyone in the world who knew that That the claims were untrue.
That knew it. Now, I said they were untrue the moment they came out.
Right? Fact check me on this.
As soon as I heard there was some Venezuelan Hugo Chavez connection, I said, okay, I don't know about the election in general, but I'm telling you that's not going to pan out.
So that was the first thing I said when I heard it, right?
I said the Venezuela part won't be true.
Even if all this stuff is, don't know about that.
But even if something else is true, that part's not going to be true.
Now, when I said that, did I know it?
Did I know it?
No. It can't be known.
Just like the Cuban, you know, the Havana sonic weapon.
I'm pretty confident that that's not real.
But do I know it?
How could I know it?
It's not knowable, right?
Unless it was violating some rule of physics.
Well, actually, the Cuban scientists said that, but I think that part I would discount.
Just because somebody doesn't know how to do something doesn't mean it violated the laws of physics.
So that part I would discount.
Um... Oh yeah, where is the audience?
Low audience today? Interesting.
Don't know why. So yeah, when the New York Times says that somebody else that is not them knew something, that's fake news.
Because people don't know that a story is wrong, they just suspect it.
Or they doubt it, or they're skeptical, or they would need more information to be convinced.
But nobody knew it.
Come on! As soon as you put certainty into some stranger's head and they haven't expressed that certainty, it's just ridiculous.
All right. Here's another one of my predictions that's looking better over time.
I predicted that the longer Trump was out of office, the better he would look.
The longer he was out of office, the better he would look.
And that makes sense, because you would forget, like his mean tweets and the daily cycle of abuse from the news, but you'd probably remember that North Korea doesn't look like a threat.
You'd probably remember he pushed hard on China trade, and now we think that's a good idea, etc.
So the thinking was that his ideas, the things he pushed and wanted to do, immigration...
Another perfect example.
Would look better compared to the alternatives over time.
Sure enough, there's a Monday Harvard-Caps-Harris poll released by The Hill, and 48% of people who responded said they had a positive view of Trump, which is more than the positive view of Biden right now.
So the current popularity of Trump is 48%, and Biden's at 46%, according to this poll.
Now, that's close enough to call it a tie, but it's a tie, right?
And I think it's just going to be more of this.
Every day that goes by, Trump's going to look better compared to the nightmare of the Biden administration.
So Afghanistan, we're going to remember, was botched...
Basically, everywhere there's a one-to-one matchup, I think Trump wins, right?
Somebody give me a counterexample.
Somebody give me a counterexample.
Here's my claim.
That for every topic where you can say one-to-one, compare what Trump did to Biden, and I'm not talking about mean tweets or rhetoric, but just policy.
One-to-one. What would be an example where Biden has done a better job?
One-to-one matchup.
What policy would that be?
COVID rapid tests?
Well, yeah, I'll give you that.
But all Biden did on COVID rapid tests is funding.
I feel like Trump would have done that too.
But both of them failed completely in pushing the topic through the FDA. So I would say that both Trump and Biden were 100% failures on rapid testing.
But Biden did get funding.
We don't know that Trump wouldn't have.
Promoting vaccines?
No, I think they're about even on that.
Pushing COVID and test hoax is not productive?
Well, nobody did that. At least Trump didn't do that.
All right, just looking at some of your comments to see how I'm doing here this morning.
Has better dementia, yeah.
All right, here's how the Democrats lose everything.
And it's starting to look like they're just going to get wiped out in the midterms.
It's a little too early to predict, but at the moment, it looks like Democrats are just going to get slaughtered in the midterms.
Now, part of that's an easy prediction because it tends to go that way.
After a president of one party is elected, you know, the midterms...
Often go against them. So that part wouldn't be surprising, but in Virginia's Lewdown County, the Board of Supervisors voted to look into, just look into, study it, reparations.
Reparations. Now, if you were the Republicans and you wanted to really win everything, what story would you want to be in the news?
Reparations, right?
