Episode 1620 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The Fake Coronavirus Data and More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Dramatic support increase for nuclear energy
Chicago teachers return to classroom
AZ Governor Ducey's persuasive framing
Garbage hospitalization numbers
Experts stopped talking about long-haul COVID
Feb 1, CDC accurate death rate deadline
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
Not only that, but the best thing that ever happened to anybody.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, do you have any data to support your claim that this is the best thing that has ever happened to anybody everywhere?
Well, as a matter of fact, I do.
And the quality of my data, it's as good as your COVID hospitalization numbers, maybe better.
And so you can depend on it.
And if you'd like to depend on something else, there is something called the simultaneous sip that is in your future.
And all you need to participate is a cover mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jugger, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that's better than everything.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it happen now.
Go. Sublime.
Sublime. Well, here's your persuasion lesson for the day.
Are you ready? I'm going to give you the easiest, quickest persuasion lesson that will work in your personal lives.
This one's a good one.
I've used it when I talk about Russia and the United States, but I'm going to tell you the trick, and then you can use it in your own life.
You may be aware that I've said that we should go ahead and just propose that we have an alliance with Russia as allies and Instead of being enemies.
The reasoning being, what's the good reason for being an enemy?
There's none. Same with North Korea.
Give me one good reason that we should be enemies with a country on the other side of the world.
None. There's just not one good reason, except we keep poking each other for no reason.
Except that I guess the other is poking us first.
So what I say about that situation is eventually we know we're going to be allies because we have to when we become more of a space-faring world, which is probably 20 years maximum.
In space, we're going to need to ally with Russia because otherwise China runs the whole world.
And so given that it's inevitable and that life is short, why not do it now?
So that's the technique.
It's inevitable, and we both know it.
Life is short.
Let's just do it now.
Now, imagine that technique when you're arguing with your spouse about something unimportant.
Has anybody ever had an argument with a spouse or a loved one about something that wasn't very important?
Anybody? Anybody?
Like all of you all the time?
Right. So here's the trick.
Once you've exhausted the topic, but you don't know how to end it, you ever get in those situations?
You say your thing, the other person says their thing, and then you just keep repeating yourselves in different ways.
Here's the way to get out of it.
Because both of you are looking for a way out.
You just don't have an exit ramp.
Here's the exit ramp.
You know, we're going to get over this just like we get over everything else.
We're going to get over this just like everything else.
Life is short. Let's just go ahead and get there.
Because everything in between is a waste of our life.
Because we know we're going to go there.
We know we're going to stay married.
We know we're going to stay together. We know this isn't a big problem.
Life is short. Life is short.
You're not going to be worrying about this on your deathbed.
By the way, I added in a second technique there.
The deathbed reframe...
One of the best ones.
If you're arguing about something unimportant, and you know most of the time you are, it's usually unimportant, just do the deathbed reframe.
Let me ask you this. Do you think you're going to be thinking about this on your deathbed?
Oh, I wish I'd taken that argument a little bit further.
No, you're not.
You're not going to think of it on your deathbed.
We're definitely going to get over it.
Life is short. Let's do it now.
Now, I've never seen that work instantly.
That's my caution. I've never seen anybody say, yeah, you know, you're right.
It doesn't work that way.
But you can take something that might have lasted you another hour and maybe, you know, compress it to 15 minutes.
If you just stay on that message and say, you know, we could argue about it all day, but the fact is we're just going to both get over it.
And by tomorrow we'll probably be back to normal.
Let's just do it now. Enjoy the evening.
Life is short. There's your tip for the day.
Let me ask you this.
Five years ago, if you saw that the country was disagreeing and arguing about stuff and couldn't decide who was right and who was wrong, about whatever, doesn't matter what the topic is, how often would somebody say that the problem was that part of the public or all of it had been hypnotized?
Or was part of a mass formation psychosis?
Same thing. How often would you hear that phrasing, that the public had been hypnotized?
Almost never.
Almost never.
Where did it start?
Where did you start hearing, hey, I think everybody's being hypnotized?
This started with me. I'm pretty sure.
Now, I'm not the only person who said it.
Mike Cernovich and other people who are trained in this sort of field, you know, persuasion, probably have talked about this sort of thing before.
But what's different is, it's not just the weirdos talking about it.
It's now mainstream thought.
Think about this.
Think about the fact that five years ago we would have said if we disagreed, we would have believed that the reason we disagreed was that somebody's stupid, the other person.
Not you. No.
Not you. Not me.
I'm talking about when we disagree with other people, we assume the other people are stupid.
Because the alternative is that, well, we don't want to think about the alternative.
So in the old days, you'd think, okay, the other person's dumb, or they don't have enough data, or they're lying just, you know, for self-interest, just to be a Democrat or Republican, right?
So your mental model was somebody who was lying, wrong, or just selfishly, you know, doing a team thing.
Today, when people disagree, what do we say?
We say people are brainwashed, hypnotized, or in a mass formation psychosis.
That pretty much was me, I think.
I think I'm the one who changed that frame.
Little at a time, just chipping away at it, you know, mostly talking about Trump.
But I feel like my point of view is now mainstream thinking.
Now... It's not because something changed.
It's because the way we looked at it changed.
Am I crazy?
Give me a sanity check.
This isn't even a fact check.
This is literally a sanity check.
By the way, this is absolutely...
I'm saying something straight with no hyperbole.
I'm asking for a sanity check.
Like, really. Like, really, really, I'm not kidding.
Because... Right.
So if somebody says diluted, that's what I'm looking for.
Diluted or accurate or partially accurate?
What would you say? Well, you're not really committing to this, are you?
No, I get that there's an ego element to this, right?
That's stipulated.
So I'm seeing people on Locals who have watched me the longest say accurate, and some people saying accurate.
I think that I'm the primary thing that changed this.
