Episode 1627 Scott Adams: Why Does the Good News and the Bad News All Look the Same Today?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden, on MLK day, says Floyd had more impact
Ivermectin and automobile deaths
Supply chain issues worsen
Chamath Palihapitiya's offensive honesty
COVID observational reports
Feb 1 strategy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 damn thing that ever happened to you called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Famous across the world.
I know you're probably spreading the word.
Hit that subscribe button.
Now! And while you're doing that, why don't you prepare a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite beverage.
Beverage, I said.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and damn, it's going to be good.
Here it comes. Here it comes.
Go! Yep, I like coffee.
That's right. Well, let's talk about the fake news first.
There's a Rupard clip of Democrat Paul Begala being taken out of context.
I think I saw it tweeted by Mediaite.
And here's how you can tell that somebody's being taken out of context.
If the clip ends as soon as they said the bad thing, that is such a tell.
So if somebody says...
Let's see if I can make one up.
If I'm on TV and I say something like, well, you know, death is good for orphans.
Clip! And then suddenly the clip has ended.
You could be sure that whatever I said after I said death is good for orphans probably would clarify...
Maybe put it in context, and suddenly you'd say, oh, that was a joke or an analogy or something else.
So here's what happened.
Paul Begala said that, I think the problem for the Democrats right now is not that they have bad leadership, they have bad followers, okay?
Clip. Clip is done.
Now, do you think he said anything after...
The Democrats have bad followers.
Do you think he said anything after that that clarified his thought?
Of course! Of course they did!
And it was obviously fake news, if you saw where it was clipped.
Because they clipped it right away.
And what did he say after that that softened it?
What he said is that leadership responds to the public...
And if the public could get its opinions together, the leadership would follow.
Exactly what I tell you all the time.
I tell you that the people run the government, and always have, in the United States, different in other places.
But in the United States, if 75% of us say, hey, government, we need this, it'll happen.
It's just hard to get to 75%.
But it's the public who's in charge.
The public's in charge, period.
Alright, so I agree with Paul Begala on that minor point there.
Today I'm introducing a new category.
Things that people did say, but maybe they shouldn't have.
Things that might be technically true, but maybe you shouldn't say it out loud.
Maybe you shouldn't.
Here's an example. Joe Biden said on Martin Luther King Day, That George Floyd's death probably had a bigger impact.
Now, is that technically true?
It might be, because of the impact of social media and all the stuff that happened.
It might have had actually a bigger worldwide impact just because the world is a different place.
It could be that on the day that Martin Luther King was killed, of course the story was international news, but it probably didn't have that much of an impact right away, if you know what I mean.
So I think Joe Biden could make a case, as obnoxious as it sounds, that the George Floyd thing was of really big impact and maybe even bigger than MLK at the moment of the assassination.
Now, you could disagree with that.
But here's what you probably don't disagree with.
Why would you say that out loud on Martin Luther King Day?
I mean, I'm all for people having, you know, different opinions.
And I think, you know, if he tried, he might be able to back up that opinion.
But I don't think that's the point.
I think the point is, how could you be so, let's say, confused about what the room needs at that moment...
To think that that was the way to play that.
I don't know. I feel like maybe just keep that one to yourself, even if you think it.
Well, the continuing roganization of America is happening.
This has got to be a sign that we live in a simulation.
It seems to me that at all times there has to be an adult white male that 40% of the population is shitting on.
And if you don't have one, you've got to go get a new one.
So it used to be Trump, and then Trump faded into the background a little bit, and we needed an adult white male to shit on for 40% of the public.
And there's Joe Rogan, just accidentally becoming the biggest, not accidentally, but becoming the biggest thing in podcasting and maybe the most influential person in the country at this point.
And there he is.
He says, oh, we've got an adult white male to shit on.
Am I wrong that we always need an adult white male to shit on?
And that the reason is, it's the one category you can shit on with no holds barred.
You don't even have to regulate your speech.
You don't have to be careful how you insult them so that you're saying the criticism cleanly without straying into racism or bigotry.
You have to have an adult white male who's the target of all of our, I don't know, frustrations, ire, false beliefs, scapegoating, all that stuff.
So it seems to be it.
But how pervasive this is, the way it turns out, is that you can't have a story unless you compare it to something about the Joe Rogan situation.
Like, oh, it's raining today.
It's raining. Do you know who Joe Rogan had on his podcast that time, talking about climate change?
Like, everything is now a Joe Rogan-related story, even if it's not the way Trump was.
Remember, when Trump was in the news, there could be a story about a bear eats a camper, and it would be like, well, would the bear have eaten the camper if Trump were not president?
And then suddenly everything's about Trump.
But here's the most crazy example of this.
