Episode 1529 Scott Adams: It's a Weird Day Full of Fake News and Strange Stories. Just the Kind We Like
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Study says voter ID laws don't change anything?
Zero people want to vote and can't figure out how
President Trump's statement on election fraud
Port logjam, what's the real story?
Norway mass arrowing, 5 dead
Joe Rogan's brutal Sanjay Gupta interview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But you know what would make you look even better?
Yeah.
The knowledge that you're part of something bigger than yourself, something great, something that connects us all over the world.
Yes, it's the simultaneous.
It's the most amazing thing that's ever happened.
It really has.
It's amazing.
And all you need is a cup or mug or glasses, a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And will you join me now, please?
for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
Yeah, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And watch your antibodies increase when you do this.
You ready? Ready?
Go! Whoa!
I don't know if it felt the same on your end, but I can feel my antibodies increasing.
Bring on that COVID.
I'm not afraid of you.
Rawr. Rawr. Rawr.
All right.
It's funny, on both YouTube and locals, you can't see each other's comments, but at the same time, people were saying, ah, antibodies.
Nice.
That should be the new sign-off after the sip.
Ah, antibodies.
Alright, well, Andreas Beckhaus tweeted a study that shows that changes in voter ID laws don't affect anything.
What? What?
Apparently it doesn't change the voter registration and it doesn't change the turnout.
Do you believe that?
Changes in voter ID laws don't have any effect on anything?
Were you expecting that?
I'm not sure I had an expectation either way.
But here's something I've always believed.
If you were to do the Venn diagram, and I think I'll do this.
No, I can't make that motion with my hands.
It'll look like a white supremacist hand motion.
Imagine, if you will, Use your imagination.
Imagine that this hand is being held up in a fashion which some would say would be the OK symbol.
Sort of a circular thing.
And my other hand would be doing a similar thing, forming a circle, which I can't show you because I'll get cancelled.
But one of the circles would be not overlapping with the other circle.
A Venn diagram with fingers, if you will.
And that Venn diagram, with fingers, would show that there are zero people who really want to vote and can't figure out how because of lack of voter ID. I feel as though it's been four years since we're looking for one person who wants to vote and can't figure out how.
Still waiting for our first one, aren't we?
Let me tell you something, a little trick for determining what's true and what's not.
I use this one a lot.
Now, like all of the techniques for determining what's true, they don't work all the time.
But what is that if the science, or let's say the data, I'll say science, but it could be statistics as well.
Let's say the science doesn't match your observation.
Then you should raise a red flag, right?
There should be some skepticism.
If you're just observing the world and what science or statistics tells you is true, it's just clearly not true.
Your observation doesn't match.
Doesn't mean your observation's right.
I mean, the reason we do science and statistics is because your observations are crap.
You think you see patterns?
You don't. You think you see a correlation?
You don't. So we're really bad at spotting any correlation.
But don't you think we'd be able to spot the existence or non-existence of a human?
Don't have to be a scientist.
Don't have to be a statistician.
There either is a person who fits into the category of really wants to vote but can't figure out how, Because of voter ID problems.
Where's that person? You would only need to show me one.
Just show me one, and I'd say, oh, I guess that person exists.
Maybe there's more of them. But you can't find one in four years?
Really, in four years, not one example of an actual human being who just couldn't work it out, really wants to vote...
Feels strongly about politics, but not strongly enough to figure out how to get an ID. No.
There are no people like that.
They don't exist.
We would have seen one of them by now, right?
So I'm going to call BS on the fact that voter ID changes anything, and I agree with the statistics because it matches observation, right?
My observation is that none of these people exist.
And certainly there's a great incentive for the news to produce these people, right?
If CNN could produce a panel of people who couldn't figure out how to vote, you don't think they would have done that by now?
Or even how about man on the street or less sexist person on the street interviews?
They would have done at least a person on the street interview to say, how much do you want to vote?
Why aren't you doing it?
Right? It's all missing.
Dog not barking.
Hear it? Do you hear that dog not barking?
That's all those people who couldn't figure out how to vote talking to you at the same time.
Complete silence.
Well, coincidentally, we also have a report.
I think The Federalist was part of this.
Molly Hemingway has a new book out whose title I forget, but somebody will tell me in the comments.
Let me just say this.
I have not read the book.
I can't remember its name, but somebody will tell me.
Rigged. The book's name is Rigged.
