Episode 1574 Scott Adams: Today's Live Stream Will Be Exceptional
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Rob Reiner deceived by his news sources
WaPo says killer SUV drove down main street?
Do you trust the government or big pharma?
Climate science models oops
Rick Wilson's Lincoln Project purpose
Is CNN connected to Abbott Labs?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you.
Yeah, I know that's a big claim, but I'm going to back it up.
By the end of this live stream, you're going to say to yourself, wow, that might have been the best thing that's ever happened to me.
And you've had sex.
So that's how good it is.
Now, if you'd like to make it extra, extra good, what would you do?
That's right. That's right.
You all got it right. You'd have the simultaneous sip.
And all you'd do is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine here of the day.
The thing that makes everything better except shopping.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now. Go. Mmm.
Yeah. Yeah, that's good.
Well, Happy Black Friday, as the racists call it.
I call it All Day Friday.
Or All People Friday.
Yeah. It's All People Friday.
Because it turns out that you're allowed to...
What was that?
Something bad just happened.
Anyway, it turns out that you're allowed to shop today, even if you're not black.
So it's called Black Friday, but it turns out everybody can shop, which I feel is very open-minded.
So happy All People Friday.
I don't know if I told you...
My play with Rob Reiner's tweet.
And it's a play that I use a lot.
Now, you know how the left and the right are in their own news bubbles and social media bubbles, and they don't see much from the other side?
So if you're trying to persuade the other side, how do you do it?
Something very loud happening outside my house.
Doesn't sound good. I don't know what it is, but there's heavy equipment right outside my house.
I hope nobody called the wrecking crew.
That is a terrible prank, by the way.
Never hire a wrecking crew for your neighbor's house.
Somebody actually did that prank once.
Anyway, my play with Rob Reiner's tweet in which he said he had a bunch of stuff wrong about the Rittenhouse case.
He said in November 23rd, now remember, by November 23rd, The entire country should know the actual story of Rittenhouse.
But listen to how bad his version was, and I'll add something to what I've said before about this.
An underage kid illegally took an assault rifle across state lines.
Nope. Nope.
Didn't take it across state lines, and it wasn't illegal.
And that's why there were no charges.
Now, there were charges that were dropped, But by the time they went to a verdict, there were no charges about any gun-related thing.
Now, how could you not know that?
Well, you'd have to be in a pretty deep bubble, right?
Now, I saw some people saying, oh, they know it.
They know the gun wasn't illegal.
They're just saying that. No.
No, they really don't know.
The level of ignorance...
That, let me be fair, it's on both sides, left and right.
The level of ignorance that both sides have about each other's news is really shocking.
And if you don't think that's the whole story here, you think that they're just lying and of course they know the real story, I don't think so.
I would place a very large bet that when Rob Reiner wrote this tweet, he did not know the actual story.
Because their news doesn't report it.
Well, it does report it, but it reports it inaccurately.
So let me tell you my play here.
My play is not to embarrass Rob Reiner, because I don't care about him individually.
And my play is not to convince a whole bunch of people on the right, because they already got the correct news.
So how do I reach the people on the left?
Well, here's my hypothesis, and I think it's fairly accurate.
Which is that blue check Twitter people kind of pay attention to the other blue checks.
Am I right? Now, if you don't have a blue check next to your name, you may not have experienced this.
But I can tell you that I regularly...
I try to look at most of my comments.
But on top of that, I also try to look at...
There's somebody at my door, and I'm going to have to figure out what's going on here, because something big is happening right outside my door right now.
Sorry. I better check on this, see if it's anything important.
All right, I'll show you what it is.
It's a bird sitting in front of my security camera.
So there's that bird.
There's one bird a day that walks...
I think it's the same bird. It just walks in front of my security camera every day.
All right, so I'm not being attacked.
Now, I'm a little bit extra cautious because my neighborhood's been hit with a crime wave of people literally breaking through a window and carrying your stuff away while you're home.
So it's a dangerous neighborhood at the moment.
Anyway, my play with Rob Reiner is to get him to see my comment because I'm a blue check and to see if I can break through.
Here's what I want him to feel.
I don't need him to be embarrassed.
I don't need him to tweet something different.
I want him to look at my tweet and say, there's somebody with a blue check who has different news for me and he's saying it right out loud.
Maybe I should look at this.
And see which one of us is wrong.
So that's the play.
I'm trying only to convince Rob Reiner that his news is wrong.
I'm not even trying to change his opinion.
So there's no politics in it.
I'm just trying to convince people that they're watching fake news.
That, I think, is doable.
I think that's doable, especially with the Rittenhouse case.