So yesterday I was at a local auto repair shop getting some repairs, some body work on my car.
And it's just in my neighborhood, so I literally just drop the car off and walk home.
It's close enough to just walk home.
And so I'm chatting with the owner.
It's just a little local thing.
And he mentioned something about, you know, the last time he talked to Joe Rogan.
And I thought I heard him wrong.
I was like, like maybe he was talking about the last time he watched the show or something.
I said, do you know Joe Rogan?
And remember, I'm like just down the road at the body shop.
And he says, oh yeah, I've been doing, I did all of his cars for years.
Now, Joe Rogan doesn't even live in this part of the state.
Or he's in Austin, I guess now.
But when he was in California, he was in Southern California and I'm in Northern California.
But apparently, on a fairly regular basis, the guy down the street had conversations with Joe Rogan about mostly cars, I guess, because he must be a car guy.
And how in the world is every place I go turned into a Joe Rogan experience?
Is this a coincidence?
It's such a weird thing.
And then, of course, I'm sitting there and I go, well, you know, I was on his show.
And he's like, what?
You know him too? It's like, somehow Joe Rogan went from a popular podcast to something about the culture.
It's just woven into the culture now in just the weirdest way.
I mean, I don't even know what the importance of that is other than it was weird.
Question for you.
Now that we have data out of the Utter Pradesh area in India, which shows fairly conclusively that taking ivermectin is associated with reducing automobile deaths to zero.
And I'm wondering if there's an argument yet for mandating that all automobile drivers, all licensed drivers, take ivermectin.
Because the data seems pretty strong.
That at the same time people were taking ivermectin, actually all accidental deaths went to zero during that period.
So nobody drowned.
So maybe it could be mandated that if you're a swimmer, you could take ivermectin.
Because during that period, there were no accidental drownings of people taking ivermectin.
So no car crashes, no accidental...
Nobody died of old age.
Actually, nobody died of any cause.
So we have some good data on that.
And I'm generally not in favor of mandates, but, you know, if you can save millions of people, well, I mean, I'll take it into consideration.
And it looks like the data is pretty strong that ivermectin stops automobile accidents.
Now, some of you are thinking, Scott, that data is not strong.
It's as strong as the data that says ivermectin crushed COVID in the same region, because it's the same data.
So the data that says that nobody died of COVID while taking ivermectin also says nobody died in any other way while ivermectin was being used.
So I don't think that's a coincidence.
Is it? I think it went to zero because they took ivermectin.
So now that we have good data on that, well...
I'm not really worried about automobile accidents, even if I were to drive drunk.
I don't drink, but I'm thinking about starting.
Because I have a good feeling that if you took automobile accidents to zero in this one area where they were using ivermectin, that would suggest that even the drunk drivers were not getting in accidents.
And even the people who might have been hit by a drunk driver, who presumably would not be on ivermectin, or if they were, they would survive.
But you could be not on ivermectin, be hit by a drunk driver who was on ivermectin, and it would still protect you.
That's what the data says, because there were no deaths from automobile accidents or drunk driving or anything.
During that period. So I think I'm a convert now.
I was sort of a little skeptical on ivermectin before, and I know it hasn't gone through all of the rigorous trials, but when I see strong data like this that it can eliminate all causes of death, I think that's worth the risk management.
That's a risk benefit I would take to remove the risk of all forms of death.
On another topic, the supply chain.
Looks like it's worse than ever.
I was under the impression that the Biden administration had cleverly put financial incentives and the forms of fines in place and that that would be enough.
But apparently it's the worst it's ever been.
This is terrible leadership, right?
I don't feel like this supply chain problem at this point...
Is anything but failed leadership.
Now, in the beginning of any crisis, you could say, well, that's not really...
wasn't leadership unless they saw it coming.
You know, something happened and then we had to respond to it.
But now it's been months.
Are you telling me that we're so incompetent in this country we can't unload a boat?
Really? Really.
The United States...
You're the superpower of superpowers.
And we can't figure out how to unload some boats.
That's too hard. Well, Scott, you don't understand.
There's space constraint, and there are really a lot of ships.
Yeah, no, I'm not impressed by your space constraints or your lot of ships.
That's got to be failed leadership.
It's just got to be. Now, I'd be saying the same thing if Trump were president.
Now, you might not believe that, but I would.
On day one, it doesn't look like a leadership failure, but now?
Are you kidding me?
How is this not a leadership failure?
You know, I don't know if you've had this experience, but lately my life is like living in Canada or maybe the UK. And what I mean by that is that I can't buy any of the products in the store I used to buy.
I can't get a car.
I mean, I can buy it and do the paperwork, but Ford won't send it to me because it doesn't exist.