If you're not familiar with Molly Hemingway, you should become familiar with her.
In my opinion, maybe the best political observer and commentator.
I won't even call her a pundit because she's better than pundit.
Pundit is almost a sort of an insult.
But I would say in the top rung of dependable people who have a good take, can frame things right, analyze a complicated situation and know enough about it to say something new, very few people can do that.
She's one of them. So I don't know anything about the book, but if she wrote it and you read books, I think you ought to look into that.
I'll probably look into it myself.
I only heard about it today.
So that's your helpful tip for today.
You should be at least following Molly Hemingway on Twitter, one of your strongest, most reliable voices, I think.
Anyway, there's some information that Zuckerberg basically bought the 2020 election for Biden, and the way he did it was he and his wife putting over $400 million into non-profits and That were supposed to be, you know, nonpartisan, but basically funneled their money to likely, you know, to boost the turnout of likely Democrat voters.
Now, was any of that illegal?
Was any of it illegal?
I don't think so.
I think it was all legal, right?
Should it be? I'm not sure that our system anticipated anybody that rich.
Because you would have to be, like, crazy rich to have so much money that it changed the outcome of an election in that way.
So keep in mind that we have credible knowledge that Zuckerberg basically bought the election.
Because he funneled it into the places where it would matter the most, and those are the places that swung.
Just the way he hoped his spending would make a difference, I assume.
I mean, we can't read his mind, but one assumes that was the point.
And so now we know this.
That there was something fishy about at least the fairness of the election, if not the legality of it.
I don't have any reason to think it was illegal.
I'm just saying that it's a fishy process because of money.
Now listen to Trump's statement, which when I saw it on social media, I didn't believe it.
Like, I thought it was fake news.
I didn't think he really made this statement.
So keep in mind that my first impression was this.
Are you sure he said that?
Like, I had to actually see it from some other sources before I believed it.
But he actually said this yesterday, I guess.
If we don't solve the presidential election fraud of 2020, parenthetically, which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented, this is Trump, not me, Republicans will not be voting in 22 or 24.
It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do.
Um... What do you think of that?
Good move?
Good persuasion? Because it seems to me that Trump is taking Republicans out of contention.
It looks like he's telling them not to vote, which would guarantee another sweep by Democrats, which would make it even less likely that any election reform would happen.
Does this look like a mistake to you?
You know, of course people sent it to me immediately and said, all right, explain why this is brilliant persuasion.
Well, I suppose it depends what you're trying to accomplish.
So here's what it did accomplish.
It got attention.
Definitely got your attention.
It allowed him, because it got your attention, it allowed him to promote his view that the election was stolen and that he's got conclusive documented proof, which I'm not aware of.
Are you? I'm not aware of any conclusive documented proof of that.
But he gets to send that message on the signal that his provocative statement carries that signal.
So he wins that way.
So he gets attention and he promotes his message to mostly the base.
But what do you think about this part?
Republicans will not be voting in 2022 or 2024.
Now, interesting the way he worded it.
He didn't say, I'm going to try to make Republicans not vote.
Right? Because people took this as a threat, but read the words carefully.
He did not say, if you don't do this for me, which is fix 2020 somehow like you can fix the past, if you don't do this for me, I will somehow cause people not to vote.
Does he have that power?
I suppose he does by influence.
But if you're a Republican, would you listen to that advice?
Right? Are there any Republicans who would not vote because Trump wasn't happy with 2020?
Anybody? Is there anybody here who would be in any way influenced by Trump's opinion that maybe people won't vote?
He's not saying you shouldn't.
He's acting like it's a prediction.
That's not a threat. Prediction is not a threat.
Yeah, it's all...
Oh, I say yes.
Paul, Paul...
Paul Collider says yes.
I'm not sure you mean that exactly.
You're a provocateur, Paul.
So I say another yes.
Now, it wouldn't take many yeses to change the election, right?
Suppose Trump is right, but it's only 5%.
5% would change the result of every election, right?
So I'm not sure he's wrong, right?
There might be some impact, but it would be irrational.
The rational thing to do would be to make sure you vote, and at least nail that down, and then also work on election integrity.
Here's some advice for Trump if he wants to win.
If Trump wants to win, let go of 2020.
And make it about fixing election integrity for the next president, the one after him.
Make it about the president after you, and you can be our president again.
