Episode 1983 Scott Adams: Our Next Mass Hysteria Is Long Covid. And Did Snopes Ruin America?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Twitter Fauci Files
Rapid testing approval fraud?
Andrew Tate, medical situation
Snopes & President Biden
New weight loss pill for kids
Long COVID mass hysteria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
hmm well good morning everybody and welcome to coffee with Scott Adams the finest thing that's ever happened Oh here we go, our first error of the new technology.
We're having trouble streaming to your destination.
So I'm trying to stream simultaneously from StreamYard through to Rumble.
It gives me an error.
We're having trouble. It's possible that your stream key is invalid.
So that answers my question.
Apparently I have to update the stream key every time I use it, which is completely unreasonable.
In other words, it's not really practical to stream to Rumble yet, but I might play with it some more.
So right now we're going through StreamYard, a third-party software, and then that's connecting to YouTube.
It would connect to Rumble, but Rumble doesn't have the interface to make that work easily.
So I knew today was very sketchy, and if anybody's tried to watch it on Rumble, apparently that's not going to happen.
So we'll just do our best.
How would you like to see if we can take this Up a level.
Would you like that? Do you know all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug, 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 makes everything better except the StreamYard and Rumble interfaces, which should have told me long before I went live that it wasn't going to work.
Because it knew I had the wrong screen key.
Oh, it knew it.
It could have checked.
But it didn't.
Sip. Now, I may have told you at one point that the reason I hadn't used Rumble is if you add even the slightest bit of complexity to just opening the show, you have to hire an engineer.
I know it doesn't seem like it, right?
Because I know how to push the buttons and everything.
But as soon as you add just one little wrinkle, the odds of it working right, and it's a live stream, so you have to get it right, the odds go down probably 90%.
I mean, it's just a gigantic drop.
It happens instantly. But I'll play with it a little more, see if I can get it to work.
And only because I'm a stockholder.
Let me be as transparent as I could possibly be.
There's no way I would put up with this trouble unless I own stock in Rumble.
And even then I'm fighting it.
But they need to get a smoother connection to StreamYard.
And that'll be great. All right, apparently there's some big solar flare.
Did you all hear about that? There's a solar flare that might destroy civilization any minute now.
Probably not, right?
If you're betting on it, you want to bet against it.
But apparently the flare was detected, I don't know how we do it, but detected on the far side of the sun.
But apparently sometime today we're going to be lined up exactly where the solar flare came the last time.
Now, the one that already happened won't hit us, but there's nothing that says there won't be another one from that same spot, I guess.
So there's some chance you'll lose communications and what else?
Satellites, communications, and maybe power.
The power grid might be affected.
But you know what the stories didn't mention?
The stories didn't mention if it's temporary or permanent.
Now, if you were reading a story about solar flares knocking out the energy grid, wouldn't your first question be, you mean temporarily, right?
You mean just during the flare?
Or do you mean there will never be energy on the planet because we will be plunged into darkness and become cannibals before we can fix it?
Because those are different, right?
One of them is, hey...
Just stay off your phone for an hour, everything will be fine.
And the other is, the end of civilization!
So I would like my news articles to distinguish between a minor inconvenience for 30 minutes, potentially, and your neighbors will be ripping the flesh off your body for protein.
Those are not similar.
Those are not similar at all.
All right, well, wait for that, see what happens.
I learned today that Attorney Robert Barnes is a big old idiot.
He's as dumb as Ben Harrison.
He actually tweeted today that I was supporting, that I spent a year supporting vaccinations and masks and lockdowns.
Pretty much not what I did.
Pretty much completely mischaracterizing me.
And he tweets this frickin' thing.
Now, if you're an attorney, wouldn't you put a little bit more work into characterizing somebody in public?
Just a little bit. Now, of course, I had to fact check them and tell them that I also give the strongest arguments on the other side.
The strongest arguments for and against everything on the pandemic came from me.
For and against.
Because that's what I do.
I show you both sides, and then you decide.
And then I try to debunk Whatever parts of the argument are not valid, whichever side they're on.
Now, somehow, because Barnes probably has bad sources of information, he not only believes that the Dr.
Robert McCullough information about dying athletes is real, you know, you would just have to Google that to find out it's not real, right?
The Tucker Carlson show about all the athletes dying, none of that's real.
Did you know that? Did you all know none of that's real?
Well, he thinks it's real.
Because he saw it on Tucker Carlson, I guess.
I mean, maybe he saw it somewhere else.
But if you look at the...
And by the way, let me clarify.
I'm not saying it isn't happening.
Okay, that's a real important clarification.
I'm not saying it isn't happening.
I'm saying that the source of information is completely non-credible.
One of the athletes that died was over 70 years old, was never an athlete, and died of something unrelated.
Somebody else on the list died of cancer.
I mean, it's just basically not even science.
It's not even close. So, I blocked Robert Barnes, and then I blocked Viva Frye just for being associated with such an idiot.
I like Viva.
He hasn't done anything to me.
But I can't take the chance of accidentally being exposed to Robert Barnes.
So, sorry, Viva.
My apologies, but you got swept up in the blockage there.
Which is sad, because I enjoyed their show.
Apparently the Fauci files are coming this week.
What do you think that's going to show us?
And do you think it's really coming this week?
I mean, it was just on the internet I saw it.
Do you think the Fauci files are going to tell you something shocking or no?
I feel like maybe no.
I feel like maybe no.
I'm not feeling like it'll be something we don't already know.
But we do have complete confirmation now that the White House was very aggressively trying to change the What they saw as the incorrect information on social media, especially Facebook.
And they were very direct.
They said, you know, which accounts they wanted to suppress, etc.
Now their argument is they only requested it.
And it was up to Facebook whether they did it.
But you should see the language.
The language is pretty aggressive.
But I would still agree that it was a request.
You know, there was no direct threat.
However, however, do you need a direct threat when it's the government?
Not really. Because Facebook and the other social media companies are going to have lots of times in the future where Congress would have to back them for some law or not back them.
They can't really say no to the government when the government really, really wants something if they think they're going to be treated fairly the next time they're dealing with them.