And even heard from a Ford executive, I should just cancel the order because they're lying to me, basically.
I'm paraphrasing. So when I go to the store, I've got this off-brand shampoo.
And I'm eating off-brand, you know, snacks and off-brand everything.
So it's like being in Canada.
I can speak to the locals and they understand me, but when I buy a product, I don't recognize the packaging anymore.
I swear to God, it's just like being in Canada.
I mean, unless you're Canadian, then it's different.
Yes, I do use shampoo.
Weird, I know. There's a story to that, but you don't care.
It's more for the body than for the head.
That's the short version.
And it's because of skin issues, not because of hair.
Long story. Anyway, I would like to award the Not a Hypocrite Award.
So this is something I just made up.
Every now and then, a leader will say something honest, and it will cause all kinds of trouble.
And here's a leader, I'll call him a leader, I think that's fair, who said something that was just so honest that the whole Internet just blew up.
And I've never seen this kind of honesty before.
Now, I don't like it.
That's why the Internet broke up.
So I don't like what he's saying.
What he's saying to me sounds horrible.
But bam! I am so impressed by the transparency that I don't know what to say about this.
I just kept listening over and over.
So the topic is a billionaire venture capitalist who is a part owner of the Warriors basketball team.
Chamath Palahipatia.
I hope I got that quite close.
Palahipatia. Palahipatia?
I think that's close. Anyway, he was being asked about owning the warriors, I guess, and doing business in China and the Uyghur situation.
And here's what he said.
Chamath said, nobody cares about what's happening to the Uyghurs, okay?
Of all the things that I care about, it is below my line.
And then he emphasized it several times.
Below the line.
Don't care about it.
Nobody cares about it.
Now... Number one, it's shockingly awful to hear it.
My morality and sense of right and wrong are seriously challenged by this.
Seriously challenged.
But, I'm going to give him a pass.
I'm going to give him a pass.
Because I prefer the transparency over the lie.
I do. And this is the most transparent thing I think I've ever seen from anybody in a leadership position.
I mean, you could argue whether owning the Warriors and being a non-managing owner, so he's not a manager.
Being a non-managing owner, I don't know, maybe that's not leadership, but it sort of is.
And I'm just, my jaw just dropped, and I thought, he's telling us actually the truth.
He's telling us exactly how he feels with no ambiguity whatsoever.
And he's not wrong, because the reason it's the not a hypocrite award, and it's so rare, is that his actions and his words are completely compatible.
He's not taking any action about anything related to the Uyghurs in China, and then his words back it up completely.
No ambiguity at all.
I don't care. Nobody cares.
When he says nobody cares, that's hyperbole, but he's basically saying he doesn't care.
I listened to him say those words.
This is not an exaggeration.
Maybe 30 or 40 times?
Because I couldn't stop listening to it.
I wanted to comment, and I didn't know how.
It's so confusing to have somebody say something that's so completely offensive.
You know, just my brain goes, ah, when I hear it.
At the same time, it's completely true and completely consistent with his actions and completely legal.
He lives in a world where that's completely legal.
I don't know. Part of me says that's how he became a billionaire.
Did anybody else have that feeling?
That you could be offended by it, but at the same time, you're thinking to yourself, well, maybe that's why he's a billionaire and you're not, right?
Because he could do that.
Could you do that? I couldn't do that.
I mean, I can say a lot of provocative things in public, but I couldn't have done that.
I mean, maybe if I had a few billion dollars, I could.
But, yeah, probably I could.
If I had a few billion dollars, I guess I could.
But... I don't know.
I was weirdly impressed and alarmed at the same time.
Now, the Warriors organization put out an announcement that said he doesn't speak for us.
He's just a financial owner.
He doesn't have any leadership role within the team itself, apparently.
So the Warriors are distancing themselves from their own owner, which makes sense.
So there's a story that Matt Gaetz, Congressman Matt Gaetz, his ex-girlfriend, reportedly is given some kind of immunity to testify.
Is that bad news or good news?
Is it bad news or good news that his ex-girlfriend...
Now remember, he's been charged or alleged to have some involvement with maybe a relationship with her when she was under 18, when she was 17.
Allegedly, we don't know about that.
And then maybe he's being accused of trafficking.
What exactly is the trafficking charge?
Is that because they traveled across state lines?
Some weird little law like that.
In the comments, somebody said, we don't care.
Exactly. That's where I was going with this.
How many of you would care?
Let's say you found out it was true.
This is just speculative because we don't know what's true and what's not.
But just a for instance. Suppose you found out that Congressman Gates did have a sexual relationship with somebody who hadn't yet turned 18.
But when she did, she was perfectly happy with the situation and continued dating him for a while.
