Episode 1552 Scott Adams: Lots of Bombshells and Amazing Stories Today. Don't Miss it
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Recommended: Tucker Carlson's Patriot Purge
Follow the money, Abbott Labs, COVID rapid tests
Merck's antiviral pill authorized in UK
Durham Investigation, bombshell story
Hit piece on Dave Portnoy
Tax credit for journalists in Biden bill?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Incredible day coming up, and it's starting with a simultaneous sip.
Yeah, all of you smart and sexy people, the people who watch this livestream, you know who you are.
Well, you're sexier and smarter than usual today.
This one's going to be lit, because the news is very generous today.
The news has served up some delicious topics, and we're going to dive into them.
But first, to make this extra, extra special, turbo special, extreme special, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a steinac, a 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 of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. Mmm.
Did somebody just give me vitamin D and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies?
Because I feel like my antibodies are on fire.
Let's talk about the news.
There's a new mayor in New York City, Eric Adams, who is no relation to me.
I know that's the first question.
He's an Adams, I'm an Adams.
He identifies as black, I identify as black, but that's a coincidence.
There is no familiar connection that I know of.
There are some cousins I've never met, but I don't think he's one of them.
Anyway, Eric Adams, new mayor of New York City, just did a really awesome thing.
Talk about, you know, being new on the job and starting strong.
Here was his tweet. He says he's going to take his first three paychecks in Bitcoin because he wants to turn New York City into the cryptocurrency, you know, center of the world.
That's really good.
Now, forget about the idea of turning New York City into a cryptocurrency center.
I don't know if that's good or not.
But the fact that he promoted it this way is a really, really strong game.
So I didn't follow him too much.
So I suppose there's a reason he won.
It looks like he's good at this stuff.
So good job, Eric Adams, with your getting attention for your paychecks being in Bitcoin.
How many of you have watched Tucker Carlson's special called Patriot Purge?
Anybody? Anybody?
So I started watching it, and I've watched, I don't know, half of the first third of it.
It's in three parts. And I'm already blown away.
Because I thought I knew, you know, I've been following the story sort of, like everybody else.
But it's interesting how things change from the original story, and maybe you don't notice the change, because it might be part of something changed, and you don't realize how much it altered the original.
But I'll tell you, the first third is enough for me to recommend it.
No, the first half of the first third is already absolutely I recommend it for context.
You want to see some good context about what the media and everybody else is doing to you?
It's really good. Now, I don't know if it gets crazy later.
There may be something in it that I don't like at some point.
Maybe. I don't know. But at the moment, highly recommend it.
Do you remember me telling you that...
And I tweeted it often...
That the reason that the United States didn't have rapid tests was almost certainly because of corruption.
Does anybody remember me saying that?
That there had to be corruption because the government was not only not approving rapid tests, and they were certainly available to approve, they were not only not approving them, but they weren't explaining why.
Right? They weren't explaining why.
And now here's something we learned.
Matt Stoller did some reporting.
And the summary of it is that the FDA person in charge of recommending which rapid tests are used recommended only Abbott Labs, which is where he used to work.
That's right. The person who decides what companies get recommended for approval...
In the FDA, recommended only Abbott Labs at first, initially.
And then when other companies came in and said, hey, how about us?
There was bureaucratic slowness.
A slowness which would be hard to explain during a pandemic.
Until you learned that the person who may be central to the story had one stronger connection to one company, The one he had the strongest connection to, reportedly, now this is the story, he approached Abbott Labs and they weren't even in the business of making rapid tests.
And it looks like this individual said, hey, why don't you make some rapid tests?
I'm sure he told them that he was central to the approval process.
And so Abbott made some tests, and they had a monopoly on the market for months and months and months during a time when they could pretty much charge what they wanted because they didn't have competition.
Other companies also tried to get approved, but got slowed down.
Not because their technology was necessarily bad, but they needed to present more data, needed to fill out the forms better, a little bit of bureaucratic slowness.
So here's my bottom line on this.
Have I ever told you that the follow the money is not only predictive, but it'll also tell you what happened in the past?
Even when it's not the real reason.
That's a key point.
Follow the money will take you to the truth even when it looks like the money had nothing to do with it.
So I'll bet if you dug into the story and talked to the individual involved, I don't know this, but I'll bet you he'd have some kind of explanation like this.
I was only aware of one company that could ramp up this quickly, and the other companies were not as capable, and so they didn't get approved as quickly.
Could be the whole story.
It could be that his strong connection to Abbott Labs caused more of them to be produced than would have otherwise.
Totally possible. Totally possible.
So until you hear his side of the story, don't assume that anything unethical or illegal or sketchy happened.
But the other European countries seem to get this done.
Do you think that the United States is less capable than our European allies and friends?
I don't know. Doesn't seem like it.
Seems like on everything else we were comparable or better.
