Episode 1585 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About the Crooks and Idiots Running the World
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
No deaths or hospitalizations from Omicron?
Betting against the news
Viagra and Alzheimer's
Jen Psaki mocks rapid tests question
Art industry money laundering
Vaccination word thinking
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
Yep, Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of your life and every other life on this planet.
It's that good. And today is going to be a burner.
A burner, I tell you.
It's going to light your hair on fire and activate all of your senses in a good way.
But before we do that, let's have a thing I like to call the simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a stein, a candy jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including your vitamin D. I don't know that there's any science behind that, but I feel like it's true, and that's good enough.
Go. Ah, yeah.
That's the stuff. That's the good stuff, right there.
Well, did you see that Devin Nunes will be the CEO of, I guess, Trump's platform?
That he's creating Truth?
Is it Truth something?
And... That'll be fun.
So that's a pretty serious CEO. But I worry that it will become just a conservative platform and then we'll never get to talk to each other again.
You know, there's a lot of pressure I get to, you know, leave the traditional platforms and go to the alternative platforms.
Now, except for locals, which is a special case, I'm not sure I want to go where there are only conservatives.
Or only people on the left.
That feels like working in the wrong direction, really.
Now, I suppose if you get cancelled, that's the only choice you have.
But I'd rather have some chance of talking to people who disagree with me instead of just talking to people who agree with me.
Well, the Golden Age is here, and I will give you a few different examples of it.
Number one, the Omicron virus.
It's too early to say this for sure.
I'm just feeling good.
So the Omicron has now hit my state, California.
We've got a few identified cases in the South.
And by the way, a number of people asked, how do we know what variant it is?
Because as people who do testing for a living point out, we don't test for that.
You know, if you go in to get a COVID test, nobody's checking your variant.
So I assume it has to be some kind of a DNA analysis, and then I ask myself, how do they know who to check?
How do they do that? Is it some kind of representative sample?
They must do some kind of representative sample, but then how do they know there are exactly two people who have the variant?
If you did a representative sample, you wouldn't necessarily know...
Would you? I guess you don't mix these samples.
So yeah, I guess you would know.
It's a narrative sample, somebody says.
Well, I want that sweet, sweet Omicron to come my way because apparently there are no reports of deaths or even hospitalizations.
Did you hear what I just said?
Apparently there are no cases of hospitalization or deaths with the Omicron.
That doesn't mean it's not happening.
Because it's a little too early to get all the way excited about it.
But I'm a little bit excited.
It's premature. It could turn out to be just a big nothing.
Maybe it doesn't give you any immunity against the other variants.
Who knows? Anything's possible.
But at the moment, I choose optimism.
And I think this sweet, sweet Omicron, if I could get it, I would infect myself tomorrow.
If I had a choice between a third booster...
Or, you know, the booster shot?
Or the Omicron?
Which one's a better bet?
Would you rather have a booster or the Omicron?
Well, we don't know, right?
The last thing you want to do is listen to health advice from a cartoonist, then go get yourself infected and die.
Don't do that. But I'm telling you, we might be on the verge of something really good here with this Omicron.
Let me tell you about an investment method that I sometimes use with mixed results.
Don't be like me.
Don't follow my medical advice, and definitely don't follow my financial advice, okay?
Got that? These are just things to talk about, not things to recommend.
But one of my gambling methods that I've been trying out is betting against the news.
Meaning that if the news says something is terrible and we're all going to die...
I bet against that.
If I can find a way to buy a stock, that would be the bet against the news.
So when the Omicron variant came out, I bet against it.
By buying stock in Wynn, the casino hotel.
So the Wynn is a high-quality hotel casino property that got beaten up by the pandemic.
And when the Omicron news came, it dipped again.
And I said to myself, you know, the news is usually wrong.
So that was my whole bet.
My whole bet is the news is usually wrong.
And it was worried about the Omicron, so I said, they're usually wrong, so I'll just bet against it.
So I bought Winstock.
As of yesterday, it was up.