How do you feel about that?
Crime? Put them in jail, lock them up.
Worst thing that ever happened in the history of the United States.
Now, suppose you also knew that in the context of their relationship, which continued after her 18th birthday, allegedly, we don't know, but suppose you had found out that they had traveled across state lines.
I don't even know if that's really the problem.
Would you care about that?
They were in an actual relationship, allegedly.
Who would? Who would care about that?
An arbitrary state line.
Why is that important? Now, I suppose there might be more to it like money changed hands.
What if you found out that money did change hands, but that it was just part of a relationship?
I mean, I'm in a relationship in which money changes hands.
Am I more moral because I'm married?
Is that how it works?
Is it immoral if you're not married?
I mean, how do we care about any of this?
If we're not caring about the Uyghurs, how in the hell are we caring about this?
Let me ask again, because I may have missed an answer.
Is there even one person who thinks that should be a punishable crime?
It might be a technical crime.
Oh, there is one. Her parents.
Oh, I got a yes.
Okay. Let's see.
Yeah, you know, here's the dividing line.
If she turned 18 and said, oh man, I sure wish I hadn't done that, I'd feel a lot different, wouldn't I? But if she goes the rest of her life saying, you know, it was just a good experience, nah.
Is it our business? I mean, I think I need something closer to a victim before I get excited about anything.
Speaking of the Uyghurs, I saw an argument by Scott Horton, I think he's a libertarian, in which he says that we shouldn't be necessarily believing all the Uyghur stories about genocides and what's going on there.
What do you think about that?
Given the poor quality of information about basically everything, everything, why would you believe the Uyghur situation?
And that question was put to me, essentially, and it's a good question, don't you think?
Do you think you can believe the exiles?
What level of credibility on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is the most credible, how much credibility would you put in the exile reports, which apparently are conflicting?
I'm seeing numbers all over the place.
Somebody said a 10. That's interesting.
Well, you know that exile reports are notoriously unreliable, right?
Because they have an agenda. Historically, they're notoriously unreliable.
So if you are only relying on exile reports, I'm not even sure I would pay attention, honestly.
I probably wouldn't even pay attention.
Because I wouldn't believe them.
Exiles tend to lie about, you know...
I mean, we have a country that's packed with exiles right now.
And how many of them got into the country because they lied about being politically discriminated in their country?
Exiles might be the most lying group of people in the world because they have a reason.
They have a legitimate reason to lie for self-defense and maybe fix something in their old country.
Didn't we attack Iraq because the dissidents or the exiles told us there were weapons of mass destruction?
I mean, I wouldn't trust anything an exile says.
But they're not the only ones, right?
Now, there's other evidence, and the other evidence you could argue is sketchy as well.
Here's my bottom line.
It doesn't matter what evidence you have.
There are claims which rise to the level of credible enough that you should look into it.
And China is not letting the world look into it.
That's all you need. You're done.
Remember, the government, any government, Chinese government, American government, is guilty until proven innocent.
It's not the other way around.
Innocent until proven guilty is only in American and other westernized type systems.
But that's for citizens.
Only citizens are presumed innocent.
Governments are presumed guilty.
They've damn well got to show you that they're not stealing the money because otherwise they just could.
So yeah, the fact that China is not transparent, the fact that you can't just go visit the Uyghur camp and talk to them, that's all you need.
That's all you need. It doesn't even matter if it's true.
They have essentially confessed.
Basically confessed. I would say the same thing is true of American elections.
Do I have evidence that American elections are fraudulent?
I do not. I do not have that evidence.
But I assert that you have to treat them as though they are.
Because the elections can't be fully audited.
You can't get to the electronic parts at all.
Well, not at all, but you can't get to them reliably.
So when you can't have transparency in a government, you have to assume there is guilt and act that way.
Doesn't mean it's real, but that's the way you should act if you're being rational.
Because governments that hide things have a reason to hide it.
They don't hide things for no reason.
And if they had another reason to hide it, well, we'd probably know what that was, right?
It's not like it's a military secret or something.
So... Apparently there's a movement within the MAGA movement, a small movement, in which a number of people believe that JFK Jr.
is alive, really.
He didn't really die in that car crash in 1999.
He's going to come back as Trump's VP... And apparently the way they got to this was the leader of this combined QAnon with numerology.
Because QAnon by itself, it lacked the credibility that it needed.
And numerology by itself is often called a pseudoscience.
But if you put them together...
If you put them together, magic.
And that's what apparently some believers have decided is true.
And not only is JFK Jr.
still alive and coming back, despite being a Democrat, joining no doubt Donald Trump and his group, but also some other famous dead people such as Michael Jackson.
Who apparently faked his death.