A lot of stuff. So, you always have to hear the other side of this, but follow the money took you to exactly what I told you it would take you to.
Am I right? I told you it was corruption.
Which means follow the money.
I mean, this is another way to say follow the money, right?
Corruption. If you followed the money, you would go directly to the person who approves them, and you would directly find he's connected to the one company that got approved, and because the other ones didn't get approved, we didn't have enough, and there was no competition to lower the price.
I predicted it would look exactly the way it looks, which is not to say any crimes were committed or even anything wrong was done.
Don't know. You have to wait until the other side of the story.
But this was very predictable, even if the money wasn't the reason.
Until you see how many times follow the money works, even when the person acting maybe was not influenced by that directly...
People still tend to talk themselves into the path where they make money.
But it might happen somewhat legitimately in the sense that perhaps he talked himself into it being exactly the right thing to do.
So we need to know more about this, but I would rank this as maybe my best prediction.
Would anybody... Would anybody disagree?
Name anybody else who a year ago was telling you it had to be corruption.
Name anybody else who said that in public.
Somebody who talks about this stuff.
I think I'm the only one.
I identified this a year in advance, and to me it was obvious from the start.
But again, we have to hear the other side before we make any allegations.
Here's some interesting news.
The University of Washington is working on contact lenses that would allow you to see things projected onto them so you can see directions and things in your contact lens that nobody else could see.
Now, it was always going to go that way, wasn't it?
Wasn't it? You knew that someday there would be stuff in your contact lens.
It feels like that's inevitable.
But our march toward full cyborg status is well underway.
I would say that's not going to happen anytime soon, but it's going to happen.
Contact lenses, their little computer screens.
The U.S. economy added over half a million jobs, and unemployment rate fell to 4.6%.
Let me tell you everything you need to know about economics.
You ready? Here's everything you need to know about economics.
Supply and demand...
Number two, if unemployment looks good, everything else is probably pretty good, too.
Now, there could be exceptions.
But generally speaking, if your employment rate is going in the right direction or it's already low, things are going to work out.
Now, we have an unusual situation with massive debt and pandemics and stuff, so there could be some black swan situation going on here.
But if you see the unemployment rate at 4.6, when there's inflation...
It's still like a little higher than you want it, right?
But we also have a little more inflation than we want.
So unemployment works to lower inflation because there'll be more people to offer themselves for the jobs.
So this is a really, really healthy number.
Good news. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, but that's a real good news.
Well, in other news, the pandemic is over.
Sort of. Almost.
Kind of. And it goes like this.
The UK is the first country to approve an antiviral pill.
So a pill that you would take once you suspected you had COVID symptoms.
And it would directly work against the virus.
And the UK says it could be a game changer.
So they think it's a big, big deal.
And this is developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.
Here's why I think this is a bigger deal than you do.
And you probably think it's a pretty big deal.
You know our big controversy about vaccination or no vaccination.
It's like all we want to talk about.
And you know that the pharma companies own the news.
You knew that, right? Big Pharma is the big advertiser for the news.
So the news is not going to run stories that are directly horrible to their biggest advertisers.
You know, human nature, follow the money, it's just not going to happen.
They'd have to do it if other people were reporting it.
But you're not going to see one of the major news companies break a story about a pharma company.
I don't think that's ever going to happen.
Not if they also advertise.
So... Here's what's important.
Until we get these approved, these tablets that you can take, until we get them, what does the pharma industry in this country have to sell?
Well, in this country, they can sell you some monoclonal antibodies, and they're making them as fast as we're using them, I think.
So there's that, but also vaccinations, of course.
So vaccinations are the primary money competitor to therapeutics, right?
Vaccines are the competition for For therapeutics.
They're not the same. I'm not recommending you do one or the other.
There's no recommendation here.
I'm just saying they're direct financial competitors, even though they do different things.
So, until now, we never had pharma versus pharma.
Am I right? We never had pharma versus pharma.
So now we've got big pharma, Merck, that'll have a competition to vaccinations.
What do you expect to happen next?
Follow the money. You had not much competition for vaccinations, and the news was owned, and the government was owned by the pharma.
What messages would you expect to come out of that situation?
Vaccines are safe.
Everybody should get one.
And you better get a booster, too.
Now, how predictable would that be if you knew that big pharma had infinite money, they controlled the news, and they controlled the government?
What would you expect to come out of that?
Exactly that. Now again, remember, the rule is not that if you follow the money you find a crime.
Often that's true, but that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying if you follow the money, even if people say they were ignoring the money, and even if it looks like they were, you still end up in the same place.
You end up in the same place.
So how will the message change now that it's pharma versus pharma?
Because it used to be pharma versus the government versus the news, and there was no competition.
Pharma could put out whatever message it wanted because the news would just parrot it, and the government was owned.
Obviously, I'm using hyperbole to make the story here, right?
