All Episodes
Dec. 17, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:26:50
Episode 1595 Scott Adams: Talking About a Deal With Russia, and Evaluating a Rogue Doctor's Credibility

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Dominion lawsuit could destroy the news industry 55 year Pfizer data, malicious compliance? Ukraine, Russia, NATO tensions China hires U.S. influencers for $300,000? Omicron spreads 70 times faster than Delta? Dr. Peter McCullough on vaccinated myocarditis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
Yep, it's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's going to be lit today, off the hook.
It'll be provocative, entertaining, Possibly change your life.
All of that in a period of just minutes.
It's amazing, really. Do you think we could do even better than that?
I do. I do.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite liquid.
And I know you like coffee, some of you.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Including the pandemic.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Yeah, powering up.
It's like a battery that just got fully charged.
Wow. It's amazing.
Well, while I was waiting to go live here today, I was getting catfished.
Got some messages from a nice woman named Christina Basham.
Christina Basham. And this nice woman named Christina Basham, who doesn't seem to know who I am, is interested in maybe a relationship.
I look at her picture and she's very beautiful.
Very beautiful. And so I texted back and I said, you think I will believe you are my wife?
And the calf fisher said, yes baby, I missed you.
This is not your best catfisher.
And I said, I am standing next to my wife right now.
Catfisher says, you are married?
Oh, no. And I said, I'm married to Christina Basham, who is with me now.
Catfisher says, oh, LOL. LOL. So my last message was, nice try.
Where are you based? Nigeria?
I'm actually curious. I want to find out where this catfisher is based.
And since I got an O-L-O-L, obviously he knows, whoever it is, knows that I know it's a scam.
I wonder if he'll just tell me.
Say, oh yeah, I'm over here in Detroit or someplace.
But anyway, if you didn't know it, my wife's photo from social media is widely used on social media by catfishers.
Catfishers, yeah. And about once every two weeks ago or so, we get these disturbed messages from people who say, but I've been sending you money for years.
No, you've been sending money to a photograph.
Well, here's the story of the day.
Do you know entertainers share?
She was walking out of a movie theater and saw this beautiful young couple and asked if she could take their picture, just because they were such a good-looking young couple.
So she takes her picture, posted on social media, and it became a big viral sensation.
And here's what she tweeted.
She said, when we were coming out of a movie, I saw a beautiful couple.
He was taking her picture.
She had flowers. I said, can I take your picture?
I had my mask on, so they didn't know who I was.
Maybe just a crazy woman.
That me. Hmm.
It could be.
It could be that they didn't recognize her, this 20-something beautiful young couple.
It could be they didn't recognize Cher because she had her mask on.
That's one of the possibilities.
The other possibility is that they're a young couple who have never heard of Cher.
How many people in their 20s even would recognize Cher?
Right? Am I right?
And, you know, I feel I can speak to this phenomenon because there aren't too many people, you know, in high school who could name Dilbert as a comic strip either.
But I like her little blind spot that the reason they didn't recognize her is because she had a mask on.
I'm going to start using that.
You've never heard of the Dilbert comic strip, youngster?
Is it because I'm wearing a mask?
I think it'll work.
Well, CNN is all a Twitter.
All a Twitter. Not on Twitter, but they're all a Twitter.
Their hearts are fluttering. Because there's some news that is, oh, it's just like candy for their hearts.
And it is that the lawsuit brought by Dominion, the voting, election voting company, They're bringing a lawsuit alleging that Fox News personalities, including Tucker Carlson, Janine Piriro, Sean Hannity, and their on-air guests, spread lies about fraud in the 2020 election.
They hurt Dominion's business.
It's one of several lawsuits that they're doing against right-wing or right-leaning entities, I guess.
Now, there are two essential claims.
One is that the opinion people, Brought experts on and talked in a way that suggested there was a problem and hurt their business.
The other is that the news people, or at least producers or people in the decision-making chain, were probably aware of information they did not report that would have been more complementary to Dominion.
So two claims.
One is that the opinion people said things that they feel are untrue.
And number two, that there may have been extra information that Fox News collectively or individually was aware of that would have been important to give you context to the story that was left out.
So does anybody want to make a prediction how this lawsuit goes?
I'm feeling pretty confident about this prediction.
I mean, the total amount I know about the law could be put in a thimble within a thimble.
But I feel like I could get this one.
Now, I don't know that it'll be dismissed or thrown out.
But we have seen that the Rachel Maddow defense is that it's just an opinion.
And it worked, right?
The defense that opinion people giving opinions can't be wrong in a libelous way has already passed muster.
Beyond that, Facebook's lawsuit, they're claiming that even their fact-checkers are opinions.
So not only are opinions opinions, but fact-checkers opinions.
Are just opinions. So in that world, where those two things seem to be somewhat established-ish, is there any way that opinion people are going to somehow be found guilty?
Now, I don't know what the standard is for this.
This is a civil suit, right?
So that means they don't need a full majority, do they?
They just need to, or the standard is lower than a criminal case.
Let's just put it that way. So I suppose anything can happen, but I would say the precedent has largely been set that opinions are opinions and facts are opinions.
Now, what if it's true?
Suppose they can come up with an email or a set of emails, just hypothetically, that would suggest that Fox News was aware of more information than they reported, and that information could have been good for Dominion's side of things.
Do you think that the courts will set a standard as a precedent That if you leave out some relevant facts to your reporting, you can be sued?
Just think about it.
That's all of the news.
The entire news landscape is the left leaving out stuff that would be good for the right, and the right leaving out stuff that would be good for the left.
There's nothing but that.
If you create that standard, it will destroy the entire news industry.
There wouldn't be anything left.
Yeah, how would the fine people hoax play?
Do you think that if Trump sued CNN for the fine people hoax, you wouldn't find any internal communication saying that they knew that they'd clipped off part of the video to turn it into a hoax?
You don't think anybody knew that?
Yeah, they did. Yeah, you might even find a digital communication from me to somebody at CNN. Telling them that very thing.
So, I don't think they can win on that, right?
I mean, I don't know how precedent works exactly in this domain, but I don't see how you could possibly have a standard that if you left something out, you're guilty, you know, just for that.
Even if you knew it. Even if you totally knew you were doing it and why you did it.
We just, it would destroy the entire news industry.
There would be nothing left. Which would be funny.
All right, now here's the other scary thing about it.
Apparently, there is some point in this process in which Dominion would get access to Fox News' communications, like private communications, which I assume would include from outside people.
Outside people who are communicating with Fox News hosts, which includes me.
My private communications just got released.
I think. I think.
Because I do have a history that I have communicated with more than one Fox host by digital means.
So my private communications are now in play.
Let me give you some advice.
Do any of you use encrypted apps so you can stay out of trouble?
How many of you use some kind of an encrypted app for communicating?
Stop it. Stop it.
Don't do it. If you're using an encrypted app because you think it's safe, oh my God, you're a sucker.
You are a sucker.
They are the least safe thing you could ever do.