Right? I mean, I think many of you probably have the same feeling I do, which is, I'm not so sure we want somebody of this age, Trump's age, and somebody who's as provocative and could be as divisive as he could be.
I'm not sure you all want that.
If it turns out he's the best option, I could probably support it again.
But I don't know that he will be.
I don't know that the primaries will necessarily produce him as the candidate.
He certainly has the front position, and it's his to lose.
But he'd just have to say something a little extra provocative, maybe, and maybe it's over.
So... I'm not sure this is his best move.
His best move would be to say, you elect me, and I will make it a top priority to make sure that the next election you don't have any questions about.
Just elect me overwhelmingly, get the Republicans in there, and our top priority will be to fix the election system.
Do you know why that probably won't happen?
Because the Republicans don't want to fix it.
There are probably too many states...
Where the Republicans have some kind of weird advantage and they just want to keep it.
So as long as there are some states that like the broken system the way it is, I don't know if you can get anything done.
But I would certainly be more likely to support Trump or anybody who ran on this platform to say, we can't fix it.
It's too soon to fix it right away.
But it's got to be a national priority.
We will figure out how to make...
And here's the specific way to do it.
Don't just say make elections fair, because that's just too subjective.
Who knows what that means? Be very specific that by year 2028, we'll have a system in which we can instantly audit, and you will know if your vote was counted.
How about that? Just a very specific goal, to have an instant audit so everybody can find out if their vote got counted.
By 2028. I would elect that guy or that woman, whoever comes up with that view.
In fact, I'll even go further.
You want something really provocative that'll lose half of my audience right now?
If a Democrat runs on that platform, I'm going to support him.
Sorry. Top priority.
Top priority. If a Democrat runs on the platform of making our voting instantly auditable to get rid of all this uncertainty, I will support that Democrat, and I don't care what the other policies are.
Is that clear enough?
I don't care what the party is.
I don't care who the candidate is.
If they look like they could deliver that, fix the elections, I will wipe from my mind all the other policies.
Because I don't think they can necessarily push through, you know, socialism.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I think there will be enough pushback that, you know, there will be massive problems.
Even the infrastructure bill couldn't get passed.
So I'm not too worried about things getting out of control no matter who's president.
But if you give me this one thing, just give me the one thing.
Fix the elections, make them, and I'm good.
Because everything else depends on that, right?
If you can't be sure that you elected the person you elected, everything else falls apart.
Give me one thing, make it good, and you've got my support.
It's not going to happen.
Don't worry about it. Nobody's going to run on that.
I guarantee nobody's going to run on that platform.
All right. I ran through what I call my fake news filter.
I probably need to retweet that link every now and then.
So right now it's just a Google Sheets page with essentially a checklist of things to ask yourself to know whether your news is fake news.
I ran through it a few stories that we don't yet have the conclusive evidence for, whether it's true or not.
But the one I ran through was the story about the transgender sexual assault in Lewdown County.
Now, the part I'm not questioning is that a sexual assault occurred.
Everybody hear that? Everybody hear that clearly?
I'm not skeptical that a sexual assault occurred.
I don't know that it did.
It's just that's not the topic I'm questioning.
The topic I'm questioning is the nature of the assailant.
Was the assailant wearing a skirt or Or a dress, I guess.
Let's say a skirt.
Was the assailant wearing a skirt to, quote, gain access to the women's room as part of the raping plot?
Let's say sexual assault.
And I think it's fake news.
I think it's fake news.
And so today, now that a little time has gone by, I thought I'll Google and I'll ask people, do we have any confirmation that the assailant was wearing a skirt?
Do you know there isn't any, right?
Do you know there's no confirmation in anything that would be credible of the student who was the assailant, the alleged assailant, wearing a skirt?
Somebody says goalposts.
No. No, I have never questioned whether an assault took place.
Because I'm very much on the point of view that if a woman or a man reports an assault, that I wasn't there.
So I take that seriously, which doesn't mean it happened.
I'm just not doubting it.
Okay? So it's different to say that it's credible...
than it is to say that it's true.
So I would say that any initial report of a sexual assault is credible.
At first.
So I would treat it most seriously at first.
The part that I question, and let me say this as clearly as possible, I'm never going to question an initial claim of a sexual assault.
On this or anything else.
So that's not the topic.
The topic is, is it really about somebody who was wearing a skirt to get raping privileges?
Not privileges, but raping access.
