Episode 1616 Scott Adams: The Dr. Malone Interview, How to Know You Are in a Simulation, Ted Cruz and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Prediction success list
Fake Insurrection Day
FBI confirms FBI is innocent
Ted Cruz "violent terrorist attack" J6 comment
Big Pharma news and social media advertising
Dr. Malone summary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and sometimes, well, it might be hyperbole when I say it's the best thing that ever happened, but today, I think it's a fact.
Today the news has served us up some goodness.
Some actual entertaining stuff.
And we're going to dig into that.
But before we do, how would you like to enjoy something that's famous around the world?
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Of course you would. Of course you would.
And all you'd need is a copper mugger, a glass of tank of chalice, a tiny canteen jug of flask, a vessel of many kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. Ah, yeah.
I feel the fake news is starting to dissipate.
Wait, no, it's back.
It's back. I guess the coffee can't fix everything.
Well, let's talk about some things.
First, the economy disappointed a little bit, say the experts, they were expecting more jobs to be added, but here's the good news.
The unemployment rate in the United States is down to 3.9%.
What?
3.9%?
Let me give you an economics lesson in about 10 seconds.
In about 10 seconds, I'm going to tell you 80% of what you need to know about economics.
You ready? And this is true.
This is 80% of everything you need to know about the economy.
If employment looks good, we'll be fine.
That's it. If the unemployment rate is low, everything works out.
Yeah, we've got inflation, and the inflation is quite a bear.
I mean, it's big.
But can we work through inflation?
Yeah, we can do that.
It's just a tax.
We pay the tax.
Now, the other thing that's going on, by the way, and I haven't seen anybody talk about this, but let me toss this out there.
One of the things that lowers inflation is competition.
So let's say you've got a situation where prices go up because of delivery costs.
So let's say it's just way more expensive for energy, so all of your delivery costs go up, and you pass that along to the consumer.
Well, what's the natural thing that happens?
The natural thing that happens is you've created an economic problem with delivery costs, and so then somebody creates an app That can put different people's stuff on the same truck or uses Uber as part of the delivery system, which is already happening.
Basically, the economy can find a way to get you your stuff without using as many trucks.
And then suddenly the gas price matters less.
So that doesn't happen right away, but I think that in the modern world, our ability to build an entire new business...
To address a price imperfection, we can do that kind of quickly.
So I'm not sure that we're looking at ten years of inflation.
We might be looking at three, because the entire economy will start to adjust to the...
The price imbalances.
So that's just some of what will affect inflation.
But as long as the unemployment rate is below 4%, economists call that full employment.
Have you ever heard of that?
Yeah. So if you have 4% people unemployed, this is just roughly speaking, if you're an economist, you call that full employment.
Because you need some unemployed people, that just means people are between jobs and there's a fluidity that you can leave a job, wait a few months, go get a new job.
That's like the best situation in the world.
So you don't want zero unemployment because then there's nobody to hire.
You're just stealing from each other.
You want about 4%.
The economy, ladies and gentlemen, just went through the toughest challenge I've ever seen an economy have, at least in my lifetime, the pandemic.
Not only did we go through it, I feel like we're going to come out ahead, meaning that so many things changed in society, everything from health care to commuting to just the basic way we do everything.
It just got thrown up in the air, and now all the startups will go in and find their little spots.
I've got a feeling the pandemic is going to end up being like World War II, in the sense that while it's horrible, while it's happening, there's all this economic activity that it creates that ripples on forever.
So, economy-wise, I'm really happy, even with the inflation.
We'll get through it. All right.
You all were following the three-act movie about me, which I've been telling you about.
And I've told you how often life fits into a three-act movie.
The first act is something happens that changes everything.
In this case, the something that happened was we were getting near the end of the pandemic, we hope, And people were talking about who was a good predictor and who got everything wrong.
And I found that the world exploded on my head, telling me that I'd gotten everything wrong and that I was afraid and I should take the L and all these things.
And if you watched it, it was quite a show.
There were a lot of people.
There were high-profile people, podcasters, saying all the things I'd gotten wrong.
Now, the problem is that to defend myself was sort of impractical because my predictions were mostly spread across all live streams that are not really indexed.
So for me to prove that I did anything right, I didn't really have a way to collect that without massive effort, which I wasn't going to do.
But I came up with a hack.
And by the way, the second act of the movie...
Is where all the trolls came after me.
And then I started playing whack-a-mole.
So the trolls would say, you said the sky is green.
And then I would say, nope.
I've always said the sky is blue unless it's night time or cloudy.
And then I'd whack that mole.
And then another one would pop up with another ridiculous hallucination.
So that's like the second act of a movie where there's lots of stuff happening, but the Let's say the hero of the movie, which would be me in this case, is doing okay.
Like, I'm whacking the moles, but I'm not in deep trouble, I'm just whacking all the moles.
And then you realize that you're just not going to be able to whack them all.
And then the big media starts doing stories about how wrong you were, about this or that.
And suddenly, I had become the poster child of bad predictions.
Would you agree with that characterization?
That in the past two weeks, at least for people on the right, I had become the poster child of being wrong.
But all of that was based on imagining what I had done.
Now, how do you get into a situation where thousands of people are imagining something you did?
Now, I'm seeing a lot of people say no, but that's how it felt to me.
Within my own movie, it felt like my reputation...
In fact, one of the most common comments was that I had destroyed my reputation by all these bad things.
So what do you do? Now, the third act...
The third act of a movie is when it's impossible to get out.
So I was in this impossible situation because I couldn't whack all the moles.
There were more moles than I could whack.
I couldn't just go and get all my sources and show them to you because it would be too unwieldy.
So what do I do? Go to my deathbed as the person who got everything wrong while I actually was probably the best predictor in the world.
So here's what I did.
I went to the subscription platform, Locals, where I have a community of people who follow me closely.
I compiled my best memory of what my predictions had been and are, and I ran them past the Locals platform that's pinned on Locals right now.
And then I had the Locals people check them just to see if they remembered these predictions, and they confirmed all of them.
I think with a few tweaks.
So I added some of the tweaks.
And I said, okay, now I have 6,000 witnesses that this is true.
And then I posted it on locals so it'd be permanent there.
And then I dropped the paywall for that post and then posted it on Twitter.
And then put it on my thing.
Now, I went from being eaten live by trolls every day for two weeks to posting what my actual...
Confirmed by thousands of witnesses, predictions are.
What do you think happened to the troll traffic after I printed my actual predictions confirmed by witnesses?
