Episode 1647 Scott Adams: Trucker Convoys, Climate Change and Ukraine. Lots of Fun. Get in Here
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Same people attacked Dave Portnoy?
Ukraine, drones vs. tanks?
Ben Shapiro vs. Andreas Backhaus
Peng Shuai says big misunderstanding
Adding clouds to climate models
Disease rates post vaccination
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And Freedom Convoy truckers everywhere all over the world were watching.
And Canada, we got you back.
Should there be a need for an invasion to free the Canadians?
I think a lot of Americans are up for that.
We don't think you'd put up much of a fight.
No offense to your military, but we think we got that covered.
So if we have to attack Canada to free the public, Americans, what do you say?
Who's in? Who's in?
I'm not even sure we need weapons.
Canada is a famously welcoming kind of a country.
We'd probably just walk over the border and...
Just make things happen. No weapons necessary.
Anyway, how about the Simultaneous Sip?
Anybody? Anybody? Yeah, I know it.
And all you need for the Simultaneous Sip is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or stime, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that everybody's waiting for.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go. I'm not sure that that's enough to rewire your stem cells, but I can feel a tingle, and that's something.
Well, I was asked just before I went live on YouTube, I always do a little pre-show with the local subscribers, and the question I got was, if I believe that we live in a simulation, What's the point of getting angry or mad?
Why would I get angry about something that's just software?
An excellent question.
And I actually have an answer for that.
Which is that I can't remember any time in my life that I was ever so angry that I couldn't control myself.
In fact, I've always used anger to allow me to do the thing I wouldn't have done otherwise.
In other words, something I wanted to do, but maybe I was afraid of the consequences.
But if you get angry enough, you're not.
So generally speaking, I don't know if I can think of an exception, but I've always used anger strategically.
Yeah, including yelling at the so-called Shelley troll.
And there's no time including that time where I wasn't thinking to myself, here's what I want to accomplish, here's what I'm doing, and it makes sense.
Like there's a completely logical connection between the anger and the thing I want to accomplish.
I've told you before that a good day to fire people is when you're mad about something else.
Because you're going to have a bad day anyway, right?
So you might as well come bite him, get something done.
Anyway, how many of you saw the story about Dave Portnoy of Barstool?
And he was saying that the attack against him, you know, he had a character attack that was similar to Joe Rogan's, and he saw enough similarities...
That he went and checked his Twitter followers or found that there was some connection between three individuals that were part of this organization that was taking down, allegedly, behind taking down Joe Rogan.
Now, I think I saw a tweet in which the people accused were denying that they were involved.
So I think there's a denial that's a direct public denial.
So make what you will of that.
However, did anybody see a debunk of the idea that whoever took down Portnoy is the same people or person behind the Rogan attacks?
Did anybody see that either get semi-confirmed and or debunked?
Yeah, so let's put a question mark on that one.
Well, here's some good news to start the day.
I've told you before, a good account to follow on Twitter is David Boxenhorn.
And I'll mention him twice today, actually.
And he tweeted today that in Israel, there's a study in which they're taking, separating fat cells and other materials, such as collagen and sugars, and they're somehow reprogramming your genetic stuff to become any cell in the body.
Wait, what? Seriously?
They figured out how to manipulate your own genetic stuff to turn it into any cell in your body?
Well, what can you do with that?
Now, I don't know what's the difference between this and stem cell technology, but it's apparently a different approach.
But at least in lab rats, they cured 12 out of 15 of them that were paralyzed with spinal cord injury.
12 out of 15 mice were cured, rats or whatever they were, were cured of spinal cord injury.
And they're going to test this in three years in people.
My God. My God.
I wonder how many other things that we've long assumed were incurable would someday be cured.
Like how many people will there be somebody who was born blind and just gets a re-engineered eye?
And then they just see for the first time when they're like 50 or something.
I mean, how far does this stuff go?
This is amazing. Golden age kind of stuff.
I can imagine a day where they'll just, if you wanted to have stronger arms, instead of working out, you would just grow some stronger arms in a lab.
And then when it was time, they would just rip yours off and sew on the new ones.
Maybe someday you'll just be made of parts.
Well, apparently the trucker convoy is growing.
We've got Netherlands doing it, New Zealand.