Do you know why? Because that's where all the good stuff is.
Where are you going to look for stuff?
There. Here are the ways you're Encrypted communications can be corrupted.
Number one, the government always had a back door.
How would you know? Company tells you they don't.
Government says, no, we don't do that.
But that's what they would say, right?
How do you know the government doesn't have a back door?
Why wouldn't they? If they could, why wouldn't they?
It's crazy not to.
It would almost be...
An abdication of responsibility if they didn't have backdoors to all the encrypted apps.
No, I don't know that they do.
I'm just saying I'd be deeply surprised if they or some other foreign entity doesn't have access to at least one of them.
At least one of them.
Now, I'm not worried about the encryption being broken at the moment.
That's probably your smallest risk.
The next risk is that the message you send can be captured on your device before it gets encrypted, because anything that you're typing could be captured by a virus.
Am I right? A hacker could install something on your phone or device that would capture your message before it even got to the encrypted part, right?
Keylogger, yeah. And I imagine they could take a screenshot or something.
You know, you would have those options.
How about when it reaches the destination?
And then it's on the destination phone and it's on the screen.
Could a hacker get it if it's on the screen?
I assume so.
It's just a screenshot.
How hard would that be?
It's definitely hackable, and it's definitely corruptible by some government entity.
They would lie to you because that's their job.
In this instance, it would be their job to lie to you.
So if they're doing their job, you wouldn't know.
But here's the biggest part.
Anything you send to somebody, they can show to somebody else.
That's it. Anything that you show to another human, that human can just show to somebody else.
Right? And no matter how much trust you put in the encryption, you're just looking in the wrong place.
It's not the encryption you have to worry about.
It's all the people.
So, never send a message over digital means that you would be in serious trouble if it were outed.
Just don't ever do it.
No matter how private you think it is, just don't ever do it.
Ever. Not once.
I wouldn't do it under any condition ever once.
And it doesn't matter if you're running for office or not.
Because you see, in these cases, you could be completely unrelated to any kind of crime, and somebody could open up your messages.
You've seen my messages in the news, haven't you?
I'll bet you've seen a private message of mine in the fucking news.
I have. And I don't know how that happened.
Anyway, here's some good news.
Fusion. Now, of course, you have to take all the fusion good news with a grain of salt because for 30 years we've had fusion breakthroughs that never reached any conclusion.
But apparently the industry has been chugging along and they are making incremental breakthroughs all the time.
It seems to be...
As Sam Altman told me a few years ago, it's now an engineering problem where they just have to figure out how to iterate quickly.
Well, apparently this big breakthrough, and I don't know the science behind this, I'll just read this.
For the first time, a fusion reaction has achieved a record, blah, blah, you know, energy output, exceeding the energy absorbed.
Oh, sorry, that's not coming.
So they're saying that they've achieved some fusion breakthrough.
But I think what they really achieved, if you read the article, if you read the article, what they really achieved is a way to view it.
Or to actually measure it, which apparently was something they couldn't do before.
There's all these, you know, super hot reactions.
You know, how do you know what's happening in there so you can adjust it?
So they have some kind of mechanism now that they can see what they're doing and they can know if they're adding more or subtracting more.
And apparently that just opens up a big, you know, a highway toward getting it done.
So I think this is further evidence that it's an engineering problem.
We're down to iteration and testing.
And that's it. It's just innovation and testing.
Why are you saying something about Cernovich?
Is there some Cernovich news today that I don't know about?
Hmm. Anyway, this breakthrough was just down the road from where I am right now, at Lawrence Livermore Lab.
Practically walking distance.
Someplace I've been.
I've given a speech at Lawrence Livermore Lab.
It feels kind of real to me because it's literally, you know, I know people who work there.
It's just like right down there. And they've, just right down the road, have created...
Maybe the most important technology of all time.
All right. I heard from a German high school teacher today, Connor Widmeier.
Connor might be watching today, so hi, Connor.
And he tweeted this.
He said, I taught the user interface for reality.
This is a micro lesson that I did on Locals.
I can't remember if I did it publicly, too.
But... I talked about how to use different filters or frames to view reality and how to potentially interact with reality.
And Cotter says he taught that lesson to his German high school today and he quoted part of it.
He said, first you must accept the frame at least as a filter, meaning you don't have to accept it as truth, just accept it as a way to predict the world.
And then he said he gave examples about religion and they were blown away.
Now the thing that blows me away is that something I was doing here is being taught in high school in Germany.
In one class.
It turns out that a lot of things that I do get taught in schools.
So a lot of the Dilbert material has been packaged up to teach in business schools.
So there are lots of business school classes.
I think there are some psychology-related classes that use Dilbert as a lot of examples.
So Dilbert is used in schools, and then the systems versus goals, the talent stacking, and now the user interface for reality.
I know my book God's Debris is assigned often in college courses.
So weirdly, I have all these connections to education.
That I wasn't expecting.
So the Salvation Army took a real big hit on their donations because they had some kind of a guide they put out within the Salvation Army that said that white culture has challenges and needs to overcome,
among other things. This was just something that was within it, including they have to get over their denial of racism and their defensiveness about race, It states that white Americans need to, quote, stop trying to be colorblind.
So how did that work out for the donations to the Salvation Army?
Yeah, down by about a third.
So who was it who said everything woke turns to shit?
Was that Trump?
Is Trump the first one who said that?
It was Trump, right?
Everything woke turns to shit?
There will never be a more accurate, predictive rule.
I mean, I thought I was good at predicting, but you can't beat this.
Everything woke turns to shit.
You just see it over and over and over again.
Every time you see it, it's destroying something.
Our schools, our government.
So... Here's what I think must be done.
I won't say must, but could be done.
I've told you about malicious compliance, right?
The idea that you can destroy something by embracing it and acting like it's real and important, if you think it's not.
How would you do that in the case of this wokeness and the...
The idea that we should stop denying racism and stop being defensiveness about race and that white people need to stop being colorblind.
Suppose we embrace that, but even embrace it more than it is stated.
I would go so far as to say we should also put out guides about ugly people, short people, old people, and especially white people who also are discriminated against.
I believe that we should increase our list until everybody who is being discriminated for any reason is included.
Now, if those reasons are things they can't change, such as being unattractive, ugly, old, or white, And so, I think the best way to deal with the fact that wokeness turns everything to shit is to embrace it harder than it exists.
And say, wait, wait, why are you stopping this with people of color?
That's a big problem, but it's only one of them.
Why would you stop there?
Why would you allow the world to be so unwoke when there were easy ways to wake it up even more?
Why would you stop at half-woke I don't want your half-woke bullshit.
Give me full-woke. Full-woke or nothing.
So I would call this a half-woke attempt.
I've told you before that the solution to all the wokeness is, do you know what the solution is?
To embrace it fully.
So that if somebody says, hey, I think something's happening because I'm black, instead of saying, no, that's not happening, there's no racism, that's a dumb approach.
It might be true in a specific situation.
It might be more true than false.