Now, what happens when it becomes pharma versus pharma, therapeutics versus vaccines?
Prediction time.
Follow the money.
What's going to happen? Suddenly, you should expect bad news about vaccines.
See what I'm saying?
The moment, the moment, probably the same day, That this drug is approved in the United States, the media is going to turn on vaccinations.
Not totally. Not totally, because some of them still get their money from that source.
But there may be enough entities that get their money from Merck, You're going to start seeing some stories about side effects and long-term risk and all that stuff.
So, follow the money predicts that everything you've heard about vaccinations being good will start to morph into, well, maybe there's more risk than we thought here.
Watch it. Watch that happen.
The shift is coming, and you'll be able to watch it in real time.
So Biden said the reports of giving, maybe settling some legal disputes with immigrants who were separated at the border, he said it's garbage that they're going to get $450,000 per person.
I take Biden's description of this as correct, meaning that the part he was saying is garbage is the $450,000 part.
He wasn't saying...
And he clarified this.
He wasn't saying that no settlement will happen.
He's just saying that that number is crazy.
Who knows what the number will be?
And some have said that separations from the family are likened to torture, psychologically, and that people will be damaged.
But here's some context I need to ask.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Each of these people got separated in the context of a definite crime being committed.
It's an immigration crime, not a violent crime.
But am I right that all the separations happened in the context of people who definitely had committed a crime because they were here illegally?
Now, you could argue it shouldn't be a crime or whatever, but current laws, all of them were in criminal status, correct?
Correct. What do we do with American citizens when they commit crimes?
Do we send the whole family to jail to keep them together?
Do we absolve the person who's guilty and say, ah, we'd love to send you to jail, but there's no way we could stop separating you from your family.
So I guess we won't prosecute you, because we don't want to separate you from your family.
Has anybody even thought, to add the context, that we routinely separate children from parents?
It's called the legal system.
We do it all the time.
Do you know who Mr.
and Mrs. Rittenhouse don't get to spend much time with?
Their son, because he's currently incarcerated for what looks like not even a crime.
On the surface, it looks like not even a crime.
Yes, the most normal thing we do in this country is separate children from their parents.
Now, you could tell me that this is different, but I'm not sure you could convince me it's different enough.
That we should look at it so differently.
By the way, I'm not in favor of separating kids from their parents.
I'm just saying we should keep things in context.
Here's what I love about this story.
It feels like Democrats have stopped trying to win.
Scott, you don't follow the Rittenhouse case.
Yeah, I do. It's just that there's nothing there.
The Rittenhouse case is this.
Show us the evidence that it wasn't self-defense.
Here's nothing. Okay, well, do you have anything else to make your case that it wasn't just pure self-defense the way it looks exactly like on the video?
Well, I got this.
Okay, that's nothing. That's pretty much the whole story.
If anybody finds anything that would suggest Rittenhouse should be going to jail, let me know.
Because I don't think they found it yet.
We'll see. Anyway, what I love about this story is the Democrats aren't even trying anymore.
Imagine any level of settlement.
So let's say it's not $450,000.
Let's say they talk it all the way down to $5,000.
Possible, right? Let's say they talk it all the way down from $450,000 per person to $5,000 per person.
And then they settle for that.
Democrats still lose the election, right?
Still lose in 2022.
Because there's no way you can sell this at any dollar amount.
Because it's the principle.
It's the principle of the thing.
It's not the $450,000 that got our attention.
But it doesn't matter what the dollar amount is.
You don't pay your criminals.
Stop paying criminals!
Do you know what happens when you pay people?
For being criminals, you get more of it.
So once again, the Democrats prove that they do not understand human motivation whatsoever.
But I love this story because they're just...
Basically, it's like it's Alec Baldwin except government.
Basically, the Democrats have gone full Alec Baldwin.
It's like, I don't need to check this gun.
It's already been checked by that woman with blue hair who's never handled the gun before.
So I'm fine. All right, here's the strangest thing happened.
There is a gigantic blockbuster story, probably one of the biggest stories of the year.
And it's not on CNN, at least not on their website.
And it's not on Fox News, at least not on their website.
Now, unless that's changed in the last few minutes, one of the biggest stories, by far, by far, one of the biggest stories we've seen all year...
It's not being covered by the two major medias.
Yeah, the Durham indictments.
But Glenn Greenwald is on it, and Chuck Ross, and Joel Pollack is on it.
So you see a lot of very credible people on it, but not CNN and not Fox News yet.
What's going on there? Now, remember my fake news filter?
If one of the two, either Fox News or CNN, says it didn't happen, it didn't happen.
That, you know, of course is not 100% accurate.
But that's a good rule to follow.
If one of them says it didn't happen, it didn't happen.
But neither Fox News nor CNN are reporting it didn't happen.
They're just not talking about it.