It's like the... As I said, it's like the Rosetta Stone for unlocking all the fake news on the left.
All right, well, the Washington Post, as Dinesh D'Souza points out, the Washington Post is, quote, working hard to deny human agency to black criminals.
This is Dinesh's take on it, about Waukesha.
And you've seen this, right?
Where the news is talking as if the SUV... Driven by a black man, which unfortunately matters in 2021, you have to say the ethnicity, because we're all talking about it, right?
Shouldn't matter, but does.
And this is how the Washington Post described part of that.
It said, quote, the SUV then drove down Main Street.
What, by itself?
The SUVs have gone rogue now?
They're killing people on their own?
Well, I don't think so.
I think there was a person who drove the car.
And a person drove down the street in his SUV. And when you see how much torture they have to give themselves to write a sentence like that, you know something's happening, right?
Something's at the breaking point.
You can almost feel it.
By the way, do you feel it?
You could feel it when Ahmaud Arbery's father...
Who you would imagine would be saying something like black lives matter because his son was killed.
He said all lives matter and he made a big deal about it.
In public, all lives matter, period.
I don't want anybody's father to have to go through what I'm going through.
And... I feel as if, you know, the longer Trump is out of the news, that the realization that, especially on the left, that they've been completely duped by their news and by their own party, I feel like people are catching on now.
So, you know, the Rob Reiner tweet, I give him a little nudge.
But there are a whole bunch of nudges going on here, and it feels like people are starting to see it.
But the best comment about this SUV driving down the street came from Twitter user Jill, who asked this question.
Who invented the SUV? Clearly, they're the responsible party here.
I mean, I don't think a minivan would do this.
Good point. SUVs can be bastards.
We all know that.
Sometimes when you're sleeping, the SUV will just take off, party all night, come back with less gas than you knew you had.
And the SUVs are really well-known bad boys.
But the minivans?
Well, the minivans are sort of the nerds of the automotive world.
Very efficient. Very well designed for utility.
But your minivan is never going to steal the money from your wallet and go on a joyride on its own.
But an SUV? No, SUVs are bastards.
You know, I have an SUV. Ever since I heard about this incident...
I have to put blocks on the wheels at night.
Because I don't know what that damn thing's doing when I'm not watching.
So, alright, next story.
Wall Street Journal editorial board just went viciously at Biden.
And I love this attack.
I usually don't like to call out the hypocrisy stuff.
Because if you do that, that's all you're talking about.
Because the political parties don't really try too hard to do what they say you should do.
So it's usually just sort of boring and trite to call that out.
But this is a big and unusual case because Biden's proposition was you can't have a president who has allowed this many people to die on his watch, meaning COVID. But Biden's death count has surpassed Trump's, and that's after the vaccination.
Now, am I going to tell you that Trump did a better job than Biden?
Nope. I am not going to tell you that.
Because I told you from the beginning of the pandemic, and I'm the only one, if anybody would like to fact check this, I'm making a very big claim here, that I'm the only one who told you at the beginning of the pandemic that leadership would not be a variable that would be predictive.
Did anybody else tell you that?
I don't think one person told you that you will not see a leadership variable that's obvious.
Now, there may be some extreme cases.
There may be some, I don't know, third world country that thought it was caused by AIDS or something.
So, yeah, I mean, in the extreme case, yes.
But I don't think you're going to tell the difference between Great Britain and France, France and the United States.
I just don't think you're going to be able to tell the difference, leadership-wise.
Some will do better than others, but we still don't know why.
We just don't know why.
So, I would say that Biden has no chance, even if he imagined he was going to run for office.
I can't imagine he is. But he couldn't possibly get elected having failed at the number one thing he said he'd do.
Number one thing Biden said he'd do is get the pandemic under control.
Nothing like that happened. 350,000 people died under Biden compared to 200,000, 220 or so under Trump.
It's not even close. And again, Biden had the vaccinations.
Now, does that mean anything?
No. Of course more people die at the peak of the pandemic.
Of course they do.
It had nothing to do with Biden.
And if Trump had been president, probably the same outcome.
Probably the same. You could do a mental experiment where you say, hey, there are lots of conservatives not getting the vaccine, so maybe Trump could have convinced them Whereas Biden could not.
I doubt it.
I doubt it. This did seem to be the limit of Trump's persuasion.
I think he's tremendous at persuading, as you know.
But I don't think he made a dent in the conservatives who were concerned about the vaccination.
Let me give some comfort to the vaccine deniers.
Because, you know, any time that I'm accused of, you know, not being fair about each side's perspective, I like to correct that when I can.
Here's what I hate about the anti-vaxxers, the skeptics about the vaccines.