But it's a dumb, dumb approach that doesn't work.
You want to embrace it and take it further and say, absolutely, you are being discriminated in so many ways, because it's true.
You know, systemic racism, totally true.
If you're arguing that it doesn't exist, that's just a bad argument.
It certainly exists in the sense of the teachers' unions.
That's the worst systemic racism.
As long as that's an obvious example, I don't think you can say it doesn't exist.
And surely it exists in other ways throughout society, in all the ways that they describe.
But you know what else exists?
All the other stuff.
All the other stuff really exists.
It's true that short people don't get promoted as much.
It's true that if you have any kind of a difference, you're ugly, you're overweight, you're whatever.
You're going to be discriminated against.
So let's get all that in there.
And I think that the best way we should deal with each other is to acknowledge, instead of ignoring the color or ignoring the difference, we should just go right at it.
Just go right at it.
We should be able to have a conversation every minute.
I wonder if that happened because you're black.
You should be able to bring that up anytime without any kind of provocative pushback.
It should be a legitimate question.
I wonder if that happened because you're short.
Also legitimate. I wonder if that would have been the same outcome if you were more attractive.
Also totally legitimate.
Why not just put it all out there?
Put it all out there and say, yep, I lost two careers for being white and male.
Some of you don't believe that, but there's a whole backstory there in my corporate days.
I was told that directly, by the way.
That's not me reading between the lines.
My bosses told me directly they couldn't promote me because I was white and male.
Now, that's just true.
So that puts me on the side of, you know, black Americans who have been discriminated in employment.
Why can't I be on their side?
If I had the same experience in one of the most important elements of society, which is economics.
So, embrace it until there's nothing left.
And then we'll all be better off, I think.
Well, there's another blockbuster report coming out of the January 6th hearings, congressional hearings.
You may not have heard this, so this will be breaking news to all of you.
Someone took a lunch out of the refrigerator in the congressional break room, and that lunch was labeled...
With the name of the person who was planning to eat it, but someone unnamed, we don't know, took that lunch from the congressional break room, and therefore, President Trump is guilty of insurrection.
Now, if you haven't been following this story, you know that the blockbusters don't have to have any connection to the point.
Could be just some email somebody found.
Could be somebody just testified.
They don't have to have any connection to the insurrection, but everything that they come up with, we have learned from CNN, is connected to prove that Trump is an insurrectionist.
So until that missing lunch is found, I'm going to have to say he's an insurrectionist, because logic, logic...
You all know about the Elf on the Shelf?
If you're coming to us from a non-American country, I don't know if you have that tradition, where a little elf doll is put on the shelf during Christmas.
Well, in breaking news, the Elf on the Shelf got a roommate.
It's Biden's legislative agenda.
Rasmussen has a poll.
It says the House of Representatives, people asked what they thought of their, how well they're doing their job, and the public, 30% of them said that it's either excellent or good, the House of Representatives.
That feels high, doesn't it?
Doesn't that seem high?
And then in the Senate, 21% of them were rated...
21% of the public said that the Senate was excellent or good.
That also seems high, because isn't the approval of Congress in general like in the teens?
So this is the weird way that people answer poll questions.
If you ask them to approve of Congress in general...
It'd be like 18%.
But if you say, you know, how are they doing?
30% said excellent or good.
So I don't know which number is closer to reality here.
And then Rasmussen asked about Build Back Better.
Do people support it or oppose it?
38% support it.
That's actually more than I thought.
Doesn't that sound high?
38% support it.
I'm not sure if Rasmussen is going to ask how many people know what's in it.
How many people do you think know what's in it?
Well, that didn't take long for a meme.
I don't know what's in it.
Do you? I know individual things that are in it, and I sort of recall I've read a number of articles where things are mentioned, but I don't have a comprehensive sense.
If you said, write down all of the main items in it, you know, just a high level, I don't think I could do that, could you?
So, I mean, we just hear about individual stuff.
Hey, Jonathan. That's a real good comment.
Jonathan Giglio wants to share this with the rest of you, that Clown Scott is a clown.
Good one. I'm glad you spent your energy on that, because, you know, all the other problems in the world are solved, but the thing we didn't know about is if Clown Scott was a clown.
So thanks for doing that instead of exercising or teaching your kids something valuable.
We're all the better for it.
I appreciate that. All right.
17% said they weren't sure if they could support the Build Back Better.
I would say that 17% usually I mock the uncertain because most of the questions you really should have an opinion on.
But this is one, I don't know, 17% said, I don't know.
I feel like that's the right opinion.
I don't know. I mean, if you just focus on what it would do to inflation, then I guess it would be easy to have a coherent opinion, which is, no, that's too much.
Sort of the Joe Manchin approach.
It's just too much.
That's a reasonable opinion.
Could be true, could be false, but it's reasonable.
45% oppose Build Back Better.
I really thought it was more.
I would say a reasonable person could throw the 17% unsure into the opposed.
Because if somebody said to you, we're planning to spend $2 trillion, and we don't know if it'll be a good idea or not, what do you say?
You don't even know what it's about.
You're going to spend $2 trillion?
We don't really know. I mean, some people say yes, some people say it'd be good, some say bad.
Well, if you don't know, good decision-making usually is biased or don't do it, right?
You don't put $2 trillion into something you're just guessing about.
So the unsures, I think they're a slightly opposed-ish, especially if they don't feel well-informed.
Anyway, J&J... Do me a fact check on this.
Didn't J&J... Who said they're not recommending the J&J shot anymore because of side effects?
That's true, right? Oh, the FDA. Yeah, so the FDA said they're not recommending the J&J shot.
So they would recommend the Pfizer and the Moderna first over the J&J. So, what does this tell us that we didn't know before?
Number one, it validates my strategy.
Does anybody remember what my vaccination strategy was?
What was my vaccination strategy?
Anybody? Wait as long as you can.
Wait as long as you can if you can socially isolate.
I have the advantage that I can isolate better than most people.
So in that specific condition, which might be unique to me, waiting until we know as much as possible makes sense.
You sort of have to game at what is waiting too long and what is not.
But I waited. I haven't gotten the booster.
At the moment, I'm leaning against it, but I'll still wait for more information.
But I'm glad I didn't run out and say, give me whatever you got.
Because remember, the FDA, wasn't the FDA saying it doesn't matter which booster you get?
Doesn't matter which ones you got, you can get any one of the three.
And what did I tell you?
I'm still waiting for...
Are there any doctors on here?
If you're a doctor, you probably have a better view on this.
I know I have a confident opinion, but I'll tell you my opinion.
So this is sort of leaning in that direction opinion.
It goes like this.
If you did not have a bad reaction to whatever vaccination you got, and you don't really have any tests to tell you what to do next...
Is it smarter to get a different vaccination that could have different level of side effects versus getting the same that you had, you had no side effects?
Or could that put you over the limit of how much of that one kind of vaccine you've got?
Which would you say would be just commonsensically if you did not have the benefit of data, because we don't, What commonsensically would be safer?
Doctors only, please.