Looks like from London to Canberra, Australia.
And there's one planned for the U.S. capital.
Now, apparently the Canadian authorities are getting pretty tough with the protesters.
And... I hope the pressure stays on.
Is there anybody who's on the other side?
I suppose the only people who really hate it are the ones who are local, and the disruption is probably unbearable, I imagine.
But is there anybody here who's not on the side of the Canadian truckers?
I just want to see in the comments.
This is probably one of those few things where it's close to 100%, I would guess.
Oh, we got it now. So I think mostly yeses, but of course it's like everything else.
Some disagreeers.
How many of you saw the viral video of a, with like a teenage girl beating another teenage girl in a classroom and nobody was stopping them?
It was just sort of this sickening video that went around.
And my first comment was, you know, what happened to boys?
Because boys were just watching it.
Just sitting there watching it.
And my first reaction was, my God, are boys so neutered at this point that they won't even break up a fight among girls?
And the more I thought of it, I thought, you know, I'm not sure that's the right take on this.
Because, number one, do boys break up fights among boys?
They don't, do they?
They don't, right? Not in high school.
In high school, you let them fight it out, don't you?
Yeah. I mean, whenever you see a video of it, it's sort of maybe at the end somebody will step in when they're done fighting or something.
But mostly boys will let other boys fight it out, in high school anyway.
Now, so why should they act differently if it's girls fighting it out?
And see how I'm catching myself.
I made a completely sexist assumption...
That the boys may have acted differently in the past, therefore there's something wrong with them today.
And I thought to myself, suppose you had been raised to think that the sexes should be treated exactly the same.
And they have been. So they treated the sexes exactly the same.
And I thought to myself, do even the girls that age want something different?
And I thought to myself, well, I'm not sure.
I don't know. If you talk to the girls who are also in that classroom, would they say, oh, yeah, what's wrong with those boys?
They should have stepped in and stopped it?
Or would the girls have said the same thing the boys did?
It's not my problem.
I'm just watching. So I think I have to, like, fact-check myself there on whether I was just being purely sexist or I had some kind of a point.
And the more I think about it, the more I think it was purely sexist.
Here's the other thing we don't know.
We don't know why it was happening.
Can you... I know I'm not supposed to say this.
Let's see. I better say it carefully.
To remain on social media, I am, of course, never in favour of violence.
Never in favour of violence.
But it is nonetheless true that there are certain situations where the average person would say, well, I'm against violence...
But not in that case.
In that case, a little bit of violence might have been exactly the right solution.
Right? So you could be totally against violence and still see a situation and say, okay, I would have done that.
Or I'm glad it happened.
Such as attacking a bully.
I'm against violence, but if I see a video of somebody who's getting bullied, and then the person who's being bullied savagely attacks and mauls the bully, I just feel good about it.
But I don't approve of violence.
I'm just describing a fact.
I feel good about it sometimes.
So, we all took the assumption that the video wanted us to take, that there was something like an innocent person being beaten by a vicious, horrible person.
But I'd like to hear what the girl getting beaten did.
May have been at the base of the attack.
But again, we should also not assume that she did anything.
It could be just that one person's a bully and horrible person.
But I wouldn't assume that that's the case.
It's just one of the possibilities.
So anyway, I guess my macro point about that video is it was designed to give you a specific feeling.
And boy, did it.
It was designed in the sense that somebody chose to edit it a certain way, if it was edited, and sent it out.
So it sent a message that probably somebody thought it would.
And I feel like it was just propaganda in a way, meaning that it was supposed to evoke a response, but that we don't know enough about what was going on to really have an opinion about it.
So be careful of that one.
Alright, Ukraine is getting more interesting.
So, Putin continues to move assets and surround Ukraine like he's super serious about attacking.
Now, remember I said that Putin's sort of in a bind?
He painted himself in a corner.
Because he really, really doesn't want to attack.
And he can't not attack.
So what the hell do you do? Well, I think at the moment he's doing the only thing he can do in the short run, which is to increase the threat, so that if he gets anything in return, which could happen on its own, right?
I mean, he might be able to make a story that says, well, I got this out of it, and then he can pull back.
So I think he's maybe playing for time, but maybe also...