Now, I've actually, just to give you context, I think reparations should be looked at.
That's different from implementing them.
But looking at them?
Sure. You know, if it's a big question in people's minds, if there are lots of citizens who care about it, let's work through it.
Let's take a look. If you're afraid of information or you're afraid of debating, I can't defend that.
Now, if you say to yourself, well, I know how it's going to end, Scott.
It's going to end with there's no practical way to do anything.
I mean, you could want to do things, but there's no practical way to get it done.
Maybe. Maybe.
But that's assuming the end before you start, right?
If people care about something and want to look into it, I don't know how I object to that.
How do you object to looking into stuff?
That would be unreasonable.
Now, my own path that I would recommend, you've heard this before, it might be new to some of you on YouTube, is there is a way to do it.
There is a way to do reparations that would make everybody happy.
You just increase school choice, and you do whatever you need to do to thwart the teachers' unions.
Because the teachers' unions are the main source of continued systemic racism.
The teachers' unions block competition in schools, which guarantees that bad schools stay bad, because there's no competition.
They don't have to be good.
But as soon as you've got competition...
Eventually, things would even out.
So if you said to me, Scott, let's call it reparations, but we're just going to make school choice better.
It won't be directed specifically at the black population of the United States.
It'll help everybody. But it will help the black population a lot more, just because of the way the demographics roll out.
To which I say, I can live with that.
You solve a problem for everyone, everyone who is at the same economic disadvantage.
If it disproportionately helps the black population, I say that's reparations.
Don't you? What would be the argument against it?
I mean, the whole point of reparations is that one community got an unfair deal for however long.
So if we make an unfair deal in terms of what percentage of the population is influenced by it, I feel like that would be a little bit of reparations.
And it would be the very best kind of reparations.
Because how would you like to know that the biggest problem in the United States, which is the teachers' unions, it's the biggest problem in the United States, how would you like to know that the black population of the United States solved it?
That would be a pretty good...
Pretty good thing to have on your permanent record, wouldn't it?
To solve it for everybody.
You know, not just solve it for yourself, solve it for everybody.
That would be an amazing accomplishment for the black population of this country.
And very, I would say, it would be one thing that might bring us together a little bit.
We could agree on that.
So, that's where I am on that.
How many of you saw my UFO video from last night?
Did anybody see it? I was taking a video of the moon, because the moon looked interesting in my backyard, and there appeared on my video a small TikTok-shaped object that, as I was filming, its motion seemed to defy physics, because it would be going in one direction and then just instantly change directions.
I don't know that there's anything in American technology that could do that.
Or Earth technology.
I don't think human technology can do that.
Now, you're probably asking yourself, Scott, you know what it was.
It was like a bug or something, right?
Nope. Nope. I can tell you, and I'm not lying, it was not an insect.
It was not. That was ruled out for sure.
I could tell you how, but...
Was it a laser?
No, it wasn't a laser. What was it?
What was it? Lens flare.
Yeah, I think that's the right term.
So I think it was some kind of a reflection-y sort of thing.
That might be the wrong word. But it's an artifact...
From the lens and the fact that I'm looking at a bright object, I guess.
I think that's what it was. But when you watch the video, I don't know if you could tell that I was manipulating the tic-tac.
If you watch the video, could you tell that the way I moved the camera was moving the tic-tac, right?
It looked like it was moving on its own, but I was just moving the camera.
So when I tracked it with the camera and moved to the right, it looked like it was moving.
And then when I moved the camera to the left, it looked like it was moving left.
It was just a camera artifact.
Do you know what's interesting about it?
My camera artifact looked a lot like the one you've seen.
Haven't you seen that UFO video?
It looked a lot like it, didn't it?
I don't know if it's the same problem, a lens artifact, but I think it is.
I think it's exactly why your UFOs look like Tic Tacs, because it's that lens artifact.
Now, by the way, I didn't do that intentionally.
I actually was just trying to take a picture of the moon.