If you're a doctor. Tell me if you're a doctor in the comments, please.
Yeah, I don't know. Stick with the devil you know.
Oh, so your doctor says Pfizer is a smaller dose than Moderna, but that's also why it works less, right?
Wasn't Moderna the highest efficacy?
Uh... Dr.
Matt Wayne says, go with what you had before.
Dr. Johnson, I'm not sure if you're a real doctor.
You're a troll. I'm a doctor, don't know.
Here's another...
Dr.
Johnson's all over this one. Dr.
Moderna is the best, highest amount of antigen.
Don't mix and match.
All right, so here's another one of those sort of edge questions.
The FDA, with all their experts, said go ahead and get whichever of the shots you want.
Scott said, if you don't have better information, get the one you already had.
Who had better advice?
Because, you know, a lot of the...
A lot of the decisions we're making, there's a big question of, you know, should you trust the experts or trust somebody who's just good at decision making?
Because it's different, right?
I don't know. I feel like the edge is for me.
Because I don't think that we have, especially if you had the Pfizer, if you had the Pfizer shot, which is a lower dose than Moderna, That's like a slam dunk, isn't it, that you would get the Pfizer shot again?
But if you had the Moderna shot twice, hmm, now maybe just a little extra Pfizer, similar platforms, technology.
Is that better? I don't know.
I think my bias would be to stick with whatever I got, but know that if you stuck with the Moderna, your first two doses would be the highest dose of that type, and then by the time you got the booster, you'd be well into highest ever of that technology.
So that's a risk.
All right. Let's talk about Pfizer and their 55 years to release data.
Everything you knew about that was bullshit.
Okay? Let's start there.
What was it even I believed?
I hope I showed enough skepticism in this story, because I should have, in retrospect.
Okay. But do you know why the 55 years?
Does anybody... It was 75, but it got lowered to 55.
Yeah, the 75, I think, got lowered to 55.
It got revised. But does anybody know why?
All right, well, so...
Andres Backhouse was tweeting about this.
And even the FDA criticized the FDA for its data sharing stuff.
So nobody's happy that it would take so long.
But here's my best take on it.
Apparently the FOIA requests, the requests where I guess any citizen of standing can request government information that shouldn't be secret.
So there are so many of them now, like even private companies are doing these all the time for competitive reasons, etc., trying to figure out what the competition is doing.
There are so many FOIA requests that the FDA couldn't possibly do them all.
So the first thing you need to know is that the amount of requests is this big, And the staff for all of those requests, not just for vaccinations, but for everything the FDA does, for everything, the staff is like a pinprick.
So the amount of staffing they have is nowhere in the neighborhood of what they would need to get the job done competently.
So that's the first thing.
Second thing is that I guess there's a lot of stuff that has to be redacted.
Which means you have to pour over it, and you probably have to show it to three people to make sure you redacted the right stuff.
And I can imagine that if you've got a gazillion pages of stuff, you just couldn't even staff up to do that.
There would be no way to staff up enough, because you'd have to have people who are trained and know what they're talking about.
I mean, I don't think you can get there from here.
So I've got a few comments on this.
Number one, I think what's happening is malicious compliance.
Imagine you're the FDA, and it is your requirement, it's just a legal requirement, that if people ask for this information about anything the FDA is doing that's non-private, that they have to give it to them.
So you imagine you have this incredibly understaffed Group of people who do these requests at the FDA. Totally understaffed.
What's their attitude? It's your job to do this impossible thing, and you've been given a speck of a budget.
I mean, it's actually, I think it's hundreds of millions of dollars, but compared to how much it actually would cost, it's just a speck.
What would you do if that was your job?
And you said, boss, I need ten times the budget to even put a dent in this.
And your boss says, nope, can't get it to you.
You come back, next time it's the budget, still, now I need twenty times the budget.
Because things are just getting worse.
And your boss says, we don't have the budget, do what you can.
You know that's the real situation, right?
You don't even have to be there to know that that's true, or something like that anyway.
So what does the average employee, whose job it is to do the impossible, their boss has given them no budget, and a job that's literally impossible, what does that employee say?
Do they say, nope, I quit, I'm just not even going to do that for you?
No, not in any world does the employee say that.
Not in any world. Here's what the employee says.
Absolutely. That'll take, based on the budget we have, the resources that you, my boss, have allowed me.
Let's see, with the resources you, my boss, have given me, calculate, calculate, 75 years.
So let's do that.
I'm all in. Your boss says, wait a minute, what?
Yeah, 75 years.
With the resources that you've given me to do this job, I'm all on board.
Let's start this today.
Can I get going? Why are we talking?
I should get going on this. Your boss, wait, wait a minute.
75 years? That would be like, it's worthless.
It's not even worth doing.
And your employee would say, no, this is totally worth doing.
These are very valuable requests, and I want to put all of the resources I have that you've given me Into this request.
Very important. I think we need to do this for the public.
Should take 75 years.
Can I get going on that?
And then what does your boss say?
Well, the boss either has to say, oh, I've got to admit, it's my fault.
I couldn't get you properly funded.
Or does the boss just take that number to his boss and say, oh, fuck it.
I'm just going to take this boss to my boss.
I'll just take this to my boss.
They said 75 years.
What would it take to get it done faster?
$3 billion of extra funding on top of the $300 billion a year or whatever it is.
It's pretty high. And a staff of $15,000.
And then we could put a dent in it.
Never going to happen, right?
So I think this is a malicious compliance story about a bureaucratic situation within the FDA that has nothing to do with Pfizer.
Now here's the second question.
How much of that information is the important stuff?
Suppose you just said, all right, all right, I see how that could take 75 years, but how about you just give us all of the data results with maybe some underlying data.
Don't you think they have that in a packaged form?
Are you telling me that these randomized controlled trials weren't packaged up already?
Nobody thought to put all the data in one place?
Maybe put it on a spreadsheet?
Of course they did. So how long does it take you to get all the data that's already packaged up?
It shouldn't take too long.
Now, suppose you wanted more than that, and you wanted all the emails about it.
Well, that would just be the emails since the pandemic started, right?
And you would just do a search for keywords, do a search and say, you know, give me every coronavirus, COVID, or related term, and you just send them over.
If you had all of their digital communication internally and all of their trial data How much extra are you going to get from all the other 74 years?
Probably not a lot, right?
There's got to be some kind of 80-20 rule here, but I feel like it's more like a 99-1.
Like the 1% of the data is really 99% of what you need, it feels like.
I don't know. I could be wrong about that very easily.
Very easily could be wrong about that.
But that's what we know about it. If you thought this 75-year thing was some indication that Pfizer had knowledge that there were problems with the data, I believe that is thoroughly debunked at this point.
I think it's really an FDA problem.
Scott's grasping at straws.
Tyrone, you're an asshole.
Goodbye. Do you know what you could say?
You could say what I got wrong.
You could add context. All right, so Russia...
I'm going to talk about Dr.
McCullough on Joe Rogan after I do this next segment.