I actually do.
And it's because when you see a better frame, you can't really resist it.
If a better frame is actually better, people recognize it.
That's what makes a frame so powerful.
That the moment you're exposed to it, you say, yeah, that's a pretty good way to look at it.
It's that immediate attractiveness of a better frame that does it.
Somebody's saying that Joe Rogan would be the primary person for that, but I feel like this was happening before the mass formation psychosis thing, that definitely you're right that he would be the bigger spreader of it.
Carpe says that I did have that effect on him in terms of changing how he sees things.
Now, how many times have you seen the two movies on one screen analogy?
How many times have you heard somebody talk about 3D chess or 4D chess?
I think these are all for me, right?
I didn't make up the 3D chess thing, but I popularized it.
Yeah, about when I was talking about Trump.
Anyway, so there's no way to know if I had a little bit of influence or not.
But thank you for the fact check.
So I think it's interesting that you can't tell either, right?
So I guess the only thing that would allow me to claim sanity in this situation...
Because remember, if I were to look at my own actions as an outsider, I would question my sanity right now.
Would you? It's a reasonable question.
Because I'm making a claim that's almost insanely ridiculous.
So, asking the question and seeing that some of you agree with my insanely ridiculous viewpoint tells me I might be wrong, but maybe not crazy.
Would you give me that?
Would you give me that I could easily be wrong?
Easily. But I'm not crazy, because a lot of you are thinking that sounds reasonable.
Next topic. Um...
Did you know that hypnosis is suppressed on the internet?
Do a little...
Here's a little experiment.
Use voice texting and then try to get your voice to text to correctly write the word hypnosis.
It won't spell it right.
And by the way, there's no word that sounds like hypnosis.
Your spell check will spell it H-I-P. And did you know that if you tried to search for hypnosis on the internet, you'd get a lot of hits.
But did you know the good stuff is hidden?
It won't show up in search?
I can't tell you where to find it for the same reason.
There is a form of hypnosis that's so powerful that the search engines won't let you find it.
You have to know where it is and know what to look for.
And it's so powerful that I won't tell you what it is either.
There's a level of hypnosis power that you do not want to be exposed to.
Believe me, it's dangerous stuff.
And the internet just hides it from you.
Now, I know this because I've searched many times to see if I can make the search engine comply.
You can't. You can't.
It really hides the good stuff.
So there's a whole world that's not available to you.
And I can't tell you about it either.
Rasmussen has a poll.
If Trump ran against Biden today, Trump would win easily with 46% compared to Biden's 40%.
I'm going to claim victory on one of my predictions, which was the longer Trump is out of office, the better he will look.
Do you remember that prediction?
The longer he's out of office, the better he will look.
Because we would be removed from the fight to just see what his policies were.
What did he do? Well, he did improve the border security, blah, blah, blah.
So, sure enough, the public has taken that position.
But you want to hear the most amazing thing?
Trump and Biden would get roughly the same amount of Hispanic vote.
Just try to hold that in your mind for a moment.
It's close. So Biden would get 38% of the vote if he ran against...
38% of the Hispanic American vote compared to Trump...
I'm sorry.
38% would go to Trump versus 41% to Biden.
So almost a statistical tie...
Let me tell you something about the Hispanic population, at least in California.
So from my personal experience, there is no group that I know of that complains less about bullshit.
Can anybody back me up on that?
If you were to find one identifiable demographic group that just doesn't complain about bullshit...
It would be the Hispanic Americans, and the Hispanics who are not yet Americans.
They are the most awesome group of people.
If you have not experienced the work ethic and the attitude and the lack of complaining about just the smallest bullshit that we spend all our time on, it's a very impressive group of people.
And I would bet that almost 100% of the people who have experience...
With that demographic group would agree with me.
It's just so true.
It's across the whole...
Of the people who came here to work, I'm not talking about any criminal elements or anything, but of the people who came here to work, it's just very true.
And I think some of that attitude translates into this result, that even though the news is saying, oh, Trump is your racist enemy, I think the Hispanic Americans just said, what, because he's trying to secure the border?
I think I'll go to work.
Right? I feel like the Hispanics just didn't get involved in the politics.
They just heard, oh, Trump's your enemy, he's terrible, and they think, because he wanted to secure the border of his own country?
I mean, I'm glad I got here, but...
Why do we hate a president for securing a border?
Even if you were a beneficiary of getting across the border illegally, you would still be reasonable and say, well, you can't let everybody cross the border illegally.
I'm glad I got across.
But you can't let everybody cross, obviously.
So... I just love this result because it says that at least the Hispanic Americans are relatively free from the brainwashing.
Relatively free from the hypnosis.
Because it looks like their point of view is just like, well, let's just judge them as leaders and not get caught up in the little stuff.
U.S. support for nuclear power.
Listen to this.
Between 2018, which wasn't that long ago, remember 2018 was the middle of the Trump administration, from 2018 to 2021, support for nuclear power in the United States went from 49%, so underwater, less than half, to 59% in only three years.
Let me say that again.
Support for nuclear power in this country in just three years went from 49% to 59%, a solid majority.
From underwater to solid majority.
You want to hear more?
Support among Democrats in particular in 2018, only 37% supported nuclear power in 2018.
Only 37%.
Three years later, That 37% went to...
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
60%. What?
What? Has that ever happened before?
Have you ever seen any issue that's, let's say, a mature issue, because we've been talking about nuclear power forever?
Have you ever seen...
Support among one side go from 37% to 60% in three years?
Name one other thing that ever had that happen.
Unless there was some big event, right?
There's no... Well, I guess you could say there's an event.
There's some power shortages.
That's a pretty big event. Yeah, I guess that would be the event that changed people's minds.
In part. But special shout-out to Michael Schellenberger and also Mark Schneider for being two advocates for this.