Why? No good reason.
I just took my video camera out, and I saw that artifact.
I'm like, oh, I'm going with this.
I'm going with this. All right.
In a publication called the AJ Plus, apparently Biden is using Title 42, which Trump administration used to expel illegal migrants.
And he's expelled way more than Trump has.
So Trump expelled 440,000 people under that Title 42, whereas Biden has already got rid of 690,000.
Now, what about this story is misleading?
Well, everything, right?
Because there was this giant surge under Biden, which Biden, of course, is responsible for the surge.
But I don't know that you can compare.
It's not like an apple and an orange.
So Biden created his own problem, and then he semi-solved some of it by using Title 42, but it's not exactly apples and oranges here because Biden opened the border.
But it does tell you that Biden's no saint.
Biden is no saint when it comes to immigration.
How is this going to affect him on the election?
I feel as if he's lost in every way he could lose.
He's deported more people than Trump, so that looks bad.
At the same time, he's opened the border.
That's everything bad, right?
It's one thing to open the border, and that's going to make some percentage of the population pretty angry.
And it's another thing to deport lots of people.
He's doing both.
He's doing both of the wrong things at the same time.
I did predict that Biden would end up doing Trumpian things, yeah.
That in the long run, he's going to have to end up doing some number of things that Trump did, whether he likes it or not.
Well, CNN is reporting new and shocking disclosures about last year's, you know, around January 6th and the time when Trump was doubting the election outcome.
And let me tell you the shocking, shocking new stuff.
This is both shocking and new.
So watch how shocked you are and how new this sounds because it's shocking and new.
It's not just shocking.
It's not just new.
So watch for how shocking this is and new.
So it says that Trump had blueprints for how to prevent Congress from certifying the election.
It was sort of written up in a memo by a lawyer about how Mike Pence could thwart the process by not accepting some states, etc.
Which part of that is new?
None of it, right?
We all knew that.
We all knew that Trump was trying to get Pence to overthrow the result.
Okay, so this part's not new, and it's not extra shocking because we heard this.
Now, why would it be shocking if Trump thought it might work?
Because I think that, you know, whether it is constitutional or not, it looks like he had an argument.
He thought maybe he had a case.
Why couldn't he do that if he thought it might be illegal?
He can do anything that's legal.
And if he had a lawyer explain it to him, would Trump assume that the lawyer would keep him from doing something illegal?
Remember, it was just a draft, but it came from a lawyer.
A high-end White House lawyer wrote up a draft that says, you know, maybe this will work.
If the president does something that a lawyer says looks legal, is it shocking?
Well, it's not exactly shocking.
It might be wrong, but it's not exactly shocking if a lawyer tells you something is legal and then you act like it's legal.
How do you decide what's legal?
Let me tell you how I do it.
I ask a lawyer.
I don't just sit there and say, oh, sounds good to me.
I'd ask a lawyer. If the lawyer tells me it's legal, I'll act like it's legal.
That's all Trump did.
Not too shocking. All right?
Here they say, Trump's own campaign staff knew the outlandish claims of fraud made by the president's lawyers were utterly false.
No, they didn't. No, they didn't.
They didn't know it. They probably suspected it.
Right? They were probably very skeptical.
Probably doubted it, but they didn't know it because it couldn't be known.
Um... Here's another shocking thing.
Trump sent a letter full of false information, says CNN, to Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Rapsenberger, asking him to try to decertify the result.
Which part of that did you know?
Did you not know that Trump wanted Georgia to decertify the results?
Which part of that is new or shocking?
I think we all knew that, right?
The fact that there might have been a letter doesn't really change anything.
And this is CNN's reporting.
Just the way they word this is just hilarious.
So the book Peril, Woodward's book, also contains a passage that shows Trump cared little for truth, what voters decided in November, or bedrock constitutional values, but agonized about his reputation and mused that accepting defeat would brand him as one of history's losers.