That's a lot of pressure, and I would say that that goes over the line.
So in my opinion, the government went too far.
Now, there's still something missing in this story that is so wonderfully missing It's my favorite part of the story, the part we don't talk about.
Do you know what my favorite part of the story about the government censoring massively or trying to get the social platforms to censor?
The best part of the story is there's not one indication that the Trump administration ever even tried.
Or unless I missed it.
Did I miss it? Is it true they never tried?
It feels like they would have tried, especially since they were rolling out the vaccinations.
But maybe they didn't.
Maybe they didn't.
And if they didn't, that's got to be a point in their favor, wouldn't you say?
Somebody says, I did miss it.
If you have an example of that, I haven't seen any examples in any of the Twitter files.
Are the examples in the Twitter files?
I haven't seen them. Because I think they said explicitly we didn't see any examples there.
Yeah. Okay.
Oh, somebody says they saw it in the Twitter files.
What was it specifically that allegedly the Trump administration asked to suppress?
Oh, Matt Tybee said there was one, but he didn't give an example.
Okay. Something about shortages?
That would be a good one, actually.
There are times when I want my government to lie to me, and where I want them to lie to me is to tell me that there won't be a run on the grocery store.
So that there won't be a run on the grocery store.
That's one of those sort of an ethical lie.
Do you believe there could be ethical lies?
Do you believe that lying to somebody to save their life is ethical?
I do. Yeah, that's why I'm far less judgmental about the government, even Biden's administration, because as far as I can tell, all of the government people were just trying to do good work.
Am I wrong? I mean, well, let me take it back.
There are some examples of obvious corruption, right?
Whatever was happening with...
Oh, by the way, if the Republicans get the power to investigate, and I don't know if Thomas Massey will watch this or see it.
I know we watch it sometimes.
But if somebody needs to do research on why the cheap rapid tests were delayed so long, I promise you you're going to find something there.
And it won't be hard.
Let's just say that some of us have heard things from reliable sources.
So I'm not the whistleblower, but I've heard something from a really reliable source.
And you might want to talk to the FDA about how that process worked, find out who was working on it, and then ask this very obvious question.
Was the first company that got the only approval to make the rapid test, I think it was Abbott, Was that company, does that have any connections with anybody on the FDA who was part of that decision?
Just ask that question.
And then, when you find the answer and your head explodes, do what you need to do.
Because I feel like that might be the biggest fraud in American history.
The rapid testing fraud.
It had to be fraud. I mean, I've heard no explanation that wasn't even tried to explain it, why it took so long.
And why one company got a monopoly on it for so long.
I haven't heard the explanation, but I'm open to it.
I mean, maybe there is one. But I would say on the surface, it screams corruption fairly obviously.
Fairly obviously. Could be wrong.
Could be wrong. But it would be nice to know.
That's what investigations are for.
Now, did you hear the rumor that Andrew Tate was taken to a Romanian hospital?
Apparently it's not true, or somebody who tweets from Tate's account, whoever tweets from the account...
Yeah, Don, I think you're onto it.
Whoever tweets from the account...
Says that it was fake news, and he did get some minor medical attention, but nothing of note, and it happened a few days ago, and he's already back.
Now, as soon as people heard it, they were like, mm-mm.
Has Andrew Tate used his hypnosis skills to hypnotize himself into a hospital?
You know, basically hypnotized other people to take him to the hospital where he could more easily escape.
Which would be a great movie.
I was really sort of hoping for that one.
Now let me ask you this.
Can you imagine a better movie than a hypnotist who's also a master criminal?
Think about it. I haven't seen that, have you?
The closest was Silence of the Lambs.
But he was more of a master manipulator.
But wouldn't it be interesting to see...
An anti-hero who is a hypnotist.
And watch him hypnotize himself out of trouble time and again using actual techniques.
Now in the real world, hypnosis is not so predictable that you know exactly what's going to happen.
So it wouldn't really work time after time.
But in a movie context, you can make it quite believable.
All right. So, let's see what else.
I'm going to test you. Now, for those of you who are new, if there's anybody, is everybody new to my livestream?
Who's seeing my livestream for the first time?
Anybody? Oh, first-timer, okay.
How about on YouTube? Anybody seeing it for the first time?
Because I want to see if...
Stop it. Stop it.
Stop it. Yeah, I want to see if I can impress you, the new people, on how smart my audience is.
So I'm going to see if they can guess a number, a poll number, within one percentage point.
Watch this. See how many can get it within one percentage point.
We'll start the other way.
What percentage of likely U.S. voters, according to Rasmussen, Are concerned about the size of the debt?
What percent are concerned?
Oh, you have to wait for the question.
See? See?
I fooled you. You have to wait for the question.
Don't assume you know the question until you hear it.
Well, the answer is 76%.
Which would leave, let's see, quick calculation, 100 minus 76, carry the 6 minus 4, move the 3, add a 0.
Yeah, it's right around a quarter, one quarter.
Now, look at my audience.
Amazing. Yeah, one quarter, approximately one quarter of the population isn't concerned about the size of the national debt.
Not concerned at all.
No problem.
All right. For the new people, are you impressed?
Not only is my audience smart enough to know the answer when I ask the question, they knew the answer before I asked the question.
Smartest audience of all eternity.
All right. What else?
Are you following the story in Brazil?
Yeah, as you know, Brazil is just the poor man's United States.
It's the poor man's United States.
And I like to say the poor man's everything.
It's a running joke.
But Brazilians are kind of awesome.
Brazil is awesome. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm going to make a statement about Brazil.
You tell me if this is true or false.
At least in America, Brazil is the most underrated country.
Don't you think? Like, we don't talk about it much, but it's enormous and powerful and big economy and important to us in many ways.
I think it's the most overlooked, underrated country that I can think of.
They don't cause us a lot of trouble, so we don't talk about them.
I think you have to cause us trouble before we pay attention.
Yeah, Brazil is an amazing country.
So apparently they had some version of something that reminds people of January 6th, because a bunch of people who were concerned that their last election might have been Have you heard this word?