I think he might not have any other play except to increase the threat, which is not the same as saying he'll attack.
Because now the US is saying that if he invades at all, you know, at all, so no minor incursions allowed, if he invades at all, the Nord Stream 2 project is dead.
That's where Russia would have a direct pipeline to Germany.
And... You know, of course, everybody's starving for energy, so on the energy side it would be good, but nobody wants Germany to be beholden to Russia for their energy.
I mean, Germany doesn't want it.
We don't want it. So I wonder how serious we are about that, because I guess Germany said that they would cancel the deal if Russia attacked.
And then when you see stuff like this, you ask yourself, is this entire thing economic?
Is it? Is the entire thing economic and everything else is just bullshit?
And all that matters is who's making money from Nord Stream and who would make money if it gets cancelled?
And then everything else is just bullshit.
It feels like it.
Here's another question I have.
Should Russia attack, I assume there would be lots of tanks involved, right?
Tanks and trucks.
So like big assets that they'd have to move in.
Here's my question.
When was the last time a major power with major assets like that, tanks and trucks, attacked another country where the other country had access to, but I don't know how much they actually have, but access to The best weaponry of 2022.
I don't know that Ukraine has that.
But we also don't know what they have, right?
We don't know what they have and what they don't have.
Let me ask you this.
If the United States or NATO owned a drone air force or controlled it, and let's say the people controlling the drones were, let's say, U.S. soldiers, just to keep it clean, but it could have been NATO for my example.
How hard would it be to say, okay, everybody who's managing the drones, now you report to Ukraine.
But really, we'll still do the targeting with our own assets and satellites and stuff.
I'm just wondering, can tanks survive more than 10 minutes in 2022?
And could you really control the country without tanks?
So here's my real question.
I don't believe a tank would last 10 minutes against modern weaponry.
And if it were a battalion of tanks, I think they would be gone in 15 minutes.
Am I wrong? And I don't even know what weapons would be used.
So I'm not talking as a military person.
I don't know anything about this stuff.
I'm just saying that there's no way that Russia knows what we can do against a tank.
Is that fair to say? Is it fair to say that Russia couldn't possibly know what America could do?
Forget about Ukraine for a moment.
But they couldn't possibly know what the U.S. capabilities are.
I feel like we could put up a few bombers with some weapons that would just rain directed hellfire on a battalion of tanks and take them all out.
Couldn't we take out all the tanks in a field with one aircraft, with maybe some supporting aircraft?
I don't know. And do you need anything but a drone?
You know, we know now that you can create a drone that's basically a guided weapon.
And you know you can make a drone that's just big enough to carry enough munitions to destroy a tank.
So isn't it one drone about this size per tank and every one of them is gone?
Because what the hell are the tanks going to do against a swarm of drones?
Nothing, right? So I guess I have gigantic questions about what war looks like.
I have no idea what a war would look like in 2022.
I only know these unbalanced wars.
Where we take all of our technology and somehow miraculously zero Americans die and, you know, we defeat some terrorist army.
We don't know what's going on over there, but I'll bet it's very drone intensive.
How about the directed energy beams?
Have we mounted one on an aircraft yet?
And would you know about it if we did?
Because haven't they tested directed energy beams against aircraft, I think?
But would they work against a tank?
I don't know. Could you heat up a tank fast enough that it became unusable?
Yeah, and then the same thing about Russia.
Russia has lots of nasty stuff, too.
But here's the thing.
If there's anybody who knows military better than I do, I could use an opinion on this.
Isn't defense easier than offense?
With the sneaky stuff?
Because you still need a tank to control a city, I think.
Right? So if you can't get your tanks and big equipment near a city, I don't know how you'd control it exactly.
So, alright, well, so I would think that Ukraine has, let's say, some unknowns that the Russian military isn't going to want to walk into.
I can't imagine that Ukraine has announced all the good stuff.
Or would they? Or would they announce it to create some, you know, some pause on Putin's part?
We don't know. So the one thing you can tell about this whole situation is we don't know anything.
But my guess is that you can't have a tank invasion in 2022 if NATO is your friend.
You know what I mean? Wink, wink.
We got some good stuff. It's in the back.
You think these rocket launchers are good?
You think the rocket launchers are good?
Hold on. When do you see what we have in the back?