What do you think happened?
It went to zero.
It went to zero.
But here's the persuasion part of it.
I wrote up my predictions, but I stated at the front that it is my claim that I'm the best predictor of the pandemic.
That's the persuasion part.
If I had said, I think I did pretty good, that's bad persuasion.
People would just look at it and say, ah, you didn't.
But if you say, I did the best in the world, how much do you think that's going to make people want to prove me wrong?
A lot. So they're going to have to dig into it.
So the people who hate me the most are going to have to get a really big dose of my rightness in the effort to find out why I'm wrong.
And so... The movie is now complete.
I have made my claim that I am the best predictor.
I showed my work.
I have 6,000 witnesses that that's an accurate description of my predictions.
And it does, I think, stand up to anybody's predictions.
I do believe that I can now take the throne of the best predictions of the pandemic.
And you can see for yourself.
Now, how many people are pushing against that after reading the predictions?
None. Not a single person who has read the predictions has denied the statement that I'm the best predictor in the whole country.
Now, will somebody do that?
Probably. But when it comes to the point where somebody's going to have to do a round-up of all the predictions, because you know that's coming, right?
Somebody's going to have to do a round-up.
Here were all the predictions.
Here are the people who got it right.
Here are the ones who got it wrong. That's coming, right?
I've already created all of the document for mine.
I do have the best case for the best predictor in the whole pandemic.
Two weeks ago, I was in an impossible situation and my reputation had been destroyed.
Today, I'm the best predictor of the pandemic.
And it's documented.
You can see for yourself.
Now... That is a three-act play.
Set up, something changes.
Act two, whack-a-mole.
All act twos are whack-a-mole.
Just the hero doing the thing the hero does.
Then the third act is the impossible problem.
This impression that I got everything wrong.
And then the resolution is the impossible solution that worked.
Alright, let's get rid of a few assholes here, and then we'll go on.
Let's see. First asshole, where was he?
There we go. Gutter dog.
Asshole number one.
Hide user. Eric says, Morning, Scott.
Got a weird one for you today. If you could design a creative hell-on-earth prison for any fictional character, who would it be?
Well, that's a weird question.
Eric, a fictional prison.
Well... I don't know, that's a little off topic.
I do have a joke coming in the Dilbert comic in which Dogbird is a futurist, sort of a play on myself, and Dogbird is making all of his money.
You won't see this for a few weeks.
Dogbird is making his money as a futurist by always predicting the worst possible outcome.
Because whoever predicts the most doom and gloom outcome gets all the attention.
So Dogbert, in an upcoming series, will realize that.
And so he challenges, Dogbert challenges Dilbert to ask him for a prediction, and he'll prove that he can come up with the worst possible prediction, the dubious prediction.
And so Dilbert asks him, will I live a long life?
And Dog Bird gives him the worst-case scenario.
Yes. So that's coming up.
All right. Remember I told you yesterday how to use the really filter?
Now, the really filter is you read a story that somebody thinks is fake and somebody thinks is true.
You're trying to figure out if it's true.
And you use the word really and then a sarcastic voice to just describe the story and see if it works, right?
Now, if something is true, this doesn't work.
Like if I said, oh, my lights are on.
Oh, really? Really?
Really? The lights are on?
Oh yeah, actually the lights are on.
See, it doesn't work.
But you can use the real thing to find things that aren't true.
It spots them right away. So there was a fake news about Jen Psaki and I guess somebody had made a fake quote from her and the fake quote and passed it around and said, if you don't buy anything, you won't experience inflation.
And then she went on to say, people should barter so you won't even see a price tag.
All right, now let's apply the filter.
Apply the filter. Really?
Really? The spokesperson for the President of the United States, really, went in front of people and said, inflation isn't a problem if you don't buy anything.
Really? Really?
And then went on to say that instead of buying things, you should maybe become more of a barter economy.
Really? I mean, really?
You really think that happened?
And, of course, it didn't happen.
It's fake news. But you see, the really filter works, right?
I'm not wrong about that, am I? That if you just apply the really filter to it, you find all the weird ones.
It's not 100%, but damn, it's good.
It's really good.
Use it.
Well, Biden gave a speech yesterday that was the darkest, most divisive speech I've ever heard from a president, in which he turned against part of the country, which is not really the job of a president.
He should be turning against other people.
But he gave it from this spot where, as CNN puts it, Donald Trump's mob defiled the U.S. tradition of peaceful transfer of power.
And he went real hard at it about the horribleness of it, and he redefined himself against the extremism of an ex-president.
Yeah, that may be what happened.
That's CNN's take.
It may be that Biden had a strong day in which he defined himself against the extremism of Trump.
That could be exactly what happened there.
Another possibility is that Biden is...
The other possibility is that Biden...
Sorry.
That's the trouble with the superchats.
Can I turn those off?
Like, it's so bad for the flow.
I mean, I really think that YouTube should just get rid of them.
All right. Now, is there a feature here where if I click this, I can go back to it?
Oh, okay. Well, okay, that makes me less mad.
So if I skip your superchat, I'll try to go back to them because it gives me an option to do that.
But I was saying that Biden either gave a strong speech comparing himself to Trump or he defined himself against a hallucination.
To me, Trump doesn't really exist anymore, does he?
Meaning, we're not in an election.
Trump isn't president.
I feel as though...
I mean, he might run... Might run, might not.
But I don't think he's going to run against Biden.
Is he? Do you think there's any chance that Biden and Trump are going to have another contest?
I feel like Biden just defined himself by comparing himself to something imaginary.
Trump running for president.
I mean, he might. So I think you have to see this whole thing as laying down a suppression fire to keep Trump from running, right?
Would you all agree that this is all about suppressing Republicans and suppressing Trump?
The whole January 6th scam is pretty much all about that, right?
So that's a pretty weak thing for a president to do, and he did this big angry talk.
Really disgusting and weak and pathetic would be my take from that.
Alright, here's a little update from the simulation.
Twitter user Ben McCauley asked this, why does the simulation let false memories exist?
If we are indeed a simulation, which I'm sure we are, why would there be fake memories, false memories?
Do you know why? Because false memories are the only way you could create this situation.
Here's the problem.
If everybody had perfect memory, you would have to create your simulation so that my memory and your memory, if they were both perfect, told the same story all the time.
And then you have to connect all of those different true stories and make all of them compatible to And that would be really, really hard to program.
Like, so hard, I think it borders on impossible.
But suppose you did this.
You told your people to imagine they were seeing a high-definition world, but in fact their senses were only giving them low-definition.