Rigged? So, let's see.
Who are the names of people here?
So the president who was president and lost, much like Trump did, was Bolsonaro, who was often compared to Trump.
And when he lost, a lot of people said, just like Trump, hey, maybe this election is rigged.
And a bunch of his supporters stormed and did damage to the Congress building.
Now, the good news is there were no politicians in the building.
So it was just a building.
But they did some damage, set off the sprinklers, tried to burn a rug.
Anyway, they saved the building, I guess.
Now, what's the most important thing to know about this story?
If you were the news...
If you were the news, what do you think would be like the key thing to latch onto?
Can we blame this on Trump?
That's always the most important question.
It happened in Brazil for completely different people.
I wonder All right, I'm going to use your joke.
Somebody on the locals' platform had a better joke than what I was going for, so I'm abandoning my joke.
I'm just stealing their joke.
Who is the Brazilian Ray Epps?
Because if they don't have a Ray Epps, it's nothing like January 6th.
I insist. I insist there has to be a Brazilian Ray Epps or we do not accept the comparison.
That's my minimum requirement.
I also require at least one protester to have some kind of a horned hat.
If you tell me that somebody tried to overtake a country, to overthrow a country, with no horned hat, how seriously am I going to take that, really?
Now, what you don't see in this story, is there something conspicuously missing...
About a story that involves protesters temporarily occupying the congressional building.
What's missing from the story?
Kind of an obvious thing?
Missing? Well, it's how they characterize it.
Have you noticed that they're not characterizing it as an insurrection?
Because apparently in Brazil, and this is very different than America, in America, if a small band of protesters can temporarily trespass in the government building, they've effectively conquered the entire country.
And the nuclear arms force would surrender.
That's the way our press told us.
That once these unarmed protesters were temporarily trespassing, well, that's an insurrection, and those people need to be punished.
Even though the reason they said they were there was not insurrection.
But in Brazil, Apparently, protesters can enter an unused building, and maybe it's the fact that there were no politicians there.
Because that's the difference, right?
If you take over an empty Congress building like the Brazilians did, well, how in the world are you going to turn that into an insurrection?
Whereas if these protesters in America on January 6th, suppose they had gotten to the politicians.
Suppose they had taken AOC hostage.
And said, we're going to hurt AOC unless you give us control of the country.
And then the military would surrender.
What could they do? They're not going to let AOC get hurt.
So the American protesters were so close to actually overthrowing the country and installing the guy with the horned hats as their new leader.
I mean, it was close.
Barely dodged that bullet.
Barely dodged it. But the Brazilians don't leave the politicians at the buildings on the weekends, I guess.
And so, therefore, the timing wasn't quite right.
So, no insurrection, I guess.
All right. So, most of you saw that Tucker Carlson did a show about allegedly Dr.
McCullough's data. That a whole bunch of people were dying, athletes were dying on the field.
Now, if you spend about 30 seconds searching for the debunks of that, they'll pop up and they're pretty convincing.
Now, I'm not the one to tell you that the fact checkers are right.
You'll never hear me say that.
Because in fact, the very next story I'm going to talk about is Snopes and about Snopes not being legitimate, right?
So I don't trust the fact checkers.
But if you haven't seen the fact checks on that claim that athletes are dying like crazy, if you haven't seen it, don't form an opinion.
Because you're going to find there's no science to those numbers whatsoever.
Just none. So, sorry.
Now, what I just said...
Is why an idiot like attorney Robert Barnes believes that I'm pro-vaccination and pro-lockdown and pro-mask.
Because I simply fact-checked something that wasn't true.
Or let me say it this way.
To me it looks not true.
But I fact-checked the sources.
So you can say the sources are sketchy.
It's entirely possible, and let me say this as clearly as possible, It's entirely possible that athletes are dying at a higher rate.
Would you accept that that's entirely possible?
Especially since we have pretty good beginning of information that it's worse for younger men who tend to be the athletes and younger women.
But I think it's mostly the men we see falling over, which would suggest it's not just being young that's the problem.
So I'm not saying that there's nothing happening.
I'm saying that the source that McCullough used is garbage.
Now, do you think that Robert Barnes could understand what I just said?
Is his mental capacity sufficient that he could understand, we don't know what's true, but we can certainly say that the source is garbage.
Either thing could be true, but one specific source, clearly garbage.
Do you think he could understand that?
I don't. I actually think he wouldn't understand it.
Because the evidence suggests he doesn't have that much processing power.
Now, have you ever heard the...
Have you ever heard the...
Of course you have. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
What is Robert Barnes' job?
Is the job of Robert Barnes to show the good arguments on both sides?
He's literally a trial attorney.
Does a trial attorney say, you know, I'm defending my client, but I've got to say the prosecution made some pretty good points there.
That video looks real, that video of him stabbing that person.
I've got to say that looks real to me.
But let's talk about this other stuff.
No. No.
He's a person who lives in the guilty or innocent world, and he's an advocate.
So if you happen to be an advocate, and you watch somebody who's simply talking about the strong and weak points of an argument, Do you think he might filter it through his own filter and say, I'm an advocate in everything I do.
Let's listen to somebody else.
Oh, there's another one like me, an advocate.
Because if he's saying anything about one side, he must be the advocate for that side.
Because that's what I would do.
I would certainly never say something good about the argument I don't believe in, because then I might lose my argument.
So, anyway.
So let's talk about the bad debunkers.
It turns out that there's an editor for Snopes.
I'm not sure how many editors they have.
I believe Snopes started as two people, but they've done well.
I assume they have a staff of some kind.
But one of their editors weighed in on this question of the McCullough stuff, and Snopes debunks it.
Now, when I say debunks, Do you hear that as, therefore, it's not true?
A fact-checking organization debunked it.
So therefore, am I saying it's not true?
No. Because why would I trust the fact-checking organization?
I wouldn't. Let's look at the fact-checking organization.
And I presented their editor on Twitter.
I presented him with a test.
He didn't ask for it, but I presented it anyway.
And I said, in order for Snopes to be seen as credible, at least to my audience, how did you handle the drinking bleach hoax and the fine people hoax?