I certainly put my full weight of persuasion into this fight based on the expertise of two people who know more than I do.
And I swear to God, they moved the needle.
Yeah, Bjorn Lomborg.
But in the United States, I think his impact is a little lessened because he doesn't live in the United States.
But certainly, I would say that Bjorn Lomborg is the OG, the original cost-benefit guy who actually looked at all the factors where people weren't looking at all the factors before.
Why do you get credit when I was saying it decades ago?
All right. So, how many of you would agree that Schellenberger and Mark Schneider moved the needle?
Because remember, they moved people who moved people who moved people, so it's not just their direct effect.
We're talking about second, third-order effects.
So on locals, everybody say yes.
Almost everybody.
Almost everybody says yes.
I think this is one of the...
Oh, wow, even in YouTube, people are saying yes.
Honestly, I think this is one of the most remarkable things that's ever happened in the United States.
One of the most remarkable success stories in the United States.
Now, it's not a success yet, because you actually have to build the nuclear facilities.
It's going to take a long time.
Oh, there was a TED Talk guy, too?
Yeah. Yeah. Gates moved the needle most, you think?
Well, I don't know if he did, did he?
I don't know. I don't know if Bill Gates is as persuasive as you think, but maybe he is.
Anyway, good job to all involved, however that got done.
Kevin McCarthy is going to do something funny if Republicans get control of the Congress.
So I'd forgotten about this, but the Democrats, when they had control, they removed some Republicans from committee assignments, which apparently they can do, but apparently it's a new standard.
So it used to be that no matter how much you hated the people on the other party, if they were on the committee, they were on the committee.
But I guess the Democrats kicked off Marjorie Taylor Greene and also Paul Gosar for...
I guess they were concerned about the things they had said outside of the committee work, and they decided to punish them by taking them off these important committees.
And McCarthy is saying that that set a new standard.
So if Republicans take control, they're going to use the same standard to remove Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar from their committee assignments.
I am so in favor of that.
So in favor of that.
I didn't see it coming at all.
But the Democrats have to live with any precedents they set, right?
If they set the precedent, well, you've got to live with it.
And the precedent they've set is if somebody is a complete disaster in their opinion, in their opinion, that's all it took.
If somebody is a complete disaster of a human being, in their opinion, they can be removed from a committee even if they're doing fine work on the committee.
There's not much to say about this except that it's awesome.
You like to see consistency come back and bite people in the ass when they deserve it.
Well, I've got some advice for murderers.
Are any of you murderers or plan to be?
Because if you'd like to get away with your murder, I have a new idea for you.
Before you kill somebody, either make sure you've chosen somebody who has an active case of COVID or that you've infected them just before you shoot them.
Because once you get into trial, let's say there's video proof and you've got witnesses and it looks like you're going to go to jail, what you do is you produce the death certificate.
And you say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have the death certificate.
It says right here, cause of death was COVID. My client is accused of murdering this person who, as the experts have concluded, did not die of a gunshot wound, but rather COVID. Now, you might say that when the victim came into the operating room or the emergency room, he was already missing a head.
And while it is true that a headless human being is dead...
And it may be that under normal circumstances, the shooting off of somebody's head would be the cause of death, but not in the specific case of a pandemic.
In a pandemic, we have what's called reasonable doubt.
Because if that person had COVID and was missing a head, sort of a jump ball, isn't it?
Do you know if it was the missing head?
Or possibly the COVID got them just before the bullet did.
Can you rule it out?
No, you can't. Reasonable doubt.
I rest my case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we're done here.
Pretty good. Pretty good.
If I haven't mentioned this lately...
Do not take my medical advice or my legal advice, and especially my financial advice.
Those are three kinds of advices you don't want to take from me.
No. Including that one.
By the way, I'm not serious about any of that.
We'll talk about that in a minute. I saw some pushback.
I guess some judge asked, what do I do about the fact the president, meaning Trump, during January 6th, Didn't denounce the conduct immediately.
How do we judge the fact that Trump did not immediately say, stop being violent.
Don't do it. Here's my answer.
Do you think he knew what was happening?
How could he? How would Trump be the only one who knew that it was violent?
We didn't know, did we?
We knew that the protesters were scuffling, right?
Because you could see that.
That'd be in the news. You could see the scuffling.
But do you think that the president knew that the crowds would overwhelm the security?
Do you think that's something he knew?
Now, I do not support the president, Trump.
I do not support his January 6th actions.
So let me say that clearly.
This is not an apologist kind of thing.
I think he's got some explaining to do.
And I think if you could...
If your vote in 2024, should he run, if your vote in 2024 included that as an important factor and you decided to vote against him for that...
I wouldn't argue with that at all.
I would say that would be pretty reasonable.
In fact, you could take all of his pluses and minuses, throw it all in the hopper, and, you know, judge it all.
You don't have to judge only the good stuff, right?
You can judge the bad stuff.
It's all part of the mix.
I think that's part of the bad stuff in his legacy.
But I do have to ask this question.
How much did he really know?
Did you know? I'm trying to play back my own memories of this.
Let me ask you this.
At what point did you know that it was beyond, let's say, BLM violence?
Or let's say, when did you know it was beyond Antifa-level, BLM-protest-level violence?
Or it wasn't? I don't know.
Maybe it wasn't. At what point did you know it was beyond what I'd call, let's say, a baseline violence violence?
Where nobody gets killed, but maybe somebody gets punched.
Because I'm not sure that...
Yeah, it was enough.
Okay. Late January.
I feel like the bad stuff came out later, didn't it?
Now, by the time Ashley Babbitt got shot, I mean, I don't know if it was too late by that point.
Maybe it was too late by that point.
I don't know. So I don't think that anybody can make a case that Trump handled this well.
I don't think he can make that case.
But you do have to ask the question how much he knew.