And once Trump and JFK Jr.
team up, they will go after the secret cabal of pedophiles that are running the world globally.
So that's that.
Now, seems feasible.
Seems plausible.
Finally. Finally.
That's what somebody says.
Finally. It's about time we put together the dead celebrities with Trump to take care of this global satanic pedophile cabal.
Of course, the real story here is that the mainstream news will give as much attention as possible to the crazy people to paint all Republicans as crazy.
Likewise, There are not nearly as many progressives and crazy liberals on the left as we like to be told.
So the right is telling you that there are tons of progressives when there really are not that many.
There aren't that many AOCs.
But I don't know how many it takes.
There was an enormous Tonga volcano eruption.
A once-in-a-millennium event that caused some tsunamis on the California coast.
Small ones. I think it closed an airport on Catalina Island because the airport, they thought they would get swamped.
And that's the whole story.
China is saying that a recent infection in Beijing, which caused them to close down a whole office building and lock it down, they believe the source is a Canadian mail.
They think the virus came in in the mail from Canada.
So, I don't know if that's a thing.
Do you think you can mail COVID from Canada?
Do you think if you had COVID and you licked an envelope and then it Went all the way to China.
Do you think that COVID would still be alive?
That's what China thinks.
But as I tweeted, I don't have COVID personally, but if accidentally I were to get COVID, and it happened to be the anniversary of my stepson's death from fentanyl that comes from China, You're going to need to put me in prison to keep me from licking stationery and sending it to China,
is all I'm saying. So you don't want me to have COVID and stationery and stamps on the same day that's the anniversary of my stepson's overdose death.
Because I'm pretty sure it would be some kind of a crime to lick COVID onto an envelope and send it to China.
I'm just saying you wouldn't be able to stop me from doing it.
I'm not saying it's good.
I'm not saying it wouldn't kill millions.
I'm just saying if I happened to, coincidentally, get the virus and it was kicking my ass on the same day that was the anniversary of my stepson's death from their fentanyl, You would have to lock me up to keep me from sending my COVID to China.
Or at least trying.
At least trying. I'm sure it's a crime.
So, here's the weirdest thing in the world.
It is looking more and more like I had exactly the right choice for vaccinations.
Not confirmed because I could die tomorrow from a clot.
And satisfy my new nickname, Claw Adams.
Would you agree? That there's nothing that would stop me from dying tomorrow because of the vaccination?
Could be. But here's what we know so far, all right?
Now, keep in mind that all information is preliminary.
But there is some preliminary information that suggests the very best situation is to have two vaccinations.
The boosters don't seem to help.
And two vaccinations and then get Omicron.
Your very best situation is two vaccinations and then get Omicron.
And that gives you the best antibodies.
Now, that's probably where I'm going to end up.
So I waited as long as possible to get a shot.
Then I got a shot.
Now, getting the shot could kill me, right?
Do you all agree? Because some people will die from almost any medication.
So whatever you think the risk is, it's just a fact that you could die from a vaccine.
Now, the boosters don't seem to help against Omicron.
That's today's latest information.
Again, all information is subject to possibly being wrong and revised, but that's what we know now.
So, we also heard, and again, this is information that would need to be confirmed, but early information seems to show that being vaccinated and then getting COVID vastly reduces your long COVID risk.
Have you heard that one yet? Now, again, you have to do more studies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But have you heard that yet?
That if long COVID is what you're worried about, there's now, I think, the first of its kind study.
It's not a randomized controlled trial, so it's observational and it's got some problems.
Yeah, some people are saying it's debunked, and I'll get to that in a minute.
So I'm not saying that you should believe it.
Because the nature of it was, I guess they asked people to tell their situation, you know, were you vaccinated?
And then what kind of long COVID symptoms did you have?
And what they got was a result that they showed.
And I know some of you are saying that it's been debunked.
But let me finish the point.
I hear what you're saying. It's the only information we have.
On that exact topic about long COVID and vaccinations.
I don't think you should take it as confirmation, but it's the only one we have.
So if the only information we had said the opposite, I'd be telling you the same thing, which is, well, that's bad news, but it's not confirmed.
So just the fact that it looks like it's good news for people who are in my specific situation doesn't mean it's confirmed.
But would you agree it's the only information we have?
So it might be faulty, but it's such a strong indication, much like ivermectin, the reason you believe...
Let's see what that is.
The reason you believe ivermectin works is not because of a randomized controlled trial, if you believe it.
Um... That's weird.
My security camera's not working, but that's why I have a backup.
I always have more than one security camera.
No, it's just a package.
All right, no invaders.
So my situation, based on data that may not be accurate, is the following.
Two vaccinations seems better than one or none.
