Episode 1592 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About the Mass Brainwashing Operations Going on Right Now
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Reasons to date Pete Davidson
J6 hearing not carried by conservative media?
Occupy Wall Street disappeared why?
Brainwashed to believe "armed insurrection"
Dr. Peter McCullough communication style
Suicides during the pandemic
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 do you know why? Well, for starters, you found your way to Coffee with Scott Adams, and that Identifies you as, well, smarter than average, probably sexier.
I think you'll live longer.
And I've got a strong intuition that your antibodies are way above average.
That's how awesome you are.
But do you think this will be a good day for the live stream?
Yes, it's going to be the best day ever in the history of the universe.
And all you need to get going is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a cellist, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Yeah, it's a different mug.
We'll talk about that. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens.
Now go. Yeah, that's so good.
Well, I have the non-standard mug.
I know you're interested in all things coffee.
Because my kitchen was being worked on yesterday, and I cleverly took everything that I would need out of the kitchen and put it in a different room so that while the kitchen was being worked on and I didn't have access to it because the floor was being worked on, that I would have everything I needed.
And the one thing I forgot, I even moved the coffee maker, all the coffee...
I forgot a mug.
So here I was, all prepared yesterday, and I didn't have a mug to put my coffee in.
How unhappy was I? Well, I drove immediately to the local Starbucks and bought myself a couple of mugs.
Anyway, how many of you have seen my pinned tweet in which I asked for people to show me all their best memes for 2021?
Has anybody spent any time looking at that?
Let me just say...
Oh.
My. God.
Think about the funniest thing you've seen all year.
Might have been Dave Chappelle.
Very funny. Maybe there was some event or some friend of yours.
The funniest thing that happened to you all year.
Just think about what that is.
Okay? Got that in your mind?
The funniest thing.
The thing you laughed at the most all year.
Now multiply that by about five...
And go look at the comments to my pinned tweet asking for memes.
You will...
I actually...
This is not a joke.
I'm going to say something that sounds like obvious hyperbole.
Literally, meaning the actual word literally.
No joke. I had to stop reading them for health reasons.
No joke. I swear to God, that is a literal truth.
I had to take time off...
And go back in? Because I laughed so hard, not a joke, I thought I was going to hurt something.
It was actually dangerous.
I don't even remember the last time I laughed that hard.
Now here's the thing that is a little humor-writing tip.
You ready? Humor, if you look at these memes and you look at any one individually, you might love it, you might laugh, but when you see them all as a collective, you know, you read a bunch of them on different topics, it has a whole different effect.
And the effect is, it just brings you into this absurdity world that Where everything's absurd for a while, and you can just go live there for a while.
If you just see one meme, you're like, boop, boop, you're in and out.
It's like you weren't ever there.
But if you read them all at once, and you just sort of live in them for a while, you will cry.
I mean, you will cry laughing until I was feeling like something was going to give out in my actual guts.
I can't recommend it enough.
Do yourself a favor.
Just spend ten minutes.
That's all I'm asking.
If you don't cry, I will be very surprised.
Cry laughing, that is.
Speaking of things to laugh at, I was reading an article, I think it was in BuzzFeed, in which women were saying what they also saw in Pete Davidson.
You know, Pete Davidson has been dating a bunch of A-list celebrity women that you would say to yourself, or at least men tend to say this, how does he get all these women?
Right? And so women were asked what they saw in him.
I love some of the answers.
For example, he's such a mess.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing the answers, so this is my words, but this idea.
That he's such a mess that you're pretty sure he won't judge you.
What do you think of that? He's such a basket case, which he's very overt about, very transparent.
He'll tell you what a basket case he is and has been.
And that it makes you comfortable around him.
True? I think so.
I think you're more comfortable around people who clearly have more problems than you do.
That's one thing. Now, he's also tall, he's successful, he's funny, he's getting rich, which didn't matter to the specific women he was with.
But you can see all those things as well.
But here's the funniest part.
It was a tweet that was part of the article.
Somebody described Pete Davidson as looking like a wet cigarette.
That's good.
I mean, that's really good.
And I think that's what I'm saying.
I've seen people describe me as looking like a thumb, and, you know, I laugh at that too.
So, you know, I don't want to make fun of people's looks.
I don't generally do that. But when somebody makes a spot-on kind of analogy, a wet cigarette, I don't think that could be any better, could it?
I mean, just in terms of cruel descriptions of people.
I've been on the receiving end of lots of cruel descriptions.
And I can tell you that when they're done well, they're actually just hilarious, even if it's about you.
So I'd like to think that he would laugh at that, too, because it's just so clever.
So I think that women know that he's not going to think he's better than them.
But... And somebody else said he's a nice guy...
But he's sort of confident in who he is.
Have you ever heard the phrase, people are comfortable in their own skin?
In other words, it doesn't matter who you are, but are you comfortable being that person?