Because I'm not sure he could have known how bad it was.
That's all I'm asking.
Just a question. Apparently the Chicago teachers were going to do some kind of work action and not go to school because of COVID. But I saw an article that says the Chicago teachers are set to return today, I guess. So they will have school in person in Chicago.
And the way it was reported is that there was a breakthrough in union negotiations with the city over how to mitigate COVID. Now, that's one way to say it, that the union negotiated with the city.
Is that what happened?
Was it a contest between the unions and the city, the government, and that the two of them worked it out?
No. That's not the story.
The story is that the public told the teachers that they were going to teach, and that's the story.
Am I wrong? It was the public.
Now, I know that negotiations were with the city, but shouldn't the story say the public demanded that the teachers go back to work, and the teachers did?
Yeah, they got some concessions, maybe some mitigation stuff, whatever.
But really what happened was the public opinion got so strong that there was no alternative, really.
The public simply took the decision away from the city, and the public took the decision away from the teachers' unions.
Am I right? That the story is that the public took the decision back.
Tell me I'm wrong.
The only story is that the public took the decision back.
The city just implemented.
Right? Is this real?
Probably not. But I would extend that and say that remember this model.
The public is in charge of ending the pandemic.
Only. Because there's only one entity that has the credibility to do it.
It's the public. The government doesn't have credibility to end the pandemic, or even incentive, I guess, in many cases.
Our experts don't have the credibility anymore.
I mean, maybe they used to, but they don't anymore.
Only the public can end the pandemic.
And here you saw in the Chicago example, that's the turning point.
So we've now reached the turning point where the public said, you know, no.
Name the other time during the pandemic that the public...
The public pushed the government. It happened recently with the CDC going to five days to quarantine.
They didn't do that for medical reasons.
They did it because the public pushed them and they knew that they'd better back down.
So you're already seeing the public powering up.
It pushed the CDC to go to five days.
It just pushed the Chicago teachers to go back to school.
The public's taken over.
For good intent. I mean, it's exactly the right thing.
It's where you need to go.
And let me say this.
The public is going to take over.
The public is going to take over.
Life is short.
Might as well get to it.
It's going to happen.
All right. And teachers' unions are systemic racism, as you know.
Doug Ducey, Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona, he's making this argument.
Listen to this persuasion.
He said in the speech, 50-plus years ago, politicians stood in the schoolhouse door and wouldn't let minorities in.
Today, union-backed politicians stand in the schoolhouse door and won't let minorities out.
So here he's talking about letting minorities and everybody else take their school money and go to school where they want to and have school choice.
An interesting framing that we were discriminating against minorities, keeping them out of schools, but at this point we're discriminating by not letting them have choice.
Correct. The other way to say this, Governor Ducey, is to say that the teachers' unions are the source of most systemic racism in this country.
If you can get one national politician to say that sentence, it will break the school unions.
A national-level politician needs to say there is systemic racism, and most of it is because of the school system.
Because if you can't educate minorities, they can't lift themselves up on their own, and ultimately that's what has to happen.
You need to give them a break, give them a good school, but they've got to do the rest.
That's how the systemic racism goes away.
Not by magic, by lots of people doing hard work to make it go away.
Just by good work.
So, just say the sentence.
Just say the sentence.
And you're going to own the topic.
I saw a sign by, I don't know, I guess it was a homeless guy begging for money or something on the streets.
And this is what his sign said.
Tip me if your girl is hot.
That was the panhandler's sign.
Tip me if your girl is hot.
Damn him. Damn him.
That's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
Would you pay a dollar so that your girl doesn't wonder if you think she's ugly?
I would. I'd pay a dollar for that.
That's worth a dollar. So let's talk about the lying government and all their numbers.
So the CDC says up to 40% of COVID patients are admitted for something else, meaning that 40% of the surge would be basically fake numbers because it's just people who have some other problem, not a COVID problem.
But it's worse than that.
There was a study at...
A study at...
Was it USF, where somebody looked into all of the hospitalizations and found that 75% of them just coincidentally had COVID? 75% of them?
Now, do you say to yourself, oh my God, the pandemic was always fake because many of those people didn't really have a problem.
They were just in the hospital for other reasons, not COVID. Are you saying that to yourself?
Don't say that to yourself.
Don't say that to yourself.
Yes, Eric, you're right.
Here's what I say.
I say that in the beginning, the overcounting probably wasn't that bad.
In the beginning.
Probably because if you got, like, one of the bad early variants...
You actually were hospitalized and they took it seriously and it really was the reason you were in hospital, probably more often than the alternative.
But now that we have Omicron and we have lots of herd immunity, shouldn't you expect that most people who go into the hospital for any reason would also have an infection?
So I would say that the way we counted it in the beginning of the pandemic was probably over-counted, but not by much.
But at the moment, it's over-counted by, I don't know, maybe 300%, if that 75% number's right.
So we could be way off now, because Omicron and herd immunity and the fact, I assume they're using PCR tests, so they're picking up people who are already cured.
But still have it in them. So if you put all those factors together, basically, if you have a world where everybody has Omicron or has been infected with one of the others, shouldn't almost everybody who goes into the hospital have a pretty high likelihood of also having some COVID in them?
And in the next two weeks, it should be pretty much everybody.
You're either going to have active COVID or you had it recently enough that it would show up on a PCR test.
So shouldn't the hospitalizations of people with COVID reach, I don't know, 90% or something at some point?
So the hospitalization numbers are garbage, but on top of that, we lose trust.
Now, personally, I've never super trusted the hospitalization numbers.
Like many of you, I said, tell me the death numbers.
Just tell me the death numbers.
Now... Wow.
I just saw a comment that's making me shake my head.
Well, let's talk about death numbers.
I was just reading a fact check about death numbers.