I absolutely hate this.
That their reasons are really good.
I hate that.
And of course, the anti-vaxxers will give you lots of arguments, but they have one argument that I can't refute.
Do you know what it is?
What's the anti-vaxx argument that I can't refute?
Which one is it? No, natural immunity is part of this story, but that's not what I'm talking about.
And no, not inflammation, not long-term effects.
Nope. Nothing about your autonomy, your personal choice.
Those are all good arguments, by the way.
I'm saying that that's not the good one.
The FDA, Pfizer, Big Pharma.
You have a lot of reasons, don't you?
I would say those are all worth discussing.
Everything you're mentioning here is absolutely on the list.
Should be part of the conversation.
But the anti-vaxxers have one argument that I've got nothing for.
And here it is.
Can't trust the government.
That's a killer argument.
Can't trust the government.
What are you going to say?
You tell me you have an argument against that.
Can't trust the government.
Now, you say to yourself, wait a minute, wait a minute, it's not really the government, because they're getting their data from somebody else.
They're getting it from Big Pharma.
Who trusts Big Pharma?
They are, by their nature, something you can't trust.
Doesn't mean they're doing bad things all the time.
I mean, they have some history of doing some very bad things.
But it's not a criminal organization or anything.
They're obviously doing good things as well.
I have to make an aside here.
I'm sorry. Everybody who's calling Rob Reiner a meathead, I don't know who needs to hear this, but it's not additive.
It's not funny.
It's not something we hadn't thought of on our own.
You're just using...
Letters on a screen.
Nothing is accomplished by that statement that Rob Reiner is a meathead or any version of it that I saw thousands of yesterday.
Well, you know he's a meathead.
He's always been a meathead.
But have I mentioned that he's a meathead?
I want to be as clear as this is possible.
It's not funny.
It's never been funny.
And there's nothing you can do to it that will make that a good comment.
Right? Now, if you were the only one who thought of it, I'd say, oh, that's a good point.
Nobody came to this conclusion that he had a character he played famously called a meathead.
If you were the only one, oh, okay, that might be additive.
But you do know everybody's saying it, right?
Like hundreds and hundreds of people are saying, you know, he's a meathead.
I'm just saying, please, please, can you help me stop reading that comment?
You know, you have a right to make it, of course.
I'm just saying that it wears on me like few things do.
I don't want to hear Soylent Green.
I don't want to hear what's like The Matrix.
And I don't want to hear that Rob Reiner's a meathead.
Because those are the most obvious things that anybody could say about anything.
All right. So I was saying about, you know, Biden's done a bad job here.
But leadership is not predictive.
Now, apparently the United States has warned Russia that if they're behind the...
I'm changing the topic here.
If Russia is behind this so-called Havana Syndrome sonic weapon, that they would pay for that.
Apparently there are a number of Havana Syndrome cases happening related to Russian embassies and others, etc.
So now I think there are hundreds of cases of this.
What was my prediction on day one?
You will never find a secret sonic weapon that's behind it all.
Now, there might be something that's behind it all.
It might be some kind of, you know, electronics that are common to...
Embassies that have some sonic problem to them or something.
But I think I'm also the only person in the country who predicted that, am I right?
I didn't hear anybody else in the country predict that you would never find the sonic weapon.
Haven't found it yet.
So I like to talk about my predictions that no one has made.
All right. I have to talk about this again because it came on the slow news Thanksgiving Day.
But there is a new study saying that the Arctic Ocean began warming decades earlier than previously thought.
Now, to be clear, this new information does not debunk climate change in the sense of its direction.
And it doesn't debunk it in terms of humans causing it.
It does, however, completely debunk the science.
So the reality might be that the Earth is warming, people are causing it, maybe we need to do something about it.
That seems to be the case.
My current best guess, because I'm not a scientist, is that probably humans are warming.
Because I think that's something you could study.
I think you could do it in a lab, you could study it a million times, and you could find out that CO2 has that effect.
Seems reasonable. Which is different from saying that the science is right.
Right? Because there's a lot of science.
But just that one minor thing, whether CO2 makes warming or not, I think they got that right.
We don't know how fast, how much.
How much has been in the past?
How much we have to worry about it?
Those are all different questions. But this new study, if it stands...
And it might not. Maybe it gets debunked tomorrow.
But if it were to stand, it would show that all the models are completely wrong.
It's sort of a big deal.
There's no way the models could even be close to correct, if this study is right.
Because it said the warming started way before the largest amount of industrial stuff happened by people.
Humans put off heat?
Well, maybe. You mean the human causation part?
I don't know what you're debunking there.
But let me go on.