And if you are, other people are comfortable around you.
Now, I'm not sure that describes Pete Davidson, because that would require reading his mind, and we can't do that.
But I would say it looks like that.
You know, from the outside. It looks like he's someone who's completely confident that he is just him.
And he's not anybody else that he's not trying to be.
So the fact that he's putting no effort into trying to look like somebody else, I think that gives him a little credit, doesn't it?
I think he's likable.
I mean, you know, I like everybody with a sense of humor.
So I know I would like him if he were in the same room.
So you got that.
But here's the other thing that I think people are missing in the story.
The story is about how all these, you know, top, let's say, top celebrity and, you know, attractive women all like him.
Is that the real story?
Because there's a part of the story they're leaving out.
None of them wanted to marry him.
Am I right? Why isn't that the story?
The story should be zero people wanted to marry Pete Davidson.
Now, I don't know if he wanted to get married.
Maybe not. But I'm not sure that women see him as a keeper.
I think they might see him as just a great guy to hang around with.
Because he looks like he'd be fun.
I mean, how would it not be fun?
It would be hard to even...
Like, could you even picture in your mind hanging out with Pete Davidson and not having fun?
Like you really can't even conceive of it, can you?
So I totally see his appeal.
I don't think people are going to line up to marry him right away for a lot of the same reasons.
Rasmussen has a poll that Biden's approval is at 41%, his disapproval at 57%.
But here's the weird thing. 57% disapprove of him, but yet 64% say things are heading in the wrong direction.
I don't know. Maybe because it's not his fault?
I would think that his disapproval would be closer to the same as the number that say it's heading in the wrong direction.
It's in that neighborhood, but I'd expect that to be closer.
Anyway, where are all the people who thought things would be better under Trump?
Because I don't think we got that, right?
Or better under Biden than Trump.
I don't think we got that. I wonder if people are noticing.
So, Brian Stilter was pointing out that the January 6th committee hearings were apparently being broadcast by CNN. But he points out that it wasn't being carried by Fox News.
Newsmax or One America News?
All right-leaning news outlets.
So what do you think? Does Stelter have a point?
Because you've seen it in the other direction, right?
You've seen the other direction where Fox News would carry something all day long that the CNN would not.
You could probably think of some examples of that.
So does he have a point?
Do you feel like you're being manipulated by the right-leaning media for not showing you that?
Why don't you care?
Why don't you care?
Now I can see why CNN wouldn't cover the Trump rallies, because those are purely political.
You don't care. Here's my speculation about why the people on the right and therefore the platforms themselves don't carry it.
See if this rings true with you.
Because everyone on the right knows it wasn't an insurrection.
So it's a committee to find out if an insurrection happened and how it happened and who was behind it.
Everyone on the right knows it's not real.
Everyone. I think everyone on the right knows there was no insurrection and that no one will be charged with one.
Now, I realize that insurrection is difficult to charge, but there's nobody even close.
Is there? They're being charged with individual crimes, which I think in most cases they did commit.
And here's the thing.
Are any conservatives complaining that the protesters who literally broke a law are subject to the legal system?
I haven't heard anybody complain about that.
We've complained about people being jailed for too long without the system dealing with them one way or another.
And that looks criminal to me.
But nobody's complaining about the fact that there's a thing called laws that apply to everybody.
All right, that's my theory, is that the people on the left need to see it because they could find out what's going on, but the people on the right already know.
There's nothing to find out.
Why would you show an entire hearing of nothing?
That's what it looks like on the right.
Now, I'm being too kind because obviously all the news organizations are in some way brainwashing tools.
So if they choose to not show something or show something...
That is a statement about brainwashing.
But in this case, CNN is doing the brainwashing, and the other entities already said everything they need to say.
There's nothing there except individual crimes, which need to be dealt with.
All right, here are some examples of recent mass brainwashing operations.
And by the way, I think we need to get away from our old...
Words about the so-called news networks and social media collectively.
They're not really about news anymore, are they?
I think it would be more accurate and without hyperbole.
I'm going to try to be just straightforward on the facts and not exaggerate them.
It'll sound like an exaggeration, but I'm not trying to do that.
I'm honestly trying to not exaggerate.
I think the things we used to call the news are so clearly now...
Just brainwashing operations.
I have trouble even considering them as news entities.
They just look like a brainwashing operation going in different directions.
That's all it looks like to me.
Now, there is news there, which gives them a reason or a cover story for existing, I guess.
But listen to all these.
In my opinion, these are brainwashing operations.
Meaning that somebody intentionally said, let's convince somebody of something that's not true.
As opposed to just fake news where it's just not true.
But somebody actually decided, specifically, let's see if we can sell this not true thing.
You had the Russia collusion hoax.
They knew that wasn't true.
Here's a new one I'm adding to my list.
Have you seen the chart...