Let's see if it's a bad idea as of today.
Let's see what's happening today.
It might be too early. Where is it?
Where the hell is it? Up another 3.8% today.
So that would be up about...
7 or 9% since I bought it just the other day.
So, don't do what I do, because I also bought years ago stock in...
What was the company that did the Gulf disaster?
Was that...
Which oil company?
Oh, BP, yeah. So BP did that.
So when BP was totally beaten down, I bought that stock.
Same purpose. I was betting against the news.
Because the news was saying it's the worst disaster, blah, blah, blah.
It'll take years to get better.
Now here, I was right, but I was a little bit wrong.
Meaning that I bet against the news that it would be an ecological disaster of epic proportions.
I bet that it would be less of a disaster than the news was reporting.
Was I right? Apparently, they figured out how to minimize it.
Stuff didn't die as much as they thought.
So it turned out to be way less of a problem than the news predicted.
So I correctly predicted that the news would be wrong, but the stock was a dog.
So in terms of a trading method, it didn't work.
So it may work with the win purchase.
It didn't work with BP. So don't take my advice.
But if you try to do this, you need a portfolio.
Meaning, don't do it with one stock.
That's just gambling. But if you had a philosophy you wanted to check with smallish enough money that you could buy, you know, say three to five stocks that fell into that category where you're betting against the news, I bet you do all right over time.
I bet you do all right.
Yeah. Yeah. But again, don't follow that because that's an unproven technique.
Now, Elon Musk has said that the neural link chips, that they actually dig a little bit out of your skull, I believe, put the chip into your skull and, I don't know, patch it up somehow, and they're going to use it first for quadriplegics.
So the quadriplegics, in theory, would be able to think what they wanted and And then devices that could read the neural link connection, apparently, would respond.
So in other words, if you had no arms and no legs, you could still turn on your television and change the channels.
That sort of thing. To which I said, we have reached the age of magic.
This is the age of magic.
Where if somebody came to our planet and observed us, let's say 10 years...
They would see us just walking into a room and the lights come on.
They'd see that the TV would come on to the channel we wanted just because we looked at it.
Everything around us will respond to our thoughts in 10 years.
Our thoughts.
Just try to process that.
That the technology already exists to control your environment with your thoughts.
Now, we don't know if it's safe yet.
That's part of the whole FDA approval process and everything else.
So we could have some surprises, but it looks like we're going to control our environment with our thoughts.
Now, imagine the military application.
Could you imagine, because I feel like this could happen, that a military person who has the chip could simply look at a, let's say, a tank and call in a strike.
Just look at it.
Just look at the tank and say, die.
And a missile comes in from somewhere and just keys on where he's looking.
Literally figures out, triangulates from the two eyes and figures out exactly where that is and then destroys it.
I think that's going to happen.
So all kinds of fun things that Elon Musk has planned for society, we shall see.
So you heard that Don Lemon was apparently texting with Jussie Smollett at about the time of the attacks.
A number of times they were talking to each other.
But it makes you wonder what they were talking about.
Because have you noticed that, first of all, they're basically the same person, but one has a beard?
Has anybody noticed that yet?
They're pretty much the same person, but one has a beard.
What is Jussie Smollett most famous for?
A hoax. What is Don Lemon most famous for?
Oh, hoaxes.
Turns out they have a lot in common.
So I wonder if they have some kind of a support group for hoaxers who have been caught.
Now, Don Lemon still has his job, which is weird...
If I had to bet who was going to go first, Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo, I would have bet Lemon.
He already had allegations against him that looked pretty bad, but he's hanging in there.
So the two hoax twins, the hoax brothers, Don Lemon and Jussie, I guess they're buddies.
Have you ever noticed that whenever science comes up with a new cool drug to fix something...
The side effect is always, but you can't have sex.
It's like, we have this chemical that will help you regrow hair, man, but it's going to ruin your ability to have sex.
We can make that pain go away, but you're not going to be able to have sex.
You know that skin problem you've got?
We've got a cure for that, but you won't be able to have sex.