What's going on?
Joel says Fox covered it, and I assume you mean on the air.
But look at the website. Find it on the website.
That's all I'm saying. Find it on the website.
I'm pretty sure the website gets more traffic than on the air.
Am I wrong? And was it the opinion people who covered it or the news people?
Can somebody answer me that?
Was it only an opinion person who covered it?
Because I think I saw Jesse Waters cover it last night.
He was filling in for Tucker Carlson.
Tucker had it, but really that's an opinion show.
Dana Prenew just had Jonathan Turley.
Oh, he'd be a great guest.
Anyway, so you probably know the story by now, which is if the indictment is telling us what we think it's telling us, there is a well-known, at least within political circles, there's a Democrat who is not only well-placed in the Democratic Party, you know, somebody who's an activist, but also had extreme connections to Putin and Russia.
And he's the source of the Steele dossier, at least, I don't know, some important parts of it.
So there's an American Democrat who allegedly lied to a Russian-American who was born in Russian, and then the Steele talked to the Russian, and then I think the Russian lied about where he got his information, and then the next thing you know, there's a Steele dossier, The Steele dossier is the biggest news.
You've got the whole Russia collusion.
But here's the punchline.
There was Russian collusion, apparently, and it was on the Clinton side.
It looks like if the Durham report is, you know, if the indictments turn out to be factually grounded, it looks a lot like an actual coup.
Like an actual literal coup.
And it looks like Hillary is behind it.
Now, there's no smoking gun in Hillary's hand, but it's hard to imagine she didn't know about it, if you know what I mean.
So certainly there are Democrats who tried to overthrow the government with the fake news.
That actually happened.
In our lifetime, at least one Democrat, probably more, literally tried to overthrow the government with fake news, and it almost worked.
We almost got Trump impeached on fake charges in which the Democrats were actually guilty.
Now, do you remember what I told you about narcissism and Democrats?
And I told you that I'm not sure that Democrats are actually politically oriented.
They're just narcissists.
And part of the checklist to know whether you're a narcissist is a thing called projection.
Which is you blame the other side for the exact crime you're doing.
Now, some of you have heard me saying, that's not a thing.
And I said it a lot.
I said, there's no such thing as projection.
You know, that's not happened.
Boy, is that a thing.
Let me tell you, I've never been more wrong about something.
Until you see it, you can't believe it.
Because it's so... Well, it's just hard to believe when you see it, that somebody would actually be murdering somebody and accusing you of murder while they're murdering.
You think, well, that can't.
That can't actually be happening, can it?
Oh, yes, it does.
And I can confirm with 100% certainty it's a thing.
I don't think it's a thing as often as people use it.
So I'll give myself a little wiggle room.
The way it's used on Twitter is just an insult and it's not a diagnosis.
So I'd say 90% of it is probably just people arguing on Twitter, but there's a real thing.
And the Democrats consistently seem to be racist...
And accuse Republicans of being racist.
They consistently...
You know, they do whatever is the worst thing you can do.
In this case, try to overthrow the government by colluding with Russia.
Literally. Allegedly.
And then blaming Trump for it.
It's really mind-boggling, isn't it?
It's mind-boggling. Exactly what Q said all along.
Somebody says, okay...
But read Joel Pollack's write-up in Breitbart, because that'll give you some good background.
Well, since we're talking about fake news, this is one of the biggest stories for the last several years, you know, the Russia collusion hoax, and now we know it's just a complete hoax.
So that's what we know about the news.
So the major media...
We know this for sure.
The major media just for years covered a story exactly the opposite of the truth.
Exactly the opposite of the truth.
Now that's your context that the news can be complete BS. Here's some more context.
I talk about this often.
The Gelman amnesia effect.
Which is that if you're an expert in a specific field and you see a news story about that, you know all the problems with it.
Oh, the journalist's got everything wrong.
I'm an expert, I know. But everybody else reading it doesn't know.
They think, well, I've probably got that right.
But as soon as you read something that you're not an expert on, you start believing it.
Oh, well, that's probably right.
But the experts don't think so.
Now, this also works with celebrities.
Let me tell you, I know this firsthand.
Reporting on celebrities, and how many times have you seen this about me?
How many times have you seen a news report, usually I tweet them, in which somebody's described me incorrectly, or my opinion incorrectly?
You've all seen it, right?
I'm pretty sure every one of you has seen a fake news article about me.
And how many times have I been falsely accused, in my personal life, of heinous crimes?
Right? Pretty often.
Pretty often.
It's a celebrity problem.
You get accused of usually sex crimes.
I've talked about some of them.
The worst offender is somebody I've never met.
Somebody with mental health issues who lives in Canada.
And is pretty sure I'm flying up to Canada and ransacking her computer and sexually molesting her on a regular basis.
And she calls the people I work with to tell them in great detail about all the crimes I did in Canada while I was not in Canada.