Nobody's seen this stuff yet.
All right. How many of you were worried about debt and all that debt?
You've got a whole bunch of debt, and it's going to cause inflation.
Except, here's the good news on the bad news.
One way to solve debt is inflation.
So there's one point of view that there's no problem to be solved because it's self-solving.
As long as your debt runs up because you are spending a lot...
The spending a lot causes inflation.
The inflation causes the value of the debt to decrease because everything is worth less when you have inflation.
So even if we borrowed $26 trillion, by next year it will be like we borrowed $25 trillion.
And we won't have done anything except have to pay for higher prices.
In other words, you don't need a policy change.
You just inflate your way out of it.
And the higher the inflation, the faster it happens.
So... Now, I see some doubters in the comments.
And let me speak to the doubters because when it comes to economics, you are always the smartest people.
We never really can model anything that well.
So I'm not sure that the old ideas of what the debt would do to us or even the one I'm talking about can really predict...
But inflation leads to higher interest rates?
Yes, to tamp down on the inflation.
But what if the Fed decides to let the inflation run?
So here's where it gets...
What the hell?
Michael, have you gone crazy?
Thank you. I don't know what that's about.
But I appreciate it.
Thank you. Yeah, then the dollar gets whacked.
Yeah, so I guess all of this is interconnected.
But I guess my point is, no matter how you fix it, there's going to be pain.
Any big debt, there's going to be pain to decrease it.
So it's either going to come in the form of inflation, which is a hidden tax, or a real tax, or you go bankrupt, I guess.
Anyway, so there's at least one possibility that people adjust to higher prices, and our debt problem wasn't as bad as it looked.
Who knows? All right.
This new segment I call, When Smart People Disagree.
When smart people disagree.
The smart people today are Ben Shapiro and Andres Backhouse.
Two people who are certifiably very smart.
So here's what Ben Shapiro tweeted.
They've been pissed at Joe Rogan.
I think they, meaning all of his critics.
They've been pissed at Joe Rogan since he had on anyone to the right of Hillary.
And then he goes on, Hillary Clinton.
They got more pissed when he noted that Joe Biden isn't all there.
They got even more pissed when he didn't just parrot the CDC. This has never been about anything more than silencing him.
So Andres Beckhaus replied to that, and he said, I'm following numerous prominent U.S. public health experts who didn't parrot the CDC but attacked it on a regular basis.
None of them is at risk of being silenced.
Could it be that them now spreading harmful misinformation and conspiratorial nonsense made the difference here?
Now, of course, none of us agree what's true and what's false, so Andreas is making some claims of fact that many of you would disagree with, so I get that.
But I love it when smart people disagree, because maybe that's when you can learn something.
I won't even take sides.
I won't even take sides.
Remember, the segment is when smart people disagree.
Remember what I was telling you about the people who are second-guessing Joe Rogan's videos where he's clarifying and or apologizing?
And I say, if you could be Joe Rogan, if you were as smart as he is in all things related to this kind of domain, then maybe you'd be successful too.
But have a little bit of humility that whatever got him there...
You involved his judgment.
His good judgment.
So, you know, if he does something that you wouldn't have done, that doesn't mean he's doing it wrong.
Right? That just means you wouldn't have done it, and we can prove that whatever you did wasn't as successful as what he did on average.
So don't assume that you've got the answer and he doesn't.
The same is true of this disagreement between Ben Shapiro and Andres Backhouse.
They're both smarter than I am.
So when I see them disagree, how do I pick a winner?
Seriously, just think about that.
If there are two people that you know, at least within the domain you're talking about, are unambiguously smarter than you are, And I would say that about myself when I'm reading Ben Shapiro or Andres Beckham's.
So they both can operate at a level that I can't get to.
So why would I criticize either one?
Or even how could I pick a winner?
Like, how would I do that?
No, I mean...
Somebody says they're not that smart, bro.
Dude. Rarely is it the right time to use the word dude.
But... You just said that Ben Shapiro and Andreas Bacchus, quote, aren't that smart, bro?
I've got to give you a dude on that.
I mean, that's a guaranteed dude.
Dude. Dude.
Seriously? There are some things that are just silly to argue.
All right. Peng Shui, the tennis star who...