Is that true? Can Woodward know that Trump cared little for truth or what voters decided?
How do you conclude that?
Was it a brain scan?
We could know for sure what Trump did and what he said, but you can't know what he thought.
Yeah, you can't know what he thought.
That's not a thing. So that's CNN with their new and shocking disclosures of things we've known for many, many months and are not that shocking at all.
So I guess Biden and Boris Johnson got together and Boris Johnson answered some questions, three of them.
Biden's staff shouted down the reporters when they tried to ask a question.
This is so embarrassing.
Do you remember when Trump was the one that you thought was going to embarrass us in public?
Here we've got the Prime Minister of the UK sitting right next to Biden, watching his staff not let Biden answer questions, right after Boris Johnson did take questions.
Boris Johnson took questions in a foreign country.
Biden wouldn't take questions in the White House.
He just looks incompetent, right?
What interpretation would you put on it when you watch Boris Johnson answer three questions and then you watch Biden's staff tell him he can't, essentially, by shouting him down?
Yeah, it looks weak.
It looks incompetent.
And it looks like we don't have confidence in our own leader.
It's really a terrible look.
Now... Who thinks at this point that Trump's reputation actually was worse than Biden's right now?
Does anybody think that? Because, you know, no matter what your political leaning is, you could still have an opinion about what other people thought of Trump.
Even if you liked him, you could have an opinion that foreign leaders maybe didn't.
I mean, that would be reasonable if you thought that.
But do you think that foreign leaders really...
Had a lower opinion of Trump overall than Biden?
I don't know. What do you think?
Maybe. I mean, we don't know for sure, but I would say that the hypothesis that Trump was the embarrassing one feels debunked, doesn't it?
Not in the sense that you know for sure that his reputation was better with these other people, but that there's no evidence it was worse.
Let's put it that way. When you say that no court has found...
I'd love to go to the no court has found.
No court has found that other countries think Trump was less respectable than Biden.
Or at least, you know, less capable.
Yeah. All right.
Now, my predictions have been so good lately that I thought, damn, Scott, if you're so good at predicting, why don't you solve the pandemic?
And that's a reasonable ask.
Given my incredible high-quality predictions, why don't I apply that to the pandemic and just predict how we can get out of this thing and maybe speed it up?
Are you ready? Okay.
Here it comes. I asked this question.
Would a fan that moves the air in a room...
Reduce the risk in the room of the coronavirus.
Just a regular fan.
Now, every one of you fucking people just thought, yeah, having good circulation with the outdoors is a good idea, Scott.
No, I'm not fucking talking about circulation inside to out.
That's not the topic.
So everybody who thinks I'm going to talk about circulation, you just leave now.
LAUGHTER I don't want to see your comments.
No circulation talk.
We all know an open window is a good idea.
If you think you need to tell me that being outdoors is better than being indoors or that opening a window is good, don't participate.
We're not talking about that.
So I ask this question.
Would the air movement itself, at least at the level that a fan could accomplish, would the air movement itself make the virus degrade?
And here are three good hypotheses that I saw.
Are you ready? Hypothesis number one.
A fan would make your virus particles bounce against surfaces more aggressively.
True or false? That faster wind circulation would cause more of the viruses to come into contact with the surface.
Because the surface might be a wall.
Or a ceiling. Why would somebody say false?
Add something to that.
It seems to me that if you add energy to the system, more of everything happens.
Right? That's going to be my take.
If you add energy to the system in the form of wind...
Everything that can happen will more happen because there's more movement.
So if something can hit a wall, there'll be more of it.
So there are two ways that a virus could be degraded by hitting a wall.
Number one, the physical contact with the wall might affect its water particle and take off its little cover.
The surface itself, we know, kills it.
Because we're not worried so much anymore about touching stuff, right?
You don't see people wearing gloves so much in the grocery store.
We're not really worried about surfaces because apparently surfaces kill the virus pretty quickly.
Pretty much any kind of surface.