So here's the closest thing we can find to that alleged assailant wearing a skirt.
It's a boy who was sometimes known to wear a skirt.
Not a trans. So here's the first part of the story.
Did you believe that it was about a trans person?
The reporting is not that it's a trans person.
The reporting is that it's a boy.
This is what the news says.
Now, do you think that the news is insulting the trans community by calling a trans person a boy in a girl's dress?
Do you think that the news, the woke news, is referring to it as a boy in a dress, knowing that if it's really a trans kid, that is not the way you're going to refer to it?
I said it. Let me apologize for that.
That's not how you're going to refer to the situation.
It being the situation, not the person.
We do not have confirmation...
That this student was wearing a skirt during the assault.
It is somebody who is known to wear a skirt.
How often do you think this person wore a skirt?
That was the veterinarian for my cat.
I'll have to get back on that.
All right. The assault is what matters, not the skirt.
Yes and no. So somebody's saying what matters is the assault, not the skirt.
Yes and no. What matters to the victim is the assault.
Certainly society cares about the assault more than anything.
But the skirt part is what made it a national story.
It's not a national story because somebody got assaulted.
That's unfortunately every day.
It's the skirt that made it a story.
I'm only doubting that part of the story because it was too on the nose.
So keep in mind, and let me see if this is true.
Give me another fact check on this.
Am I the only sort of national figure, somebody who's got some kind of a platform, am I the only person who's questioning the skirt part of the story?
I haven't seen anybody else do it.
Yeah, I might be the only person in the world who's questioning it.
Was it permitted to be in the bathroom?
No, no. Don't you think that the school would have already told you...
Let me ask you this.
If it had been an actual trans student who had actual access to the girls' bathroom, I feel like we would have heard that by now.
Don't you? And by the way, was there a lock on the girls' bathroom?
I feel like anybody could open the door and walk in.
I don't know if the skirt part was important.
All right. Enough about that.
So I'm still doubting that one.
I could be wrong. So I asked this question on Twitter.
Why is it... So we've got all this truck shortage in LA. So the ports are all backed up for weeks or whatever because there aren't enough trucks to unload the goods and then distribute them.
To which I ask, why is the cost of all the...
every other good that they're carrying, in other words, all the things they're shipping, the price will go up because of shortage.
Why is it...
You're blowing off the vet.
Oh, no, I'm not blowing off the vet.
I'll get back to the vet in a minute.
I thought you meant veteran, but it was the veterinarian you were talking about.
And so why is it that supply and demand doesn't work for truck drivers?
Supply and demand works for all the things on the truck, but not the driver.
So we have a shortage of drivers...
But the price we're willing to pay them is not going up fast enough to get more drivers?
And how long does it take to train a truck driver?
Yeah, I see you say training.
Seriously? How long does it take to train a truck driver?
I'm just asking. I would think two weeks.
I would think two weeks.
And we didn't see the problem developing...
In time to train some truck drivers.
Now, I've also heard that it's a combination of things.
I guess California had some restrictions about green stuff, et cetera, that made fewer people be able to have a truck.
You have to have a newer truck.
You've got to have a lot of insurance.
The pay is low.
I guess the pay for a truck driver hasn't increased in forever, but maybe it is a little bit now.
So I just have questions why we have such poor visibility on what the hell is going on.
Now, I get that it's a complex system, and it doesn't take much to bunch it up.
Maybe it's just a shortage of trucks?
But I feel like there's something else going on.
So the Biden administration somehow was instrumental in getting the port to open up for more hours so they could just work overnight as well as during the day, to which I said, what?
What? Are you telling me the docs were not already 24 hours?
What? What?
Did you know that the docs didn't already work around the clock?
They're lined up for weeks, and only today somebody said, you know, if we work more hours...
Really?
Really? We're just figuring that out?
Seems pretty massively incompetent.
I'm sure the unions were part of it.
I'm sure there were God knows what regulations.
But I feel like Trump could have fixed that faster.
Do you run into problems all the time where you say to yourself, I think Trump could have done that.
No matter what criticisms you want to level at Trump, and, oops, you cannot plan for this amount of volume.
All right, I'm looking at this.
So we have a logistics professional who says you can't plan for the increase in volume.
Well, what caused that increase?
The increase is not...
So I see the comment, but I understand the comment.
But you can...
I think you can, can't you?