Either did or did not say publicly that she was sexually harassed by a member of the Chinese Politburo, is that the right word?
Or am I thinking of Russia?
Anyway, one of the ruling people of the Chinese politics allegedly did something rapey with her, and she said it in public.
But then, now she's saying, no, she takes it all back.
And it was a big misunderstanding.
And she said, quote, I never said anyone had sexually assaulted me in any way.
And she's wearing her government jacket to show that the government owns her.
And she says, my life has been what it's supposed to be.
Nothing special.
And then she announced her retirement from the sport.
Well, that's all totally believable.
So I said to myself, you know, I've never actually read her original statement about what happened.
So I looked for the link and I followed it back through the stories until I saw a screen grab of her original claim.
And the screen grab is in Chinese, you know, Chinese characters.
So I can't read the original statement she made.
Think how clever this is.
I can't read the original statement.
So she says, I never said that.
And then I go to see if she really did say that, and I can't tell.
That's actually pretty clever.
Yeah. I think China is banking on the fact that Americans can't read Chinese.
So they'll just say, no, no.
Oh, this? Where are you reading this in Chinese?
No, that doesn't say that.
Oh, no. And then somebody who can read Chinese will say, no, it totally says that.
I can read Chinese.
It's right there. And then China will say, no, no, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't say that.
And that's actually going to work.
Believe it or not, that's going to work.
Because I don't think this story is really going to go anywhere.
I think that they successfully squashed this thing.
But you know what the other possibility is?
That I'm not ruling out?
The other possibility is she never said it.
I am absolutely willing to believe that in this age of fake news, remember, there's no news that isn't fake.
Why would this be the exception?
Well, this is the only thing that they got right.
This is the real news.
I think it is actually, actually completely possible that that screen print either didn't come from her or doesn't say what people thought it said.
It's actually possible.
Now, that's one of the reasons that if it did happen, it's one of the reasons China can get away with saying it didn't.
Because we're in a realm in which you don't believe anything anymore.
So why should I believe Peng Shui?
And should I believe her the first time or the second time?
Well, of course, we imagine there's some coercion the second time.
But then you look at the nature of the relationship she had with the alleged accused.
Apparently it was a long-term relationship that they'd broken off for a while, and then he wanted to, you know, get back, and then she didn't, you know, allegedly.
But who was in the room?
Just the two of them, right?
What if they're just back together?
Because that's not impossible, is it?
What if they actually like each other?
What if they like each other, and the relationship maybe had some power dynamic at one point, but maybe she grew to like it.
And then she thought, you know, I think I'll get back with this guy and take that back.
Any of that could have happened.
I'm just saying. I'm just saying that we live in a world where you can't believe anything.
So that's why China can get away with it.
Now, if you're asking me what I think is true...
I think the story was reported correctly.
That bad things happened, she said it, she had to take it back.
China owns her ass now.
That's what it looks like.
So, I mean, if I had to, you know, gun to head, I have to make a prediction, I'd predict bad things happened and she'd have to change her story.
But we don't live in a world where you can be sure.
That's the only point. Now, here's the funniest story of a day of absurd stories.
This is actually in the Wall...
Was it the Wall Street Journal?
Or the Washington Post?
I think the Wall Street Journal.
I should have taken a better note.
And here's the story.
The story is that climate models don't look complete unless you model for what clouds do, obviously, right?
And clouds could have two different effects.
They can make it warmer, they can make it cooler, depending on a variety of other variables and timing and whatever.
So it turns out to be enormously complex to add clouds to your climate models.
Now, why would you bother doing it?
Well, they've looked at...
There have been over 100 climate models, and many of them have been back-tested, meaning they use the model and say, well, if this model had existed 100 years ago, would it have gotten everything right?
And several of them do.
So several of the models can accurately hide-cast, as it's called, The past.
So if they had existed, they would have predicted where we are now.
So that means those are pretty good models, right?
Because out of 100, there were several of them that hindcast well.
Right? That's pretty convincing.
I mean, what are the odds?
What are the odds?
Well, you skeptics, I don't know what you're talking about.
The entire argument about climate change is based on the models, and several of the hundred or so models, several of them have proven that they can very closely reproduce the past right up to the present.
So why doesn't that convince you?