On low-de... Come on.
Nick Fuentes was six months ahead of Scott on BLM? Fuck you.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
That is the dumbest criticism.
I don't know what Nick Fuentes said, but I know that that's just not true.
So I'm just going to get rid of you for being an asshole.
God! Like, how does that kind of stuff even happen?
But anyway, I would say that the simulation has to give you false memories so that we can all live our individual lives without worrying that they're incompatible with somebody else's memory.
Also, we have to imagine that we see more detail than we do.
Because a simulation can't fill in all the detail all the time.
It would be too much of a resource.
But it can make you think you see it.
That's just one line of code.
Imagine it's clearer than you see it.
That's more than one line.
But it'd be easy to program that.
It'd be really hard to program all the details.
So false memories are evidence that we are a simulation.
Also, it could be evidence we're not, but it's compatible with it.
Username NotMarkEmmert asks this question.
As a simulated, meaning us, if we are simulated, as we simulated people create our own simulations, will we become self-aware of the absurdity?
In other words, when civilization, this civilization, assuming it's a simulation, gets to the point where it can create its own simulation, will that be the point it becomes self-aware that it is a simulation?
And the answer is, yes, and that's where we are.
We are at exactly that point where we are realizing we're a simulation because when we build our own, the metaverse...
We have all the same constraints that we witness in what we think is the real world.
Wait a minute, you can't program infinity?
Oh, okay. So we'll just say that the universe is expanding, but there's nothing beyond the edge of it.
You can't program infinite time.
Oh, okay.
So we'll just make a big bang, and then you can't see past that.
So we don't need any time past that.
And, of course, we don't have to program the future yet, so we're constraining it.
Then you add the false memories, which would be required for a good simulation, and we see that we would do the same.
So, yes, that's exactly where we are.
Expanding it to what exactly?
If your software...
Expanding into what doesn't make any sense, which is what I think we are.
All right. As I've been promoting this idea, I keep seeing more examples of it, that you have to assume guilt when it comes to your government whenever they're non-transparent, which is the opposite of the standard you'd want for a citizen.
For a citizen, they're innocent until proven guilty, and it has to be that way.
For the government, if the government won't tell you some information that the citizens have a right to know, the presumption has to be guilt.
Everybody agree? The presumption has to be guilt.
You might not have proof.
You have to presume they're guilty.
And here are some... We have a growing list of things that fit into that category where you should assume, as a responsible, well-informed citizen, you should assume corruption.
Number one, the 2020 election.
We have no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election.
But because they don't let us audit the full system, you should presume it's fraudulent, even if it isn't.
That's the right presumption.
I saw a bit on Twitter that the Ray Epps name has been removed from the FBI's wanted list and there were no charges.
He's just sort of been disappeared.
If the FBI has been asked a valid question, who's this Ray Epps guy?
Who's he worked for? How many of your agents were involved, if any, in the January 6th events?
And apparently they're not going to answer those questions, and they're going to make stuff go away.
The presumption is guilt that the FBI was behind it.
Doesn't mean they were.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying as an informed citizen, you should assume they were.
And any time it comes up, you should say, well, we don't know, but that's an obvious assumption.
By their actions, they've confessed.
I would say that for the government, if the government says, I'm not going to tell you, treat it as a confession.
Is that fair? You should treat it as a public confession.
Tell us how many people were working for the government who were part of that January 6th crowd.
Nope, I'm not going to tell you that.
Thank you for your confession.
It just has to be treated as a confession.
It has to be. What else have we got that fits into that category?
A few things. Let's see.
So the rapid test approvals.
So we don't have transparency on why it took us so long to get rapid tests.
Assume corruption. Was it a case of corruption?
Don't know for sure.
But as an informed citizen, you should say it is.
That should be your starting assumption.
I don't know if it's corrupt, but yeah, that's what they said.
They confess they're corrupt by not giving you the information.
How about any omnibus spending bill where they take something that could be something that the citizens would understand, let's spend this money for this specific thing, and then they lump it all together into a big confusing bill, the purpose of which is a little bit of horse trading, right? But some of it is about bamboozling the public, so we can't tell what's in there.
What should you assume about an omnibus spending bill?
That it's full of corruption. Doesn't mean it is, but that's a reasonable assumption.
All right, speaking of fake things, I think that we should start celebrating January 6th every year and call it Fake Insurrection Day.
And we should commemorate that Fake Insurrection Day.
And I think Fake Insurrection Day should be a national holiday so that we never forget the thing that didn't happen.
The insurrection didn't happen.
And we should never forget that it didn't happen.
So we should always have a national holiday.
And I would even go so far as to say we should have a hoax calendar.
So there should be a calendar that shows on this day, you know, the fine people hoax or the drinking bleach hoax or...
Or the Russia collusion hoax was hatched.
So you can see how many hoaxes have happened on how many days.
Now it would be, you know, different years that you'd be saying it, but I'd like to see just how many hoaxes there are, because I think you could fill the calendar with just modern hoaxes.
So I plan to celebrate next year as Fake Insurrection Day, January 6th.
I hope you'll all join me. Factcheck.org...
Says, and I quote, there is no evidence that, quote, unindicted co-conspirators mentioned in federal indictments related to the Jan 6 capital attacks are undercover FBI agents or informants, as conservative outlets have claimed.
So the fact check is there's no evidence of it.
No evidence of it.
But also, who is it who would give us the evidence?
Huh. Where does evidence of that sort of thing come from?
You'd need some kind of an organization that works for the government, of course, and it would be some organization that investigates things.
So if we wanted to find out if the FBI had been involved in some bad behavior, you would call this entity that works for the government, that investigates things, and that would be the FBI, wouldn't it?
That's right. The FBI looked into whether the FBI had bad behavior and said, well, no evidence of it.
What should you assume?
You should assume that they're guilty.
Even if they're not.
Because they've told you basically they're guilty.
Even if they're not.
They've confessed. That's the way governments confess.
The way a government confess is I'm not going to tell you.
As soon as you hear it, That's a guilty.
Well, apparently Ted Cruz was speaking yesterday, I guess, and referred to some members of the January 6th thing as a violent terrorist attack.
Now, unfortunately, he did not parse his words as well as I just did.
And it sounded like he was calling the whole event a violent terrorist attack, which got him an appearance on Tucker Carlson's show.
And this is one of the reasons we like Tucker Carlson.
He didn't give him a break.
Tucker did not give him a frickin' break.
Nor should he have.
Nor should he have.