So number one, the fan blows them against surfaces more often and therefore the surfaces kill it.
Number two, fans reduce humidity.
All agree with this?
Fans reduce humidity.
Moving air reduces humidity.
Now, fact-checked me on all the assumptions, but I believe that's true.
I looked it up.
Lower humidity is damaging for coronavirus that's in the air.
Do we agree? I'm saying all no's, but I googled it, so...
I'm pretty sure I'm right, even though you're disagreeing.
So later, you can google it yourself and see what you think.
But the thought is that the moving air would reduce the volume of water that contains it, and therefore the virus would fall free because it would have less water supporting it in the air, I guess.
So I see your disagreement on this, but if it's not true that airflow reduces humidity, I would be surprised.
Scott is the Biden of science.
I accept that.
Here's the third way I might help.
By distributing it.
Could it turn the virus from a deadly infection into a vaccination by making it so little everywhere?
Because when people are breathing, their virus is in a plume that takes a while to distribute.
If you walk right into somebody's plume...
Plume, I say. Yeah, plume.
If you walk right into somebody's plume, aren't you getting a big viral dose?
And therefore, even if you do get sick, it'll be worse.
But it also increases the chance you'll get sick.
If the wind is going, the plumes dissipate faster, and you have no plume.
Now, the room will still be full of virus, but it won't be concentrated.
How is that not better? Now, if you wait hours and hours, the room just, you know, if there's no circulation, the room will just fill with virus, and then it doesn't matter if you're in a plume or not.
The whole room will be a plume.
But every room has some kind of circulation, right?
You're not, like, in a sealed vacuum or anything.
So I would say that a fan would reduce...
Your odds of infection in three ways.
The particles getting banged against surfaces, which kills them.
Reduced humidity, which is bad for viruses.
And it's distributed, so there's no plume to get you a high viral load.
This is my solution to the pandemic.
Now, how could you test it?
I feel like you could do a survey of people who got the virus and knew where they got it.
Because there are enough of those cases where you have a really strong idea where you got it, because other people got it in the same place, etc.
Could you not test the airflow in those places?
Could you not find that where there are ceiling fans, you don't get infected?
I'll bet that's true.
I'll bet you could find that wherever there's airflow from ceiling fans, that you have almost no infections.
So, there's my hypothesis.
Remember, all my predictions have been right so far.
Why would this one be wrong?
Could it be? Could it be that you just need to turn on your fans?
You just need to turn on your fans.
Now... And it could be that there's just a minimum amount of airflow that is required for the virus to spread effectively.
All right, um...
When I asked that question, whether the fans would degrade the virus, the worst answer I got was from Peter Elfen, who said, no, because imaginary things can't be damaged.
So Peter believes that the virus doesn't even exist.
Strong take. All right.
So here's a surprising report.
I don't know if this is true.
So I saw this on Yahoo News, I think.
So... Rustic, Inc.
writes in all capital letters, Scott, stop embarrassing yourself.
Rustic, there are two things you don't want to do in public.
Number one, don't mock somebody by calling yourself a genius.
And spell the word genius wrong.
Right? Never mock somebody for not being a genius or call yourself a genius and spell the word genius wrong.
I've seen this done many times.
Don't do that. The other thing you don't want to do is say in all capital letters, stop embarrassing yourself.
Because you said it in all capital letters and embarrassed yourself.
Now... If you said it in lowercase, I might ask you, in what way am I embarrassing myself?
But if you do it in all uppercase, you just spelled genius without a U, if you know what I mean.
All right. Wuhan and U.S. scientists, according to this report that I don't know if it's true or not, They were planning to release, or at least they thought about it, enhanced airborne coronavirus particles into Chinese bat caves to inoculate them against diseases that could jump to humans.
So they wanted to actually put a disease into the bat caves.
Now... I think right off the bat...
Right off the bat?
Right off the bat, you can see that this was a bad idea.
Right off the bat. Do I have to tell you why this is a bad idea?