So... It puts the believers in climate science in a kind of a bind.
Because if the study is right, it means that everything that they thought about climate change, at least the modeling part of it, just the modeling part, was wrong.
But... If it's not true, that means climate science is not true, because this is also done by science, right?
So if it turns out that this science is wrong, what other science is wrong?
So you can either doubt the models or you can doubt climate science itself.
It's a real problem, and I don't hear anybody else talking about it, do you?
Have you heard anybody else talking about this study and what it does to the entire body of climate science modeling?
Yeah, I think it's just going to disappear as a topic.
All right, here's my provocative thought of the day.
Apparently, we're hearing reports, especially from the UK, but I think it would be true in America, that there's just this huge problem of sexual abuse of women in the military.
Now, not going to make light of that, nobody should...
But I am very bothered by not just the fact that it's a brutal crime.
So I'm not just bothered by that.
I'm bothered by the fact that, correct me if I'm wrong, but the women in the military are trained to kill, are they not?
They don't separate the women and say, oh, you can learn to cook.
Isn't everybody in the military trained to kill?
Am I wrong about that? Is there any exception to that?
I think they all use firearms.
They're all trained in it. I mean, at different levels, right?
Marines are trained to kill really hard.
But everybody's trained to kill.
Or at least defend themselves.
Am I right? So, here's my problem.
If you put somebody in the military or they join the military, you train them to kill people who deserve to be killed...
I think they should have special dispensation to be able to kill their sexual accusers.
Or abusers, not accusers.
I think a woman in the military should be able to hunt down and murder a sexual abuser even if it's next week or next year.
Now, in a practical sense, you can never have that law, right?
I'm aware of that.
But I feel like it would be justice...
If we're going to train people to kill, and we're training to kill people who deserve to be killed, and they meet one of these people who deserves to be killed right up close, I say they can kill them in their sleep.
I'm okay with that.
Don't train people to kill and then rape them, and don't expect them to kill the person who raped them.
That's not fair. Either don't train them to kill, or let them kill.
Because some people are worth killing.
All right. That's not a serious point, but it could be.
Lauren Boebert.
Is it Boebert or Bobbert?
She's got a Bert at the end of her name, so I automatically like her because of Dilbert, Dogbert, Boebert.
Anyway, so she's on film telling an Ilhan Omar story that Ilhan Omar says never happened.
But the story, as Lauren says, is that Ilhan Omar, who, as you know, would be in traditional Islamic garb, According to this story, which Omar says never happened, Omar was getting in an elevator and Lauren Boebert saw the security, all worried about a threat and running toward the elevator and didn't get there in time.
And then Boebert allegedly said, but we think maybe it didn't really happen, that she said, don't worry, she doesn't have a backpack.
You know, meaning that she's not a...
Not an Islamic terrorist bomber.
And people are saying this is horrible, horrible, horrible.
And I would agree that it was probably dumb for her to tell this joke, so I'm not going to defend the joke.
But I would just put this one little question to it.
Was it a joke about Ilhan Omar or was it a joke about the security guard?
I'm not so sure. Right?
Because the joke was sort of about the security guard being a bigot and imagining that she was a terrorist.
It wasn't about Lauren Boeber imagining she was a terrorist and her joke, you know, she didn't have a backpack so you're okay.
Doesn't sound like she believed that she was a terrorist.
Obviously she doesn't. It's kind of one of these weird ones.
If somebody says a joke at the expense of the person, like Omar, well, that would feel a little racist, depending on the joke, of course.
But if the joke is about how someone else was racist against them, I'm not sure I'd take that the same.
Oh, somebody's saying on Locals, oh, F, just put that scalpel down.
Am I cutting it too finely?
Well, it's my job.
Jokes are my job.
I do look at them kind of analytically.
All right, I have an algorithm for you, and I know this will be helpful, a way to determine which graphs you see on Twitter about ivermectin solving a country's problem.
To tell which one of them are true.
Because we've seen the graph...
I've seen a graph that said, as soon as ivermectin was introduced, COVID in Japan went to nothing.
And some other places, as soon as ivermectin was introduced, went to nothing.
Do you know how to tell which of those stories are fake and which are not?
The answer is all of them are fake.
Every one of the country graphs that says ivermectin was introduced, doesn't matter if it's India, they're all fake.
They've all been debunked.
Now, did you just hear me say that I debunked the effectiveness of ivermectin?
Did I say that?
Did I just tell you that ivermectin doesn't work?
No. Now, I told you that the graphs that show it cured some country are all fake, 100% of them.
I've seen every one.
I've seen every one debunked.
I doubt you'll see a real one.
Now, does that tell you anything about the effectiveness of ivermectin?