And Tucker's take on it was...
That Ted Cruz, of all people, knows how to choose words.
Am I right? I mean, Tucker's right about that.
That there's probably few people in the country who would be as good at choosing words in public as Ted Cruz.
The guy's argued cases to the Supreme Court.
He's run for president.
He's a senator. Ex-attorney, or still attorney, I don't know.
But really...
Who chooses their words more carefully than Ted Cruz?
And if he even used the term a violent terrorist attack, I think Tucker was trying to figure out, what the hell?
Like, how do you explain that you never make that kind of mistake?
We think you're the person who doesn't make that mistake.
And then you seem to have made one of the biggest mistakes you could make of choosing the wrong words.
I mean, really, it would be hard to choose wronger words than that for your base.
And Ted Cruz's defense, I accept.
Which is that he's always called violence terrorism.
Now that seems like something you could fact check, and I think somebody would have done it by now.
So I'm pretty sure, pretty sure...
That Ted Cruz was just using his normal historical language for bad behavior.
And it looked like he was just trying to pace the people who said there was violence there.
But, man, I think he really lost his chance to be president there.
How many of you feel that?
Because the problem is that this small slip, and I think it was actually just a slip, I don't think there was bad intention behind it.
There's no evidence of that, anyway.
And not only is there no evidence, but it wouldn't make sense.
There's no way you can imagine that Ted Cruz would say those things.
Well, let me try the really filter.
Let's try it. Let's do the fake news filter on this.
The claim is that Ted Cruz referred to a bunch of Republicans...
A bunch of Republicans as violent terrorists and doing a violent terrorist attack while we assume he's going to run for president and requires all of the support of these people.
Really? Really.
Ted Cruz, the person who...
You know, we think he's operating at very high capability, even if you don't like him.
You think that that person, Ted Cruz, who's going to run for president, probably, as a Republican, is going to insult all the Republicans in public and call them terrorists.
Really? Really.
It doesn't really pass that test, does it?
The really test does absolve Ted Cruz, unless we hear something else.
And as others have pointed out, he got in within the 48-hour clarification window that I like to use.
You know, if you apologize or clarify within 48 hours, I just say, oh, let's accept that.
Unless it's crazy talk.
And I don't think it was crazy talk.
I think it was a really bad mistake.
But I accept his clarification.
I do think it might keep him from getting nominated for president, though.
People are not going to forget that.
That's a big mistake.
But I think it was just a mistake.
All right. Why is it that we allow Big Pharma to advertise on the news and also on social media?
Why do we allow that? Are you aware?
Now, I saw this fact, alleged fact, on social media today, on Twitter.
Somebody said that the only two countries that allow pharma to advertise directly to consumers are New Zealand and the United States.
Is that true? Give me a fact check on that.
Is it true that only two countries...
Allow pharma to advertise directly to consumers.
Now, that would include being on TV, news, but it would also include social media.
They couldn't do it at all. Somebody says Mexico allows it.
Somebody says Poland allows it.
But we can all agree that...
And I heard that India doesn't allow it.
Right? Okay.
Anyway, so...
Shouldn't the pandemic be the reason that we banned pharma advertising to the public?
Can you think of a better reason?
Because the problem is not just that the public gets excited about drugs and then goes and twists the arm of their doctor, which is the whole point of it.
But... At this point, the drug...
I'm sorry, the pharma companies, because they're the major advertisers, they can control what the news says about themselves during a pandemic.
And it looks like they do.
And... How can we stand for this?
Is there anybody in our ineffective, flaccid government...
That is pushing a bill that is to ban this advertising?
Now, this would take Fox News practically off the air, wouldn't it?
Probably CNN, too.
Because it would really, really hurt the business model of a lot of these people.
But it's a must-do.
You need somebody who's got some balls.
Rand Paul? Is there anybody in Congress who has...
Any balls at all, besides Rand Paul.
I feel like Rand Paul needs to do it because everybody else is weak and ineffective.
And he's the only one who would be brave enough to do it.
I think. I don't think there's anybody else brave enough to do it.
Am I wrong? Name one person in Congress who would be brave enough to take on Big Pharma.
Give me a name of anybody in Congress who would be brave enough to do that.
You say Tom Cotton, but I'd need to...
Yeah, maybe. I'd need to see it.
I mean, he goes hard at China and goes hard at a lot of stuff.
But he also stays within the realm of safety, even when he's going hard.
You say Matt Gaetz, maybe.
I mean, maybe.
Swalwell, no. Massey, yeah, there you go.
Thomas Massey. How about Thomas Massey?
Thomas, you might be listening right now.
Is there anything wrong with that?
You could get a shit ton of support.
Boy, talk about something that the public is ready to support.
How many people would say no to that bill?
It'd be pretty embarrassing if Congress turns it down and it's got 85% public support, because I think it would, wouldn't it?
Well, you'd be over 75 to ban advertising, I'm sure of it.
All right, but let's put him in that position.
So those few people in Congress who actually have some guts, let's get that done.
All right, how many of you wanted me to do a deep dive on the Dr.
Malone interview, three-hour interview with Joe Rogan?
I'm going to use this just to try to put to bed the talking about the pandemic.
I just want to hit the Dr.
Malone stuff, and then I won't be able to not talk about the pandemic, because it's just too everywhere.
But I'm going to make a concerted effort to really ramp down hard on the talk.
Around February 1, I'm going to ramp it back up again, because we have to get serious about getting out of the mandates.
But many of you asked me to do my homework and listen to the whole Dr.
Malone thing and give you a readout, and I will do that.
And I will introduce to you another filter, a real good one.
You ready for this one? This is a variant on the Gelman amnesia filter, famous because a famous physicist whose last name was Gelman, Notice that when he read stories that involved his expertise, he could tell that the news was fake or incorrect.
Every time. So it seemed like every time he read about physics, it was just the story was wrong.
But then he noticed that he would believe the other stories.
And he started to say, wait a minute.
What are the odds that every time I read a story, my expertise is wrong, but when I read stories that are not my expertise, I believe that they're true?
What's up with that?
So obviously there's a lot more fake news.
Now I'm going to use a variant of that filter on the Dr.
Malone interview. Do you think that I have the capability to assess his medical and scientific expertise?
No, no, no, I don't have that.
So, I'm going to use instead the Gelman filter.
And that means that if I can tell that he is, let's say, wrong, I'll just use wrong instead of lying or whatever, I'll just say wrong.
If I can determine he's wrong on the few things that I do have vision on, should I trust him on the doctor parts?