I'm right, right? It's like every drug makes you unable to have sex until the Golden Age.
What does the Golden Age look like?
Well, it looks like this.
Apparently, people who are on Viagra, or the generic Viagra, is linked to an almost 70% lower risk of Alzheimer's.
That's pretty good, 70%.
Now, they don't know yet if it's a cause or just correlated, but there's a strong suggestion that it might be causal, which brings us to the following possibility in the near term, that we're going to have a lot of 80-year-old citizens.
They're 80 years old, and because they're on the Viagra, they don't have the Alzheimer's, so their minds are perfectly clear, and they're hard as rocks.
And absolutely nobody in the world will want to have sex with them, which they will clearly understand because their minds will be so clear and their boners will be so raging that they will be in this torturous entity, kind of a living hell, where all you want to do is have sex, but nobody wants to have it with you.
So, good and the bad.
Good and the bad. Well, there's a Rasmussen poll on Kamala Harris.
See how popular she is.
And here are the results.
19% said, very favorable.
That's right. 19% have looked at Kamala Harris' performance and said to themselves, I need more of that.
I need more of that.
And 4% said they don't know.
Which seems roughly the same number of American citizens who wouldn't be able to name the vice president if he asked.
So who's the vice president of the United States?
Uh... Dan Quayle?
I don't know. So if you were to add together the very favorable with the 4% who don't know who the vice president is, you'd get about 23%.
Hmm...
23%. That's just about the 25% that get every poll number wrong or every poll question wrong.
50% have a very unfavorable opinion of the vice president.
Very unfavorable. So the favorables, if you add together the favorite categories, would be 39% favorable with 57% that are leading unfavorable.
That's not even close.
Not even close. Alright, here's my advice.
I've given you this before, but I feel it's necessary.
That whenever you see rogue doctors, the ones who are disagreeing with the mainstream advice, I give them a 5% chance of being right, regardless of the topic.
So if the topic is who knows what, it doesn't matter.
And it could be scientists or medical professionals.
But the rogues who disagree with the mainstream, on average, and this is a life experience thing, this is not based on some data that you could ask me for, just my observation.
Of all the people I've seen as the rogues, I'd say they're right about 5% of the time.
Why five? I mean, I'm making up numbers.
I mean, you can say 10%, whatever.
But it's a low number.
So if the only thing you knew is that the mainstream whatever believed X, and there was a rogue doctor, or even several, even several rogue doctors, and they have a different opinion, there's about a 95% chance they're wrong.
Now, why do you think it's higher?
Why? What would make you think that the rogues, the ones who disagree, why would you think that they're right more than 5%?
Maybe they are, but why would you think that?
What would be your evidence to suggest that the rogues would be right and then what percentage higher than 5%?
Because clocks are right twice a day, censorship of competing narrative...
Contrarian investing is the same as rogue doctors?
No, that's an analogy.
Analogies are not part of reason.
Facts. Are you a rogue?
I am a rogue.
So here's how you can tell the difference between the rogues and the people who are just right more often than not.
Track record. The first time I predicted that Trump would win the election in 2016, should you have believed me?
I wouldn't have. Because you didn't know anything about me, right?
I gave you my argument.
I told you why I thought he'd win.
But should you have believed me?
I don't think so. I mean, not in the beginning.
Should you believe me now if I make a prediction?
Well, not believe me, because a prediction is just statistical sort of thing.
But would I be more credible now that you've watched my track record of predicting the hard to predict?
I would say that my track record is the best I've ever seen.
I can't think of anybody who's even close.
So if you look at somebody who consistently is a rogue and gets it right...
Then that would be a special case.
If you don't know anything about the doctor, the same way you wouldn't have known anything about me the first year you saw me, why would you bet on somebody like me?
Like, even if I have a good argument.
It's a bad bet.
But sometimes the 5% comes through.
The reason that you think the rogues are likely to be right...
Or even if you give them great credibility, is because they get a lot of attention.
And you remember the times that the rogues were right.