Now, if you're a normie and you're not famous, you say to yourself, that sounds like maybe there's something wrong with you, Scott.
You seem to get a suspiciously large number of false accusations.
With all of that smoke, there's got to be a little fire there.
Nope. Nope.
If I could teach you one thing, it says celebrity news typically is just wrong and just completely wrong.
There's no fire there.
There's just smoke. This brings me to the Dave Portnoy hit piece.
Now, if you know Dave Portnoy, I guess he's the founder of Barstool, right?
It's a big site.
He's made a lot of money. He's rich.
He's famous. He appears on Tucker Carlson's show, does lots of stuff that gets him some attention.
But Business Insider spent eight months trying to find some dirt on him, and the only thing they could find...
Was sketchy stuff about his sex life.
Now, I don't think...
Somebody says, Scott, you are not a celebrity.
Seriously. Okay.
So the best they could find is some women who had these vague accusations about, I don't know, rough, consensual sex.
What? What?
That's it? They had consensual sex that may have involved some consensual choking or something.
Which, by the way, if you don't know this, is the number one requested thing by women.
You women won't know this is necessarily true, or maybe you do.
But in the comments, can the men here confirm, at least the single men, single men...
Who have been single recently.
So I don't know what it was like 20 years ago.
But if you've been single recently, can you confirm for me that one of the most frequently requested things by women is to be rough with me?
Including choking specifically, actually.
Alright, I'm seeing lots of yeses, yeses, confirmed, confirmed.
So it doesn't matter how many people say no.
It doesn't matter if you've never seen it.
Look at all the yeses. So basically, Dave Portnoy is a victim of a hit piece in which the entire point of it is his sex life is a lot like normal.
That's it. That was the hit piece.
His sex life looks pretty normal.
But some women report some bad reactions to it when they were pressed.
Here's the thing. Let me give you my life experience percentages.
If a person is non-famous, non-famous, this is the key word, non-famous, and you hear a credible person say that they committed, let's say, a sex crime, what do you think are the odds it will be true?
Forget about it. You don't know anything about it.
You only know it's a non-famous person, and you know that a credible person made an accusation.
How often, in your experience, will the credible accusation actually be true?
What percentage? Give me a percentage.
Zero to 100%.
John says 10%.
10%?
I see more. Give me some more.
Remember, I'm talking about non-famous people.
60%, 50-50, seeing 20s.
I'll give you my personal estimate.
More like 50 to 75.
Because it takes a lot to make an accusation like that.
The accuser has to take some big risk to make an accusation.
So I don't think it's 10%.
I think it's probably 50% to 75%.
And that still leaves a lot, a lot of false accusations.
But I would say if you were first presented with the accusation, don't assume it's true, but you could put some statistics on it.
Say, yeah, this person's taking a pretty big risk for an unknown person.
You know, there doesn't seem to be anything in it for him.
50 to 75. All right, now turn it around.
There's a sex accusation against a famous person, especially one in politics.
And, you know, Dave, arguably Dave Pornoy is involved in political speech.
What are the odds that a famous person's sex accusations turn out to be true?
What do you think? Do you think it's still 50%, 50%, 75%?
In my experience, it's closer to zero.
Yeah, it's closer to zero.
Might be 5%, 10%, you could give it that.
But if the only thing you knew is what's in the news about Dave Portnoy, you should play the odds.
Play the odds.
It's closer to a 90% chance that the odds are BS. If he were not famous, I would reverse it.
If you were not famous, I would reverse it.
Now, again, this is not based on science.
This is based on life experience as someone who gets accused pretty much every year of a horrible crime.
I don't think I've gone a full year without being accused of something that would put me in jail for 20 years.
I mean, it's just a...
And ask other celebrities.
Male celebrities. Ask other male celebrities how many times they've been falsely accused of sex crimes.
It'd be almost every one, I think.
I think it would be almost every one.
All right. There's also a Tim Poole story today.
Tim Poole. And this is fake news mixed in with the real news.
I'll sort it out for you.
So Tim Poole, as most of you know, independent journalist, very successful, very prominent on the Internet, etc.
And We're good to go.
Then he talked to Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan hooked him up with a doctor, even offered to pay.
He hooked him up with a doctor who gave him the full cocktail of therapeutics.
So he got monoclonal antibodies, he got ivermectin, just in case, some vitamin D drip, and some other stuff.
Right? Oh, somebody says he's vaccinated.
Oh, so that's the new information.
Is that new? Because the initial reporting...
Oh, interesting.
I just got fact-checked in real time.
It was 10 to 12 days of a chest gold.
Interesting. Tim found the doctor by himself.
All right, this is perfect. What was my last story?
My last story is that the news, when it talks about famous people...
It's usually wrong. It's not just about sex stories, but stories about famous people are usually wrong.
And look at this one.