Why aren't you convinced that that's valid?
Did I just mention that they're accurate?
Several of them are very accurate.
No, it's complete bullshit.
Here's why. Give me 100 random models.
So this is my own...
I'm not saying the real models are random.
I'm saying give me 100 random models.
But before you give me 100 random models, I'm going to tell you what the good ones should show.
Right? So I want you to give me 100 random models.
But keep in mind...
Then I'm going to throw them away unless they show that the temperature is increasing within this band.
You're wasting your time if you create a model that shows anything else.
So give me 100 models, all you guys, go off and make some models.
But believe me, you're wasting your time unless it's in this narrow band.
Now, so 100 models get created.
Of the hundred, are you surprised that several, and of a hundred, are very close to being accurate?
No. Because we know what the past looks like.
So the past is already modeled.
So when you tell people in the model, you say, make sure it fits the past.
So all they did is give you what you asked for.
And what you expected and what everybody expected.
So there's nothing scientific about this in the least.
In fact, whatever is the opposite of science, alchemy, astrology, whatever is the opposite of science is what this is.
Now that's the existing situation.
Now it gets more absurd.
Do you think that could get more absurd?
Here we go. Now the scientists are saying...
that the old models were excellent, and although they're very, very excellent and they've hindcasted well, they don't work.
Both things are true.
Both things are completely true.
And nobody's mentioning that there's any conflict between these two ideas.
The ones we already have are excellent.
Also, at the same time, everybody knows they're completely bullshit.
All of our policies are built on the existing models, which we're desperately trying to improve by adding clouds, which might be the biggest variable.
And here's the best part.
They don't know how to add clouds.
I mean, they're trying, and there are different models trying to do it, but the complexity exceeds our computing ability.
And then you get wildly different answers.
So, these are the things that the official...
This is the official consensus of climate science.
I'm not going to add a skepticism here.
Nothing I say next, nothing I say next is outside of the mainstream.
I don't know if I get banned from social media for agreeing with the mainstream, but let's give it a run.
The mainstream says the models are really, really good, and they totally don't work, and we don't know how to fix them.
Fact check me. I'm saying this in public.
It's a very simple statement that the consensus of science is both of these things.
The current models are great.
That's why we make policy based on them.
And they're totally worthless, and we don't know how to fix them.
Also true. What part of that did I get wrong?
Now... If you tell me that you can, let's say, use science, use the output of science, without an understanding of cognitive dissonance, I don't think he can.
None of this makes sense, except in the context of a different science, science of psychology.
The only way you can understand what's happening here...
Because keep in mind, this was in a major publication...
And it never pointed down its own irony.
Or inconsistency, I guess.
The article itself never pointed back to itself and said none of this makes sense.
It never did that.
It simply integrated it like it made sense.
And of course it doesn't make sense.
Now, some will say, and I think this is fair to say, that all of the models that anybody believes seem to show that the temperature is going up, And that there's no doubt that when the temperature goes up, that changes things enough that we have to worry about it.
Some say it'll make things better.
Some say it'll make things worse.
Some say it'll be a mix.
Some say some people are worse, some people are better.
We don't know. And that's hard to model, too.
But just think of the enormous absurdity of this.
And by the way, just for the record, I think the planet is warming.
I think humans have something to do with it.
Those things seem like the easiest things to know for sure.
But the actual extent of the warming and how much to worry, that's all bullshit.
It's all bullshit. Not that it necessarily changes what you do.
All right. I love that story.
Because that feels like being right.
Speaking of being right, you remember the story about all those athletes who were dying from COVID vaccines?
Right? You remember the stories?
You saw the athletes are just falling down on the field.
Well, that has been thoroughly debunked.
And we know even who started it.
There's some Australian right-wing troll who started the whole thing.
And you can trace it right back.
So there's actually no data.
There's no data to support this athlete's dying thing.
No. It just came from an Australian troll.
And I'd say at least half of you believed it.
How many of you believe the athlete thing?
Here's a test.
Here's a test for you.
Because remember, it's a superpower to be humble if you can pull it off.
Actually, on locals, a lot of you said you didn't believe it.
Interesting. And a lot of you did believe it.
Now, I would ask you not to believe me.
You get that, right?
Just because I said it's debunked, don't believe that.