This shows you that at exactly the same time, Occupy Wall Street disappeared for no reason.
Because what they were complaining about didn't stop.
It got worse. The income distribution got worse, not better.
But Occupy Wall Street just sort of went away.
And then it was replaced with critical race theory and Black Lives Matter and race, race, race, everything's race.
Okay? That's not natural.
Okay? That's a brainwashing operation.
Obviously, somebody decided Occupy Wall Street didn't work as a frame, and so they came up with a new frame.
I don't know who they is. You could guess it's Soros.
I know you're going to say Soros.
I don't have personal reason to believe he's the one cause of all this stuff.
But clearly there were numbers of people in important places that thought that race was going to be the new frame.
And so I would call that a brainwashing operation because not much changed.
From two years ago, I don't know that much changed, but suddenly it's the biggest topic in the world.
So that screams brainwashing operation.
You saw the Waukesha story disappear.
That's a brainwashing operation.
They just make an inconvenient narrative disappear.
Of course, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, were two big brainwashing operations.
They worked on the left and worked a little bit on the right, amazingly.
And then the thought that the courts have validated the election.
That's a brainwashing operation.
I think half of the country thinks that the courts looked at the election and decided it was fair.
You know nothing like that happened, right?
There were just a few cases brought to the courts, and in the most cases, most of them they didn't have standing, or it was too late, or there was a reason that the court couldn't look at it, or it was too early before anybody had audited anything.
But basically the courts looked at a whole bunch of nothing.
There was a lot of it, but...
All of it added up to nothing.
So they can't prove there was no election problems.
They can only prove they didn't judge that there was any, which is different.
All right, so those are just some examples.
Yeah, I just don't even see the news anymore as even intending to give you news.
It looks like the intention is to brainwash.
All right. I was...
Talking to a gentleman online who had been brainwashed to believe there was an insurrection, and when I said it was a weird insurrection because the most armed segment of American life didn't bring weapons, and I was corrected that there were actually six guns were retrieved from the protesters.
We assume there were more, but six were discovered.
Do you know how they discovered them?
Well, it wasn't because anybody had one out.
I think, you know, they were probably arrested for other reasons or whatever and had guns.
But this was given to me as a reason to believe it was an armed insurrection, that they had found six guns.
And I pointed out that six guns is roughly the amount of guns in a Texas Walmart on any given moment.
Am I wrong? If you go into a Walmart in Texas, do you think there are six guns in there?
I'll bet. And then how many are in the parking lot?
Six guns in the building, but how many are in the parking lot?
A hundred.
That's probably every Walmart.
So, no, that doesn't mean anything, that there were six guns in a gigantic gathering of conservatives.
Conservatives bring guns in case they need them.
It's just standard procedure for a lot of people.
True or false, the public needs an advocate for getting us out of the pandemic constraints.
The public needs an advocate.
What we have are elected representatives.
They're the wrong people.
Not by personality and not by competence.
The problem here is that the public, and this is a rare situation, where the public's interest is just not the same as the government's interest.
Normally, they're really in lockstep.
Normally, the government has to do a good job for the people in a way that the people can observe and see, and that will help them get elected and would be good for the politicians.
So we've designed a really good system, you know, compared to the alternatives.
The republic with, you know, our democratic processes within is really good, really good.
You know, with flaws, of course, but the best we have.
But here's the problem.
The government has to manage for minimum death.
What does everybody say is the number one job of a government?
Protect the citizens.
Am I right? Everybody would agree with that.
The number one job of government is to protect the citizens.
Somebody says it's not.
Really? You disagree with that statement?
I'm saying that's the...
If you listen to any politician...
They will tell you that. That their job is to protect people.
Now, that doesn't mean take their freedom away, right?
That means protect them.
Make sure you've got law enforcement.
Make sure you have a national defense.
Make sure, you know, maybe OSHA and stuff.
Make sure that you're not doing obviously dangerous things that are just ridiculous.
Now, of course, they might go too far, and that's another conversation.
You know, go too far in trying to keep you safe.
And I think that's our exact situation here.
What the public wants is an objective risk management decision based on the best information.
And for most of us, that would indicate opening up sooner than the government wants.
Am I right? That the public...
Not everybody, but the public...
I'd say the consensus is clearly on the side of opening up sooner than later.
Would you agree with that?
I could be wrong about that, but I think that's true.
I see one wrong.
But if the public were sure that they were safe enough, I'm pretty sure that they'd all be on that side.
Now, here's the problem.
You've got a government who has to manage toward minimizing death...
But you've got a public who doesn't have that same single-minded focus.
The public wants to live a life that they know has a certain amount of risks, and once they've been informed, and once they've been given some reasonable tools to deal with the risk, which we have now, the public just doesn't have the same objective.
Our objective is to get out there and live.
Take some chances.
The government's objective is to minimize death.
They're just not compatible.
And so I submit to you that the public needs an advocate.