Are you ready for that? How many of you want to know my full opinion on Dr.
McCullough and what he said on Joe Rogan?
Well, I know you're going to stay for that.
But first, let's talk about Russia, who has offered a clean sheet deal framework with the West.
Huh. Almost as if...
Russia finds it in their interest to be our almost ally.
Because, in my opinion, the arc of history is unmistakably bending in that direction.
Meaning that in the long run, Russia will be our ally.
We should just get over it and make it happen.
It's going to happen.
Because it has to. Because we're going to need each other in space, basically, with China's rise.
So if you know it's going to happen, and I think Russia does, and I think we do, I find Russia's offer productive.
Now, I don't think we're going to make a deal based on these terms, but let me read the terms, and then you tell me how far off this is from something that we might be able to do.
Now, I think we would have to add...
More to it.
So this is their offer.
It's not something that needs to be evaluated as an actual deal.
It's just their first offer.
But this is a pretty strong first offer.
There is one part of it that's an instant deal killer, but they know that.
And I would say that maybe we could work with it.
All right, here it is. So here's what Russia wants relative to Ukraine and the situation over there.
They want to rule out further NATO expansion, in general, around their border, and Ukraine's any path to it.
So they don't want Ukraine to be part of NATO. Reasonable or unreasonable.
Reasonable or unreasonable?
Now, we would like to treat that as unreasonable, because that would be the proper negotiating stance.
Nope, nope, no way.
Because if you have to give that up at some point in any form, you want to give something really big in return.
Here's what I would ask for in return.
No cyber attacks on each other.
Now, is that something we could actually get or determine that we had gotten?
Would we even know who's attacking us?
I don't know. Is there a cybersecurity expert on here who could tell me, could we ever make a cyber deal that we could verify was holding?
Can anybody tell you? Is that even possible?
Yeah, my assumption is probably not.
But we keep acting like we know when Russia has hacked us, right?
With Hillary's email and such.
So part of this, you know, maybe if we tried to make a no cyber hacking deal, we probably couldn't get that deal, could we?
Dr. Robert Johnson says, I'm shocked Scott fell for the 75 years excuse.
Sad, such a sheep.
We'll block you today.
All right. I feel if there was any way to make a cyberattack truce, I think you'd have to throw that in there.
I would say that blocking NATO's expansion without that is a non-starter.
What do you think? I think any discussion of limiting NATO anywhere...
Can't go forward as long as Russia is cyber-attacking us on the regular.
Who would agree with that?
So the first thing is, don't assume that their list is the list you'd negotiate from.
We can add our own stuff.
And it could be that we get more benefit from hacking them than they get from hacking us.
So maybe we don't even want to offer it.
It's possible we don't want to offer that.
I think you'd have to be pretty deep into that world to know if that makes sense.
How much do we learn from Russia hacks?
Good question. Wrong.
Scott doesn't understand that Russia ought to be our ally.
I'm just saying Russia ought to be our ally.
What are you talking about? Yeah, cyberattacks are status quo, but I feel like we should be at least trying to negotiate some way out of that.
I don't know. Then they're asking not to deploy additional troops.
Outside any country which they were in before some date, blah, blah, blah.
Before any Eastern European countries joined the alliance, blah, blah, blah.
So they don't want extra troops that would threaten them.
They want to abandon NATO military activities in the Ukraine, so don't do any military training there.
Don't put intermediate and short-range missiles there.
Not to conduct any exercises with more than one military brigade.
I'll tell you, this one is the one that signals they're serious.
If Russia gave us a list of things that you just looked at and you said, no, this is all crap.
Then it would mean that they don't really even mean to have any kind of deal.
But this one really signals some seriousness.
Not to conduct exercises with more than one military brigade.
The fact that they would allow that there could be military exercises, but they should be small enough that they don't look like an attack, that actually feels kind of reasonable, doesn't it?
I mean, if it were part of the larger deal, not if it's on its own.
Here's the next one. This is what Russia is asking.
To confirm that the parties do not consider each other as adversaries and agree to resolve all disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force.
Huh. What would be another way to phrase that?
To confirm that parties do not consider themselves to confirm that you're not the opposite of an ally.
Let's see, if I confirm that I'm not the opposite of an ally, what am I? This is it.
What have I been telling you for actually years now?
I've been telling you this. Russia needs to be an ally with us.
It's totally in their best interest.
And probably ours too, if we can work out all these little cyber things and other stuff.
They're saying it directly.
I feel like that's something you don't put in a document unless you mean it.
Because you don't really see people talk this way, do you?
When you see companies that are sort of at each other and they've got a conflict, they don't say directly, why not be friends?
That's what Putin just said.
Basically, this is as directly as you can state, why don't we just say we'll get along?
Because we don't really have a reason not to.
Right? I've been telling you the whole time, we don't have a reason to be at each other.
But we have plenty of reasons to be allies.
I mean, the list of good reasons to be allies is almost infinite.
I mean, you would die before you, you know, finish the list.
The list of reasons to be enemies?
Zero. Zero. None.
Not one. And I don't think Russia sees one.
I don't think the United States sees one.
And to me, this looks like just sort of, what do you call it?
Inertia. It's just some kind of leftover inertia from the Cold War or something.
Anyway, I think the Russia situation is going to go the way we want it in the long run.
The way they want it to.
Apparently China is offering to pay social media influencers to say that the Olympics are awesome.
And they've hired a public relations firm in New Jersey to get social media influencers to say good things about the Olympics.
In China.
At this point, U.S., Australia, and Canada, they're all going to boycott with their diplomatic stuff.
The athletes will still participate.
And why are we letting China pay influencers?
How would you like to be an influencer that somebody finds out was paid by China?
What would happen to your influence?
Isn't this a death sentence?
I can't think of any influencer who would have the clout, or let's say the anti-fragility, if you will, to survive knowing that China paid them to say good things about the Olympics.
Who could survive that? I'm so curious if this company that took their money...
The $300,000 to get these influencers, I'm so curious if they can find any.
Now, it doesn't take much money to influence an influencer because there are a lot of them who don't have much money but have big platforms.
So maybe, you know, maybe you can find somebody who'll take money for anything.
And they might not even, if it's young enough people, they might not even know they're doing anything wrong.
You know, you get a... You get a 19-year-old influencer and you say, I'll give you $20,000 to say some good things.
I don't think they're thinking in terms of international relations.
I think they're thinking in terms of $20,000.
That's real money. All right, so that's disgusting.
Even CNN has an article in which, or was it CNN? But there is talk among experts that the Omicron might act like a vaccination.
So we still have reason to be worried, just because it will be so spready.
But listen to this data that I don't believe will necessarily hold up.
But here's some data about Omicron.
Remember, it's still fog of war.
All these numbers could be wrong.
But... It's coming from, you know, experts.
And the experts say that it infects people about 70 times faster than earlier strains.
What? 70 times faster than the thing that just took out the world?
70 times faster than the pandemic itself?
What? Does that sound right?