What is it that caused the gigantic increase in imports?
We didn't see that coming?
Backlog from the pandemic.
So basically all it is is that the pandemic is over and there's suddenly more demand for stuff?
But to the logistics expert here, you know, I certainly hear what you're saying.
And I understand the basic point.
It's a complex system.
If you get a shock, it just takes a while for the system to adjust.
But only today they figured out to work more hours, right?
We're not talking about the hardest solutions in the world.
Get some more temporary trucks.
Do you think that the state and the federal government can't say temporarily, hey, we'd like you to have these very green trucks that are new, we'd like you to have a certain amount of insurance or whatever, but it's an emergency, so if you've got something with four wheels, bring it over here and we'll fill it up.
You don't think that we could have figured out some way to get some extra trucks going?
I feel like Trump would have made that happen.
Don't you? I know.
Somebody had some kind of regulatory complication there that was holding it up.
National Guard? I don't know about the National Guard, but I don't think they could ship enough to make a difference.
Well, there was a man in Norway who killed five people with a bow and arrow in a mass...
What would you call it?
Mass arrowing? Is it a mass shooting if he uses a bow and arrow?
I'm going to call it a mass arrowing.
And I have mixed feelings about this, and I'm not proud of it.
Number one, this is a horrible tragedy, and we, of course, have to think, first of all, of the victims.
Horrible, horrible tragedy.
You imagine this? I can't even imagine being part of this.
So on one hand, it's just a horrible tragedy, and our thoughts go with the victims.
On the other hand, I'm always impressed by good work, no matter where I see it.
And here's a guy who managed to actually kill five people.
How fast and how accurate do you have to be with a bow and arrow to get five people before the crowd can get to him?
And after the first person got hit with an arrow...
Weren't people saying, hey, hey, where'd that arrow come from?
It's over there.
Hey, he's loading up another arrow.
I can see why he would get a second person.
But how did the fifth person not figure out how to get out of arrow range?
And how quickly can you shoot five arrows?
I mean, it must have been like, you know, who is that superhero on The Avengers?
Yeah. Hawkeye, yeah.
It looks like Hawkeye, you know.
I mean, you can't even do it on TV without fast-forwarding it with CGI. Now, it could be that people were falling over dead and nobody could figure out where it was coming from for a while.
Somebody says, five arrows in 30 seconds.
Is that what a...
Oh, a high-capacity quiver.
Is that a thing? Is there a high-capacity quiver?
Wait, you're joking, right?
Oh, he killed old people.
Yeah, maybe the fact that it was silent and the old people were just probably crumbling.
Yeah, it probably took the full 30 seconds for people to figure out even what was going on, huh?
If you'd heard a shot, you would have immediately known what was happening and people would have dispersed.
That's a weird one.
Well, the funniest and best entertainment of the week is Joe Rogan had Sanjay Gupta on.
Have you seen the clips?
So Sanjay Gupta is the medical professional on CNN. And...
I'll tell you, based on the clips I saw, this is some good stuff.
So let me give you some highlights from this.
So as you know, famously, Joe Rogan got COVID and he took ivermectin, among other things, all prescribed by doctors.
And CNN and others decided to say that Joe Rogan was taking horse dewormer.
Now, I don't have to explain to you that the drug ivermectin was designed for people and it won a Nobel Prize and it works great for people, but there's also an animal version.
So, CNN saying that Joe Rogan was taking, you know, horse dewormer is fake news.
And there's no other way to say it.
It's just fake news. And so he challenges Sanjay Gupta...
During the interview, he says, this is a quote from Rogan, talking to Sanjay Gupta, he says, does it bother you that the network you worked for out and out lied, just outright lied, about me taking horse dewormer?
I think Sanjay was not quite ready to defend everything that other people had said on the network, because it's not something he said.
So there's no indication that Sanjay Gupta ever referred to it that way.
And he's more credible than most people there.
And then Joe said, why would they lie and say that's horse dewormer?
Rogan asked. And then I love this.
Rogan asked, he says, I can afford people medicine, motherfucker.
It's ridiculous. I can afford people medicine.
I don't know why that's so funny.
I can afford people medicine.
LAUGHTER Actually, I don't know why that's funny.
But it is. I guess that's why he's a professional.
He says, it's ridiculous.
It's just a lie. Don't you think that a lie like that is dangerous on a news network when you know that they know they're lying?
You know that they know they're lying.