Actually, somebody whose job it is.
I don't know how they would ever be appointed or self-appointed or something.
So that somebody can negotiate directly with the government because the government are not our representatives on this specific question.
The government are our representatives on basically everything else.
It's just a weird situation where we should not expect that they would represent us because they have different objectives.
Now, that's not their fault, is it?
People manage to their incentives.
You can't change that.
People manage to their own risk management.
And the politicians have to manage for minimizing death, and the public doesn't.
So we need an advocate.
Now, I don't know I would be the right choice for that, but there should be somebody who at least has something like my skill set, maybe more credibility in a variety of ways, but something like that.
We just need somebody to speak for the people because the government can't do that right now.
All right. There's a new technology that looks promising that will allow you to get a vaccination without a needle.
So there's a little device that blows focused air into your arm or whatever, and somehow that air can inject enough of the vaccination that you don't need an actual needle.
And as others have observed, We humans are rationalizers.
We're not really rational people.
And I do suspect that...
I'm just going to throw a wild-ass number out.
This has no data or anything.
It's just based on living in the world.
I would bet you...
I will bet you that of the vaccine resistors, 25% of them are...
It's about the needle.
They won't say that necessarily...
They might make an argument for risk management, etc.
But I feel like at least 25% have a needle fear that has influenced them to think they have some other reason.
That would be normal, by the way.
That would just be how a normal brain would work.
You would rationalize that stuff and make it think that you're making a rational decision.
Air bubbles and veins?
I don't know. I guess they figured that out somehow.
It's not like they're shooting into a vein.
It looks like they're shooting into your skin somehow.
That's way too high, Scott?
What would you say, 10%?
10% maybe just have fear of needles?
Fear of needles is a big thing.
Somebody says 2%?
Maybe. I don't know.
But for some people who actually maybe would want the vaccination, but...
Are afraid of the needles, that might make a difference to them.
Again, I'm not recommending you get vaccinated.
Let me say that as often as I need to.
I'll give you the pros and cons as they develop.
So this is on the pro side.
But it doesn't mean you should do it.
It just means that there's lots of pros and cons and maybe you should be aware of them all and then make your own decision.
All right. Let's see what else is going on.
Here's the name of that company that's making that air vaccination thing that just blows air into you.
It's Diosynvax.
D-I-O-S-Y-N, like synthetic, vax.
And let me give you some advice.
I'm going to give some corporate advice here to this company.
So you can just watch, but this is intended for the CEO of Diocinvax.
If you're trying to make a device to get the people who don't want vaccinations, and a lot of them would be Christian, you don't want to name your company Diocinvax.
Because dying is bad, sin is bad, and some people are already anti-vax.
So, die-a-sin-vax looks like...
I hope they didn't pay a consultant for that name.
You know, sometimes a consultant will do that.
They should pay a cartoonist to check out company names.
Because you know what cartoonists do really well?
Mock things. We're really good at that.
A lot of practice. So show me your corporate name and I will tell you exactly how I will mock it.
And Diosynvax, that's just asking for it.
How many of you believe that Pfizer's documents, their own documents, show vastly more vaccine-related deaths than you have been told publicly?
How many of you believe that that's in the news and that that's real?
That it's actually just news?
Not a rumor, but it's just news.
How many of you think it's a fact that we now know that Pfizer's own data shows that vaccinations are killing way more people than had been reported before?
How many think that's a fact?
Jet air injectors for vaccines have been around since at least the 50s, Michael says.
Huh. All right.
Well, here's what Andres Backhouse points out, and I always refer to him as my best source of analyzing what is and isn't credible when it comes to data.
He's really, really good at it, so that's why you should follow him.
Andres Backhouse.
And... He took a run at Jordan Peterson because Jordan Peterson tweeted that information about all of the deaths with the Pfizer vaccine, according to Pfizer's own data.
But as Andres points out, that if you actually read the details of it, it says very clearly that the deaths are not attributed to the vaccination.
That's a pretty big difference.
Yes, there were a lot of deaths, Because, you know, lots and lots of people got the vaccination.
And there were a lot of deaths.
But a huge number of them actually had COVID at the same time they died.
They got the vaccination, but also got COVID. Either it was, you know, after the first vaccination or the second.
So you would, at the very least, you'd have to put a question mark next to the people who died with COVID. Because we know that kills you.
How do you know it was the COVID and not the vaccination?
Or the vaccinations and not the COVID? We don't, right?
So the point is that these big numbers are simply the people we know died.
It's not the people we know died because of the vaccination.
If a lot of them actually had COVID, that's pretty questionable.
Now, am I telling you that these vaccinations are safe?
No. No.
Don't hear that.
Remember, this is not the show that goes binary.
Things are not all good or all bad.
Sometimes things can be a little good and a little bit bad.
That's the theme of this live stream anyway.
And you should not believe that these numbers display an actual number of deaths.