What do you say? If I knew for sure, this is just hypothetical, if I knew for sure that the few things he talked about that I did have knowledge about, if I knew they were wrong, should I trust the doctor part that I can't really pierce?
Well, that's the question I will put to you.
You don't need to answer it.
I will tell you how many things I spotted that I have a problem with that are outside the expertise that I wouldn't challenge, okay?
So here's my bottom line on Dr.
Malone, having watched the entire thing.
Number one, he's very impressive.
Very impressive. Number two, Joe Rogan, very impressive.
Hearing the entire three hours, I would say that Joe Rogan's interview skills, excellent.
Great job. I mean, as entertainment, as information, great job.
And a service to the world, I think.
Now, I've complained that not having fact-checking is a problem, but I'll do the fact-checking now, and then you can follow up on it yourself.
The following things that Dr.
Malone said, I agree with completely.
And most of what he said, actually, I agree with completely.
And the following list are things we can all agree on.
Big Pharma is historically terribly corrupt, like way more than you can even imagine.
I agree. Everybody agree so far?
Big Pharma historically has been caught enough times and gone to court enough times and lost enough times.
We can say with some certainty that as an industry, it's a seriously messed up industry.
Totally agree. That the trials for the vaccines were rushed in terms of how we would prefer.
Totally agree. It was a crisis.
We rushed. Everybody knew it.
So that introduces risk.
Totally agree. He said that even these trials...
You think you're getting objective information.
He gave one good example.
But actually, it could be a lot more subjective than you think.
Because there's tons of stuff being submitted for approval by the FDA. And there's a whole bunch of judgment calls about, do you measure this or measure it this way?
So the people submitting the information have a whole bunch of subjectivity about what is accurate and what is not.
Which is a real problem.
So I agree with that.
That sounds right. And then all the things he talked about, about the spike protein being risky, about how especially it could be risky for pregnant women, those are all things I say, well, he's the doctor.
I'm not. If he says there's a logical reason to think that this spike protein could cause some issues later, especially in reproduction, I would say, well, I'm not going to question that.
I don't know if it's true or not.
But, you know, sounded right.
He sounds smart. I can tell that.
Alright, so those are the things we agree on.
So I think on all the big stuff, or the biggest stuff, we actually agree.
He's anti-mandate, so am I. He's pro-free speech, even if you're wrong, so am I. Pretty much we agree on what to do.
So I'd say philosophically, I'm identical.
Can I say that? Philosophically about how we should treat the pandemic, I think I'm identical with Dr.
Malone. So no argument there.
Here is the, using the Dr.
Gelman approach, I'm going to tell you the things that I think he got wrong.
And by wrong, I mean that they look sketchy to me.
Doesn't mean that he's wrong and I'm right, right?
I'm just saying that from my perspective, in the things I know, these are the things that I think he got wrong.
Number one, he often said that he doesn't need to be doing this, all the public stuff, because he's 62, his life is good, he can retire to his farm, I guess he's got enough money, so he doesn't need to do any of this.
That is a sketchy claim that I would say is close to a lie.
Why? Because it's clear that he likes doing this.
So it might be true that nobody's paying him.
That part, I believe.
But he is getting a lot out of this.
Which is enjoying it.
One assumes that he has enjoyed being a doctor.
And that gives you, like, a little local fame, maybe even fame within the doctor community, because he was sort of a superstar within some fields within doctoring.
But when you go from famous as a doctor to famous, just famous, which is what happened to Dr.
Malone, that is addictive.
So what would have been more honest is I have recently become addicted to a drug called fame, And since I can't get off the drug, if I can't say something that's true, I'm going to say something, because I need more of the drug.
So, sketchy claim number one, that he doesn't have a downside interest influencing me.
Would you say the same about me?
Because I have F.U. money.
He does too, apparently. He has F.U. money.
Would you say that therefore I am free from bias?
You shouldn't. You should only know that I'm free from somebody paying me or having to be poor.
I am free from those.
But I do make money from monetizing.
So am I influenced by money even though I don't really need it?
Yeah, yeah. Everybody's influenced by money even when they don't need it.
So you should incorporate that when you view me.
Am I addicted to fame?
Would I do something because of my addiction to fame?
Yes. Yes, I would.
So when I call Dr.
Malone, say that he looks like an addict to me, an addict to fame, I'm speaking as an addict.
It takes one to know one.
In fact, I've referred to myself as a grandiose narcissist.
Meaning that I want attention, but I want to earn it.
Like I want to do something that's good for the world, and then the world will say, hey, good job, and then I'll feel good.
But I tell you that directly all the time.
My take, and of course you can't diagnose people from a distance, but Dr.
Malone looks like one of those...
looks like me, basically.
He looks like me, with a beard.
Meaning that it looks like he would like to do something really good for the world.
And big surprise, he's a doctor, right?
Like his whole job is trying to do big things that are good for the world with the trials he works on, etc.
And... So I find it sketchy that he tries to sell us on being free from bias when that's obviously not true.
So that's sketchy.
But not terribly sketchy.
Because, you know, there's no evidence he's being paid or something.
Now he does say that to sets him apart from his peers, he thinks the other people with his level of experience about the mRNA platform all have conflict of interest.
That's probably true. I'll bet they do have conflict of interest.
But it would be less true to say that he would be free from all of bias.
He says he doesn't know for sure what got him banned on Twitter.
I call that disingenuous.
That's disingenuous.
Here's what an honest answer would look like.
Well, I don't have 100% certainty, but almost certainly it was one of these.
And then tell us what he said and whether it was true or not.
Instead... He did this little dodge, which was to say, let's table for a moment, I'm paraphrasing, let's table for a moment whether the information I sent around was accurate, because it's a free speech question.
I agree. It is a free speech question.
And I also agree that whether it was technically accurate or not shouldn't actually matter.
LAUGHTER Because free speech has to allow that.
You have to allow mistakes.
So on a philosophical level, completely agree.
But if I'm trying to judge him for his genuineness, it seems disingenuous to me to say I'm not even going to give you some examples of what I think I got banned for.
Because I would have.
I would have. If I got banned on Twitter, I'd be showing you the exact tweets, even if I wasn't sure.
I'd say, well, it's either this one or this one.
Take a look for yourself. Is it true?
Oh, wait, I got something wrong.
I guess I should fix that. That's what transparency would look like.
So he looks disingenuous when he doesn't talk about specifics of what got him banned because he doesn't exactly know for sure.
I'm not buying that. And then he does a diversion to free speech, which I agree with, but it feels like a diversion.