Because if they debunked both of those hoaxes, which are very fake stories, if they debunk them, then I would listen to the next thing they say.
Would that be fair?
If they correctly debunked two of the biggest stories in politics, That are easy to debunk.
I mean, it couldn't be easier.
Then I would say, all right, I'm going to listen to the next thing you say.
But would it also be fair that if it was obvious that they did something sketchy with those two really important questions, wouldn't it be fair to never pay attention to them again?
Fair? That's fair, right?
So I said, this is the bar.
These two hoaxes, you've got to get these right, or don't ask us to look at your content.
Don't ask. So the editor responded, and he said, you can do a search on Snopes, and you can find those topics.
It sounds like he wasn't involved in either one.
So I don't want to put any blame on him, because I don't think he was involved with either one.
So I thought, you know, I should go, I should refresh my memory of what they said about those things.
So first I looked for the injecting disinfectant hoax, which is there, and they did handle it.
And here's how they handled the claim that Trump said you should put some kind of a chemical disinfectant inserted into the body, injected into the body.
So that was the claim, which is fake.
And I want to see if they correctly identified the fake.
Here's what they did.
They found a paragraph in which Trump was talking about light the entire time, and the entire context of all of it was light as a disinfectant.
Light as a disinfectant.
It was very direct. I'm not interpreting.
They said it's a disinfectant, it's light.
Light, light, light. And they talked about using it externally to disinfect things with light.
Light, light, light. Then Trump said, huh, how about taking that light, you know, maybe inside the body.
Now, here's the first thing that Snopes left out.
Imagine leaving out the fact that it was actually being tested at the time, and the Wall Street Journal wrote an article in which the people who were doing the tests admitted that the president must have been aware of their trial, which he was, because I tweeted about it.
I'm sure he saw it.
That's a very important fact, right?
The fact should be that the president was talking about a real thing happening at that time.
It wasn't mentioned. It wasn't mentioned.
Does that seem legitimate to you?
Do you think they were trying to tell you the correct story, if that's not mentioned?
That it was a real thing happening in real time, and the Wall Street Journal carried the story?
No. No, that is not credible.
And here's the weasel trick they did.
Because if you read the thing, it's very clear that when the president used the word disinfectant, he never changed the context from light.
But he started using the word disinfectant in one context just once, I think just once, instead of using the word light as the disinfectant.
He just said disinfectant.
And that was enough for them to say it was unclear.
Now, I'm paraphrasing, but basically they simply presented it and let you judge, but the way they presented it was they used that word disinfectant as if it were ambiguous.
It was never ambiguous.
The context was always light.
It never changed.
But they just left that little wiggle room in there that it could have because the word disinfectant could be used in a different context.
Well, it wasn't in that context.
It was in one very specific context.
And do you know what would have completely made it obvious that the context all the time was light?
You know what would have made that really obvious?
Including the Wall Street Journal's reporting that light was the topic.
So I would say they completely got that wrong.
So then I searched for the fine people hoax, the Charlottesville story.
I can't find it anymore.
Could somebody do a fact check?
Did they remove it?
I'm positive I've seen it there.
And the editor pointed to it.
But can you do that?
Do me a favor. Search for it right now.
And I tried the obvious things, you know, like Charlottesville and Trump and fine people, and it didn't come up.
Did they delete that thing?
Right? Somebody's trying it and can't find it.
Now, here's my statement to you.
That changed the history of the world.
That little weasel trick of Snopes not debunking the fine people hoax, because they knew it was fake.
You have to assume they knew it, because it's so obviously fake.
You just read the transcript.
Like, it's the easiest thing you could ever debunk.
Just read the transcript.
You just don't read part of it.
That's where you get confused.
Now, Biden ran primarily on two hoaxes.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hoax number one, the president's a racist and the fine people hoax proves it.
Imagine if Snopes had debunked, because Snopes is believed by the left.
Imagine if Snopes had done their job and debunked the fine people hoax at the same time that Biden was running on it.
Right? That would have changed the course of history.
There's no doubt about it.
Somebody says PolitiFact is ignoring it too.
They used to have it. I think you will find, I'll bet you will find that the fact checkers have deleted it.
Because it was so wrong that it just worked against their interest to keep it up there.
I'll bet you'll find that.
I don't know for sure, but I'll bet.
Oh, and there's some other stuff disappearing as well.
George Floyd stuff. Trump refuses to condemn white supremacists.
Where's that? All right, so here's my point.
True or false?
True or false? The left would believe a Snopes fact check.
If Snopes had just showed the full transcript and said, our rating is that this is a hoax or it's fake, you tell me that wouldn't have changed history?
That would have changed history.
Because Biden no longer would be able to say it.
And it was his primary...
And imagine if they had done that right in the middle of the campaign.
Imagine if he'd been saying it for months, and then Snopes debunked it.
That would have changed history.
Now, what's the other thing that Biden was promising?
That he'd do better on the pandemic, right?
What was the main thing that the left were concerned about Trump?
That he was an unscientific buffoon, right?
So it wasn't so much the specific decisions, it's just that the person in charge to them seemed anti-science and sort of a buffoon.
And how did they think that?
It's because of the other hoax.
The drinking bleach hoax was the tentpole hoax that made you think that Trump couldn't see science for what it was, when in fact he was the one who understood what was being tested He understood light as a disinfectant, and he was actually ahead of the people on the stage.
On that narrow thing, he actually knew more than he did at that moment.
Just a narrow thing. But still, he was the one with more information, not less.
And somehow the left, thanks to the absence of fact-checking, or let's call it fake fact-checking, I think that would be...
Does that feel right?
Could you say that fact-checking is an illegitimate sort of fake institution, generally speaking?
Because I don't think they have the option of disagreeing with their side and staying in business.
What do you think it would have done to Snopes' business model if they had accurately reported on the drinking bleach and the fine people hoax?
It would have destroyed them.
Right? Yeah.
It's the same reason that my audience is a third of what it could be if I just had the good sense to agree with you all the time.