Two vaccinations seems all you need compared to boosters, at least in terms of staying alive and not getting anything.
And my biggest concern was long COVID. My biggest concern was long COVID. And the only information we have suggests that being vaccinated makes a big difference.
Definitely challenge the data.
Definitely. Because all the data needs to be challenged.
But, as of this moment, based on all the studies we have, very incomplete ones, I'm in the best situation.
Likewise, as somebody pointed out, it's been two years now since the first trials of the vaccination.
Is that about right? Give me a fact check on that.
About two years About two years since the first vaccinations in trials, which means that we do have long-haul information for two years.
Now, if you're going to get a clot, that could be, you know, years down the line.
So that doesn't mean you have found out everything you need to know.
But with our current bad data subject to revision, so far my choices are all the right ones.
Doesn't mean they're the right ones.
I don't want you to hear that.
If what you heard is Scott just said he made the right choices, nope, nope, nothing like that.
What I said was, if the current data is correct, and that's a really big if, it would indicate I made the right choice.
Now, the VAERS database, as of today, I saw Anatoly Lubarsky was showing the VAERS database and how many of the records are obviously wrong.
So, I didn't dig into his argument, but apparently the VAERS database is just a hot mess.
So, in much the way you shouldn't trust the studies that I just said, you definitely shouldn't trust the VAERS database.
You shouldn't ignore it, but it's not telling you anything conclusive.
Just don't ignore it.
That's the best you can do. All right.
Just hear me clearly. I'm not saying I made the right choices, because if I die tomorrow, I made the wrong choice.
But, based on everything we know now, the science all points, all of it, to I made the right choice.
The unknowns are the different story, right?
Because the science doesn't settle all the unknowns.
And the unknown is what happens with, you know, I guess the Malone theory, Dr.
Malone theory, that in the long run I could have issues.
So that's still live, right?
I mean, I can't rule that out.
All right. I have some advice for you.
Pro tip. Never adjust your initial strategy during the fog of ore, even when the data shows you're firing in the wrong direction.
Do you know why? Suppose the fog of war refers to all of a sudden gunfire starts and you don't know where it's coming from and you don't know what the nature of the enemy is.
So you just start, oh, what do I do?
And you start just firing in every direction or hiding or something.
So in the fog of war, when you know there's an attack but you don't know what the hell the attack is, you're not going to do the right stuff.
But one of the things I've learned, and I used to think that once you learned what the right thing was, that then you should move from guessing to move to the right thing.
You know, have a strategy that's built to design, you know, designed to fight the enemy that you've now determined you have.
But I've learned from the internet to not do that.
And if your initial strategy during the fog of war was completely wrong, you should keep it.
And just keep with the wrong strategy.
Do you know why? Is it obvious to everybody or no?
Why should you keep the strategy that's proven wrong?
Seriously? I thought this would be easier.
I'm a little surprised.
Oh, I thought you would be able to dig a little deeper on this without my help.
Wow. Now let me say it again, because maybe I said it unclearly.
This should be easy. If your initial strategy isn't working...
During the period when you don't know what's what, and then when you learn what's what, and you know that your strategy is definitely the wrong one, you should not change it.
You should keep your original strategy.
Why? I can't believe nobody gets this right.
Oh, somebody got it.
Okay. Smooth noodle map got the right answer.
Because otherwise you'd be moving the goalposts.
And we know that's bad.
So never move the goalposts.
Now, I would say a year ago, if you had asked me that question, I'd say, well, yeah, you should be continuously adjusting not only what you know, but what you're doing, so that what you're doing matches where you want to get based on what you now know.
But At least 1,000 people have told me that's stupid and that what you really want to do is stick with what you were doing before.
Because otherwise, it's just moving the goalposts.
You're just moving the goalposts.
So, for example, when we were told that vaccinations would prevent spread of the virus, and then it turns out that it doesn't prevent spread of the virus.
It turns out that the only thing it does is keep you alive.
So should you get vaccinated?
Hell no! I just explained to you that moving the goalposts is for fools.
Keep the same strategy.
And if your strategy was these vaccinations don't stop the spread, well, then you should get rid of them.
Because your strategy was to stop the spread.
Why would you be concerned about saving people's lives...
When that was never even the goal.
The goal was to stop the spread and then do it that way.
But if you can't do it that way, just...
Well, I think I made my point.
I asked this question.
I was wondering if people who get infected with COVID are the same people who tend to get colds a lot.
You ever think about that?
If you get colds a lot...
Would you also get COVID? And so I did a survey, the least scientific survey you could ever do on Twitter, but I really didn't get the answer, I thought, even though it's unscientific.
25%, this was the biggest number, got COVID, but they rarely get colds.
And that was the biggest number.