Now, do you think that the over-counting of the hospitalizations could be extended to say, therefore, the deaths are also over-counted by maybe a similar amount?
Who would say that?
Is there anybody who would say...
That deaths are probably over-counted in much the same problem as the hospitalizations.
Lots of yeses.
I'm going to be on the hard no on that.
Hard no. So a stronger opinion than I have on most things.
Hard no. I think you're all wrong.
Here's why. Now, I read a fact check, but we don't trust fact checks, right?
Can we agree that when I tell you I read a fact check, that doesn't mean it's true.
It's just somebody called it a fact check.
But it did confirm a little bit of what I thought, but not everything.
So here's what I know.
If you were to falsify a hospital record knowingly, there are pretty steep criminal penalties.
Did you know that? So to believe that deaths are falsified...
You have to believe that people are taking a criminal risk, and an obvious one.
So it's one where you're definitely going to get caught if anybody wants to look for it.
I mean, the record would be right there.
So it's a bad crime to try to get away with, and the employees who would have to do it, or the doctor, would not be the beneficiary of the extra money.
So we know that the hospitals got extra money if they had a COVID patient.
But it was extra money they needed, largely for the extra mitigation and stuff for a COVID patient.
However, what happens...
So we do know that hospitals had an incentive to code things as COVID because they got more money.
But that doesn't mean that they were lying directly.
Because if they had COVID, they really did need to treat them like a COVID patient.
They did need extra resources.
So it wouldn't be lying to code somebody as a COVID patient and get money for it, because you really do need the money for a real thing, but it makes the data wonky, right?
So in that case, nobody's doing anything illegal.
Can we agree? In fact, they're doing something good and smart.
So it would not be illegal or even unethical for the hospital to code somebody, a COVID patient, even if they have comorbidities, because that's how they get the money, and they do need the money.
It's like really money that's offered for that purpose.
So the way they collect the data and the way they get the money were incompatible.
So the way they collect the money made the data useless, right?
But I don't think anybody was criminal in that.
Would you agree? Would you agree that I did not describe a scam or a criminal activity?
There was just two systems that are incompatible, and when you run one of the systems the way you're supposed to, the other one breaks.
No crime.
Now, let's take a death.
So that's for hospitalizations.
Now, let's take a death.
If you're a doctor and you code that death as a COVID... What advantage do you get as a doctor?
Go. What is the doctor's advantage to code a gunshot wound as a COVID death?
Does the doctor get paid extra?
No. Nope.
Somebody says to keep his job because you think the hospital wants him to code it as a COVID death, right?
What does the hospital get monetarily for coding something a death?
A COVID death.
Go. How much does the...
No. Isn't it $39,000?
Why does the hospital get extra money if it's a COVID death?
Here's what's going on.
There was a rumor...
There was some doctor who said that those deaths had a financial incentive.
But even the doctor who said that, who started the rumor you're believing...
The person who started the rumor you're believing says that you shouldn't interpret it that way.
So the data that you have is from somebody who says, don't use the data that way.
The source of the data says, don't use it that way.
Here's what I think is happening.
I think... That hospitals get paid extra for hospitalization because they need extra money for the mitigation.
But I think that once you die, correct me if I'm wrong, once you die, why would it cost extra?
Because don't they just bag you?
And at that point, dead is just dead.
They don't keep giving medicine to dead people, right?
Dead people don't get doctor care.
They don't get UVs or IV drips.
So can you explain to me, under your point of view, that there's an incentive?
Who gets this money and for what?
We all understand why you get mitigation money if they're alive, because you need to keep them separated and stuff like that.
But once they're dead, they were already in the COVID facility, so that part is paid for.
Then you bag them up, and they leave the hospital.
Where was the extra money?
You're telling me that the hospital gets $39,000 for checking the COVID box?
You know that any doctor who checked that COVID box for a gunshot wound would be risking their entire future.
Because that's a big crime right there.
That's a big crime.
And it would be obvious. It would be documented.
And it's something people are going to look for.
It's not even a crime you can get away with because people aren't looking for it.
We're all looking for this.
It would be the most looked-for thing in America in a few months.
Do you think a doctor will do that?
Remember, the doctor doesn't get any extra money.
And do you think that a hospital would remove a doctor's privileges...
Do you think they would remove the privileges, or fire them, I suppose, for coding correctly?
What would a doctor do if they got fired by a hospital for coding a gunshot as COVID? And if the hospital said, we're going to fire you if you don't do this, what would the doctor do?
The doctor would take the hospital down.
Now, you say to yourself, oh, Scott, you're forgetting that doctors are cowards just like everybody, so they're just going to do what their employer says.
No way. No way.
We're talking doctors.
Now, a lot of doctors will be sheep, sure, just like a lot of everybody.
But you don't think that the class of doctor will produce any heroes?
Really? Let's do the really test on this.
I'm going to give you the really test.
You're telling me that the class of people who are doctors working in emergency on the front line, risking their life every day, you're telling me that the class of doctors can't produce a whistleblower to say the hospital made me code this illegally and I wouldn't do it.
Really. Really.
The entire class of doctors can't produce a hero.
Is that your opinion? It produced Dr.
Malone. It produced Dr.
McCullough. It produced Dr.
Zelensky. I'm sorry, I always get his name wrong.
I apologize for that. Now, even if you think those three doctors are wrong, and a lot of people do, or at least wrong on some elements of what they say, they're definitely not wrong on most things.
I would say the rogue doctors are correct on most things, You know, there's some things we would disagree with.
But it isn't really practical or possible that you haven't seen an interview with a doctor, an actual doctor, who just said, fuck it.
All the doctors in the country, you can't find one doctor to go on TV and say, look, I had to quit the hospital.
Look what they made me do.
How hard would it be for that doctor to get another job?
Be a hero. He or she will be a hero.
Right? Stop with the really crap.