If I wanted to build an audience, I would do what idiot Robert Barnes does and just say things he knows his audience agrees with, you know, no matter what the facts indicate.
So I would just do the idiot Barnes technique if I just wanted to build an audience.
It would be easy. All right.
Well, so I guess that's one Snoop Senator who wishes he hadn't interacted with me, but he won't be the last.
Somehow interacting with me just turns out bad for a lot of people.
I mean, he did not end up in a Romanian prison, but it happens to some people who come after me, by coincidence.
All right, now the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that doctors drug our kids who are obese.
and they've got some new drug that you can give for weight loss to kids.
I promised I wouldn't swear as much this year.
I'm going to try to keep it.
But boy, am I being challenged by this story.
Here's what I see.
I see that big food is making us all sick with our bad food, and then big pharma is seeing an opportunity to give us drugs to compensate for our bad food.
And we're going to drug our children.
To compensate for the fact that the adults can't manage their system.
That's what happened. The kids are overweight because adults can't manage their shit.
If we can manage our business, then the food companies would not be poisoning us.
Or at least you'd find some way to feed your kid that's healthy.
And we would know that the big pharma doesn't have our interest at heart all the time.
So, everything about this story makes my head just explode.
Do you think big food is up for a reckoning?
Feels like it, doesn't it?
I just don't know if there's any target there, because it's an industry with lots of players.
But I think big food has some explaining to do.
I feel like we're close to reparations.
Right? In fact, maybe I'll just bring up the word.
I think nutrition reparations from our big pharma company, or not big pharma, big food.
I'm generally not a big reparations guy, but you've got to ask the question at this point.
I mean, how many people are being killed just by food products?
Well, remember I always used to talk about Andres Backhaus and how he's, I think, PhD in economics?
And he's always especially good at debunking studies that you believe.
Safest and most reliable food source on Earth.
Well, that's true. That's true.
But it doesn't actually address the question.
So the trouble is that the public is not that bright.
And while I agree that some people can take control of their food choices, have you ever tried to find healthy food?
Like everything in a package is, you know, sketchy in my opinion.
Okay. But back to Andres.
I think he took a little break from interacting from Twitter for a while, but he's back.
And watching him debunk studies is a real lesson, and I recommend it highly.
Now, you don't have to disagree or agree with his debunking, but you need to see the method.
You need to see the method. Because he'll find something without needing to look at another source.
He'll just look at the study and say, well, it looks like they added this to this or they included that and that's why you got that and the sample probably is this.
And he's so good at it.
That's why I think that we need some kind of a government department where people who can tell you if a study looks real can talk to you.
I see a lot of people complaining about Andres.
I need you to separate the fact that he's debunking things you think are true from his skill.
If you say his skill is low, you're just so wrong.
If you say he said something that made you mad because he debunked something you think is true, well, I get that.
He's pissing off a lot of people because he's debunking the things they think are true.
Now, let me be clear.
When Andres is doing his debunking, he's not telling you that the answer is the opposite of the study.
He's saying the study didn't make its case as well as it should.
That's different from saying he knows the answer.
I don't think he says that.
He just says there's something wrong with the study.
He misapplied his skill more than once.
See, those are the cognitive dissonance tells, because I see it when it's applied to me.
When you see the general statement, he misapplied his skills more than once and can't stand that's pointed out to him.
That's almost always cognitive dissonance.
I don't even need to know what the subject is.
That tell is so clear.
So here's the tell.
A general statement about what somebody does, Followed by mind reading what's in their head.
When you see those two things put together, that's almost always cognitive distance, which means he debunked something you thought was true.
Right? Did he debunk something you thought was true?
Because he's done that to me and I don't like it at all.
He's definitely debunked things that I thought were likely true and that I'm like, oh, okay, I guess I'm an idiot.
Yeah. Does it seem like cognitive dissonance?
Here's why it's cognitive dissonance.
If it's not cognitive dissonance, people tend to be specific with their criticisms.
It's the generic criticism followed by the mind reading, because I get it all the time, and it's easier for me to tell when it's cognitive dissonance because it's about me, so a little more acquainted with the situation.
Blocking people who disagree with you might be a sign of cognitive dissonance.
No. No.
Blocking is just what people do on Twitter.
That wouldn't indicate anything.
Alright. I block anybody that is unpleasant.
I don't block people who disagree with me.
Do you think I do? How many people think I block people because they disagree with me?
Because there are plenty of people who disagree with me.
I don't block them. I look for the quality of the argument.
If people are attacking the argument, I'm almost always good with them.
But what happens is people attack me personally, like Barnes did.
The Barnes thing was a personal attack.
If Barnes had argued any one of my arguments, then I'd say, well, that's fair.
Even if he'd argued all of my arguments, it's still fair.
If he said, oh, you're wrong on every single thing, and here's why, that's fair.
But he went after me.
That's not fair. Well, it's fair.
It just gets you blocked.
They don't attack you, they attack your delusion.
Do they? Or do they mind read, I have a delusion, and then they attack that?
What do you think it is?
Yeah, the best system for eating is to have healthy food readily available.
That is literally the best...
By far, that's the best system for eating right.
All right, let me tell you the next mass hysteria which is already forming.
Long COVID. Now, because somebody like, you know, Ben Garrison, the idiot, or Robert Barnes, the idiot, since one of those idiots might be watching...
I'll do the disclaimer that most of you don't need, which is, I don't know if long COVID is real.
How would I know? So at the end, Robert Barnes and idiot Ben Garrison will say, he just said that long COVID is real or not real.
Nothing like that's going to happen.
This topic is independent from how real or unreal it is.
I'll give you my preliminary opinion.
It's probably real for some people.
But it's going to turn into a mass hysteria, and it's obvious.
Why? Three reasons.
Three reasons there's a guaranteed mass hysteria coming on long COVID. Why?
It's obvious.
Number one is money. Big Pharma will have treatments for it.
Right? They already do, I think.
And they will want to sell those treatments.
And so they'll want you to think that whatever is wrong with you is long COVID. That's one.
Number two, why will the mass hysteria form?
Number two, because the media likes to write about trouble.
Right? And that would be big trouble if it were true.