So it feels disingenuous.
Here's our biggest point of difference.
He believes, this is what I took from it, that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin work against COVID, and that the data is clear.
He doesn't seem to be able...
He doesn't seem to have doubt.
Give me a fact check on that if you watch it.
He doesn't seem to have doubt whether those two drugs are effective and really make a big difference.
Right? Right? Pretty much no doubt.
This is where we differ.
Because I would say that the experts who have the same amount of expertise as he does say that they might work, but the evidence doesn't support it.
Dr. Johnson says, not everyone is a narcissistic fraud like you, Scott.
I'll hide my mascot for now.
Dr. Johnson is not a troll, he's a mascot.
Once the trolls get to a high level of effectiveness, then they become mascots.
Part of the show, if you will.
So since I believe that the people who are best at looking at data have debunked the certainty of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they haven't debunked that they weren't.
But they've definitely debunked the certainty.
So you have a doctor who is showing certainty on something that, in my opinion, I have visibility on.
Because he and I can both look at the experts and say, well, what do you think?
Hey, experts, look at the data.
Do you think it looks good to you?
And if the experts say yes, then I'd say, well, okay, probably yes.
But if there are experts you trust who say, no, these meta-analyses are a BS, here's why.
And by the way, I think you can do a meta-analysis when the studies are similar, but they're just underpowered, don't have enough people.
Then if you add them together, the meta-analysis makes sense.
But if you do any judgment about what's in the meta-analysis or not, Or you know that there's some big studies that look fishy, then don't trust the meta-analysis.
So I think that's where the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are, in my view.
They're in that don't trust the meta-analysis, don't have the RCTs that we'd like.
It might work. It's probably worth the risk management.
It's worth the risk, because it's a low risk.
But I don't think it's proven. So here, this looks sketchy to me.
And then there's a whole bunch that comes from his opinion that these are proven.
If you believe they're proven, then you would also wonder why they're being so suppressed.
So if you think that the evidence is strong for them, you would say, well, there must be some reason that they're being suppressed, and that would be maybe the vaccination companies, Big Pharma is suppressing it for some reason.
I would say that claim of Big Pharma suppressing it is accurate-ish, meaning that I'm sure they are, aren't you?
Do you think that Big Pharma, who is putting together vaccinations, you don't think that they spend a little bit of money to tell you that that's the best way to go?
I would think so. I would think so.
We don't have proof, but you'd imagine that would be normal.
But that doesn't mean that they work or don't work.
Now, he gives the story about some individual who blocked a hydrochloroquine study or ivermectin study or something based on the fact that he didn't believe there was evidence for it.
I'm... I've destroyed the story, so just forget that part of the story.
The point is, if you believe that these two drugs work, then it looks like a mass conspiracy to stop them.
If you believe that people genuinely think they don't work, then all it is is people trying to keep misinformation out of the public.
Right? And I feel as if the doctor should have given a little bit of at least respect to the alternative theory, That the reason that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are being blocked, let's say on social media and other ways, is because people genuinely think that they're unproven.
Don't you think that there are plenty of people who genuinely think that those drugs are unproven or don't work?
You don't have to have a conspiracy, because we actually have all kinds of different opinions.
Yeah, I think that they think they don't work.
Now, I don't know that they don't work, but I think the people who look like they're in some conspiracy probably just think they don't work.
That would be the most logical one.
All right. Now, the big question I have is if ivermectin works, why the heck don't we see it working somewhere?
Now, the good doctor knew that he had to address that.
If they work, why aren't they working?
Like, where is it working? It would have to be some state, city, hospital, somewhere in the world where they didn't have access to vaccines.
They had big success, and it worked.
And of course, the doctor is aware that that would be the right question.
If these drugs work, why aren't they working?
And so he says, well, take a look at Uttar Pradesh, the state in India.
And he says that they don't have transparency on what their early treatment was, but he sort of suspected it was one of these, probably ivermectin, could have been hydroxychloroquine.
But he suspects they were in the mix and points out that their early treatment method crushed COVID in that state.
And so one of his biggest pieces of information or evidence that ivermectin works is this one state in India.
But... That's completely debunked, in my opinion.
Again, if you have to look at the debunk, you have to look at the claim, and unfortunately we're left to our own devices to figure out which is stronger.
In my opinion, the debunk that that state worked is rock solid, because apparently at the same time they had no COVID deaths, they didn't have any other kind of deaths.
Nobody died in a car accident, nobody had a heart attack.
So you could tell that the data was just wrong.
Because all deaths stopped at the same time.
All deaths. It wasn't just COVID deaths.
So once you know that, and it's easy to find out, I mean, you just Google it.
You just Google it.
The fact checks are everywhere.
Now, don't you think that Dr.
Malone had a responsibility to say that I believe ivermectin worked in that case, but there are other people who say the data is just wrong.
Right? Right? Don't know which one's right, but a genuine person trying to tell you the truth would at least tell you that there's a counter possibility.
He didn't. That's sketchy.
It suggests disingenuity.
Disingenueness. Doesn't prove it.
It suggests it. He also said...
He also used a lot of anecdotal evidence...
Which, I think at least one point he pointed out that it was anecdotal, but he used it in a persuasion way.
So, it's great to say you understand that anecdotal information is not confirmation, but then if you use it to persuade, that seems disingenuous.
If you say it doesn't mean anything, you just leave it out of the conversation.
But if you say it doesn't mean anything, and then you give a bunch of examples...
You're saying it means something.
Take the VAERS database.
I want you to do a fact check on this with me.
But I feel as if the doctor said that the VAERS database, which was largely anecdotal, just humans reporting it, that he took that as being reliable enough that he could draw some conclusions.
At the same time, he was saying that You shouldn't trust that kind of information.
I feel like he took both sides, which again looked sketchy.
He also is a believer that if there are cases where somebody who had COVID and a gunshot wound that was obviously fatal, that the doctors would code that as a COVID death and not a gunshot wound.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that as...
I'm not talking about whether it happened once.
I'm saying, do you believe that a doctor would code a gunshot wound as COVID just because it was a financial incentive?
I will respect your differing opinion on this.
So many of you say, yes, the financial incentive is great enough.
We would totally do that.
And follow the money works most of the time, right?
So we're all on the same page there.
I'm going to give you a contrarian view.
And I'll ask you to just do this.
Talk to a doctor who is involved in making that call.
Like an actual doctor who has to sign a death certificate.
And ask them this question.