Why is it a bad idea to release a deadly virus into a bat cave?
It would kill Robin.
I mean, that's the obvious problem.
Robin... Dead.
Now, Batman might pull through.
But Robin, I think Robin would not make it.
Robin looks a little weak.
So you don't want to put any deadly pathogens into the Batcave because Batman's in there and Robin and it could be a problem.
But isn't this exactly the idea that I came up with the other day?
Which is, can't you find the weakest variant...
Can somebody please infect me with the weakest variant of COVID? I mean, just rub it all over my body.
Because if I get the weak one, I'm going to be fine, right?
I just don't want one of the strong ones.
But if I get the weak one, aren't I going to be pretty protected against a strong one just like these bats would be?
Same concept. Same concept.
If this was going to work for bats, why wouldn't it work for people?
So they also, according to this report, which I have some skepticism about, that they also plan to create chimeric viruses.
Now you might think that a chimeric virus is actually a chimeric virus.
C-H-I-M-E-R-I-C. But don't call it chimeric.
Don't call it that. Call it chimeric.
I don't even know if that's the right pronunciation.
Well, one of them is right.
Don't do the wrong one.
Anyway, they were trying to create these viruses that would be genetically enhanced to infect humans more...
What?
They also planned to create chimeric viruses genetically enhanced to infect humans more easily.
And requested $14 million from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, to fund the work.
What? What?
They actually asked for money to make genetically deadly viruses that are specifically engineered to kill humans.
Probably a bad idea. I don't know.
I'm no virologist.
I'm no expert.
I'm no expert on these things.
But it feels like a bad idea, right?
Feels bad. Now, when I heard that Fauci had been involved, the allegation is he was involved in some kind of funding on gain-of-function.
Was I worried about that?
Not that much.
Because it does seem like the argument that you need to be experienced and gain a function because it's a risk that's coming at you.
I think there's something to that.
That studying just the idea of weaponizing a virus or how it could be done or what the risk is, that might be worth doing.
But there was somebody actually planning to make the world's most deadliest virus for humans?
Like, they were actually trying to make that?
And somebody had that as a plan?
I'm not sure I believe this.
Do you? I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but I'm not going to say it's false.
That would be going too far.
I'm going to say I'm skeptical about this one.
This one has a little bit too much on the nose, right?
A little too on the nose?
That they were actually trying to make the virus that's this virus?
That feels... Am I wrong that it's too on the nose?
Once you've heard me say it.
Until somebody says it, you don't realize something's on the nose.
Somebody has to say it the first time.
And then you say, hmm, it does look a little on the nose.
Yeah, I mean, I'm going to say that this one is...
There's a solid chance that it's true.
There's a good, solid chance it's true.
But I'm skeptical. I think we might find out there's a little nuance to the story that we don't know yet.
And when the story goes on, it says, when COVID-19 was first genetically sequenced, scientists were puzzled about how the virus had evolved such a human-specific adaptation.
Apparently that adaptation is exactly what they wanted to do.
Looks like they did it. But it also answers this question, doesn't it?
Do you remember my question?
My question was, why is there exactly one bad variant?
The Delta? Are there hundreds or thousands of variants now?
And only one bad one.
I feel as if the bad one was engineered, just like the first one.
I feel as if they're just two engineered viruses.
We'll find that out someday.
And all the other variants were weaker.
Lambda and mu, well, let's see.
I mean, so far, so far, no, right?
So far, no. Anyway, that is your news for the day.
And wish my cat well today.
My cat's going under the knife today.
A little surgery. And she's got ear polyps.
She's doing not well.
So Boo has not been able to eat for days.
We're giving her fluids and antibiotics and stuff, but her head's all infected.
She's not doing well.
So she's going to have some surgery today, 11 o'clock California time.
And wish her luck, because she's my best friend.
All right. Yeah, watch your pockets.
It's going to be expensive. I think this is going to be the $15,000 cap when we're done.