But just Google it.
Just Google athletes dying of COVID debunked.
Always add debunked to see what the other side says.
And you'll convince yourself that it's debunked.
Yeah, it's pretty clear.
All right, here's another one.
A tweet from a Twitter user called KingDavid.
And I guess based on some database, the Defense Medical Epidemiology database, so it tells you what people in the military are suffering in terms of medical problems.
And apparently since vaccinations came out, or at least among the vaccinated, I guess almost everybody's vaccinated in the military, The rate of these various diseases are way, way up.
So I'll just read you through the list.
So everything on this list is up more than 400%.
So these are various medical problems that are allegedly up more than 400% in the military, and then the allegation is that the only thing that changed was vaccinations.
So I'm going to debunk this in a minute, but I'll just tell you what the claim is.
So hypertension, up over 2,000%.
I mean, you'd notice that.
That's a pretty big change.
Diseases of the nervous system, up 1,000%.
Malignant neoplasms, Ghislaine-Barr syndrome, malignant other kinds of neoplasms, demiolinating breast cancer, female infertility, pulmonary embolisms, migraines, ovarian functions, etc.
And the rate of them being up, allegedly, is thousands of percents.
And so this was directed at me to say, hey, how about this?
This is pretty convincing, right?
Military probably keeps pretty good records.
Nothing else changed.
These are gigantic percentages.
What was my first response?
Anybody? Without knowing anything else, what's your first response?
But why? Some are saying BS, but why?
Give me a why. No, the raw numbers in this case wouldn't matter that much because there are so many people in the military.
There's definitely enough people.
So you have both the number, a million or whatever it is, and the percentage.
So it isn't that. Somebody says it's bullshit because the numbers are too big.
All right, so here are the following things with it.
Do you believe that there's one problem or one cause that would cause all of these various different problems?
Not impossible. Not impossible.
But is it likely?
Is it likely that all of these seemingly unrelated problems would all be up thousands of percent?
And if this were the case...
Wouldn't we have noticed this somewhere else?
This wouldn't have shown up anywhere until now.
Now, the argument is this is the best database because the military is all vaccinated.
And then, you know, they track their health pretty well.
But I told you I was going to mention David Boxenhorn again.
In his tweet, he says, well, there is one other...
I mean, I'm going to paraphrase his tweet, right?
But the argument is this.
Israel is also almost fully vaccinated, and Israel collects really good data, And Israel even found a small difference in myocarditis.
So you know they're tracking the data enough that they can find a small myocarditis issue, I think, in a certain age group.
They didn't find any of this.
So Israel, which also has vaccinated people and lots of good data, didn't find any of this.
So do you think that the military is having thousands of percent increases and all these dire problems, but then in Israel, eh, everybody's fine.
Possible. So here's my bottom line of this.
It's too on the nose.
It's too unlikely that all these things were found in this one database, but none of them were found in the other database.
That's probably just as good.
So I would discount this as being almost certainly bullshit.
Now, the VAERS database has also been debunked.
If you don't believe that, search for VAERS database debunked.
And I know this is the part where people always criticize and say, I'm being condescending.
But if you haven't Googled your own thing you believe and then the word debunked, you really have to have this as a system.
Every time there's something that people are disagreeing on, please, just do me a favor.
If you have a minute and you care about the issue at all, just Google the issue plus the word debunked or fact check.
Now, that doesn't mean the fact check is right and it doesn't mean the debunk is right.
But if you've never seen it, that's a problem.
You should at least see what the argument is on the other side.
And I would say that the VAERS database is one that...
Just Google it.
There's nothing more well-known than that the VAERS database cannot be used to tell you what actually happened.
We know it can't be used for that.
But that's how people are trying to use it.
All right. One of my favorite new Twitter follows is JasonTheGermGuyTetro.
He seems to know a ton of things medical, so real fascinating.
I understand about, I don't know, 10% of it, I guess.
But here's the funny thing.
There is a gene, a specific gene, That is a really good biomarker for determining whether COVID will give you a big problem or not.
I'm not even going to say your name because you're such an idiot.
All right. But here's what's the funniest thing about this gene.
It's literally the loser gene.
That's actually in the name.