Right? If somebody disagrees with the mainstream and they turn out to be wrong, well, you just never hear of them again.
But if they turn out to be right, they're celebrated geniuses that got everything right.
So, of course, your impression of how correct the rogue doctors are is probably really, really exaggerated by observation.
Meaning that you see the rogues being right way more than they are normally right.
So, I can't support my 5% number.
I'm just saying it's experiential.
But if you have a high confidence in the people, let's say more than 50%, if your confidence in the rogue doctors is more than 50%, I would say that's not supportable based on any experience you've had and any experience I've had.
It's just not supportable.
But does that mean the rogue doctors are wrong?
No. No.
No, no, no. They could be totally right.
Sometimes they're right.
About 5% in my experience.
So just keep that in mind.
And you don't have to use my estimate of 5%.
Use your own.
But that's just the way you should think of it.
Because you can't really untangle what these experts say compared to what the other experts say.
We're not smart enough to do that.
So just know that.
So I was seeing some videos of the so-called Australian penal colonies for COVID people where they have to go to them and stay there for, is it two weeks?
Can somebody give me...
I asked that question on Twitter and then somebody thought I was in favour of penal colonies.
But it's two weeks, 14 days, yeah.
So how many of you have seen the video of what they look like on the inside?
So everybody gets a private, sort of a little private cabin-y thing.
I think they have their own bathroom.
They should, right? They're trying to keep them away from people.
And it's basically a cheap hotel room, it looks like.
Wouldn't you say? Now, here's my question.
How many people would be happier going there for two weeks than their normal life?
What do you think?
Because is there anybody who just works all the time?
A lot of us work basically from god-awful morning till god-awful night, right?
Aren't there a lot of you who work from the moment you get up to the time you flop in bed and exhausted?
That's a lot of us, right?
A lot of us do that because you're working, then there's kids, or there's other responsibilities.
How many of you would say to yourself, and I want to be really clear, I'm not supporting these Australian penal colonies.
I'm simply curious...
This is just curiosity.
I'm not promoting them.
I'm not promoting the vaccination.
We're just talking here.
But how many of you would say to yourself, I could take two weeks in that cabin, and if I had my phone and some entertainment, I think I could take two weeks in that cabin?
Now, most of you would say, hell no, of course.
But is there anybody here who would say, yeah, I could do that?
So I'm seeing people say yes.
Now, I would assume most of you would say no, and most of you would want to shut it down, right?
And I appreciate that opinion.
I do appreciate that.
But those of you who are sure that they've created a hellscape, I doubt it.
I doubt it. I think it's an inconvenience.
That most of you wouldn't want.
And you're worried that it will turn into something bigger, of course.
But I think this story is way overblown.
Now, just to be clear, I don't favour it.
And I don't favour mandates in general.
So I'm not in favour of it.
But I think the story of how bad it is is greatly exaggerated.
But having said that, it would be terrible for some individuals.
And other people would just go in there and say, two weeks without working?
Two weeks without my family?
I could do that.
Somebody said it's a porn addict's four seasons resort.
That's pretty funny. Who's messaging me?
All right. Drake, the artist Drake, has withdrawn his 2021 Grammy nomination.
He had two nominations for, I think, Best Album, Rap Album, and Best Performer.
And he withdrew.
We don't know why he withdrew his Grammy nominations.
But I think it's a step in the right direction because, as you know, Drake is the Nickelback of rap.
Anybody? Anybody disagree?
Drake is the Nickelback of rap?
Here's my take on Drake.
Now keep in mind that art is subjective.
So if I say I don't enjoy a specific artist, it doesn't mean they're not great.
It's just a personal thing, right?
So... So Drake is obviously hugely successful, and people love him.
But when I listen to him, I can't stand it.
I can't stand 10 seconds of that guy, his bored droning that they call some kind of performance.
He feels like, to me, Drake comes off as somebody who wanted to sing, but they didn't have the energy for it.
I'd really like to sing like Adele, but...
I think all I can do is say this, and I'll call it a sound.