This is what Rogan says.
And he says, do you think that's a problem, that your news network lies?
That's freaking brutal.
The best part about this is that there's no question on facts.
There's nothing that CNN can say that's like, well, you know, we were sort of right.
No, you weren't sort of right.
It was an intentional lie.
Every time they said it, it was an intentional lie.
It wasn't sort of right.
It wasn't a horse dewormer.
So... And then he goes on.
He says, this is Joe Rogan still.
He goes, my point is, you're working for a news organization.
If they're lying about a comedian taking horse medication, what are they telling us about Russia?
What are they telling us about Syria?
Do you understand that that's why people get concerned about the veracity of the news?
Oh my God!
That's about as perfect as an attack can be.
I always feel sorry when somebody who's in one profession, let's say the medical profession, Sanjay Gupta, comes up against somebody who's in...
Who's one of the most famous, capable people in the world, as saying short, clear, jabbingly, insightful things.
And that's sort of what made Joe Rogan Joe Rogan.
He can talk better than other people can talk.
You know, he just communicates in a nuclear-powered way that just ordinary people just don't do.
And so this was sort of like not a fair fight, so it was kind of funny.
But here's something that surprised me.
So given Joe Rogan's the size of his audience, I believe he said when he was talking to Sanjay that, you know, he was questioning the purpose of the vaccination if you can get and transmit the virus just as easily if you're vaccinated, which turns out not to be anywhere near true.
So it turns out that Joe Rogan was under the impression that the vaccination would not vastly reduce the odds of getting the virus and also the odds of transmitting it.
So that is a really, really big piece of information to not be aware of if you have a platform.
Now, this is a criticism.
This is a criticism of Joe, who I love, by the way.
Big fan. And I don't think that we should expect the non-medical people to be right on all the medical stuff.
That's not a thing. But here was Joe with a gigantic platform, and he was corrected on a really, really fundamentally important fact.
That the vaccination vastly reduces the odds of getting infected and also reduces by a large amount the odds of giving it to somebody else.
And of course reduces the odds of having a bad outcome.
It would be interesting to see if Rogan takes this new information and does what only somebody like him could do.
There are some people who just have powers that other people don't have and he hasn't.
An ordinary person would have to bury that and just act like it didn't happen, you know, because it would be embarrassing to be that wrong on something that important.
I mean, vital to the health and well-being of the country.
I mean, it's really, really super important.
So, will Joe Rogan take this new information that Sanjay Gupta gave him and incorporate that in his future conversations about the topic?
Now, people are asking if it's true.
It's true that the medical community feels it's confirmed.
I guess that's different than being true.
It's true that the experts are pretty sure of that based on the data.
They're very confident of that.
That doesn't seem to be one of the things that there's a lot of question about.
So, I would love...
Oh, and then Rogan asked a perfectly good question, which is, why do people with natural immunity have to get vaccinated?
That's a good question, right? Don't you wonder that, too?
What's wrong with my natural immunity?
So here's another thing that Sanjay Gupta knew that Joe Rogan didn't know, and I didn't know it either, that natural immunity doesn't work 30 to 40 percent of the time.
What? Did you know that?
Did you know that 30% to 40% of the time people who actually get the virus can actually just get it again?
How many of you knew that?
How many knew that you can get the virus and then just get it again?
Because you didn't get enough immunity the first time.
Now, in the same way that you can get the vaccination and also get the virus, but you're far more likely to get the virus a second time, according to Sanjay Gupta, Far more likely to get it a second time if you only have natural immunity.
Is that a good reason?
Now, let's take for a moment, if the information is correct, would it be a good reason?
Now, I can't confirm the data, but I'd say Sanjay Gupta is pretty close to the real data.
Let me say this.
As far as I know, nobody has ever accused Sanjay Gupta of lying about data, right?
Do you all agree on that? Sanjay Gupta, despite the fact he's on CNN, is a credible, credible person.
You might not like it, but he's credible.
And I don't think he has any background that would suggest he would do anything but report what he believed he knew based on the facts.
So that's actually a really good answer.
The really good answer is that natural immunity is great when it works, but you can't depend on it.
It's not nearly as good as being natural immunity plus a vaccination.
Now, I do think that that might be the sort of thing that gets revised later.
It might be the sort of thing where people say, oh, well, we're wrong about this.
We have to revise that. Maybe.