I know you have a financial incentive there for the hospital, but if you had somebody who obviously died from a gunshot wound and also had COVID, would you personally, doctor, would you code that as a COVID death?
I believe you will get zero doctors to agree to that.
Because I've asked that question.
And I've got zero doctors to say, no, we use our judgment.
This would be obvious.
Gunshot death. I believe that you and the doctor believe that this is a widespread thing of car accidents coded as COVID. I guarantee it's happened.
Can we agree on that?
We can all guarantee that somebody's coded things wrong, and probably quite a bit.
But if you think it's widespread, Talk to a doctor who does it.
Because I have. I've talked to a doctor who does it.
And the doctor who does it says, there's no fucking way we're going to code a guy with a missing head as a COVID death.
No fucking way.
It doesn't matter if the hospital gets extra money.
It doesn't matter if the hospital is going to get mad at us.
There's no fucking way we're going to code a guy with no head as a COVID death.
Let's try the really filter.
You want to try it? Let's do the really filter on that.
Guy comes to the hospital, his head is missing.
Doctor looks at it, says he also has a COVID. Doctor says, well, this is a COVID death because we'll get more money.
Be a little bit more money.
It won't be for me. By the way, the doctor doesn't need more money.
It's for the hospital. But he wants to keep working at the hospital.
So he's like, yeah, I think I will risk everything I've worked for.
So that the hospital can make more money.
He's not risking everything he worked for for his own money directly, but to keep the hospital happy so that he can keep having hospital privileges.
So let's do the really filter.
Guy's got no head. Really?
Really? You think that a doctor looks at a guy with no head and the financial incentive is not directly his, it's the hospital?
And he thinks he's going to get in trouble and lose his privileges for coding a headless guy as COVID. Really?
Really? Is there a hospital that's going to take away somebody's privileges because they coded a headless guy as a COVID death for their benefit?
I don't know. This one could go either way, couldn't it?
Because as soon as you throw in follow the money...
It can certainly follow the money.
So I could do it with the other one and say, there's a financial incentive to do this, and you think it didn't happen?
Really? Really.
A huge financial interest, and you think it didn't happen?
Really? See?
So the really works both ways on this one.
So I would say that would be inconclusive.
Inconclusive. Flawed example, you're right.
Alright, but in my mind, this is not your opinion, but in my mind, anybody who believes that a gunshot person gets coded as COVID, I believe that's sketchy.
You know what it sounds like?
Here's my problem with it.
Dr. Malone's claims were identical to MAGA opinion.
Did you notice that?
That the things that Malone was saying were identical.
Identical. To conservative, you know, anti-vaxxer kind of views.
And that bothers me.
Because it's a little too coincidental.
And the one that really was the flag was the gunshot person coded as COVID. That's a little too on the nose for me.
That's the sort of thing you could expect the public to say.
It might even be true. But you'd expect the public to say it.
But the fact that the doctor said it could be true.
Just a little too on the nose, compatible with what his audience wants to hear.
Bothered me. He says that hospitals make more money by treating COVID because of the special bonuses they get.
Has anybody ever fact-checked that?
Because I think hospitals lose money by treating COVID. Because they have to keep so much extra capacity so they can't do their normal hospital stuff.
Has anybody actually...
Now, I do know that hospitals would get direct payments for COVID patients, so that's not in dispute.
I'm saying that if you netted it out, you get extra money for COVID, but you lose money on your regular hospital business because you're stopping business, don't you lose money.
In all caps, lifeisgood says, hell no, they get a ton of money.
Let me see if I can simplify this for you.
Yes, they get a ton of money for each COVID patient.
Okay, did you hear that? Now, see if you can handle the rest of it.
I'm only talking to this one troll.
They also lose money In other ways, because the hospital is not capacity.
So, does the hospital say, let's do as much COVID as we can, because that makes us money, or do they say, let's do as little COVID as we can, even though we get money, because there'll be less impact on the other stuff?
My only question is, has that been studied?
I don't know. I don't think it's obvious that the hospitals make money on COVID. To me, I would bet against it, actually.
Now, again, this is my field, right?
So economics and business.
That's my expertise.
And my expertise says, I don't think that people are coding gunshot wounds as COVID, because it would be too risky once you get caught.
And... Although, obviously, some of that.
And I'm not positive the hospitals are coding people for money, if you consider their entire situation.
Maybe. I'm open to it.
Could be proven. But not necessarily.
Also, Dr.
Malone thought that We're good to go.
That feels a little conspiracy theory-ish.
He didn't connect the dots and say there definitely was a conversation.
But when he raises these conspiracy-ish thoughts, that reduces his credibility, in my mind.
Because it's also a little too on the nose with what his audience wants to hear.
All right. He talked about athletes dropping dead.
As part of the anecdotal evidence, do you believe that athletes are dropping dead at a higher rate than in the past?
Because you've seen the videos, right?
Compilation videos. I believe that that is not true.
And I base it on the following fact.
Do you think the athletes themselves don't know if people are dying on the field in an unusual rate?
Really? Really.
All the attention on professional athletes, they play in public.
All that attention on professional athletes, and you think that the players themselves haven't noticed that people are dropping dead at a rate that never happened before.
Really? Really?
Now, I think the really filter works on this one.
There's no fucking way that people are dropping like flies in public in front of all these witnesses and the teams themselves haven't noticed.
The players haven't noticed this.
Like they're not talking to the other players and saying, you had one drop dead on your team?
We just lost a guy last week.
They would all know it.
It would be the most well-known fact you had ever seen in your life.
And I believe, and I know some of you believe that it's true because you've seen the compilations, but remember, video lies.
Right? Videos lie.
Mostly. They don't mostly tell the truth.
They mostly lie. So the very fact that you saw it on a video should give you a 60% chance it's not true.
Just because we live in that world where here it is on video, well, 60% chance it's not true.
So I'm going to say that personally, I think the athletes dropping dead couldn't possibly be true.
Could be wrong. I could be wrong.
I say that, just assume that everything I say is appended with, but I could be wrong.
So I would say that's a...
Kind of an obvious mistake for a doctor to make, in my opinion.
Now again, I'm dealing outside of his field of expertise and I'm in mine.
My field of expertise would be the psychological part and the fake news part.
So I know more about fake news and probably more about some of the psychological stuff.
And to my view, it looks obvious that that's not real and he believes it's real.
So that works against them.
All right, he also said that look at Israel versus the Palestinian territories.
Israel has lots of vaccinations.
The Palestinian territories don't have much.
So you could look at those two situations and maybe that would tell you something.