Maybe. Maybe not.
There is one view that says that the pharma companies are so strong, they could make every single country bow to their will.
Or, at the very least, get the big countries' medical communities to bow to their will.
And then the smaller countries would say, oh, crap, the United States says this doesn't work.
What are you going to do?
Because we can't test their cells, we don't have a good medical industry.
But the United States says it works, and the UK says it works, and they've got good medical staffs.
So there is one that says that ivermectin might be working, and yet every single country is afraid to use it.
Is that possible? Maybe.
Maybe. Maybe. Who debunked it?
Everybody. You just have to look at the original data.
In other words, you just look at any original data and it disappears.
There's no data that suggests that ivermectin solved any problem.
You can't find any original data that says that.
All right.
Here's my take.
The longer we go...
With the belief that's widespread that ivermectin does or might work, the longer we go, where no country actually solves its problem with ivermectin, it's very much less likely it works.
Because even if you believe all the medical experts in every country were influenced by, let's say, the United States or influenced by pharma, which seems unlikely to me, you'd have to think with all the countries in the world and the desperation, somebody would have actually solved their entire country's problem with ivermectin, if it worked.
Am I wrong? You don't think that one country somewhere would have totally solved their pandemic?
Or how about this? If ivermectin worked as well as the anecdotal reports, you don't think that a hospital would have noticed by now?
A hospital? A hospital that does nothing but COVID patients?
They wouldn't have obviously noticed that.
Because you know what they do obviously notice?
Regeneron. I'll bet you could go to any hospital that does a lot of COVID and say, have you noticed on your own that Regeneron is bringing people back to life who maybe seem like they've gone too far?
I would bet 100% of hospitals would say, oh yeah, we see it every day.
We give them Regeneron, it totally turns them around.
They would see the same thing with ivermectin.
I mean, maybe not U.S. because it's sort of semi-banned here, but somebody would see it.
You don't think any hospital, any country, would have seen the effect yet.
So go back to my hydroxychloroquine predictions early on in the pandemic.
Like ivermectin, it looked like it was anecdotally and there were studies that suggested it worked.
I said that every month that goes by where you don't have proof that it works, you have to lower your odds that it worked.
And then you saw every month I would lower the odds of hydroxychloroquine working.
It was down to 30%.
The last number was 10%.
I think I'd drop it to 2% now.
We've gone so long that if hydroxychloroquine worked, we would fucking know it.
I don't think there's any chance, any chance, we wouldn't clearly know it by now.
Ivermectin is the same path.
Can I tell you ivermectin doesn't work?
Absolutely not. So you're not hearing me say that.
But I will say that every day that goes by, you have to lower your estimate if you're being wise about this.
Because you would see the signal somewhere, or somebody would see it.
But you don't see anybody in an official role who sees it.
You see a rogue doctor, but do you see anybody who runs an ICU? Have you seen any ICU doctors say, oh yeah, we're giving people ivermectin and it's just taking them right off the ventilator?
So, does ivermectin work?
I have no idea.
But I can tell you that the longer you go, the less likely it is.
CNN has some...
Oh, no, let's talk about that next.
So, apparently, the Lincoln Project...
They are a scrappy bunch of losers, the Lincoln Project.
So, Rick Wilson especially, I guess.
He's trying to revive this monstrosity that's been completely...
We're humiliated in the last year or so.
And they're trying to make it a thing to get Trump to be the nominee.
So they want Trump to be the nominee, even though he's the target of all their attacks.
Because once he loses, then it will destroy what's left of Trumpism.
And that's their real goal.
And so this is what Rick Wilson said.
About that strategy.
He says, Do you think that's why Rick Wilson is reviving the Lincoln Project, which made them all millions of dollars?
Huh. Is it to make the millions of dollars that they know they'll make, or is it to kill off Trump's vile, repugnant cult and drive it into the dustbin of history?
Which one of those seems slightly more likely?
Have I ever mentioned follow the money?
You know, I tell you, it always works, even when the people involved are not following the money.
It still always works.
Yeah, the Lincoln Project grifters are just accusing Trump of what they are.
It's just projection.
They are horrible grifters, race grifters, really some of the worst people in the world, I would say.
But they're funny, so I'm glad they're in the news.
CNN has a wonderful bit of fake news here, and I'm going to see if you can spot it.
So I'll tell you what they reported, and then you tell me...
What the fake news part is, okay?
So CNN is reporting that the reason we don't have more rapid tests and faster, you know, why didn't we have this rapid testing, you know, cheap and fast?
Because we did Project Warp Speed, so don't you think we could also get rapid tests quickly if we wanted?