No, I think the really test is useful.
I know it's annoying, but it is useful.
Because if you can say the really thing and it still makes sense, it tells you something.
All right. So I'm going to say...
I'm going to go against all of you, and I think really 100% of you, Actually, let me see if anybody agrees with me.
Scott is losing touch with reality.
All right, Robert, I'm going to block you for being an asshole with nothing to offer the world.
Remember, criticisms with reasons, perfect.
Wild generic insults are a sign of cognitive dissonance.
And let me say that again. If your response to me is just an insult with no anything else, that is just cognitive dissonance.
It is. If you give me a reason, then I'd say, oh, there's a person with a different opinion.
But if you just insult me, you just can be written off as somebody who's hypnotized and not worth any attention whatsoever.
So if you'd like to prove yourself completely worthless...
Just put in a mindless, flailing insult to show that you have nothing to offer the world.
Just advertise your fucking uselessness right now.
Please. If there's anybody else who wants to be a useless piece of shit, step up.
I'd like to see you flailing away with your dumb little insults, adding nothing to the world.
Go ahead. Go nuts.
All right. You know nothing about the medical industry.
John, you're going away for being an asshole?
Because none of us know everything about the medical industry.
I'm only relying on other people.
Here's what I do know. I do know how to detect bullshit.
Not every time.
Nobody's that good. But I do have one skill.
And it is to detect bullshit among experts.
And I believe I've demonstrated that skill many times.
And I'm demonstrating it again, and you don't have to insult me for this opinion.
You can just wait.
Because I think this is one we'll know the answer.
Would you agree that we will probably know the answer eventually, maybe in a year, about how many of the deaths were not really COVID deaths?
Would you agree? I think we'll know the answer in a year, don't you think?
Somebody says no. A lot of people who say no won't know the answer.
Why not? I feel like it would be too easy to investigate that.
Huh. Interesting that you don't think so.
Well, I'm going to say we will know the answer.
I'll disagree with most of you.
And I will say that the death count might be overstated, but it might be understated.
And it won't be nearly as bad as the hospitalization's numbers are.
So that's my prediction.
The death rates won't be good, but they won't be nearly as bad as the hospitalization numbers, and there's obvious reasons for that.
All right. Project Veritas put out something that has stumped even Eric Weinstein.
I would like to offer a blanket apology to everybody's name who can be pronounced more than one way.
I'm not going to pronounce your name correctly if there are two possible pronunciations for the same name.
I just can't do it.
It's beyond my ability.
I take full responsibility for it.
And I apologize to the brothers Eric and Brett because I know I say their name wrong every time.
And there's no amount of times you can tell me that will make me remember it correctly.
And that's on me. So please don't take this as an insult when I say your name wrong.
There's no bad intention here.
But I loved watching Eric Weinstein try to deal with this new Project Veritas dump.
They've got some kind of official-looking documents, and I barely want to describe them because it's so not clear what we're seeing, and it doesn't look real.
And that was sort of... Eric's take on it was, can you tell me what I'm seeing?
Because it looks bad, but I don't want to say that I believe it because I'll get kicked off of Twitter.
And so watching somebody with a super high IQ trying to navigate talking about something that's real...
Meaning that there was a real Project Veritas report.
Talking about something real, but not knowing how to talk about a real thing without getting kicked off of social media.
And watching him try to navigate the topic and realizing he has to say directly, To Twitter and ask them directly not to kick him off for just talking about something.
That's the world we're in.
So that alone was interesting.
But the dump is something about some American-created entity that was before the pandemic, but not too much before, in which they were trying to create, you know, Some kind of a vaccine or precursor virus to COVID. And if somebody killed the EcoHealth Alliance program, blah, blah, blah.
Now, as Brian Machiavelli on Twitter noted about this story, it's too on the nose.
Meaning that this story looks exactly like a fake, which doesn't mean it is.
Doesn't mean it is.
But if you were to predict...
If something's a little too perfect, they usually aren't true.
So that's what Brian said.
A little too on the nose.
But he tweeted it the same as I did.
Because Project Veritas doesn't have a perfect record, but they have broken real stories.
And lots of them, actually.
So to imagine that Project Veritas is just giving you something that's not true, well, anything's possible.
But I think you've got to go immediately with sort of a take-it-seriously approach until you know more.
So I'm just going to say you need to know more about this story, but I would bet against it being real.
Anybody want to disagree if you saw the story?
I'm not even sure this will make headlines.
I've decided to remove long-haul COVID from my cost-benefit analysis.
And here's the reason. We should be talking about it all the time on the news, or it's not real.
Because that was one of my biggest factors for getting the vaccination.
Because we seem to be talking a lot about the time I made the decision.
But I feel like it just left the headlines.
But does that make it not real?
Well, here's what I know.
I know people personally who are very credible...
Dr. Drew being top of the list, who are quite sure they had something called long-haul COVID. And when you hear their description of it, it sounds like it couldn't be anything else.
Now, would even the people who say they had it agree with the following statement?
There could be coincidental problems that happen after vaccinations or even after COVID. That you imagine are caused by the vaccination or by the COVID. Everybody would agree with that, right?
That there would be some coincidental medical problems that are not caused by either one of those things.
And you would expect that with 200, I don't know, how many millions of people?
370 million or something?
With all those people either getting COVID or getting vaccinations, You'd expect tens of millions of people to say they had a bad medical outcome after a vaccination or after COVID, right?
Am I wrong that tens of millions would be a reasonable number?
Just by chance, there should be tens of millions of reports.
Anybody disagree with that estimate?
That only by chance, whether it's real or not, real or not, That many people having that experience, there should be tens of millions who had a bad medical experience directly after.
So, the fact that millions of people report what looks to all observation, like either a side effect of the COVID or a side effect of the vaccine, how much weight should you put on that?