It could be.
But it's unlikely.
It's unlikely. It's very unlikely, like deeply unlikely.
As in, if you had to bet your own money against it, you should definitely bet against it.
So who knows?
Who knows? But don't believe that this data has been proven in some kind of a fact and that the numbers are giant.
That's just not the case.
All right. Let's talk about Dr.
Peter McCullough. Who was on Joe Rogan's show.
I think he's been on Fox.
He's been on Laura Ingraham's show.
And he's one of the doctors who has, let's say, a contrarian view about some pandemic-y, vaccination-y stuff.
How many of you are familiar with Dr.
McAuliffe and would find him a credible voice?
Go. How many find him credible and are familiar with him?
On the locals, we're seeing just a wall of yeses.
One maybe, don't know.
But yes, yes, yes, very credible.
Over on YouTube, I'm seeing yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, yes. One no.
Talk to your individual doctor, good advice.
I mean, how do you know your individual doctor is the smart one?
Very. All right.
So almost universally, you would consider him credible.
All right. Good.
Excellent. I was hoping you'd say that.
Because here is the part where things get interesting.
Okay? Here's my opinion about his credibility.
I don't know. I don't know.
How would I know? If he says a bunch of doctory, smart-sounding things, how would I know if it's true?
I have no way to know.
I can check his facts, as people said, but what if I told you about doing your own research?
Does that work? I've never seen it work.
It never works. Do you know when it works?
I'll tell you when do your own research works.
It's a very limited situation.
Doing your own research works if your name is Andres Backhaus and you have a PhD in economics.
If that's the case for you, do your own research.
Probably tell you something you didn't know.
But for the rest of us, and I include myself in this category, no, we can't do our own research.
That's ridiculous. We'll just confuse ourselves.
We'll just find the things that agree with us and come out of the well thinking we've proved it.
It's just a confirmation bias thing.
So many of you said, Scott, Scott, Scott, you are showing some doubt about this doctor, but you didn't do your own research and you didn't even listen to him.
And both of those things are true.
I listened to clips, but I didn't listen to his whole thing.
So, can I be confident about his credibility if I haven't listened to his whole thing?
I've only listened to a little bit.
And I'm not an expert.
And I haven't done my own research.
How confident can I be, in my opinion?
What do you think? Well, let me...
Let me poke at it from a few different angles and find out which parts of this you would disagree with.
Number one, this is what I call a category problem.
If you tried to figure out what's true or not, the first thing I do is say, what category is it?
I'll give you an example.
Your neighbor says he saw a UFO and it abducted his family and took him away and then returned them intact the next day.
That's a category that you can reasonably assume most of the things in it are not true.
Does it mean that your neighbor was not abducted by an alien?
Nope. Nope.
Does not mean that. This might be the one time it's true.
But your starting point if you hear somebody was abducted by an alien is, I'm going to say 95% chance that didn't happen.
How often would you be right if you just went into it with a 95% chance that did not happen?
Well, so far you'd be right every time.
Every time. How about if you heard that your neighbor had built a fusion reactor in his garage Which is, by the way, actually things that have happened.
I think somebody actually did build a...
I think more than once, somebody thinks they built a fusion reactor in their garage.
That category...
How often is that category turning out to be true?
Well, zero so far.
But there might actually someday be somebody who made a fusion reactor in their garage.
Could happen. How about the inventor who invented...
A cure for cancer, and it's going to trial.
And man, does it look good.
It worked on the animals, it worked on the test do.
It's going to cure most cancers.
That's a category.
How often does an individual claim in the cancer curing category turn out to be true?
Rarely. 5%.
Now, we get to keep all the 5%s that are true, and so actually cancer cures are building up and actually getting pretty substantial at this point.
But they're all the exceptions.
It's just that the exceptions we keep, we sort of forget about the ones that didn't work.
So, those are three categories, and there are lots more, where as soon as you hear the category, your brain should automatically go into the probably not mode.
But still, it could be the 5%, right?
Somebody said to me, Scott, wouldn't that describe you in 2016?
Weren't you in the 5% who said Trump was going to win that election, even though almost all the experts said no?
So, Scott, aren't you being a hypocrite?
Because you are exactly what you describe as non-credible.
To which I say, good point.
Exactly. If you believed me in 2016, you might have made a bad decision.
Because I was a category that should have been wrong 95% of the time.
But my 5% came through.
Now, I think it's true because I could see I had some extra information.
So it wasn't so much that I was a rogue.
It was I just had the information you didn't have.
If you had trained as a persuader, other people who had also had that training could see it too.
So that was the special case.
But I agree totally that if you were going to bet money on it, the smart money was betting against me.
You get that, right? I got that one right, but the smart money would have bet against me.
And even I would have bet against me.
You know, if I were looking at me from the outside, I would have bet against me because I was a category that's usually wrong.