Here's what CNN says to describe why we don't have them.
It's because we don't have tests because there were too many available.
And the Food and Drug Administration had more than 3,000 emergency use authorization applications and didn't have the resources to get through them.
So the reason that we only had one Abbott Labs for, I don't know, months and months, the reason we only had one is that there were 3,000 others who wanted But there was not enough FDA resources to test them, so we had to live with just that one for a long time.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is fake news.
It's really clever.
Because what do I keep saying about the reason we don't have the rapid tests?
What do I keep saying loudly and in public?
Corruption. Corruption.
It's obviously corruption.
I would say at this point that the corruption hypothesis, I don't know, 95% likely?
Because if this is the best alibi that we have, the best alibi from the FDA is that there were too many of them and they didn't have enough resources.
What would you do if you were the FDA And you didn't have enough resources.
You do have some resources, so it's not like you're not testing anything.
You know, you are evaluating things, but you can't do 3,000.
Would you say, hey guys, let's evaluate all 3,000 things at once with our limited resources?
Is that the way you'd handle it?
You take your limited resources in the context of a pandemic, you say, ah, we'd better spread our resources.
So you've got 1,000 at first.
You say, let's look at them all at the same time.
But then it goes to 3,000, and it's too fast to add people.
So do you say to yourself, oh, I'll just work less on the first 1,000, so I'll have enough for the extra 1,000s of them?
Is that the way the FDA decided to manage that?
Now, hiring help wouldn't be fast enough.
I have to admit that staffing up probably would be hard.
They should do that too, but probably that wouldn't be a magic bullet.
It just feels like it would, but it would take a while to staff up.
I'm no management expert, but here's what I would have done.
I would look at those 3,000 applications and I would say, which ones are the biggest companies that are likely to be able to produce this in volume?
Oh, there are only three of them?
No.
And then I would evaluate those three, and I would tell all the other thousands, sorry, you have to wait.
Because it's a pandemic, we can't be fair about this.
We just have to hope we pick some winners.
We'll pick the big companies that say they can put the resources together to produce.
They've got a track record of producing.
Do you think these 3,000 fucking applications were all equal?
Do you think that anybody looked at these and said, yeah, these look all about the fucking same?
No. No.
There were some that obviously looked better than the others.
Obviously. This CNN report is complete fucking bullshit.
They did not have a problem because too many people wanted to make the fucking rapid tests.
They didn't do it because they're corrupt.
We don't know exactly how.
I mean, the details are unknown.
But this is pure corruption, and the CNN is part of it now.
When I asked you, can you Google which pharma companies advertise on CNN, I was looking for Abbott Labs, because I don't know if they do.
But look for it.
Is Abbott Labs, do they ever advertise on CNN? I think they do 100 million a year in advertising, maybe more lately.
Is any of it on CNN? I don't remember seeing an ad from them, so maybe not.
We know Pfizer does.
We know Big Pharma does all the time.
But take a look at that.
And tell me if CNN is just in on the corruption...
And is trying to develop a cover story for why Abbott Labs had a monopoly for so long.
All right. That's all for now.
on that topic anyway.
Have you listened to Dark Horse podcast with Brett?
*sigh* Brett and Heather, so Brett Weinstein.
And I guess one of the evidences he showed about ivermectin working is that when it was widely available in Slovakia, they basically crushed the virus.
So that was one of the evidences for that.
But Andres Backhaus...
He made a sarcastic tweet about that and Twitter banned him because they couldn't tell his parody from his actual opinion.
It's 2021.
You've got to be careful about your parody because people can't tell.
I mean, they actually legitimately can't tell when you're joking these days because everything is so ridiculous that a joke looks like reality.
There's no difference anymore.
So Andres got temporarily locked down for making a joke about it.
But... Slovakia has announced a nationwide coronavirus lockdown.
So if ivermectin were making a big deal in Slovakia, well, stop doing that.
And Andres tweeted out that maybe there was a variant that escaped the ivermectin.
Maybe it's an ivermectin escape variant, which is just a joke.
But Twitter couldn't tell the difference until they locked him out.
So, one of the key evidences that you heard from Brett and Heather on Dark Horse, that appears to be debunked.
And again, let me be very careful in my wording.
I'm not telling you ivermectin doesn't work.
How would I know? I'm just telling you that these countrywide evidences, they're all bullshit.
All right. Jay Lacombe healthfully suggested that I host a live stream debate with Pierre Corey, I think on ivermectin, and it would be a service to your viewers no matter what happened, to which I will tell you for the millionth time, Gouane Fall says in large capital letters, you do know it works, Scott.
Let me say it clearly. I don't know that it works.