I mean, I don't believe it, do you?
You know, if they said five times, I'd be like, well, maybe five times.
But 70 times? If it said 70% faster, I'd say, oh, that's a lot.
But 70 times?
Do you believe that?
If it's 70 times, it's going to be over in a month, right?
Can somebody do the math, but off the top of my head, we're 30 days to total infection if it's 70 times as spreading.
Am I wrong about that? Just off the top of your head, if anybody's just sort of good at math, you know, this is one you don't have time to do the math, but on the top of your head, if it's 70 times more spreading, we're done in 30 days, aren't we? Somebody says 10 days.
You might not be wrong.
All right, well, and I feel like if it were really that fast, it would have been more spread already, but I guess it starts slow.
Sort of like the grain of rice on the checkerboard, if you know that story.
But here, and it's also 10 times, or the infection is about 10 times lower in lung tissue.
So it's 70 times more spready, But ten times less infection in your lung tissue, which is where the problem would be.
Ten times. How many people are going to die with a virus that's ten times less infective than the ones that isn't killing hardly anybody?
It's a terrible sentence, but you know what I mean.
Um... The news is having a tough time dealing with this because all early indications are that this will solve the pandemic.
It will create extra hospital impact, even in mild form, just because of the rapidity of it.
It'll hit so many people at once.
So I doubt that the risk is zero.
I'm sure people will die of Omicron just like they die of every other medicine they take, basically.
Somebody does. But damn...
Damn. I think we're 30 days away from the entire traditional way to handle this pandemic just won't make any sense, as if it ever did.
Well, remember I told you that Michael Schellenberger keeps making things happen?
First in the nuclear domain, and then you saw that San Francisco's mayor completely changed her viewpoint.
That was another thing that he and his group were working on.
And today, yet again.
Yet again. So it turns out that the Netherlands has now joined the UK and France in announcing a major expansion of nuclear.
And Michael has an article on Substack and a tweet thread talking about how did this happen?
How did we so quickly...
Let's go from nuclear is bad to let's build nuclear as fast as we can.
And the answer is that one of the people over in the Netherlands telling them what they should have done is Michael Schellenberger.
Every place something is changing, he's there.
He's the best persuader I've ever seen, I think.
And I've been trying to figure out exactly what makes him so effective.
One is that he argues from data.
The other is that you actually can't tell what his political affiliation is.
I mean, I know him pretty well from this sort of stuff.
And I don't know.
I don't know. Does he lean left or right?
I know on social stuff, he had traditionally leaned left.
But when it comes to hard analytics of what works and what doesn't, that's not left or right.
The hard analytics of it are just numbers.
And so he just does the numbers where they come out.
And he doesn't give anybody a reason to be against him, which is different, isn't it?
Have you noticed that everybody who's a proponent of just about anything is also toxic?
No. Have you noticed that?
Including me, right? So I'm somewhat toxic because I'm sort of in the fight.
You know, you get slimed with every related thing.
But somehow, Schellenberger, I think mostly by staying out of the true political parts of the questions, you know, he's not backing any candidate or anything.
So I think that may be the brilliant part of what he did.
Everybody thinks...
Everybody thinks...
That he's on their side.
And guess what? They're all right.
Everybody who thinks that Michael Schellenberger is on their side, they're all right.
Because he's on all of their sides.
He's just telling you what works and what doesn't.
That's it. There's nothing else there.
He's just, this works, this doesn't, based on the data.
You know, debunk this, debunk that.
But if you take his impeccable persuasion skills, and you add it with probably a better ability to analyze things than anybody else who's in this conversation, my God, he is cutting a swath Through bad opinions like nothing I've ever seen.
Now interestingly, he picks the domains in which if you believed the correct information, you'd get a better result.
Which is interesting that they even exist.
Why does it exist that anybody thought that, say, removing, defunding the police was going to help?
Why was that ever even a conversation?
So he can get into conversations where people are completely irrationally blocked and somehow break the logjam.
It's really remarkable.
So keep watching him.
I asked this question.
Here's a primer for you.
If you saw that a medical expert disagreed with a person who was an expert in data analysis, and the disagreement was about the validity of a study...
So that's the only question. The validity of some study.
And there was an expert who had every medical qualification and just really deep medical qualifications that are exact to this domain.
The data analyst doesn't have any of that, but is just good at looking at studies.
And they disagree on whether the study is good or bad.
Which one do you believe? Who do you trust?
The expert or the other expert?
Yeah, the correct answer is the data analyst.
Because there's only one expert in the story.
See, it's a trick question.
I gave you a setup where there was only one expert.
Because if you're looking at data, that other stuff isn't going to help you.
Does the data look right?
Did they do it right? Did they have proper controls?
That sort of thing. So...
As Andres Bacchus points out, one of the things that Dr.
McCullough, who we'll talk about, who was on Joe Rogan's podcast, one of the things that he tweeted, the doctor did, is a study about young people with myocarditis, and they found that like 98% of them had myocarditis, and these are people who had been vaccinated.
So he tweeted that.
Now, that's pretty...
Yeah, look at this. Scott is waking up, right?
So the doctor, who's a very highly qualified expert, both in cardiology and, I believe, virology, if I'm correct, right?
The two most relevant expertise, and he says that these vaccinated people, 98% of them, and they're young, had, in fact, myocarditis. So that's what the expert said, and he sent that around.
Am I woke enough yet?
Does anybody think I'm woke enough now?
On YouTube, there's somebody here saying, oh, now you're getting it, aren't you?
Okay. But as we mentioned, the good doctor is an expert in cardiology and virology, but not data analysis.
Not data analysis.
I'll tell you somebody who's good at data analysis, Andreas Backhaus, who looked at that tweet and informs us that the 98% people who had myocarditis are selected from a group of people who had myocarditis.
Does it sound like I said that wrong?
No, they found out that 98% of the people with myocarditis have myocarditis.
That's what they found out.
Because they only study people who had clear symptoms of myocarditis.
If you study people that the doctors say, well, that's definitely myocarditis, and then they look into it and they do the imaging, they go, yep, sure enough, there's some myocarditis there.
What would you expect? All it says is doctors are pretty good at spotting myocarditis.
But, so that's what Andres points out, that it was a completely misleading headline.
But this is something that your doctor, who is very qualified, as far as I can tell, in all the relevant fields except data analysis.
So I did as you requested and listened to Dr.
McCullough on Joe Rogan.
And here are some of my thoughts.
He said a bunch of things I agree with, first of all.
So for a long time I was listening and I was thinking, where's the provocative part?
Because I agree with that, I agree with that, I agree with that.
But as things went, it got a little more interesting.
And So the doctor did not see some obvious conspiracy theory to prevent hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
So it didn't sound like he was saying there was some organized conspiracy.
Would you agree, those who watched it?
He was not claiming that.
He was claiming incompetence.
Now, do I disagree...
With the notion that there was incompetence, especially about early treatment options.
I do not disagree.
Does anybody? It was a fog of war, everybody trying as hard as they could, bureaucracies, blah, blah, blah.