I think it's in the category of things that might be revised someday.
But it's a good answer.
All right, here's another one. Joe Rogan brought up the myocarditis in kids from getting the shot.
Now, you're all aware that, especially young boys, I think, are more likely to get myocarditis, which is some kind of enlargement of the heart.
It's treatable.
They're pretty much all released immediately.
You know, within, I think, a day or something.
So almost nobody dies.
So even the kids who get this, it doesn't seem to be a death sentence.
It's just something that is inconvenient for a day or so.
But did you know that the risk of getting that myocarditis is far higher if you get the virus?
There's a risk of getting it with the vaccination.
That's a known risk, Sanjay Gupta acknowledges.
But the risk of getting it, if you don't get the shot, is higher.
Because basically we're all going to get the virus eventually.
How many of you knew that?
John says it's a lie.
Somebody says no.
Bad assumption. So you're skeptical of the fact then, right?
Right? Said who?
So here's what I would challenge you with, and you can challenge me right back.
So search for this.
Do a Google search yourself.
See, and again, I'm only saying what the expert opinion would be.
I'm not telling you this is my opinion.
I'm not telling you it won't change.
I'm not telling you it's right.
I'm just telling you it's the expert opinion at the moment.
Is that the data says you're a much higher chance of the myocarditis if you're not vaccinated and you're a kid.
Now, those are three really, really important facts, wouldn't you say?
Now, again, I say facts, but maybe some of them will be revised at some point.
Maybe we'll learn more.
I think that Joe Rogan was short three really, really important facts.
Am I right? So the way this is being reported is that, you know, Rogan dunked on CNN more than Sanjay Gupta.
And that's true. He did dunk on CNN and he did it really well.
And it was fun to watch.
But I think the discussion with Sanjay Gupta was really, really good.
Because, you know, people watching Joe Rogan probably are leaning, you know, anti-vax.
Is that true? Check your facts, somebody says.
I'm asking you to check them.
I've got a good source, Sanjay Gupta.
So argue with him.
Don't argue with me. Because remember, I'm not saying it's true.
You don't need to argue with me.
I'm saying that a person who surveys what the experts say says the experts say it.
I can't confirm it.
So don't get mad at the messenger.
I feel like some of you are getting mad at me.
Are you getting mad at me? Because I'm not making any claims.
I'm just telling you what other people are claiming.
Don't get mad at me. I'm just telling you what the landscape is.
So I would like to say again that Joe Rogan's show is like a national treasure because at least it's one place where people are not trying to lie.
The one thing you could be sure about...
With Rogan is, he's not trying to lie.
He's definitely not trying to mislead anybody about anything.
You agree with that, right?
Like, you watch CNN and you're like, I think they're trying to lie.
It looks intentional, doesn't it?
But if Rogan is wrong about something, he's just us.
Because we're wrong about stuff, too.
But he's not lying to you.
At least you know that. Now, look how valuable this is.
I always see the glass half full.
Look how valuable this conversation was.
This is the first time that there was something like a polite, detailed conversation between somebody who's a little, I'll say, a little bit skeptical about the vaccines, or at least the mandate part of the vaccines, and somebody who had a little bit more information.
Doesn't mean it was right, but it was more information.
And this was really valuable.
I feel. I learned...
I feel like I learned a lot of those.
So I would like to say my highest compliments to both Joe Rogan and to Sanjay Gupta, Dr.
Gupta, for, in my opinion, the most useful information exchange in the entire pandemic.
Would you agree with that?
I think this was the most productive...
Most honest, most useful conversation on this topic that I've seen so far.
So compliments to both people.
They did great. Apple's looking into making their AirPods into a health device.
So I guess they can turn their AirPods into a hearing aid without too much work.
It could read body temperature, monitor your posture, and of course there are other things that you could do with your phone and other sensors.
So Apple's pretty serious about this health stuff.
Somebody's asking me, does Rogan have an egg on his face?
Let me go back to the importance of being free of embarrassment.
Now, I can't speak for him, because I can't get inside his head, but does it look like Joe Rogan is somebody who gets embarrassed easily?
I mean, everybody can be embarrassed.
But does he look like the guy who's going to crawl under a rock if he said something was wrong?
No. No.
So when you say stuff like, you know, does Joe Rogan have egg on his face, or is he embarrassed, or anything like that?
I'll bet no. No.