At the same time, he says you can't compare any two situations because there are too many variables involved.
Within a period of, I think, 10 minutes, he gave opinions on both sides of this, I think.
But go look at it. Maybe I'm wrong.
I believe he said you couldn't compare countries because there are too many confounding variables.
And then he said, go look at the difference between Israel and the Palestinian states.
And I think he actually said that he believes the Palestinians might have some kind of ivermectin or early treatment thing going on.
And he says...
He basically indicated you could just look at their numbers and you could deduce that they were using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Now, he didn't say it as directly as I just said it.
That was the impression I got.
So remember, I'm only dealing from the impressions I got.
I can't get inside his head to know what he meant.
I can only tell you what I heard.
What I heard was, don't pay attention to data like this...
But you can totally pay attention to data like this.
Now, I'm not mind reading.
I'm telling you what I received, which is different from what was true.
So, in my opinion, that decreased his credibility substantially.
He also said something similar about the VAERS database.
He makes the point you can't judge too much by anecdotal stuff, but then the VAERS database is pretty anecdotal in the sense that it's humans reporting things.
And I think he misses the following point.
The VAERS database, I think we all know, is reporting more problems with these vaccines than normal.
Fact check me.
True? The VAERS database is showing much more problems than normal.
His assumption is that the VAERS database is underreported because it has been in the past.
That assumption I don't consider good thinking.
Because what's different about this is that we're all thinking and talking about the pandemic all the time.
One would assume that in this situation, the psychology of it could easily make the VAERS database far overreported.
But only in this specific case, because of the attention.
If we were not paying attention to the vaccine, probably underreported.
I would think that's a good assumption.
Probably underreported.
This specific case, we're all worked up about...
I mean, how many people think they had COVID and didn't?
How many of your friends, or even you, believed at some point you had already had COVID and you did your PCR test and you never had it?
So, people are imagining symptoms.
Vastly imagining symptoms.
So what does the VAERS database, which is people reporting their symptoms, what's going to happen when you know that people are massively imagining symptoms?
You don't have to wonder if people are massively imagining symptoms.
Because so many people said they had COVID and didn't.
We know it's true.
So if you don't at least acknowledge that the VAERS database this time could be over-reported, I consider that either bad thinking or a little sketchy.
Here's another one. I forget the context, but he was talking about some situation in which your risk is doubled.
Fact check me on this.
Was it if you've already been infected, getting the vaccination would increase your risk of side effects?
Was that the context? It doesn't matter the context.
The point was that he mentioned a change in the percentage without mentioning the raw numbers.
What have I taught you when somebody tells you the percentage without the raw number?
They are trying to mislead.
If they tell you the raw number without the percentage, they are trying to mislead.
If they tell you both, they're probably trying to just give you information.
He gave us a percentage without a raw number, suggesting that something was risky, when in fact, without the raw number, you don't know if your risk went from two in a million to four in a million.
That's double the risk, right?
From two to four people.
But if it's out of a million, does it change your decision?
No. Two out of a million, four out of a million, it's the same decision.
So, these are tells for disingenuous and or bad analysis.
So, using the Gelman theory of the things which I believe my expertise has visibility on, which doesn't include any of the medical stuff.
The only visibility I have is fake news, how anecdotes fool us, consistency, BS detector, economics.
So those are fields which I have pretty good visibility in.
And in most of those things that I can see, I have real problems.
The stuff I have no visibility on, which is all the doctory stuff about spike proteins, I didn't see a problem.
Did you? I didn't see any problem in that.
But that is all invisible to me.
I wouldn't see a problem there.
I couldn't. So my bottom line is trust the rogue doctors at your peril because as often as they are, as awesome as they are, and might even be right.
In fact, the doctor's main message is that the pharma is corrupt, the data is probably bad, and the vaccinations might be worse for you than you think.
I'm on board with all of that.
I'm on board with all of that.
I'm not on board with the, let's say, the credibility of the presentation.
And so there may be some things there that you should at least put your skepticism thing up.
Now, some of you have accused me of not being skeptical enough.
Not being skeptical enough.
Because I refuse to believe everything that Dr.
Malone says, and I guess that means that I'm believing the official narrative, so that I'm not skeptical enough.
Wrong. I'm a double skeptic, and many of you are single skeptics.
I doubt everything the mainstream narrative tells me.
I also doubt the rogue doctors.
So I doubt two things.
If you believe the doctor but doubt the mainstream narrative, you are way less skeptical than I am.
Way less. So if you want to mock me, do it from a position of you believing things that I don't believe because, well, they don't look that credible to me.
You might be right. I like to say that as often as possible.
You could be right. Completely.
It's not ruled out.
That's just my take.
Now, let's give you an audit on this.
Number one, was my approach reasonable, given that I'm a non-expert looking at an expert?
Was my gelman approach reasonable?
No, you wasted time.
Some people said yes.
I got some yeses, and I got some nos.
I think if you think I wasted my time because I didn't convince anybody, that's probably true.
But I was asked to do this, and I had committed to do it, and so I felt a responsibility to do it.
Now, I guess I should say this.
I'm not aware of anything that Dr.
Malone is saying that would look to me...
Like he would be aware of lying to you.
So I didn't see anything that looked like a lie.
That's worth something, right?
Did you? I didn't see anything that looked like anything like an intentional lie.
I just saw things that I think maybe our assumptions were different about what's true and what's not.
Uh... You're not aware you're lying.
Well, if you're not aware of it, it's not a lie.
It's just wrong. Oh, and let me give you my bottom line.
Maybe I should have led with this.
He talked me out of the booster.
Are you happy now? That's my decision.
Dr. Malone talked me out of the booster.
Now, I just spent a whole bunch of time saying that there were signs of his credibility, but within the realm that I can't fact-check him on, he scared me enough that there was at least the possibility that the booster would be a problem that he talked me out of it.
At the moment, that's my decision.
My current decision is no booster.
Am I right? I don't know.
I don't know. Time will tell.
I don't know if... He may have killed you.
That's true. Yep, he may have killed me.
That's actually literally true.
He may have killed me. Because if I don't get the booster and I die from it, well, there you go.
I invested in Pfizer.
Please get a booster. I'll do it for you.
All right. If you still have problems with any of my COVID opinions, go look at my pinned tweet.
It's all my COVID predictions.
You can see what I predicted and what I didn't.
I believe this is the best show I've ever put on.
Maybe the best one you've ever seen in your whole life.
Possibly the best thing that's ever happened to you.