All right, so I say also that the rogue doctor category, the doctor who is saying things that are quite different than the mainstream, is a category that is 95% wrong.
So if you're going to bet, bet against it every time.
5% of the time, you'll lose your bet.
Now, is Dr.
McAuliffe... In the 5% or the 95?
I don't know. I don't know.
How would I know? How do you know?
How could anybody know?
It's unknowable. I'll tell you what people said to me.
They said, Scott, Scott, Scott, listen to the whole thing.
If you listen to the whole thing, it's way more credible.
Do I agree? Absolutely.
If you listen to the entire presentation of anybody who's wrong, it will look really credible by the time you're done.
Also, anybody who's right.
Those two will look the same to you.
Because you can't really judge this rogue doctor.
If he makes a claim, I'm not going to look it up.
I mean, I could, but I'm not.
So, be very, very careful.
Now, let me give you a couple of hints that are by no means the end of the story.
I'll tell you one thing that is biasing me terribly.
And I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson here.
Now, I want to be clear.
And this is a very subtle point, but it's so important.
This doesn't mean he's not credible.
I'm going to play you a clip of Dr.
McCullough's voice.
I'm going to put it in the context of persuasion, and I'm going to tell you that the voice technique he uses is non-persuasive.
But that doesn't mean wrong.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying he's wrong.
I'm saying he's choosing a style of communication which instantly smacks as non-credible to me.
And I've described this before, I think.
Did I describe this only on locals or did I tell the YouTube people to?
Have I described the pleading voice?
There are two ways to talk when you're persuading.
One is the matter-of-fact voice.
Where you're just laying out the facts.
And here they are. Nothing to talk about.
That's persuasive.
But if you're saying this, look at the data!
Look at the data! That's the pleading voice.
That's begging the viewer to believe you because you don't believe yourself.
That's why it's non-persuasive.
You sound like a person who hasn't convinced themselves.
Because why are you talking that way?
Now, if you want to see an example of the best persuasive voice, it's just really good.
There's a series on Hulu, I think, called Dope Sick.
It's the story of OxyContin and the Purdue Company and the Sackler family.
Now, I've just watched the first part of it.
But there's a scene in there, if you watch that, there's a salesperson who was played by an actor.
And then the actor is giving his pitch to a doctor.
Listen to that.
You want to see how to modulate your voice.
To be persuasive.
I don't know if that was the actors, what the actor brought to the role, or if it was directed that way or written that way.
It's a little unclear.
But some combination of the writing and the acting and the directing gives you perfect persuasion voice.
Now, when you watch it, don't be fooled by the fact that the actor also Has a very pleasant voice.
A nice, rich, deep kind of voice that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
That's not technique.
That's just something he was born with.
He may have a little technique.
But just listen to the matter-of-factness as he lays out the facts, which you find out later, or actually you find out soon, are not facts.
But the way that a salesperson lays it out, Damn, you would think that was true.
It is so persuasive.
Even knowing it's not true, you think it sounds pretty good.
All right? Now compare that with...
I'm going to play just a clip.
And look for...
This is Dr. McAuliffe on Joe Rogan's show.
And listen to the voice and see if it sounds like matter-of-fact or pleading with you to believe it.
The books are basically nonfiction.
They have a thousand citations in the Bregan book showing how it was coordinated and planned.
Now Bobby Kennedy has his book out, The Real Anthony Fauci, the most mentioned physician in that book.
I can tell you that if you want to find the evidence that Moderna was working on the vaccine before the virus ever emanated out of the lab, if you wanted to find the collusions And the operations between the Gates Foundation, and Gavi, and CEPI, and Pfizer, and Moderna, and the vaccine manufacturers, and the Wuhan lab, and the National Institutes of Health, and Ralph Baric, and University of North Carolina, and how all this was organized.
If you want to see the Johns Hopkins planning seminar called the Spars Pandemic in 2017, where they had a symposium.
People showed up. They wrote up their symposium findings.
They published this. It says it's going to be a coronavirus.
It's going to be related to MERS and SARS. Now, again, I have to be really clear.
The way he communicates biases me to think that it's not credible.
But it could just be a technique problem.
You get that, right?
It could be... Oh, even in the not sped up playback.
Yeah, I think mine was sped up.
So don't be fooled by the rapidness of his talking.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the pleading quality, which you could hear it at slow motion the same.
It would also sound pleading.
But... Oh, okay.
Somebody's saying, let's see if I can change the speed.
I don't know if I have that option on the Twitter playback.
Doesn't... I can't do that quickly.
But if you'd like to do that yourself, that's a fair comment, by the way, that speeding it up changes how it's received.
But I think you'll see that if you play it slowly, you get the pleading just...
It's just slower.
But you're right. That wasn't fair to show it...
So let me acknowledge that wasn't fair...
To show it at a higher speed.
I didn't do that intentionally.