I'll bet no, because it's an unproductive emotion, and I would imagine he's beyond it.
I would imagine he's more like, what do you do about it?
What works? You know, think about tomorrow night, yesterday kind of thing.
That's just my guess.
I can't get inside his head, of course.
You know, what's interesting about this Apple thing is there's an app called Translate, That translates from English into any other language or into the major ones and vice versa.
And it works really fast.
It works really fast.
Let me show it to you. Well, I don't need to show it to you.
Just imagine it's fast.
Now, imagine also that you've got your app up and you've got your AirPods in.
How hard is it to have your phone just translate in real time?
Just hold it up to the speaker and have it just translate like a Star Trek universal translator.
It would be a delay. But with 5G, you know, if you put...
Let's say you put Amazon's, you know, cloud computing on it, or Google, and you give me 5G speed, so it's essentially instant, and I just hold it up to a native speaker of Spanish, I think it could translate...
I think you could translate in real time, couldn't it?
You could get really close. Real time, maybe a two or three second delay.
Something like that. Been doing that since 2017.
Yeah, it's been doable for several years, but not really well.
It hasn't reached that good level yet.
But it's almost there. 5G will be a big part of that.
But here's a provocative thought that I put out there.
In the beginning, all these little health apps are going to be useful.
You know, something will say, hey, you better take a drink of water because you're dehydrated.
Now, the first time your phone tells you to take a drink of water because you're dehydrated, you might say to yourself, eh, I'm busy.
Eh, I'll get to it.
But sometimes you might take the drink of water.
And then you say to yourself, oh wow, I do feel better.
That perked me up a little bit.
I guess this app was right.
I needed to get some water.
Eventually, the app will be so useful that it will feel like you can't say no.
There will very quickly become a point where your health apps train you to do what they tell you.
It's gonna tell you to take a walk.
It's gonna tell you to go to sleep.
It's gonna tell you what to eat.
It's gonna tell you to eat less of it.
It's gonna tell you to sit up.
It's gonna tell you to hydrate.
It's gonna tell you when to take your pills.
And at first, it's just gonna be convenient.
It's just gonna be convenient.
But eventually, it will just control you, because it will train you like a dog to do whatever it tells you.
Because if you follow the directions of the AI long enough, it will train you to do the next thing it tells you.
Because you get in the mode, it's like, oh, my AI told me to take a drink, take a drink.
It works every time. It's good for me.
I'm not doing it because the AI told me.
I'm doing it because it's good for me.
We are going to be trained like dogs to respond to AI. And we'll do it to ourselves.
Because we don't think it's that important.
You just think you're doing what makes sense.
Yeah, I'm dehydrated.
It told me I took a drink.
Eventually, you'll do anything it tells you.
Because it's been right so far.
All right. Texas versus the federal government and Joe Biden.
So Texas governor has banned any vaccine mandates in Texas, but of course the federal government says the opposite.
So Southwest and Americans are both going to follow the federal guideline, not the state guideline.
An interesting fight.
An interesting fight.
So... Not much to say about that, except we'll watch that develop.
And I feel like the market should be taking care of this.
Hopefully it'll go to the Supreme Court.
Yeah, maybe. Federal mandate has not been issued, just stated.
But I think the companies probably want to get ahead of it.
The companies would probably comply just on the statement before it's official, I would think.
Now, does anybody know what percentage of pilots are walking out or pretending they're sick or whatever?
I don't know what percentage it is, but it's not a big percentage, right?
Somebody says 40%?
I don't think so.
30%? I think the number that would actually walk out would be less than 10%.
And if it's 2%, that's not going to surprise me.
I don't feel like it's 30 or 40.
I think it's going to be under 10 and closer to...
All right, here's...
Sean says, here's the study Goop decided.
They say right in the study that the data is garbage and also that it doesn't show causation.
Let's see if I can open that up.
It doesn't show causation.
Causation of...
Which topic was that?
I can't open that right now.
But was the Gupta study about the reinfection or about the myocarditis?
Speed shooting is a regular part of archery.
Makes sense.
Pilots are turning down overtime work, It's not a sickness or time off.
Many are close to retirement and maybe just using their sick leave before retiring.
I've heard that. Yeah.
Gupta lied, somebody says.
Well, did he lie?
Or did he just refer to his studies and maybe the studies are wrong?
Yeah. Boo update.
I'll have that later. All right, that's all for now.