So the media is going to love the stories about long COVID. Because it will also probably give them an excuse to say, if you'd only been vaccinated, maybe it'd be less, which I don't think we have evidence of yet.
So if you assume the media will blow it at a proportion, and then big pharma will want to sell to it, what's the third thing that guarantees a mass hysteria?
What's the third thing?
It could be just all money, you're right.
But there's a third thing that makes it easier.
The symptoms are vague.
And that's all you need.
How about that hangnail you got?
Oh! Oh, my hangnail!
It's probably long COVID. How do I know?
Because it's all over the news, and all my neighbors have long COVID, and Big Pharma makes a drug for it, so it must be true.
Everybody says it's true.
Oh, my hangnail, it's got to be long COVID. Tell me, tell me there's any chance at all this won't be a mass hysteria.
There's no chance. There's no chance we can avoid this problem.
100% chance, mass hysteria.
Right? There's no way around it.
There's no fact-checking that will change it.
There's no internet dad.
There's no Elon Musk.
It just can't be fixed.
We're heading as fast as we can to an obvious, obvious mass hysteria.
Now, because an idiot like Robert Barnes might be tuning in late, or like idiot Ben Garrison.
Let me close out by saying, I don't know how real long COVID is.
I will tell you this, and many of you already know it.
Right after I got my vaccination, no, right after I got, not the vaccination, right after I got COVID, I had the worst health outcomes, and I was positive I had long COVID. I mean, I could barely walk upstairs, like literally just barely.
And instead, it was my blood pressure meds.
They simply just coincided.
It was just timing. But if I had not solved that, If I had not figured out how to solve it by, you know, one by one getting off of meds and see if it mattered.
If I hadn't done that, you could not have talked me out of it being long COVID. There's nothing you could have said that would made me believe that wasn't long COVID. But it wasn't.
It wasn't because my health is ideal right now.
It's great. Yeah, there's no test for it and therefore...
Therefore, everybody just assumed they had it.
It was by blood pressure meds that were causing me other problems.
So, you all agree with that, right?
There's just no way to stop it.
Now, let me ask you this.
Given that we can predict it in advance, when it happens, do you think anybody in the news is going to say, you know, there's somebody who's pretty good at predicting mass hysteria who told you this was going to happen in advance, it happened exactly the way he said, So just be aware, whether long COVID is real or not, the reason you think it's real is not the anecdotes or the data.
The reason you think it's real is that the entire world has conspired to support this mass hysteria.
And it might be real. So it's even worse, because it might be real.
Could be a big problem.
I don't know. Yeah, actually, let me add to that, because I saw a comment there that makes me want to modify my statement.
The world is going to divide into people who think they were injured by the vaccination versus people who think they were injured by the COVID. Would you agree?
And nothing can change that.
For every person who has a headache from now until the end of time, The anti-vaxxers will say it's the vaccination.
The pro-vax people will say it's long COVID. Not only that, but the vaccinated people with long COVID will say, it's a good thing I got vaccinated because this could have been worse.
Right? They'll all say that.
And then every time, if you're an anti-vaxxer and you feel good, every time somebody says they have a problem, you're going to think to yourself, yeah, you have a problem, huh?
Were you vaccinated?
So I'm going to correct what I said, or actually modify.
There will definitely be a long COVID mass hysteria, but we're already seeing the vaccination mass hysteria.
Hold on. Hold on.
Did I just say that the vaccinations are not really hurting people?
No. Only an idiot like Barnes or Garrison would have heard that because it didn't happen.
What did happen is that the hysterias will form even if there's something true.
But the hysteria won't be based on the true thing.
It'll be based on all the factors that make a hysteria form.
All right. Was there any topic I missed today?
Team with the most money wins.
Yeah, that's true. Can we trust the autopsies?
You can't trust...
See, here's the problem. We keep making the mistakes that you could trust the doctors or the researchers.
But usually, it's not coming from them.
It's coming through some middle person.
And you can never trust the middle person.
All right. LOL, the anti-vaxxers were always on the right side of it.
Now, what do you believe is the current understanding of the so-called vaccinations effectiveness?
Do you believe that elderly people were not benefited by it?
Go. How many believe that, let's say people over 65, and I'm in that category.
How many people over, do you believe that the vaccinations didn't help people over 65?
Is anybody willing to say that?
Well, you got really quiet here.
You seem very certain.
So there are people who believe that the data that is uniformly saying that it kept people from dying, you don't believe that.
Now, should you?
Should you believe the data?
I think the answer is no.
I think the one thing we've learned for sure is that none of the data from the pandemic is reliable.
But would you agree that all of the data about people over 65 is positive?
All of it. Doesn't mean it's real.
Doesn't mean it's right, if we've learned anything.
But to the best of my knowledge, there's no country or entity that argues that the over 65s didn't get a benefit.
Is there? If you've seen anything that would suggest that the over 65s are worse off already, you said that to me because I've never seen it.
So here's what I think keeps happening.
I think that our understanding that it wasn't a good idea for people of a certain age and health It's getting conflated with their idea that it might have been a good idea, but we don't know.
It might have been a good idea for older people.
I think that's all that's happening.
Because the data, the longer we wait, it seems to keep confirming that young people maybe shouldn't have done it, and it seems to be confirming that old people probably survived Delta and Alpha better than they would have.
Now, once you get to Omicron, I think all bets are off on Omicron.
But as far as I know, all of the data shows that it worked for older people, which doesn't mean you should have done it.
That's a separate question.
Because, you know, mandates and lockdowns and stuff, nobody liked that.
All right. Now, data showed danger for pregnancies.
There's somebody on here who's still screaming that vaccinations don't prevent infections.
You know that everybody knows that, right?
You can stop saying that.
You don't have to educate us that the vaccinations are not actual vaccinations.
Everybody knows it.
I feel like I need to start a list of things you should never say on social media because everybody knows it.
Everybody knows it.
That's definitely at the top of my list.
Yeah.
So I think the thing we learned most from the pandemic is that science is usually wrong. - Somebody sent a paper to me that actually makes the claim that science is usually wrong.