I am rapping now.
Aren't we all energized by my rapping words?
I don't know. I get that most of the world who likes this genre of music thinks he's pretty great, but I don't see it at all.
I love Kanye.
There's lots of stuff in the genre that I like a lot.
So it's not like I'm ragging on the genre at all.
I like the genre.
I just don't get Drake.
But I'm completely aware that people love him, and that's fine.
All right.
The funniest thing from the Jussie Smollett case was, was it one of the Nigerian twins who claimed he didn't know the bathhouse was for gay stuff?
I wonder how long it took him to figure it out.
I don't.
So here's a little information for any Nigerian immigrants who come to this country and are confused by bathhouses.
I'm pretty sure there are no heterosexual bathhouses.
Am I wrong about that?
Yeah. Is there any such thing as a heterosexual bathhouse in the United States?
In Europe, yeah. But not in the United States, right?
Oh, it's called the Y. Somebody says...
But just the fact that...
And apparently there was, like, gay pornography on the walls of the private room they went to, and maybe they had some physical contacts, says Jussie, but maybe they didn't, says one of the twins.
But I just love the fact that he didn't know it was a place that gay people went.
So there's this...
We have a result in the case of the guy who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin.
You thought it was Satoshi, right?
The secret name of whoever did it.
But somebody, an Australian computer scientist named Craig Wright, he actually won a Miami civil case that pitted him against the family of his late business partner.
And I guess the business partner was claiming he was also a part inventor, but he lost that.
So Craig Wright, that doesn't mean he's the inventor, right?
But he said if he lost the case, he would reveal all of his holdings and show that he was really Satoshi, I guess.
But he didn't lose, so he didn't have to do that.
So we still don't quite know if he is.
What do you think? Oh, Craig's been debunked in the crypto world for years, somebody says.
He's not the inventor anymore.
All right. I'm going to say I'm skeptical of his claim, but I don't have any insight into it at all.
Seems like it'd be easy to prove, because he'd have a few billion dollars to play with, wouldn't he?
If Craig Wright is not living like a billionaire, I've got some questions about his claim.
All right. So let's talk about rapid tests.
We still don't have cheap rapid tests.
We have rapid tests, but they're way expensive.
And Jen Psaki answered a question about rapid tests by mocking the reporter and saying, you know, what do you think we should do?
Send out a rapid test to every household?
To which everybody smart thought, yes?
Yes? That's pretty much exactly what we're asking.
Because otherwise you can't get past the pandemic.
So yes. Yes.
And why is she mocking literally the only way past the pandemic that I can see?
I don't know. But...
There is some intrigue over the question of why the US alone was unable to do this thing that we would normally be good at, which is approving stuff in a pandemic.
We did these vaccinations, if you call them that, in the pandemic.
So obviously we had the capability to do this.
Don't you think? And it's being blamed on incompetence and bureaucracy.
I don't know. I'm not buying it.
Sorry. Don't buy it for a second.
Clearly there's corruption going on here somewhere.
I don't know who, I don't know where, but clearly this is corruption.
And if there's nobody digging into this to find out what's going on, You know, this is a big miss.
I mean, I think there's awards for somebody who gets to the bottom of this.
Now, the obvious question is, how can we, the public, know which of the decision makers in the government are associated with any of the pharma companies?
I did read an article that said that the gentleman who's responsible for recommending which rapid tests are considered or whatever, he did have some association with Abbott in the past, but we don't know that he owns any stock.
I think he doesn't. But he had a close association with the only one that got quickly approved.
In the past, he had done some work with them.
So... That seems like something I'd want to know more about.
Wouldn't you? And I would just put this out there.
The way that people do illegal things is not just by owning the stock.
You could have a family member own the stock, and I don't know that anybody would know.
Would they? If your spouse owned the stock but you didn't, would anybody know?
How about if it was your brother?
Would anybody know?
The SEC would know?
If it's a spouse. How about this?
Suppose this gentleman wanted to go do some work for Abbott in the future after making them $1.9 billion on rapid tests.