I mean, this one was fresh, and you can already see that the vaccination status was wrong, and how he found the doctor was wrong, apparently.
Reportedly. I don't know yet.
Somebody says he tweeted that he wouldn't take it, but somebody's saying that it's confirmed he took it?
I guess we don't know.
Either way, whether he took it or not, it doesn't change my take on this.
Which was, number one, reportedly, when he first went to an urgent care center, they wouldn't give him anything.
So apparently, if you just go and say, I've got COVID symptoms, they don't give you shit.
Nothing. I don't know how bad it has to be before you can get some therapeutics, but apparently he had to go and, like, hunt it down himself.
Is our healthcare system this bad that we don't give people the full cocktail the minute they say that they have symptoms?
Apparently so. Apparently it's that bad.
But here's the fake news part of it.
Tim Poole was framed as a vaccination denier, which he isn't, my understanding.
Can I get a confirmation on that?
Give me a fact check. Give me a fact check.
That's accurate, right?
He's not a vaccination denier.
Whether or not he's vaccinated is a separate question.
Because I believe his take is you should talk to your doctor.
And if he talked to his doctor, whichever way he went, then he did exactly what he says you should do.
Talk to your doctor. And that's everybody's advice.
That's mainstream medical advice.
Talk to your doctor. So somehow Tim Pool has been framed because it makes a better narrative.
Anti-vaxxer gets a bad case and wishes he was vaccinated.
They add that as if he's thinking that.
So the Tim Pool piece is mostly some combination of bad framing or fake news, depending on your point of view.
And of course they're going to go after him for being pro-ivormectin, which also didn't happen.
Can you confirm this?
He's being painted as someone who is pro-ivermectin, and in fact took it.
But correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't say you should take ivermectin, did he?
I think he said do what your doctor tells you, and apparently his doctor was okay with the ivermectin.
So... We may hear the story is different by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be a surprise. Anyway, my only point about that is that celebrity news is almost always wrong.
Yesterday I posted a picture of myself instead of shirtless, which you're used to on the internet, with a really good shirt I was wearing, and I was saying this.
Why is it that I have this one shirt that is great material, feels good, never wrinkles, looks great, feels great, Never wrinkles.
So I've got one shirt that's like that.
And so, yes, I know, my footwear game is weak.
We'll talk about that. And so I asked the Internet, why is it that only 2% of shirts can do what this shirt can do?
We've been making shirts in civilization for a long, long time.
Are you telling me that this one shirt company, the only one, the only one, figured out how to make a shirt that doesn't wrinkle and feels good and looks good?
Only one? Are you freaking kidding?
What is going on? So...
Everybody asks me, who makes that shirt?
So I'll tell you. It's a Tasso Elba Supima cotton polyester blend.
So it's cotton and polyester, some kind of special cotton called Supima.
And the brand is Tasso Elba.
T-A-S-S-O-E-L-B-A. Now, caution, caution.
I don't know that they have any other shirts that are that good.
So hear me carefully.
The other problem is, even when a company can make a great shirt, they will stop making the great shirt and make bad ones.
So, as I was tweeting on this, you might not be surprised that the company, untuck it, immediately contacted me.
Have you all seen the commercials for Untuck It?
They're dress shirts, but they're designed so they don't hang down too long, and you can just wear them untucked.
Now, I own quite a number of Untuck It products, and the reason I own quite a number of them is that the first Untuck It shirt I bought was awesome.
It was awesome. It didn't wrinkle, looked great, felt great.
It was great. It wasn't as soft as this Tosso Elba thing is, but it was a solid shirt.
And so I did what anybody would do if they get such a good experience.
I bought a bunch more.
Here's the thing. The other shirts that I bought were made of different material in a different way.
They had this one perfect shirt, and I would have bought 100 of them over my lifetime if they could just make that one shirt, just make it a different color maybe.
Add a little, you know, maybe a tweak or a feature, but just keep making that shirt.
But the way companies work is they have to have lots of product because it gives them bigger exposure, makes them seem more serious, etc.
So you have to add to your shelf space to take away other people's shelf space, in part.
I tried all the other shirts, and maybe one of them was pretty good, and the others were just different material, different shirts.
They all have the same fit, so that part's good.
But I don't understand why people can't make a shirt every single time.
Do you know how often a shirt-making company should be able to make a great shirt?
Every time! Did nobody put that shirt on before they took it to mass production?
Just put it on.
See how it fits. It can't be that much of a mystery.
Likewise, I tried forever to find a good T-shirt.
And I think this one is...
Clean, fresh teas or whatever it is they advertise on the internet.
So there was a company that said, hey, every t-shirt in the world is terrible.
Why don't we make one that isn't?
How hard can it be?
It turns out it wasn't hard.
It was pretty easy to make a t-shirt that wasn't terrible.