You already knew there's something like half of all studies that are peer-reviewed and published.
Half of them are not reproducible.
And that's like an automatic half of them are not reliable.
But apparently it goes much deeper than that.
It might be something like 75% of studies are bullshit.
It could be 90. It could be 90.
So every time you see a new study, your brain should say 75% to 90% chance it's not true, but I'll be open to it, you know, and maybe if it gets repeated, depending on the structure of the study, et cetera.
The modified...
what? The shots I got were the Moderna.
Or did I? Yeah, I think they were both Moderna.
The first one was, I can't remember what the second one was.
I think they always match them, don't they?
It's not science if it's not reproducible.
Well, that's more of a definition thing.
Most people would say it's science, even if you're wrong.
Somebody tried to start a room where I had monkeypox.
Thanks.
Do you know how hard it is to be a public figure when other public figures are starting complete bullshit rumors about you online?
What would you do if you were me?
Let me ask you. If somebody started a rumor that would destroy your business and your reputation forever, would you just ignore them?
No, suing never works.
And you never want to sue a lawyer because they, you know, They're not paying anybody.
What would you do?
I use them just for target practice and energy.
And in the process, I'm hoping it corrects the record.
It's your group, Scott.
what's my group?
Whoever says it's your group, what group is my group?
Go ahead, tell me, what group is my group?
cartoonists.
You were canceled for Orange Man Bad.
Yeah, so Dr. McCoy McCullough showed you some statistics of before and after the vax.
Have you, have you, let me ask this.
I'm going to start a new standard for the live stream.
If you tell me that you saw a study, but you have not done the minimum of Googling the study name plus debunk, you know you shouldn't be talking in public, right?
The minimum amount you should do before you talk about a study in public is to just Google to see what the people were debunking and say.
Now, you might still say that you believe it.
Maybe you don't believe the debunkers.
But if you're still spreading the Dr.
McCullough data, then you haven't done the minimum.
The minimum is to look at what people say about that numbers, and everybody says it's fake.
There's nobody who backs it.
Everybody who looked into it said it's fake.
Everybody. Did you know that?
There is no support for the original source of the data.
There's plenty of support for people who didn't look into the data, didn't check to see if it was real, because they just accept that it was on the show and it was a doctor who said it.
but I don't believe there's anybody who even supports him who says that data is real.
So don't ask me to respond to a study if you haven't done that much work.
It really takes 30 seconds.
Just the name of the thing and then the word debunk.
Or you just go to any fact check thing and you'll see it.
Alright. How could you still be saying to use only Google?
Well, in this context, Google is useful because it does pop up the debunks.
But your point is well taken, that if you used a different, you might want to cross-check that with the second one.
But all of the search engines are going to pick up the debunks.
I don't think they hide them. What does Barnes get end of calling you out?
Oh, let me explain that.
So, would you agree with the following statement?
If the anti-vaxxers were 100% right, it means that the pro-vaxxers killed people.
Yes or no? If the anti-vaxxers are totally right, it means that everybody who was pro-vaccine killed people.
Like, actually, a lot.
Now, the reverse is also true, is it not?
If it turns out that the pro-vaccine people really got it right, Maybe not 100%.
Maybe the young males was wrong.
But even with that, if it turned out they were mostly right, would that mean that the anti-vaxxers almost certainly killed people?
True? Whoever was right, the other side killed a lot of people.
Doesn't matter which way it was.
Whoever's right, the other side killed people.
Now, will I feel guilty?
Would I personally feel guilty no matter which way we someday find out it goes?
Would I feel that I killed anybody?
And the answer is no, because I showed you the arguments on both sides, and I've told you a million times that you shouldn't believe any data.
That's as clear as you can be.
And I've also said, whatever you do, don't look to me for your decision on health care or finance.
So no matter which way it goes, I'm going to say, well, I'm glad I didn't kill anybody.
I'm glad I didn't.
But Robert Barnes has the real risk because he's taken more of a definitive stand.
If he's wrong, he killed people.
Or he's part of a group who killed people collectively.
Now, likewise, by starting some fake news about me online, he has decreased my effectiveness because a lot of people will believe him.
And therefore, people who could have gotten maybe both sides of the stories to make a good prediction won't have access to me.
So he's decreased my reach and credibility.
So that would be another way that potentially...
He's either saved lives or killed people.
So here's the thing.
People like Robert Barnes really, really, really, really need to be right.
Because if they're wrong, they killed people.
It's literally life and death.
Now, I don't have that problem.
Because it could go either way, and for me it's just content.
At least, obviously, life and death matters too.
But he's in a very difficult psychological situation.
Because we've got to this point, and the mainstream media is holding tight that the vaccinations were a great idea.
With some risk.
Nobody's hiding that.
But the mainstream is still saying it's a great idea.
So he's in a bad situation.
If things settled the way they are, like we never learned anything new, he killed people.
Am I wrong? Because whichever side was wrong, it killed people.
Because everybody who was on a side was recruiting for their side.
Right? Everybody who didn't get the vax was very vocal about it and almost certainly convinced other people to go along with their version of it.
Now, whichever side you were on, if you were certain about it, you killed people.
Probably. All right.
Alright, Paul, what am I wrong about?
Is there somebody going to argue that nobody died depending on...
There's nothing to argue about there.
You all agree. I'm not going to pretend there's an argument there.
Only one side was forcing people.
So? So?
Both sides were persuasive.
So if you're saying one was a little more killy than the other, that's true.
Maybe. But what if the side that was forcing you turns out to be right?
Then they saved lives.
They took your freedom.
I didn't accept that.
But they would have saved lives, hypothetically.
I'm not saying that's how it'll turn out.
Leif says, you relied on data from the start, and now you're saying the data isn't clear.
Do you really believe that the creator of Dilbert in public told you that a big corporation is reliable and that the data they produce is reliable?
Do you think that actually happened?
Your actual perception is that I trusted data from a big corporation.
Do you have any idea who I am?
First day on the internet?
No. Ask anybody who has watched me from the beginning.
And there's nothing I've said more often than studies are not reliable.