Do you think he would get that job?
Do you think Abbott would say, yeah, you're hired.
You just made us $1.9 billion there, thanks.
We will hire you to consult for any price you want.
What do you think? Now, the trouble is that that wouldn't be illegal, would it?
It wouldn't be illegal simply to understand that if he worked for Abbott in the future, they would be likely to say yes to whatever he offered.
That's not illegal, is it?
So, there are a whole bunch of ways corruption can happen in this situation, and they don't all involve owning stock.
So follow the money, but it gets really hard to follow it when you're talking about just understood arrangements.
Let me give you another example.
Let's say that the person responsible for the rapid tests in the government did not accept any money from anybody, did not own any stock, but he knew that he was going to start a start-up soon, and he might want one of the existing pharma companies to foot the money.
Could you detect that?
Is there any way to find out that there was a private conversation in which somebody said, you know, if you give us a little runway here on these rapid tests, we're likely to fund your startup, should you have one in the future.
Now, I don't think anybody said that.
Like, I'm not alleging that anything like that happened.
I'm just saying that there are a thousand ways...
To be corrupt, that would be hard to detect.
Right? So I'm not mind-reading.
I'm speculating about possibilities.
Mind-reading would be, I know what happened.
Speculating would be, you know, there are a hundred ways that this could go wrong.
We better look into it.
All right. So I've got big questions on that, and that looks like corruption to me.
Weirdly, the White House, there was some kind of, I guess, a committee that came up with some recommendations, and the White House ended up flagging the art industry as a special industry where there's a lot of corruption because you can launder money through art just by overpaying for art, basically. So you just pay too much for art and you can get your illegal money back into the legal system, which is what laundering does.
And they're flagging our industry as a money laundering entity.
At the same time, Hunter Biden is selling his artwork for half a million dollars to anonymous buyers.
How in the world can both these things be happening at the same time?
Now, the obvious question to be asked here is, is there anything that Hunter couldn't get away with at this point?
That he could do right in front of you.
Because Hunter's alleged improprieties are kind of well known, right?
We know all of his connections to everything.
It's almost transparent.
And then we see this art thing, which looks super corrupt, but it's all public.
We don't know who the buyers are, but we know what the situation is.
And... I have to ask, does Hunter Biden even need to show identification when he goes to a bank?
Or can he just walk behind the counter, go into the vault, load up a pallet with dollars and walk out with it?
And then somebody will say, well, we've got this story about Hunter Biden.
He walked into a bank and took a pallet of cash.
And then you're waiting for the rest of the story where he gets indicted and arrested.
And it just doesn't happen.
Then you check back tomorrow and say, oh man, he's going to be indicted.
Well, he's not indicted.
Is there anything this guy can do?
What exactly would it take for him to be, you know, stopped?
So we're defunding the police at the same time Hunter's running wild.
Not really a related story, but it was funny.
All right, so we should do a tweet on what could Hunter get away with based on what he's already getting away with.
I don't know that there's any limit.
Remember when Trump said he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue?
I think Hunter Biden could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue, have sex with the dead body, snort coke off the corpse in front of 100 cameras, And the news would say, better get you vaccinations.
All right. I will tell you for anybody who's new, I'm not the guy who tells you to get vaccinated.
It's a personal decision, and I don't care if you do.
Okay? So when I talk about stuff, I'm talking about the logic of it.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
So just keep that in mind.
But here's the things that we all know.
And I think we all know this.
So this would be based on the consensus of science.
So when I say we all know it, what I mean is that we know that science is telling us it's true, which is different from being true.
We all know that, right?
But this is what they tell us is true, that the vaccinations greatly reduce your risk of hospitalization and death, And that they reduce the spread, but they don't stop it.
Now that's...
The BS starts now.
Goodbye, Andrew, for being an asshole.
Assholes get banned.
Anybody else want to make an asshole comment about what I'm secretly thinking?
Anybody? Anybody?
All right. So the rest of you maybe could be adults and just listen to it before you decide that I'm secretly trying to convince you to get the vaccination.