Like, legitimately, I don't know.
If I had to put money on it?
That's a good question.
If I had to bet money, and I wasn't betting my life, but let's say it's just a financial bet and I could afford it, would I bet that Ivermectin works?
That's a tough one. Because I think that you might have a situation where it works in some special cases.
I wouldn't rule that out, because I don't think we have enough evidence of that one way or the other.
But I feel like if I had to take the bet, I'd bet against it.
I would think, in my opinion, the body of unreliable information, because it's all unreliable, right?
To me, the body of information suggests that it doesn't work.
But I would say I have more like a 60-40 on this.
So I would bet the 60% that it doesn't work, but I'm completely open to a full 40% possibility that it works for some people in some situations.
It might. Can't rule it out.
So, anyway, let me say that me talking to one expert will never be a good business model.
It will only make things worse every time.
And there can be no exceptions to this.
What would work is have two experts or more, one on each side of the topic, and me hosting it.
That would work pretty well.
As long as they had some time and they could, you know, Maybe do a little research on the questions each give each other.
So you'd have to figure out how they could do a proper counter-response to stuff.
Yeah, maybe do it over one to three days.
Don't do it in one day. That would work.
But please don't ask me to interview one rogue doctor.
There's no way that can give you good information because I won't know what to ask.
Here's how that would go.
Me. Hey, do you have any proof that your opinion works, or your opinion is correct?
Rogue doctor. Yes, there was the Eastern European Indian subcontinent study that was just completed, and then what do I say?
Oh. That's the end of the conversation.
I can't fact check them in real time.
Have you seen a credible comparison with the other protease inhibitors now being brought to market with incredible purported outcomes?
A credible comparison?
I don't understand the question, Chad, but maybe somebody else does.
Are you talking about as a treatment for COVID, or are you comparing two different fields?
I don't know the nature of that question.
All right. Plenty of doctors have seen the successes.
No, they've seen the anecdotes.
They've seen the anecdotes.
So I saw somebody send me the anecdote of the man who was on the ventilator, and a judge allowed him to have ivermectin, and he came back to life.
And so, therefore, ivermectin must work, because there was a guy on the ventilator, and he came back to life.
And here's what's missing in the story.
Is there anywhere in the United States...
Where there's somebody who's so bad off with COVID that they're on a ventilator and have not been given Regeneron?
Anywhere? Because I'm sure these stories about the guy who got ivermectin also got Regeneron, and we know that works, right?
So how could you possibly tell what was the one that was working?
I wouldn't trust any of those stories.
So there's a new variant right on time.
Did you think things were going to open up, or did you think there would be a new variant right on time?
Well, here it comes.
And it's been given a racist name, which is weird.
It's called the South African variant.
Now, that's what the racists call it.
I would call it the COVID... Some Greek symbol variant.
Because I'm not a racist.
But as Steve Cortes points out, the BBC is calling it the South Africa variant.
And, you know, you certainly couldn't call the COVID a Chinese virus or a China virus, which would be less about the people and more about the country.
But why is this okay?
Why? Do you notice that the rules just go away when they're not convenient?
That's right. Today is not Black Friday today.
Today is All People Friday.
All People Friday. All right, well, it looks like we're going to be served up an infinite number of variants, but the big ones will come on schedule.
Because what is the schedule?
Right now. This is when we should be afraid of the variants, so that we're shutting down our economies again.
Get your 10th booster shot, Scott.
There's somebody in all caps who's very concerned for me.
Thank you. Would you shout at me in all caps again?
I liked it. All right, looking at your comments for a moment.
All right.
Oh, you love me? Well, thank you.
Get that flag up?
I don't know what that means. Here in Europe, we're calling it the Botswana variant.
Okay. Does hypnosis help chronic pain?
I'm being asked. I think it can.
I think it can. But it also depends on the person and the hypnotist.
And given that pain is part real and part, you know, how you process it, I think you can.
I'm not 100% sure of that, by the way, because I've never tried it.
But I've heard acupuncture can work in some cases, depending on the pain.
By the way, I'm a big acupuncture skeptic, but I've been getting it lately for just relaxation.
And it is crazy how much it relaxes you.
The first time I thought, well, okay, that's anecdotal.
I got real relaxed afterwards.
That can't be anything real.
But I've repeated it a number of times.
And how you feel after you get acupuncture, if you're doing it for relaxation specifically, it's kind of freaky.
It's kind of freaky. You wouldn't expect it to have anything.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott.
It's all the placebo effect.
But if it works every time, why would I not do it?
It doesn't matter what it is.
If it works every time, I'm going to keep doing it.
Call John DeVarck and pick his brain about Fovid and about therapies.