And so they made them and apparently they're doing well.
So Untucket's pretty good.
But I would say I still don't understand whether they'll just make all their shirts like the best one.
All right, that was a detour you didn't care about.
I saw a tweet from somebody named Comrade Brigid, a woman, who said, more and more left women, so women on the left, are standing up for themselves and refusing to date men who watch porn.
So apparently this is sort of a movement.
Women on the left are refusing to date men who watch porn.
What would be the possible...
Unintended side effects.
If this became a thing, a bigger thing.
Unintended side effects.
Well, civilization would be fathered entirely from that point on by men who have low sex drive and or are huge liars.
So we would be breeding, selectively, men with low sex drive, probably low testosterone, and or...
Possibly gigantic liars who say that they don't do that.
I've told this story before.
There was a woman I knew in my 20s, and she had a technique for filtering new dates to find out if they were good or bad people.
On the first date, before they even got to know each other, she would just look at them and say, Do you masturbate?
On the first date. She would just throw that in the conversation, totally out of nowhere.
Just throw it in. And what did most men say?
Well, to their credit, most men said, well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But she told me there was one guy who said he didn't masturbate because he doesn't need to.
He doesn't masturbate because he doesn't need to.
What do you think she did with that guy?
She said, well, I found my first liar.
That was his last date.
Such an obvious lie.
But the woman who tweeted this, whose name is Brigid, she describes herself as a radical feminist.
A Marxist and revolutionary...
No, not radical. She describes herself as a Marxist and revolutionary feminist.
I've got another possible explanation of what's going on here, big picture sort of thing.
Before there was porn, there were men and women of various, let's say, sexable characteristics.
Some very sexy and you'd like to get with them.
Some very not sexy and you didn't want to get with them very much.
But it's all you had.
People, right?
Just people or your imagination.
And people are better than your imagination.
Even if your imagination is pretty good, mine's pretty good, people are still better.
So if you had a choice, you'd take a person.
Even maybe not somebody who's a perfect, you know, sexual monster.
Maybe you'd lower your sights a little bit.
Then comes porn, which is not only made better every year, but more targeted to your exact, exact kink.
And if you can target somebody's exact kink, it's got like a 10x power to it compared to generic stuff that's made for everybody.
And once you get to that level of porn power, the women on the one side of the distribution curb, the ones who are, let's say, not killing it with the looks and the sex appeal, they have gone below the level which makes them worthwhile.
For dating. Because you might prefer a really hot woman over porn, if you're a man, but you no longer prefer a not-hot woman over porn.
Men, back me up on this.
No matter what you think of porn, it's still better than some people, right?
It's not better than somebody you really connect with, but it's better than a lot of people.
And porn's getting better while people are getting worse.
I would argue that being a Marxist revolutionary feminist is maybe one problem that makes porn look more attractive to men.
Just putting that out there.
All right, this was actually a Tim Pool tweet I saw, coincidentally.
Black Lives Matter is now more unpopular than popular, so it crossed over.
So remember way back in the Charlottesville rally and then Black Lives Matter became a big thing and then there were a bunch of high-profile police actions in which black people were killed and then Black Lives Matter was more and more popular.
Well, just about the time they didn't need them anymore, whoever they is, their popularity sank because the media is no longer propping them up.
So the media has sort of withdrawn their support, if you will.
And then they've been less active.
Do you believe that Black Lives Matter was ever an organic movement?
Was it organic, or was there some force that was funding them and moving them?
Because it's kind of weird that the thing they were trying to fix didn't get fixed, and yet their movement went away.
Do you remember Occupy Wall Street?
Occupy Wall Street. Big old thing, you know, big thing.
And then it went away.
Why did Occupy Wall Street go away?
Is it because income inequality got fixed?
No, nothing happened. They just went away.
Why did Antifa and BML, who were so big under Trump, why did they just sort of fade away a little bit?
Well, I think they don't need them anymore.
I think that whoever is creating the fake news on the left just doesn't need them anymore.
By the way, if you've never met somebody who creates fake news for a living, you really need to...
It'll change everything about how you see the world.
There's a large volume of the fake news that I think goes through the same people.
So I think a lot of what you see on the left and the right probably gets filtered through a fairly small number of people before you see it.
All right. The Build Back Better bill is so complicated that apparently somebody only just found out there's tax breaks for the news business in there.
No reason. There's just good tax breaks in the proposed bill for the press and media companies.
Do you know why they deserve tax breaks?
I don't know. No reason given.
The obvious reason is that the Democrats work with this industry and they're just scratching each other's backs.
Here's my take on that.
Wherever things are complicated, that's where fraud is hiding.
So anything complicated is riddled with fraud.
So the financial advice business is real complicated.
Oh, you could get this financial vehicle or this one.
Riddled with fraud.
Because it's complicated and people can't understand it on their own.