Fucking idiots. All right.
So, according to the experts, it reduces your hospitalization and death risk to practically nothing, from practically nothing, because it wasn't that high to start, and that the rate of the spread would be less.
Now, people quite reasonably said, show me your work.
How can you say this?
Where are those studies? To which I say, don't ask me for studies.
I don't believe any studies.
I'm telling you what the experts say.
That's what they say. Ask them for studies.
But then people keep saying that the jabs don't work.
What? Why would you say they don't work if you know that basically 100% of experts say that it prevents you from dying or getting badly hospitalized?
Why would you say they don't work?
That's word thinking.
So in my book, Loser Think, I talk about this.
Word thinking is that you're trying to take a definition and change the definition or use a definition the way you want, and you think that wins an argument.
It doesn't. It's just a word you put on something.
So if you want to say the vaccination doesn't work, that just means you've defined working a different way.
We all know that it doesn't stop the virus, right?
There's nobody who's confused about that.
We know you can still get it if you're vaccinated, right?
Everybody knows that. But why would you say it doesn't work according to the science?
Because the people who say it doesn't work are pointing to the studies and the science.
But the science says it works.
Now, if anybody's coming in late, I'm not telling you to get vaccinated.
I'm not telling you not to.
I'm just talking about what we know and what we don't.
You make your own decisions.
Now, this is the worst argument against the vaccinations, to say they don't work.
Would you like a good argument?
Anybody? I'm going to give you the good argument for not getting vaccinated.
All right? Here's the good argument for not getting vaccinated.
Nobody knows what the side effects are.
You think you're in a demographic that doesn't have much risk.
You think natural immunity is going to be better than a vaccination.
And you think the government is a liar.
And you think that the companies are liars.
And that they're not telling you all the risks.
That's a pretty good argument.
Now, it's not the argument that I agree with.
Because my own risk is different than your risk, etc.
So my decision about vaccinations shouldn't match yours.
You should make your own.
But the bad argument is they don't work.
When you say they don't work, you don't sound smart, honestly.
That sounds just under-informed.
Because I'm pretty sure we'd know if they didn't make any effect.
Like, it seems really clear that the hospitalizations and deaths go way down.
Now, what do we know about the side effects?
Some of you say, but, but, but the VAERS database.
That's a bad argument.
That might be right.
But it's a bad argument.
Because the VAERS database is not meant to do the thing that you're doing with it, which is looking at it and saying, hey, I guess that's strong evidence that there's problems.
It's not meant for that. And we have no confidence that it's accurate.
And once just everybody gets vaccinated, every problem you have will come soon after getting vaccinated, right?
So, especially if you have the SOCON descending...
Sri inside says, so condescending.
What is condescending?
I'm talking about the arguments, not the people.
The arguments can suck, but the people can be awesome.
Are you okay with that? I'm not saying that you're dumb...
Or that you're making a wrong decision.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's good arguments and bad arguments, and I would like to equate you with the good arguments so that you can be good people with good arguments.
Whichever way you go, use the good argument, okay?
Don't use the bad argument.
It makes you less likely to persuade.
Use the good one. Now, to me it comes down to your unknown risk of the virus itself, Compared to the unknown risk of the vaccinations.
How many of you think you know which is the bigger risk?
No. Not guessing, not assuming, not a hunch.
But how many of you think you know which is the biggest risk?
The vaccination itself or the virus itself?
How many of you know which one is the bigger risk?
Uh... No one does.
No one does. Somebody says catching the virus obviously.
Not obviously. What do you mean obviously?
How in the world could that be obvious?
No idea.
Unknowable. Yeah, so everybody says it's unknowable.
That's the right answer. Now, given that that's the number one biggest variable...
Well, let me ask this question.
Is the side effect risk or the long-term risk of the virus versus the vaccine, plus the short-term risk, do you feel you understand those risks?
Anyway, let me ask this question.
Do you think that the risks of the vaccination itself, do you think that that's the biggest variable?