So there are more people who rarely get colds who got COVID than there are people who routinely get colds And get COVID. In fact, the people who got COVID, who also often get colds, were only 4%.
Now, I realize that a Twitter poll is the lowest level of data you could possibly imagine, but this is kind of stark, isn't it?
Only 4% of the people who often get colds also got COVID? It must be the way I ask the question.
I think this is so botched up it doesn't tell me anything.
But I don't think there's a correlation.
Now, one of the reasons that people don't get COVID, it is speculated, is that they have a healthier lifestyle, so they're just more...
they have better immunity. They get more sleep, they have less stress.
There might be some genetic component...
And here's the weird one.
There might be something about practice.
If you're a person who is often infected and around infected people, it can build your immunity.
So people who had lots of regular colds might actually be more immune from coronavirus because they've had more practice.
So it doesn't mean that getting lots of colds means you have a bad immune system.
It could be that you're just exposed to a lot of germs, like you're a daycare worker or something.
So it could be that people who just get a lot of colds are just exposed to it, and that makes them relatively strong when the COVID hits and they don't get it.
Now, don't believe my Twitter poll, but that's what it says.
Or at least it suggests that that might be possible.
I don't know. These low quality, and this is the lowest quality you could get, polls don't do anything unless there's like a shocking result, and then maybe you check it better.
This is kind of a shocking result to me.
I don't know if it's meaningful, but it did shock me.
Here's the COVID update.
So it's two weeks until February 1st, the day that the public would like to be done with mandates.
And the latest is that we are plateauing in the next two weeks.
Just in time.
Just in time. So it looks like we're plateauing.
20% of Americans, at least, have been infected at this point with COVID. And...
Well, here's another thing that I've been doing right.
Apparently weed...
Well, let me get to that moment.
So... The number of people dying is now under 2,000.
It's like 1,700 per day in the United States.
But here's what they are not reporting.
So 1,700 people died of COVID, I guess, yesterday.
How many were obese?
How many were over 80?
You really need to know that now, right?
Like, we always needed to know it, but we're at the point where the number is low enough that if that's 80% obese, come on.
Come on. I don't think it mattered as much when the number was sky high, right?
If it's at 5,000, maybe you're not asking as much what's the nature of the mix of people.
But when you get down to 1,700, Don't you want to know if 1,500 of them were very elderly or obese?
You want to know that, right?
Because if that's true, then it's just over.
I mean, we all think it's over at this point, but the data would support it at that point quite strongly.
So, let me again give you my standard for the government.
If the government doesn't tell you something that you know is important and they could tell you if they wanted to, you have to assume they're guilty.
In this context, that means you have to assume that they're not telling you how many of the 1,700 deaths were very old or very overweight.
You have to assume there's a reason they don't tell you that.
And the reason is they don't want you to know that you're not in danger if you're not in one of those categories.
So, I would consider this a confession that the pandemic is over.
And the other good news...
Is that there seems to be a marijuana extract that looks like it can prevent infection from COVID. Now, of course, it's just in the test tube, and these things don't usually work in the real people.
And apparently smoking doesn't work because they add heat and they change the nature of the cannabinoid or whatever the hell it is.
So you can't get it just by smoking a lot.
So they say. So they say.
But I would say that is the attitude for quitters.
I think maybe you can't smoke enough pot to make a difference.
That's what I think. I'm not so sure I can't.
But I don't think you can.
Nor should you try.
But I'm going to take a run at it.
I'm going to take a serious run at it.
I think I can completely cure my COVID or maybe not even get it.
By some amount of marijuana.
I don't know how much it is, but I'm going to find it.
And let me ask this question for those of you who have had COVID, okay?
For anybody who had COVID and got the pain, you know, the aches and pains, how many of you made your COVID pain go away with weed?
Anybody? How many of you made your COVID discomfort go away with weed?
I see a yes. I see an I did.
I see a yes, I see a yes, yes, yes.
I see a thumbs up.
So, I'm not a doctor.
You shouldn't take doctor advice from me.
But if I get anything that makes my body hurt, I'm going to smoke until it doesn't.
And it works every time, basically.
But don't take any medical advice from me.
You'll get yourself killed. All right.
Well, between the fact that it's anti-inflammatory and the fact that if you could get through the tar in my lungs or whatever the hell is in weed, good luck, virus.
You haven't gotten me yet. Michael Mina, who's the best-known person associated with rapid testings, just got COVID. And you knew he was going to get COVID, right?
Because he's the number one voice in rapid testings.
And then he used his rapid test.
And this was fascinating. So he had symptoms before the rapid test could find it.
But 24 hours later, it found it easily.
So apparently your rapid test won't work, at least necessarily, on the first day you have symptoms.