It's called Flower Lose, but the actual technical name is a bunch of letters and numbers, and then the word lose.
So if you actually have a gene that when they check to see if it's there, it actually says lose right next to it, you don't want to get the COVID, because you know what's going to happen?
You're going to lose. Now...
What are the odds that that would be the name of the frickin' genes that predicts how well you do?
And it's right there, lose.
I mean, seriously.
Seriously. How are we not in a simulation?
That just happened on its own.
And of all the things that that could have been called, and of all the English words, It was that one.
Yeah, it could have been a coincidence, but it's a fun one.
Meanwhile, the governor of New Jersey says they're going to drop masks for kids, but not until the middle of March.
To which I say, you don't get any credit for that, asshole.
I'm sorry. You do not get any credit, no political credit, for waiting until the middle of March.
I'm sorry. If that's what he thought he was going to do, if he thought that this was going to be, oh, look at me, I'm going relatively first for a blue state, no, no, you don't get any credit for that.
I'm sorry. The middle of March is way too fucking long.
No credit whatsoever.
Oh, I'm going to torture your children, but only for another month.
So don't worry.
It's only another month I'll torture your children.
Oh, thank you. That's so kind of you to torture them only for another month for no good reason.
You know, it's being reported as, like, this is a good thing.
It's better than not happening, I suppose.
But this is so far from competence.
It's so far from what the people need or want.
Disgusting. Alright.
That, ladies and gentlemen...
Is what I was going to talk about today.
But I'm going to give you one extra little mental health tip.
Sort of a micro lesson, if you will.
Now this is something some of you already know, but I have to remind myself of it all the time.
And yesterday was, the last two days really were those times.
And it goes like this.
People need to do stuff.
Like your body. Your body needs to do stuff.
And... Sometimes the stuff that it needs are the things you want to put off, like reorganizing the garage, or, you know, that project that's going to be a lot of work, but it's going to take forever, the thing you need to sort out, you know, all that stuff.
Well, I had a ton of those things that I just lined up this weekend and just spent, you know, morning till dusk, till, well...
Until bedtime, really.
Just doing things that required my body to move things from one place to another.
So for hours and hours and hours, for two days, all I did was put things from one place to another, go to the store, get a thing, open it up.
So it's all this physical, not too much thinking stuff.
And here's the net result.
I felt great. And that's the tip.
And apparently the science backs this.
There's something that people need that they can't get by just sitting in a chair and watching a great show.
You actually need to be up and physically moving and rearranging your environment in a way that doesn't tax your mind too much.
Just basically body doing stuff, brain doing other things.
And... Once you learn that that is almost, not almost, it's better than an antidepressant, in my opinion.
Somebody says they searched for COVID vaccine works, debunked, got a hit.
Do that. I'm not saying it only works one way.
I'm saying literally, no matter what your opinion is, always look at the debunk.
So your point does not refute what I'm saying.
Your point supports it.
Why weightlifting is so great?
Yes. Actually, one of the benefits of weightlifting is that you're literally just moving stuff around with your body.
And even if you weren't getting that much stronger, just the fact that you spent an hour rearranging weights would make you mentally feel better.
So that's your tip.
Make sure that you've got some busy work, I guess you could call it, some arranging, some cleaning, some reorganizing, some tidying, and put it all together and spend several hours doing it.
And then here's the important part.
Assess your mental state.
Like, make a real point of it.
And by the way, this is a good general hint.
Assess your mental state after any of, you know, a variety of things, from eating to exercising to everything else to walking outside.
So just say, oh, I did this, and now this is how I feel.
And just keep looking for those connections.
Because what you find is that you went through life just doing things you were doing and feeling things you were feeling, and you didn't notice the correlation.
You notice the obvious ones, right?
If you have great sex, you know why you feel happy for a while.
But there's a whole bunch of ones that are not obvious, such as rearranging your garage.
Like, that is not obvious.
That would make you happy.
And I don't just mean that you're happy when you see the result of your work.
I mean that your mental health will be better if you rearrange your garage.
It's just a fact. All right.
That... It is my show for the day.
Possibly one of the best things you've ever seen in your life.
I think I could top it tomorrow like I do every single day.
And on that note, worst ever.
Yes, Julie cleaned her garage yesterday and it's refreshing.