In your decision, is the risk of the vaccination hurting you itself, is that the biggest variable in your decision compared to the risk of the virus itself?
No. So if it's not your biggest variable, what is a bigger variable than that?
Somebody tell me.
For those of you who say that the risk from the vaccination is not the biggest variable, what is the biggest variable?
Your health, but that's in all the decisions.
Your age. No, we're adjusting for age and stuff.
Assuming everybody's made the decision about their comorbidities and their age and all that.
But that's baked into it.
But once you've done that, isn't your biggest variable the risk?
Easy travel? Oh, okay.
Some people say they just did it for the travel.
But that also assumes that It wasn't a big risk for the vaccination, in your mind.
Supporting a safety-obsessed world.
Okay. That would be a philosophical objection.
Got it. It's a Chinese bioweapon being injected into you.
But the virus is a Chinese bioweapon.
I don't know what the vaccination is.
All right. Well, all of you are much more reasonable than I was expecting, actually.
So good for you. And let's see what else is going on.
What would happen when 100% of people in any place get vaccinated?
What would happen in a place where 100% are vaccinated?
What would happen to the VAERS reporting?
What do you think? So the VAERS database has the adverse reactions.
That's where people report them.
Now, it's not scientific.
It's just anecdotal reports.
But when everybody is vaccinated, what would the VAERS database say?
Wouldn't it say that everything that is unexplained is caused by the vaccination?
So you should expect that no matter how many people get vaccinated, the number of people infected should go up.
Does everybody get that?
That if everything is the way the scientists understand, that the vaccinations reduce the length of time you have it and your hospitalizations and your death rates...
If everything about that is true, what would you expect?
You would expect the VAERS database to go through the roof, right?
The more people who are vaccinated, the more the VAERS rate will go up.
But you understand that that would go up whether or not the vaccinations were causing problems.
How many of you understand that?
That no matter what...
As more people get vaccinated, the VAERS database report should go through the roof even if the vaccinations were perfectly safe.
Does everybody get that? Is there anybody who doesn't understand that the VAERS database will go through the roof no matter what?
It doesn't have an option of doing anything else.
Right. It will be correlation, not causation.
But there isn't any way the VAERS database can't go way up.
No matter what the vaccinations are doing.
Right? JFK Jr.
shows up when we get to 100%.
Doctors won't support an adverse report that has passed two weeks of vax.
Okay. Doesn't change my point.
Yeah. It should skyrocket no matter what because we're all talking about it.
The fact that it's a national conversation should make the reports go through the roof.
And the fact that so many people are now vaccinated, that should also make it go through the roof, even if the vaccinations don't hurt anybody.
So most of the people I see arguing on the Internet don't seem to understand that the VAERS database has to go up.
If everything we know about human beings and math is true, it has to go up.
And it has to go up a lot, and it has to go up fast.
It doesn't mean anything. It could mean something, but it doesn't necessarily mean something.
All right. And that is just about what I wanted to tell you today.
All right. Scott, we aren't idiots.
You know, I think the people watching this live stream are more informed and better thinkers than the people who are just random Twitter users in the public.
How many of you would agree with that statement?
Because most of what we talk about is how to think about stuff better.
If you spend enough time learning to think, you're going to be better at it.
Yeah. And locals, it's almost all yeses.
And here on YouTube, there are more people just wandering in for the first time, so it's going to be a little different.
Yeah. You know, when I was talking about the VAERS database, I was kind of expecting a pushback, but I didn't get it.
Because I think you're all smarter than the average at this point.
You are geniuses, and, if I may say so, inexplicably sexy.
And that's not just for the...
People who like smart people.
Better looking and sexier.
Yeah, it's true. Yum.
I don't ever learn how to think from a cartoonist, lol.
Well... Apparently you're right.
One of the comments on YouTube was that he doesn't learn how to think from a cartoonist.
To which I say, I'll bet that's true.
I'll bet you have not learned how to think.
So, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube.
I'm going to spend a minute here with my locals people.