Well, I'll tell you, if it comes from a Dr.
Drew, I put a lot of weight on it.
Because he would be sensitive to the risk that it's imaginary as well as doing a deeper dive on how real it is.
So it's very, very convincing that it's real.
But now let me give you some context that might change your mind because it changed mine.
I've had two minor surgeries in my life.
Two? Yeah, two.
Oh, and...
No, three. They're all minor.
Two of them were, like, nasal, sinus-related.
And they're the kind of things where you're up and walking the next day, right?
So I'm saying it's a minor surgery if you're up and walking the next day.
So one was for my voice, so they just did some nerve stuff in the front of my neck.
Didn't even open up the interior of my neck.
Just nerves, like, right below the surface.
So three minor surgeries...
It took me six months to recover from all of them.
The real recovery period was a few weeks.
But I was fucked up for six months after each of those, meaning that I couldn't exercise effectively, had trouble walking upstairs.
I mean, I was fucked up.
And there were minor surgeries.
Like, in every case, I was literally up and walking around, you know, like the next day.
Now, here's my...
And one of the drugs that messed me up the most was prednisone.
So getting off of prednisone...
It's really unpleasant if you've been on it too long, which is what happened to me because I was on it too long waiting for surgery during COVID. Surgery kept getting delayed.
I had to be on it too long.
So the pandemic really hurt me health-wise.
It set me back a year.
I would say that my physical fitness reached its lowest point of my life, During the pandemic.
Because of the surgery, not because of the pandemic.
And it's back to really good now.
So I'm fine now. So here's my observation.
That after anybody has any medical event that's kind of traumatic...
It's not that unusual to have months of after-effect, is it?
And the people who got COVID and really got the kick-your-ass COVID, not the no-symptoms COVID, but the ones that really got their ass kicked, to me that feels like surgery, a minor surgery.
It feels like it could be that we always have months of problems after any major medical or even minor surgery.
And maybe it's just ordinary.
Somebody said up to a year for you after surgery?
So how many of you could confirm to me that you've had months of what seems to be fatigue or some related problem like fatigue or breathing or something after what had been a normal...
was the vasectomy bad?
Yeah, so some of you agree with that, right?
So, now, does that make long COVID real or not real?
Well, by that definition, it's as real as the long surgery, right?
So I had minor surgery, but I suffered from long-haul surgery, and everything worked, right?
I'm talking about a completely successful operation.
No side effects beyond what I'm talking about.
Yeah, knee took 18 months, somebody says.
So I have a feeling that long-haul COVID is real in the sense that anything that kicks the shit out of you can affect you for six months.
But that doesn't mean you would necessarily take it into consideration.
Because when I decided to get my minor surgeries...
Did I, at any point, did I calculate, well, I could have months of, you know, bad recovery time?
None. It was never a factor.
So even though it's real, I never factored it in because it was temporary.
Like I knew it would be a few months of this and then it's done.
Could it be that long-haul COVID is just more of that?
Anything that kicks your ass, kicks your ass for a long time.
That's it. That's just the whole thing.
And it's not different from COVID than any normal ass-kicking thing that happens to you.
So, if long-haul COVID sort of resolves itself in six months, I would say that I wouldn't even consider that part of the decision.
Because it's sort of like every other big medical thing.
All right? I'll just put that out there.
And I noticed that the news seems to be talking about it less.
But then somebody sent me a few stories where people are talking about it, so maybe it's just I've seen it less.
All right. Here's the deal I think we should make with our government.
And by deal, I mean just tell them what we're going to do.
On February 1st, which is sort of the target date...
That the public is setting for its government and the masking and other restrictions, at least the unreasonable ones.
If the major news sources are not even reporting the death rate by then, you know, there's no ticker, it's not the news, they don't even mention the number.
If there's no news source that's mentioning the death rate on February 1st, and the CDC can't give us those numbers accurately...
In other words, if we don't have confidence, the CDC even knows how many people are dying, because right now the numbers are very much in question, and it's not being reported, masks go away.
Meaning that the public has a right to demand that we are given the information on this risk.
If we are not given the information by the news, and we don't trust it if we got it, You don't make decisions based on that stuff.
If you don't have information on a thing, you don't make a decision on it.
I mean, if it's a fog of war, sometimes you have to take guesses.
But if there's a thing that may be a thing and not a thing, you just go on with your life.
You don't change your life because there might be a thing somewhere that's a thing.
Because, you know, your entire life, you're surrounded with infinite things that could be a problem but aren't.
So, if the pandemic falls into the category of things that could be a problem, but we don't have any information that would say it is, then I don't think you can manage your life around it, because you don't manage your life around any of the other things that could be a problem, but probably not. So, this would be what I call the fake because.
I've described this concept before in influence.
Sometimes people need a reason to do the things they want to do.
A lot of people want to end the mandates, but they can't get there.
In other words, the public is...
I'll just say for conversation purposes, let's say half of the public wants to get...
Well, 75%.
Let's say 75% of the public wants to get rid of the mask right away, but they sort of need to convince the rest of the public.
The rest of the public needs a reason.
And... Can't tell if that's a joke, but you can block for it anyway.
They need a reason. And in persuasion, there's something that I call the fake because.
It's the reason that's not a good reason, but they just need a reason.
And so the reason would be, if you're not reporting the death rate and you're not even sure what the death rate is, that's the reason.
You have to give us data...
Or don't ask us to make a decision based on imaginary data, I guess.
So I think that's the standard we could live with.
So there's a Wall Street Journal article that I disagree with, but I might be wrong.
It says that we might be doing the wrong thing by trying to slow Omicron.
And the idea here is that if we all get Omicron quickly...
I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, by the way.
That if we all get Omicron quickly, then there's less chance for a variant that would be like the worst variant in the world to emerge.
That's wrong, isn't it?