I must have some setting in YouTube.
But, doesn't mean he's wrong.
Right? You've got to be really clear here.
Doesn't mean he's wrong. But he's using a communication style that screams not credible.
Whether it is or not.
Alright, so I hope you learned something.
I hope you learned something from that.
Let me tell you the other thing that gave me pause.
Joe asked him about masks.
Now, what do you think a doctor should say about masks?
Well, he gave a very indirect answer which I felt was plain to the audience.
It looked like his honest answer may have not been exactly what Joe Rogan's audience wanted to hear.
That was just a feeling I got.
Again, I'm not a mind reader, so I can't know what's in his head.
That would be unfair.
But I'll tell you the way I received it was he was tap dancing on masks.
And the moment I heard him tap dance on masks, I lost all belief in anything else he had to say.
So as a general rule, if somebody has a large message and there's only one part of it you understand, and you know that part doesn't make sense, You are free to extend that lack of credibility to the whole.
That would not be irrational.
If you knew there was just one part of it you could be certain about.
So I'm still seeing some complaints that the speeding it up changed everything.
Let's look at it again tomorrow.
I'll check it on lower speed.
I don't think it changed everything.
I think it did exacerbate it, but the effect is still there.
You know, the pitch is not important except for how it's modulated, right?
So it doesn't matter that he has a high-pitched voice or a low-pitched voice.
That's not part of persuasion.
You know, the low-pitched executive voice, it can have a little persuasive value, but you don't really need that.
It's optional. He has a great track record with his COVID patients.
Do you know who else has a great track record with their COVID patients?
Everybody. Because we've got really good treatments now.
Plus, most people get better.
All right. By the way, Dope Sick, that is really well done.
I thought that I wouldn't like it because it was just going to be sad and Poorly made, but it's actually made so well.
Just the artistry of making it is really high, so it's really good to watch.
All right. So somebody asked if a cartoonist is credible.
So I tweeted his question because he had a little graph there.
The last I checked it, 59% said I was credible.
22% say I'm a paid operative.
22%, round it up to 25%.
Yes, that's exactly the number of people who answer every poll wrong, no matter the question.
All right, here's a list of how to participate in a debate if you have nothing to say to me.
You could use any of these phrases to show that you have put no thought whatsoever into your point of view, and you just wanted to say something.
So sometimes we just like to say something, be part of it.
So if you'd like to be part of a conversation with me on some topic, and you don't have anything whatsoever to say of use, use any of these phrases.
He's jumping the shark now.
He jumped the shark now.
Well, look who's the pointy-haired boss now.
I guess we know who's the pointy-haired boss now.
That's just like The Matrix.
That reminds me of Soylent Green.
Oh, oh, so you're an apologist.
You're an apologist now.
Can we call you an apologist?
You apologist? I saw it with my own eyes, Scott.
Don't tell me it didn't happen.
I saw it with my own eyes.
Heard it with my own ears.
So say that.
Any sheep references are good.
Sheep. You're a sheep.
Somebody's a sheep. Everybody's a sheep.
Any kind of sheep reference is good.
Also, 1984, the book, Hitler and anything with fascists, of course.
Just throw that into any reference.
Each of these go with every argument, really.
Now, on the sheep reference, may I say this?
I think the sheep reference is the lowest level of thinking in the pandemic.
Oh, yeah, Scott is such a sophist.
I have to add that to my list.
Yeah, that's a good one. You know everybody's a sheep, right?
So the funniest thing about 2021 is sheep calling other sheep sheep.
And then the sheep that they're calling sheep are saying, I'm not a sheep, you're the sheep.
And like, nobody's aware that we're all sheep.
Well, here's what I mean by that.
With the vaccinations, the anti-vaxxers are saying, You're sheep, and you're afraid of COVID. That's why you're getting the vaccination.
But then the sheep say, but wait a minute, are you afraid of the vaccination?
I'm afraid of the COVID. You're afraid of the vaccination.
Doesn't that make both of us sheep?
I think we're both sheep, because we're both afraid of something, and we don't know.
So as soon as you think it's the other person who's a sheep, you've left the ground of rational conversation.
Here's something I didn't know.
This is also an Andres Backhaus discovery, meaning that the data was already out there, easy to find, but for some reason he got it and you didn't.
Did you think the suicides went up during the lockdowns?
How many of you think the suicides are up during the pandemic?
Reveal yourselves. How many say suicides are up?
They're down.
But not equally.
Turns out that they're down in every category except...
No, wait.
They're down...
No, they're up in every category except adult white men, I think.
Did I read that right?
Yeah, I think that's it.
So only white adults had fewer suicides.
But other groups had a little bit more, but overall, because there's a lot of white adults killing themselves, so I guess it's not men, it's adults.
And it says, the overall decline, I think this was from NPR, the overall decline was driven mostly, almost entirely, by a drop in suicides among white people, who apparently kill themselves at a higher rate than any other group.