It's the most often thing I say about every study.
Not just the pandemic, but all the time.
Don't necessarily think the study's right.
But I do have a criticism for those who didn't believe the early data, but do believe the current data.
Why? If the first data was wrong, it shows that people who produce data can lie to you, and you wouldn't know the difference.
What makes you trust the new data?
Because it agrees with you, that's why.
Yeah, a little more killy.
Every interpretation is a gamble, I guess so.
There was no early data.
It wasn't wrong or lies.
It didn't exist. I want to mock you, but you're barely worth it.
If you're screaming at me in all caps that there was no data, like what planet are you on?
What you mean is there wasn't enough, which everyone agrees on, and you don't need to say it.
So I'll add to the list another thing you don't need to say, that the original vaccination studies were insufficient.
Even they told us that.
The people who did the studies admit that you can't know unless you've studied it for 10 years or so.
Even they knew. There was literally nobody on the other side of that conversation.
So if you're yelling in all caps that the obvious is true, you wasted some time.
We all know that the data was insufficient because they told us.
And we could observe it.
We could observe that ten years had not passed.
Could not be more obvious.
And the reason that I waited as long as possible, until I was kind of cornered, is that the longer I waited, the more I'd know about the side effects.
Please acknowledge me.
There, you're acknowledged, Nagul.
In 20 years, we'll know where we were wrong.
I doubt it. I actually believe we'll never know.
I believe we'll never know.
Because we're still arguing about Kennedy assassination.
I don't think the world becomes clearer over time.
Sometimes, but not often.
All right. The wrong phrase...
What's this? Vaxed versus unvaxed.
It was a social conditioning test.
Was it? I think the craziest conspiracy theory is that the elites were testing a control mechanism.
Because I know quite a few elites, and no.
That wasn't a thing.
There's no evidence of it.
Anywhere.
Everybody looks at the WEF and that one guy taking it out of context for all of that stuff.
It was absolutely Marxist.
I'm just saying that nobody in America, none of the American elites were thinking, hmm...
I'll use this vaccine stuff to make us more Marxist.
I don't think the people in power were doing it.
You know, there were pundits and stuff, for sure.
I honestly think everybody was trying to do a good job on the pandemic.
You know, if you put yourself in that position, where you've got tens of millions of lives on the line in your own country, I think they were serious people.
I think some got it wrong, some got it right, but I don't think there were a whole bunch of people who were only doing what they were doing to change the power structure in the country.
I suppose anything's possible.
No, I didn't say that I know a few elites, and therefore I can rule it out.
See, that's a sign of cognitive dissonance.
When somebody changes your general statement into a weird absolute, that's always cognitive dissonance.
It just means you didn't like the point.
There are no absolutes.
It divided people, yeah, but I think everybody was just trying to solve the pandemic.
I don't believe any of those conspiracy theories.
I could be convinced, but it would require some kind of evidence.
48-hour rule for Barnes?
No, because he came after me personally.
When people come after me personally, it means they're a person who does that.
And it means it's going to happen again.
I don't really care if he knows he was wrong.
And I don't think there's any chance he's going to change his mind.
Because he's too dug in.
Once you get that dug in, it doesn't matter.
The fact check would bounce off him.
You didn't make any money off the pandemic?
I lost a lot of money on the pandemic.
I lost a shit ton of money on the pandemic.
Do you know why? Because I talked about both sides.
That's just terrible for whatever other business you're doing.
Yeah, no, I didn't get any PPP loans.
Klaus says he's penetrating the cabinets of other countries.
You know, the funny thing is that people think the conspiracy is the part they say out loud.
If he says it out loud, he's not embarrassed about it.
And they've said, you know, we basically have our people in government because the whole point of what we're doing is we're trying to spread our way of thinking, and that's one way to do it.
When you see that level of transparency, like here are the people we put in the government and here's the things that we want them to promote, I don't really care when it's that transparent.
I would care a lot if we didn't know who those people were, but he's happy to name them.
He's proud of it. Please listen to Brett Weinstein about what topic?
Which topic did you want me to hear?
Brett talked about.
Was it a bioweapon?
I'm not sure all the evidence points one way Listen to them Okay. The more times you...
Alright, now I'm not going to do it.
I'm not going to do it. All right, now you just pissed me off.
The more times you say, watch Brett on Rogan without telling me why, you've talked me out of it.
I'll never watch that now.
Just the smallest amount of, just tell me the topic.
You should watch Brett on Rogan talk about, talk about, But just telling me to watch it.
No, I reject it now.
I reject it. The conspiracy is near completion because he can talk about it in public.
Okay. About vax injuries.
And does he use the Dr.
McCullough data? Does Brett refer to the Dr.
McCullough data? Just tell me that.
Does Brett refer to the Dr.
McCullough? I see yeses and noes.
Some said yes, some said no.
Well, my take on that is that this is entirely a data decision, right?
So whether the extent, because there's always some, but the extent of vaccine injury, would you agree, is a data argument?
Meaning that we can't just logic our way to it.
Would everybody agree with that?
It's purely a data argument.
Right. And would you agree that the data is not reliable no matter which way it points?
Would you agree with that?
So if I listen to Brett...
Is he going to say, there's a problem because we have some data?
And then I'm going to say, yeah, but all the other data was false.
Why would this be good data?
Is that going to be where that ends up?
Well, it will, right?
Because Brett would be arguing with data, or he wouldn't be arguing at all, right?
Brett is a rational, very smart person.
And if he were arguing this, it would be with data, and there's no way the data would ever convince me.
Because we don't live in a world where data is reliable.
It's just like horoscope at this point.
Now, does that mean that Brett is wrong?
Nope. Doesn't mean that.
Doesn't mean that at all.
He could be 100% right.
In fact, he could be right not based on the data, but because, you know, the reasons that he sees the risk...
Might be, you know, a perfect explanation of what's happening.
It's possible. All right.
But I don't know what to do if I don't trust data.
Listening to somebody talk about it isn't going to help.
All right. That's all for now. And YouTube, I'm going to end this broadcast and talk to the locals people for a little bit.