You would expect massive amounts of incompetence as we struggle to get the right answers.
So I think that's a fair characterization of what happened, a lot of incompetence, but that's to be expected.
Not appreciated, but expected.
Now, here are some claims.
And by the way, Joe Rogan, I thought, did a really good job in the interview.
For those of you who watched it, I thought Joe took just the right tone of letting the doctor speak But pushing really hard on some questions that the doctor wasn't quite answering to my satisfaction.
I thought he did a really good job on that.
And it's really hard to hit that exact tone where you're clearly being skeptical about what he's saying, but you're still showing him full respect because you don't want to shut him down or make it into some kind of a fight.
So I don't know if anybody really realizes how good Joe Rogan is at this stuff.
I mean, who's better, really?
It's hard to think of anybody.
Especially because he gives them enough time to say whatever they want.
My only problem with that model is that there should be an expert there, or an expert on the other side.
Why? Let me give you an example.
When Dr. McCullough said one of the reasons that we know, and fact-checked me on this, because I don't want to say a claim that he didn't make, so just correct me in real time if I say something wrong.
When Joe Rogan was asking him, effectively, why haven't other countries...
Why is it, if there's something going on with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, why is it it's happening everywhere at the same time?
It's exactly the right question, right?
I've asked that question a number of times, which is, if these things work, wouldn't there be somewhere on Earth where they're working?
Because even though you can imagine an American conspiracy and even a global conspiracy, easy to imagine, but would it get every country?
Because every country had a pandemic.
Every one. You tell me there's not one little country that couldn't just say, all right, we're going to use ivermectin because we don't have vaccinations.
We'll just get rid of it.
So in order for the doctor's opinion that The signal is very strong.
We don't have a randomized controlled trial.
Everybody would like that, but it's impractical within the time frame.
He's saying that the signal of the benefits of these drugs is so high from studies that are not perfect and the risk is so low That clearly it makes sense.
And then Joe kept pushing on that question about why are these other countries not having the big result?
And then here's the payoff.
And so then the doctor proved his thesis by giving you several examples where ivermectin had completely squashed the pandemic in their country.
So are you good?
So examples were Peru, Mexico.
I think he said it's a first-level thing in Japan, but none of the Asian countries had trouble with it, so I think that's a special case.
So let's just take two of them, Mexico and I think India.
India might have been on his list.
What would happen if you spent five minutes googling Peru and ivermectin?
Well, you would find out that it did not change anything in Peru.
So the claim that it worked in Peru, there's no data to support that.
In fact, the data says the opposite.
You can see the introduction of it, and you don't see an effect.
Mexico, no data to support it.
India, no data to support it.
And there is that speculation that ivermectin might take care of worms.
Well, that's what it's for.
So if it did that, it might help some people who would have had one extra challenge.
If they get rid of that challenge, maybe they can survive the COVID better.
But it wouldn't be a direct effect on the COVID under that theory.
So, if you believe that the doctor's hypothesis is correct, that these drugs have a signal, they're working, then you must explain to yourself why his biggest examples are clearly debunked.
Now, how do I know the debunk isn't wrong, right?
Well, ask Peru.
Don't you think if Peru had used ivermectin and it just squashed the pandemic, you don't think more people would be taking ivermectin?
Really? If that really happened, this would be over if that was true.
Clearly it's not true. It's not true anywhere.
In fact, every example he gave where people are using it with success just doesn't exist.
And you can check for yourself.
Just Google it. Google his name or Google Peru and ivermectin.
Just Google it up.
You see for yourself. Five minutes.
Not any of his examples are real.
Now... Given the Andres Backhouse example, where we saw that, at least in that one example, apparently, I can't read his mind right, but from the outside looking in, it looks like he misjudged a data analysis, or at least mischaracterized it.
Secondly, the examples he used as the main things that prove his point, and here's my problem with the Joe Rogan model, if Andres Backhouse was sitting in the chair next to him, Andres would take out his laptop and say, here you go.
That example is debunked.
What else you got?
Now that would be useful.
That's the show I want to see.
In fact, if Joe Rogan is listening, could you bring back on any one of the doctors who have the non-traditional views and bring on a fact checker?
It doesn't have to be Andres.
He's in Germany. That might be hard.
But just bring in a fact checker.
It doesn't even have to be in studio.
I think you could do it remotely.
But that's my request.
To not do the rogue doctors unless you bring in a fact checker.
Now, I don't want somebody who just has the opposite opinion.
Because that's just a fight.
You want somebody who doesn't have any dog in the race.
Bring on Daniel Dale.
Bring on CNN's fact-checker, Daniel Dale.
Just have him sit there as an advertisement for CNN and say, look, here's my fact-checker, here's my expert, and just have him working on his laptop, because it's a three-hour show, right?
If you've got a three-hour show, you can just check all the facts right there.
You don't have to wonder. Scott, am I going to take the Pfizer pill?
I'll give you the same answer I gave for the vaccinations.
I'm going to wait as long as possible.
I might, but I'm going to wait as long as possible before I do.
So, let's say, what else did happen from that?
I do think that the doctor was right about the no early treatment protocols, but I feel like he has a data problem about monoclonal antibodies.
My understanding at the beginning of the pandemic is that we knew from pretty much the beginning, at least I did, I did have some information that you didn't have a long time before you had it, that Regeneron works.
I can't tell you how I knew that, but I knew it months before it was public.
But the problem I understood is to make enough of it.
Can anybody give me a fact check on that?
My understanding is that the monoclonal antibodies were mostly a problem of how fast you could make it.
Because I think that what Dr.
McCullough may be interpreting as part of that problem of bad early treatment protocols is that some of it just wasn't available.
Like, even if you knew it worked, you couldn't get it.
But I think he's spot on by saying we should have released the doctors to...
Maybe be a little more creative with their solutions.
Because I don't know what does or does not work, but if doctors were experimenting with their people and giving them hydroxychloroquine or something, I feel like the doctors should have been able to do that.
So I agree with them on the big picture.
So, here's my bottom line.
I hate to do this, but I just feel like it's important.
Because we're all trying to understand who's credible and who's not.
And I have an impression of the good Dr.
McCullough that I'm going to share with you now that I'm going to tell you in advance feels unfair even though I'm going to say it.
Right? This feels unfair.
But I also think it's important.
And I just want you to have this filter.
You've heard the phrase, it takes one to know one.
Well, when I watch Dr.
McCullough, he's one of me, I think.
All right, so that's the part that's the provocative part.
And by one of me, I mean a grandiose narcissist.
Now, there are several versions of narcissists, and I put myself in the category of a grandiose narcissist.
It's a specific kind.
Some of the narcissists are just toxic and bad for the world.
It's not that kind.
The grandiose narcissist is trying to build up their own image, self-image and reputation, but by doing something useful for the world and making sure that you knew it.
I do that every day.
I don't think you could have a better example of a grandiose narcissist Than me.
I literally tell you that's my business model all the time.