So if you tested on the first day and you had symptoms and you got a negative, do you go to work?
What do you do? Because you probably should wait for the second day and test again.
Because, you know, Michael Mina's experience is probably common.
We don't know. But I'll bet it is.
I'll bet you have symptoms before the rapid test can pick it up.
Alright. Here's what I think...
We should do on February 1st.
I don't believe we should riot, and I don't believe you should burn your mask, if your state requires them.
And I don't believe that you should get in anybody's face, and I don't believe you should be violent, and I don't believe you should do any of that.
Here's all you need to do.
And you only need 10% of the public, I estimate, to do this, and it will break the system.
The system meaning requiring masks.
All you do is put your mask in your pocket when you walk into a building that requires masks.
That's it. That's the whole protest.
And then somebody comes up to you, or not, and says, oh, we require masks.
And then you say, and this is important, you say, oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were following the science.
And then you say, I apologize, and if we're not following the science, I'll be happy to put my mask on.
But make sure you engage them in conversation a little bit.
Do you know why? Because the 10th person that engages that employee in conversation about a mask will be the breaking point.
When the 11th person comes in with a mask in their pocket, the employee is just going to say, fuck it, and just going to do their job.
Because it's not the employee's job to talk to every person with a mask in their pocket and have a conversation with them about why they should wear it.
So, you do not have to be a rebel.
You just have to be somebody who had a mask in your pocket.
That's all it takes. Anybody disagree?
Do you think that won't work?
Yeah, because if you get 10% without a mask, other people take off their masks.
I think herd behavior just needs to be kick-started.
So if you're in the brave 10%, nobody will even know that you're protesting.
They'll just think you forgot to put your mask on and take it out of your pocket.
You will be completely invisible as a protester.
You'll just be so... Oh, sorry.
Thanks for the reminder. I didn't realize we weren't following the science anymore.
Put it on. We're vaccinated.
How did more supposedly die after this?
Shalika Sunshine asked me this.
Since almost all of the vulnerable population has been immunized...
How did more supposedly die after this?
And the answer is that vaccinations don't prevent deaths.
They don't prevent natural death from other things.
So it's the right question.
That is the right question.
But if vaccinations prevented all deaths...
Then that would be a real question.
But since people do die with it, you'd expect that the more virus there is, it doesn't matter if you're vaccinated or not.
The only thing that matters is, is there more virus?
More virus equals more deaths whether you're vaccinated or not in our current situation.
But you're right. If the vaccines had worked, you know, in terms of preventing transmission, that'd be a different thing.
All right. I also have a theory that the attractive women will lead us under the pandemic.
Do you know why? Try this experiment.
If there's anybody attractive in your family who's female.
Could be a spouse.
Could be a sister. Could be an older daughter.
Walk into a place that requires masks.
You wear your mask and have the attractive female who's with you, doesn't matter who it is, not wear a mask.
The attractive female will not be asked to put on a mask.
You might. I might.
Watch. It's pretty privilege.
Yeah. There is pretty privilege.
So the attractive women who never get in trouble for anything, am I right?
Am I right? Attractive women don't really get in trouble for anything.
I mean, you'd have to murder, and even then you'd probably get away with it.
So since pretty women can get away with really anything, if they're the first ones to go maskless, they can lead us out.
Do you know who can't lead us out?
Adult white males.
Adult white males.
Wrong leadership. Do you know who else could lead us out?
Black people. Black people.
Because just like pretty privilege, at least in my town, people are a little less careful, no, a little less, what would you say, spring-loaded to tell a black person to put a mask on.
Now, don't blame me for racism.
I'm blaming other people for being racist.
So I'm saying other people are racist.
And because they're racist, they're not treating everybody the same.
I was in a grocery store yesterday where 100% of the people had masks on, with one exception.
A black man who was 6'7".
He had a mask, but it was on his chin.
Do you think anybody went up to the 6'7 black guy in my mostly white town and asked him to put a mask on?
Nope. Nope.
Because I was shopping for a long time and I ran into him a number of times.
Nobody asked him to put his mask on.
How about if I go there with an attractive woman who forgot her mask, does anybody ask her to put it on?
I don't know. It hasn't happened, but I don't think it will.
So... Attractive women and black Americans, please lead us.
Some leadership is required right now, and I don't think I can do it, at least not in person.
So we could use some help.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best live stream you'll hear today.
George Floyd didn't have a mask, somebody says.
Don't go outside. Problem solved.
Older Karens don't care how pretty the maskless woman is.
Okay, that's a good point. If the store manager is a Karen, yeah, it doesn't matter who's maskless.
That's right. But most store owners don't necessarily have a Karen in charge.