Did you know that? Did you know that white people kill themselves at the highest rate?
Now, how do you define equity?
Because I've said this before, shouldn't you just measure everybody's level of happiness, and if they're similar, you're done, right?
You don't have to give anybody extra money or anything if everybody's equally happy the way they are.
But if white people are killing themselves at the highest rate, I think that's a red flag.
Or maybe we're looking at this whole equality thing in a less than optimal way.
But I guess for...
So I have some theories about that.
Here's one of them. I'm not sure that we counted suicides correctly during the pandemic.
Or in general.
Here's why. A lot of suicidal people are also drug addicts.
Because why wouldn't you be, really?
If you're suicidal, it almost doesn't make sense not to do drugs.
Okay, I shouldn't say that.
Take that back. That was an irresponsible thing to say.
Bring it back. There are some things that are true, but you just shouldn't say.
So I shouldn't have said that.
But it's true. And I have a...
Well, I won't tell you why I think this.
But I do know that...
People who take too many drugs and stop worrying about overdosing might be in the suicidal group.
So I think some percentage of the overdoses are, let's say, an accidental death without much regard for whether they would die, meaning that people didn't protect their own life because they weren't that concerned about living.
Is that suicide? If you do things that you know could kill you because you're not interested in living, it's suicide-ish, even if you didn't know what would happen on that particular day.
You might be just redlining how much drugs you're taking, but not really planning to die.
You're just okay with it if it happens.
I don't know. So I would question the data, but...
If you remember, I don't know if I'm remembering it right.
Help me with my memory. I feel as though I predicted that during the pandemic there would be fewer suicides.
And my thinking was that people would be in close quarters with their families.
They wouldn't be bullied at school the same way.
And that there would just be sort of less opportunity because we'd all just be around each other and I guess our lives would be constrained, but you'd be with your family more even if you didn't like it.
I just felt like the situation was we'd be watched too much and there would be less of it.
Now, I don't know if that was a good prediction or not, but I did not predict that there would be more of it early on.
Later on, when the statistics seemed to show that there was more of it, I think I adopted that view.
Yeah, Red Fury is asking, did Scott really say that?
That's what I'm asking. I'm asking because I might have a false memory of that.
And I know that I had at least two different views.
I think I started with...
Oh, I'm seeing lots of yeses on locals.
People do remember. I started with the view that there would be fewer of them, but I changed it when the data said otherwise, but apparently it doesn't.
Apparently the data doesn't say otherwise.
Anyway, that is about all I have to do for today.
Loneliness, yes. There was less loneliness, I imagined, during the pandemic.
Weirdly. Good.
Thanks for reminding me. I'm now going to do something that will change the lives of approximately 1% of you.
You want to stay around for that?
It'll be fast.
99% of you, no difference.
1% of you, I'm going to change your life right now.
I went approximately 60 years of my life believing that I had terrible allergies, and those allergies were all the time.
I started experimenting by cutting out different food groups to see if maybe I had a food allergy that I was fooling myself into thinking it was just some kind of grass allergy or something.
And finally, I took out of my life one item, which was salad dressing.
Turns out salad dressing has this additive called sulfites.
I think it keeps it from spoiling or something.
So, sulfites.
Because I first noticed that I became allergic to alcohol, and I couldn't figure out why.
It's sort of a mysterious thing.
But I cut out a salad from my life, so to get rid of the salad dressing, and my allergies completely transformed.
I do have some kind of baseline allergies, but it went from the worst thing in the world to just sort of a small bother.
Now, here's the first tip.
You should do that if you have allergies.
Yeah, wine is the worst.
You should do that if you have allergies.
Try to... Rigorously stick to a certain kind of diet for a few weeks and then maybe take out one item, just one item, keep the same diet minus that one item, and then just keep repeating that.
Because I believe that a lot of you have food allergies, not necessarily the same one I have, but I think a lot of you have food allergies that you think are regular allergies.
Now, in my case, I went to test this the other day, and I said to myself, I want to be positive.
It's the salad dressing.
So I ate my first salad in months, and for three days I could hardly breathe.
It took days for it to die down.
Days. And I stayed off salad for a few days, and now I'm back to normal.
So... About 1% of you are going to look for sulfites.
And here's the trick. They're not listed on the package.
How about that?
Apparently, it's one of those ingredients you don't have to list.
But it typically is in dressings.
If you eat whole foods, well, here's the easy way to test it.
Just eat whole foods for a week.
Just nothing that's packaged and nothing that's a sauce.
Just see. If you eat nothing but whole foods for a week, you will feel really different.
I've tried that, and I hate it, because I don't want to eat whole foods all the time.
It's too much of a pain in the ass.
It's not delicious. But you will feel different.
I guarantee it.
You'll feel it. Alright, if that's your last tip of the day, I've got to run and do something.