It's more like my psychological model than my business model.
But I combined them.
And I literally want to help as many people as I can.
That's why the topics of the books I write are that.
That's why I do the micro-lessons.
That's why I do most of this. But I'm also self-aware That I do it because that feeds something in me, right?
That, you know, maybe I'm not proud of.
But it's sort of like capitalism.
You know, nobody would say greed is a positive element of life, but if you don't have greed as part of your capitalism model, it doesn't work.
So I would say that narcissism is just one of those double-edged things.
It's obnoxious, can have a downside.
But in some cases...
The person who wants to change the world and get credit for it is contributing.
Is, let's say, Bill Gates or Elon Musk, are they grandiose narcissists?
I don't know. I mean, I think Musk, his brain just doesn't work like other people's, so you can't make any assumptions there.
But if they are, I hope so.
I hope they are. Because they talk like it.
They talk like, you know, I'm doing the best I can to help the world in the biggest way that I can.
So we don't know how they internally process it.
So when I hear Dr.
McCullough talk, the way he talks about his own qualifications, etc., And how he's, you know, the only one who knows the right answer and he's the lone voice in the wilderness and going on all the big talk shows and stuff like that.
He strikes me as someone who needs this to be, to work for him.
I feel like, I don't feel his motivation is monetary.
Because some of you are going to say, oh, who's paying him?
Or, you know, is there some way he thinks he's going to make money off of lecturing or something, giving speeches?
I doubt it. I didn't pick that up at all.
Again, nobody's a mind reader, right?
So anything I say about another person's internal thoughts, you should automatically say, well, how do you know?
That's the right stance to take.
But it's just my impression that his motivation looks like he really wants to help.
I think that's real, by the way.
So if you could pick a personal doctor...
Pick this one. He looks like he's a really good doctor.
Because I think he really, really wants to help people.
But it's because it feeds him as well.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that. That's not a criticism.
But I think he has that personality.
And having that personality myself, I'll tell you there's a risk to it.
If my hypothesis is right that we have that in common.
Which is, you can easily blind yourself that you've found the thing that will change the world.
Do you know how many times I've thought to myself, I think I've found it.
I might be the only one who found this.
I just found something that changes the world!
Do you know how many times I've had that thought?
And then I have to use every power of rationality to, like, squeeze it down and say...
Okay, maybe you're being a little too gullible.
Maybe you're being a little too optimistic about Omicron being a vaccination.
Maybe you're a little too optimistic about this fusion technology.
You know, that sort of thing.
So the blind spot that a grandiose narcissist would have, and I'm putting myself in this category, is a little too much optimism about what we can do.
You feel that? Have you ever seen me do that?
To have too much optimism about what I can do, just personally, to make the world a better place.
Right? Yeah, and read JFK Jr.
All right.
JFK Jr. is probably...
I'm sorry.
RFK, right? It's RFK. His credibility is really low.
You know that, right? Which is not to say he didn't get this one right.
But here's what doesn't help.
Reading one person's book.
I want RFK to be on Joe Rogan's show, sitting right next to Daniel Dale or some fact-checker.
You know, could be Andres or anybody else.
And then we'll have a conversation about RFK, okay?
But if you're saying, read RFK's book, you're telling me to do something that I know to be psychologically crippling.
Because you would get one person's opinion and no counterpoint.
That's like you telling me, hey, I'd like you to run a marathon, but could you start the marathon by cutting off one of your legs?
That's what it feels like.
Thank you, Tora. I appreciate that.
Is RFK still alive?
Yes. So, just know this.
Every time you tell me to read a book or listen to one expert, I automatically think you're not good at analysis.
Nothing personal. Because as I often say, nobody's good at anything unless they practice it, or if they've been trained, or if they have skills.
So people who have been trained in data analysis are good at it.
And people who have not been trained think they're good at it, but they don't know the difference.
Read all the books. You're right.
What about the Elon Musk tweet?
Well, we talked about his tweet about me the other day.
All right.
Scott's Peru debunking.
Need your own comparisons.
Well, I'm not sure if the point you're making is that the debunks themselves get debunked.
But I would tell you this. If you look at it and say, who is it?
Is it factcheck.org?
Who sometimes debunks things that are true.
But when you see somebody debunk something that's true, there's a way that they do it, which is sort of avoiding the question or modifying the question as they go until you're not really even on the same topic by the end of the fact check.
Have you noticed that?
But a fact check that I usually depend on is one that says, the claim is X, here's the data that shows it's wrong.
Usually I'm going to go with a fact check on that one.
Usually. Because if the person who made the claim wasn't even aware that there was data that debunked it, that's a problem.
Now if the person said, I'm aware of the data that looks like it debunks it, but there's a problem with that debunk, then I'd be, oh, okay, now it's a tie.
But if the person making the claim is not aware of the argument against it, or doesn't include it in their presentation, just so you know that they know it, I go with the debunk in those cases.
So look for the debunks on the question of Peru and ivermectins.
Make your own decisions. Dismissing Japan is a mistake.
Just watch Dr. John Campbell.
Huh. Is Dr.
John Campbell somebody who might have appeared on the show without a fact-checker sitting next to him?
I'm just guessing.
I'm just guessing.
How many times can I tell you the same fucking thing?
And you'll just say, well, what about this expert?
Let's do it again. Let's practice this.
I'm going to tell you, clearly as possible, that the last fucking thing I'm going to take as credible is one rogue expert talking to an interview who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Now, that's not Joe Rogan.
He's great at interviewing. So now you're supposed to say, oh, but what about this expert who doesn't have a fact checker?
Go ahead. See how that goes.
Can we just do this over and over again until you give up?
Will you fucking give up to tell me to read this one book or this one expert?
It never, ever is a good idea.
Not ever, ever, ever.
There will not be an exception.
There will not be.
But if there's an objective source that shows the plus and the minuses and the whole picture, I would definitely like to see that.
All right. All right.
Just looking at your comments, and I think I'm just about done.
Yeah, the thing that's missing from a live stream...
Technology is I would like to live stream and have a split screen with two remote or one remote person.
And we're not there.
Now, you think we are because you're thinking of these streaming things that combine things, but they don't work well enough to be a commercial item.
So we're almost there.
If somebody like Google or something could create a Zoom alternative where I can do media split screens...
And amazingly, Zoom doesn't do that either.
Yeah, multi-stream.
That's what we need. We're only just at the point where our Wi-Fi can handle that sort of thing, but we can do it now.
Doesn't Instagram do that?
I don't know. I haven't used Instagram Live.
Did they do that? It's in locals?
No, it isn't. It should be in locals, but it's not built in yet.
Are you still taking down AT&T? I think they're going to take down themselves.
All right. Yeah, restream.
None of those solutions work.
If it runs through a third-party software, it's a non-starter.
You need one software that does the whole thing.
As soon as you add the other software, you don't have a stable solution.
But with the cats, doing great.
StreamYard, same problem.
Yeah, no third-party software.
It's got to be one piece of software that does it all.
Export Selection