Everything that's complicated...
is riddled with fraud, because that's where it can hide.
Fraud can't hide in simple situations, because it would just be obvious.
Oh, that's obvious fraud.
But wherever there's complexity, There's always fraud.
It's just guaranteed.
So we have Congress writing these hugely complicated bills with all kinds of topics and legalese and everything.
And we're expected to support them or not or tell our Congress people to support them or not.
And even Congress doesn't read it.
It's too complicated. Here's what I would do if I were president.
I would reject every bill that wasn't written in a way the public could understand it.
Pretty popular, right?
Talking about a populist opinion, I will reject every bill, no matter what the topic, if the public can't understand it.
Now, the public might not need to know every detail of it, but at least there should be a summary with a little bit of a pro and con.
It says, oh, this would do this, and here's why.
Let's take the media tax breaks.
This would give tax breaks to these certain media companies.
Here's the argument for why, and then here's the argument against.
Yeah, you'd vote for me. Of course, if I ran for office, I would be destroyed by the media, so it's a bad bet.
But, yeah, I'd be an excellent president in some ways.
Probably bad in a lot of other ways.
So, yeah, if you can't understand the bill, you have to oppose it.
The San Francisco Chronicle...
I had an opinion piece. Keep in mind, this is San Francisco, right?
So consider the source.
And it's an opinion piece.
It says, our current requirements and punitive actions Talking about the pandemic mandates and stuff, suggests that many of California's health officials may be going off gut feel, or worse, ideology, rather than a calculable risk methodology.
So the San Francisco Chronicle, in the heart of San Francisco, is saying, I think maybe our pandemic requirements are not based on science.
That's a shift.
It's a zeitgeist shift.
All right. There's more Fauci versus Rand Paul.
I saw a video. That's new, right?
Is that video I saw, is Rand Paul grilling Fauci again or yesterday or something?
I think so, right?
It's new? Okay, it's new.
And in it, we see exactly what I told you was the case.
Who else told you this before I did?
Did I tell you that the argument between Fauci and Rand Paul was really a definitional one?
Did I not tell you that Fauci was just using a different definition of gain-of-function than Rand Paul was and that that's what it was?
Well, Rand Paul basically just took that approach and just said, it looks like you just changed the definition so that you wouldn't look so bad.
And I think that's exactly what happened.
I mean, I don't know. But it does look like they changed the definition of gain-of-function on the website to hide the fact that it had been a larger definition, and then they narrowed it.
Now, I'm not the one who's going to say that Fauci did anything wrong in terms of funding gain-of-function.
I don't feel like I could make that call with what I know.
Because it comes down to this.
It comes down to this. Was the type of gain-of-function more potential benefit than risk or more risk than benefit?
In other words, if trying to defend against a future gain-of-function attack, if you could do a better defense by studying it yourself, how much value would that have?
Hard to calculate, right?
You couldn't really calculate that.
But likewise, what are the risks that in studying it you create the very problem you are trying to avoid?
Again, I don't think you can calculate it.
Which of those risks is bigger?
Do you know? I'll bet you know which one scares you, and I'll bet that's what you would make your decision on.
Because we don't have the data, so you're going to end up making the decision based on what scares you the most.
So what are you most afraid of?
An intentional biological attack, or...
Accidentally creating a biological attack in trying to defend it.
Which one of those scares you the most?
I don't know. They both sound pretty bad to me.
So, if Fauci, with his body of knowledge about this stuff, concluded that the world was safer studying it than not studying it, I'm not going to tell you he was wrong.
He might have been. And I'm not going to tell you that Rand Paul is wrong, that under no circumstances should you get near this stuff.
I don't know that that's the right decision.
I feel like that's a fear opinion.
In other words, if you're more afraid of the accidental release than you are of a foe intentionally releasing it, then you would go one way.
And if your fear of the other thing was greater, you'd go the other way.
But you don't have data. You don't have any way to compare those risks.
There's nothing to compare.
You'd just be guessing which one is worse.
So I'm not going to defend Fauci.
I'm just going to say that there's a difference of opinion on the risk.
That's all we know. That's all we know.
Difference of opinion. All right.
I'm a big fan of Rand Paul, so I do love that he's pushing this.
Because no matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know.
No matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know.
So this is good work by Rand Paul.
And again, like I've said a million times, there are only like four productive members of Congress.
It's all the same people all the time.
And Rand is one of them.
All right. Martin Kulldorff did a little analysis comparing the Israeli versus the CDC studies to see if the normal immunity is better than vaccination.
I got to run, but the bottom line is this.
Israel says normal immunity is stronger than vaccination.
CDC says vaccination is stronger than immunity.
CDC did their math wrong.
CDC did the math wrong.
I don't even need to add to anything, do I? The CDC did the math wrong.
Now, when I say that, I mean the statistical approach they used was apparently suboptimal.