He has done the analysis that you're unwilling to do.
All right. John Dvorak, if you're watching.
Now, I don't know if you know, but I've known John Dvorak for 100 years.
And every once in a while we'll chat and get together or whatever.
But that would be the same thing as if I talked to one expert.
So I will grant you that John has probably researched it more than I have.
But you know it would have no value, right?
That me talking to him?
Because it would be exactly the same as if I talked to the expert.
So, why do you believe X, John?
And then John says, well, I researched it, and I found such and such a study.
And then what do I say?
That's it, right? What do I say?
You found a study. Do I say, sometimes studies aren't reliable?
I think he knows that. Do I say, you know, if it's only one randomized controlled study, I'd like to see two?
I think John knows that.
What could I possibly say to John Dvorak that he doesn't already know about this topic?
How in the world could that conversation help you?
It couldn't. It couldn't.
But how does inflation ever stop?
Well, it's stopped everywhere that it's happened where the country hasn't gone under, right?
There are plenty of countries.
Is Israel a one? Give me a history lesson, those of you who are smarter than I am about history, which would be most of you.
Didn't Israel at one point have just horrible inflation?
And now they don't?
Do me a fact check on that.
And I think there are a number of other places that have had horrible inflation and survived.
So somehow they got past it.
Yeah, and then there would be other places where they didn't.
Is that correct? So if there are places that had massive inflation and then got past it, then there is a way to get past it.
But I'm not sure anybody understands it.
Now, it could be you have to have massive productivity gains, right?
Or no, maybe not. Stop spending, stop printing money.
Well, we can't do that with our current government situation, but...
Do you think the current real estate market will correct?
Of course. Yeah.
Easiest question in the world, I'm being asked.
Do I think the real estate market will correct?
Yeah. Yeah, of course it will.
I don't know when, and I don't know how much.
But I will also confidently predict that it will recover in time.
Eventually it will recover.
Wesley says, is it possible for them to ever stop seeing it?
Oh, when people start seeing the fake news, can they learn to unsee it?
Yeah, I think so. Ask yourself.
You know, was there a time when you were more believing in the news and now you're not?
I would say that's certainly the case for me.
I would say that in my youth I would generally have thought the news was right, I don't know, 99% of the time.
Today, if it's political news, I assume it's wrong.
I just assume it's wrong.
And that's a pretty big change from almost certainly right to I just assume that's not true.
Right?
And I think a lot of us went through that same journey.
So, yes, I believe that people can understand that they're being bamboozled.
Prediction on the Brandon thing, last thing past 2022.
I don't know that that has legs, but maybe.
I didn't think MAGA was the greatest thing.
I like Make America Great Again.
I don't like the abbreviation MAGA, because it's too obviously like a MAGA. And of course all the critics picked up on that in about a half a second.
So you should always run your slogans past a cartoonist.
This is good advice. You come up with a good acronym or a good slogan, run it past a cartoonist.
Because you know what we're good at?
Mocking things with words.
If I can mock it, better think.
When Wells Fargo...
It was actually Crocker Bank before Wells Fargo bought them.
But when I worked for a bank years ago, they came up with a slogan, Good Enough Isn't.
And the idea was that you'd never be satisfied with the quality.
Good Enough Isn't.
Now, that was a slogan they should have run past me before they implemented it.
What did the employees do instantly with their own slogan, Good Enough Isn't?
Pretty much every time they slapped something together, they looked at it, they looked at whoever's standing next to them, they laughed and said, eh, good enough is.
It just immediately became the opposite.
I would have told you that.
I could have told you that before you did that slogan.
I could have told you that right off the bat.
You know people are going to say, good enough is.
And that's going to be, you're going to hear that more than your slogan.
You know that, right?
Well, I could have told them.
Build back better.
Build back better is actually about too bad.
At least they didn't do build back carefully.
I'll let that one just sit there for a while.
At least they didn't do build back carefully.
Anybody? Anybody?
Thank you.
All right, some got my joke.
You hated it initially.
Build Back Better? Oh, I don't think that Build Back Better is like changing the world.
What I think is that it's unmockable.
It's hard to mock it.
My cat yelling at me?
Do you mind if I pause to get my cat?
You mind?
One more.
Bring her right back.
All right.
So as you can see, she still has her feeding tube in.
Her bandaging is getting a little ragged.
I have to redo the wrapping every day.
So she's got a few more days.
Thank you.
Of the feeding tube. We don't use it for food.
She can eat okay.
I just use it for the medicine because she won't take medicine without spitting it out, so we just left it in for a little while.
And in a few days, she'll get this off, and she'll be all good.