Here's why I think it's wrong.
I think this rule is inviolate.
The more virus, the more variants.
I don't think there's an exception to that.
The more virus, the more variants.
Now, if you take two scenarios where we get Omicron quickly, everybody gets it, versus it takes a while for everybody to get it, isn't it the same amount of virus?
Why would the variant risk change with time?
Because it's not time that matters, except that time is the variable that You know, influences quantity.
But quantity is what gives you variance, right?
It's not...
Because does the individual virus mutate?
Is that what's happening?
So I'm not confident that I'm right.
I'm just trying to understand the math of it.
So... Yeah, so here's my statement.
I'll take some expert's opinion whether this makes sense.
If everybody's going to get Omicron, it's the same amount of virus whether we get it quickly or get it slowly.
Is that part right? I'm right about that, right?
If everybody's going to get it in one month or two months, it's exactly the same amount of virus because it's one person with virus walking around And if you were to measure it, it wouldn't matter if you measured it next month or this month.
Scott's amount of virus would be exactly the same quantity no matter when I get it.
Right? Let's see.
Flu variants happen all the time.
Yeah, they happen all the time.
But just answer my one question.
Why would variants be more if I were to get COVID next month instead of this month or less?
Why would that matter? Okay.
You assume a static model.
Do I? No, I assume that I haven't been provided a model that's competing with the one I gave you.
Well, I don't know.
So I just have a question on that, and it's weird that we can't even know that.
Doesn't that seem like...
That feels like that should have been virus 101, and we should all be informed to at least understand virus 101, right?
Virus 101 is more virus means more variants, and I don't know how that's wrong.
So... But probably is.
By the way, I'm not confident of that opinion.
I'm not at all confident of the opinion.
I just don't know why it's wrong.
Greater incubation time.
But in what?
Each individual gets the virus and they incubate it the same amount that they would incubate it if they get it next month or this month.
Incubation time should be exactly the same.
Or not. But then also, the longer you wait, the more attenuated viruses tend to get.
They don't tend toward super variants.
They tend toward milder vaccinations.
All right. Well, that's all I got for today.
I think you'd agree. This is the best live stream ever seen in the entire world.
And... Rand Paul is going after Fauci again.
Fauci. Overall, more time to vary.
Yeah, but time isn't a variable, is it?
Does the...
I just don't know that...
I don't know.
It's a tough one. And it's also frustrating that that's not an easier question because I feel like...
I feel like I should already know for sure what's going on there.
No variable is the host. Time plus spread.
So here's what I'm saying.
I think that when you add time, the time is just a proxy for quantity.
That might be the problem.
Let's boil it down to that.
I say that when you're talking about variance over time, that time is just the number you use to indirectly refer to quantity, because you get more quantity over time.
I might be wrong.
Probably wrong. Actually, probably wrong.
Just let me know. That's all I got for now, YouTube.
What was that last question there?
Got a $5 question.
Slow spread gives time for another variance to catch up.
That's true. Slow spread gives time for another variant to catch up.
But the variance, the math of it is that they tend to get lesser.
Yeah, slow time gives...
But is that true?
Yeah, I guess that would be true.
Okay, I'm going to accept that as the answer.
It's about giving time for the other variants to catch up.
Okay. So if one person created a variant, let's say there's one individual who gets a variant, and if they hid for two weeks, then everybody else might get regular Omicron, and then they can't infect anybody.
But if they immediately went out and ran around with people, people would get their super variant quicker before the Omicron protected them.
Yeah, okay. All right, there you go.
My mind was changed in real time.
I now reverse my opinion.
Now, you see how useful it is when somebody puts an actual reason in a comment instead of just these weird, like, random insults?
Did you see how quickly somebody could completely change my mind with one sentence?
The one sentence was, more time for the other variants to compete...
And I thought, oh, okay, we're done here.
Yeah, that's actually a good reason.
And by the way, I've told you before, one of the ways to know if your own opinion is good is if you can write it down and it still makes sense.
So there was a case of somebody who could write it down in a very short way, That's all you needed.
So if you can write it down and it makes sense, you have a coherent opinion.
But if you can't write it down and all you say is stuff like, I'm stupid, you probably didn't have a coherent opinion.
You only read the monkey comments.
We've been screaming this at you for ten minutes.
What's the monkey? Oh, the money comments.
You only read the money comments.
We've been screaming this for 10 minutes.
What money comments? Here's Shelley.
Scott's thousand-dollar life is short.
We all know you got duped by COVID because your friend scared you into trying to save the world.
Time to apologize. We'll accept it.
We're running out of patience.
Shelley, fuck you, you stupid cunt.
Let me say that.
You are a piece of fucking shit.
Do not tell people what they think and then insult them in public.
You can tell me what you fucking think, you small-minded piece of crap, but don't tell me what I think and then insult me in public when you're fucking wrong.
Because here's the thing. I was definitely scared about civilization, But that had nothing to do with getting a vaccination, because that scare came long before the vaccinations were available.
And by the time the vaccinations were available, I wasn't afraid of the civilization failing.
So you got your facts wrong, you got your timing wrong, you got your thinking wrong, and you're a fucking piece of shit.
Because you should not live in the world with other nice people.
Because I got a feeling you're just as much of a piece of shit when you go home.
I'll bet your family hates your fucking guts behind your back.
I guarantee it.
With that kind of an attitude.
The fact that you can come after me with your fucking imaginary problems, put them in my head and then blame them for me, means that your family is probably getting the same treatment.
I feel sorry for your husband.
I hope your husband's watching, because he's agreeing with me right now.
He's nodding with me. Yes, you are an imaginary, shit-stirring, probably a narcissist, piece of shit.
That's what I think of you, Shelley.
So I wouldn't join these live streams again if I were you.
And by the way, that probably demonetized me, but that was worth $1,000.
