Episode 1987 Scott Adams: Joe Biden's Garage, And The Government Lying To You About Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Sinclair Lab successfully reverses aging
Climate change causing heart attacks?
Thomas Massie on vax legal immunity
Special Counsel Robert Hur
Democrats taking out Biden?
Chemical warfare drones?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's Friday the 13th and YouTube, they tried to stop me.
The gremlins of bad luck.
But here I am.
Yeah, here I am.
And you've managed to make it here.
For the highlight of civilization, the best thing that's ever happened to you in your whole damn life.
And if you'd like to take it up a notch, and I think we all need that, because it's Friday the 13th, which I will reframe in a moment, all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or gel or styne, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beat of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Including Friday the 13th.
Happens now.
Go.
Yeah, that's some good stuff.
All right, watch me reframe Friday the 13th from what some of you think would be bad luck into something better.
Are you ready?
How many things happened this year that were just the way you expected them?
Not very many.
It's like opposite world.
We just spent years of investigating Trump for potential corruption with foreign countries.
What did we find?
We found that Joe Biden was corrupt with foreign countries.
How many times have we been told one thing is true only to learn that the opposite is true?
How about those vaccinations that are totally stopping the spread of the virus?
Pretty much the opposite of a vaccination, isn't it?
As in, doesn't stop it at all!
So, why would Friday 13th be the only thing this year that happened just the way it was presented?
No, it's probably opposite.
Probably the luckiest day of the year.
I have a prediction that some of you are going to have the best day you've ever had in your whole life.
Because nothing is what it seems.
Everything is maybe opposite.
Except for the good news.
Good news is always exactly what it seems.
Remember, reframes don't need to make sense.
If there's one thing I can teach you, a reframe doesn't have to make logical sense.
It just has to, the words just have to make sense in a sentence.
And that's good enough to reprogram your brain.
So that's the, the hypnotist in me teaching you that.
All right.
Lots of fun stories, but I'd like to start with an inspirational quote from Kamala Harris.
And she did a little public speaking.
It's always a mistake.
Here's an exact quote from Kamala Harris.
I think of this moment as a moment that is about great moment-um.
Inspired by, yes, optimism, but also inspired by, also, our collective effort to see what can be unburdened by what has been.
I didn't make that up.
That's a direct quote from your next president.
Maybe.
Alright, here's some good news that I'd like to report.
How many of you have heard me bitching about how sports are all broken?
And they're broken because the sports were invented 100 years ago, and then we act like nothing changed.
So we don't have to change the rules.
Like tennis, for example, was completely destroyed by the quality of the equipment improving.
So you can hit a tennis ball so quickly that you can guarantee that the other person won't enjoy playing.
Guaranteed.
I can make the other person totally not enjoy their day.
Oh, I can enjoy it.
Because it's fun to hit really hard.
So if it goes out, if it goes in, I feel good.
But I can make sure you don't enjoy it just by hitting the hell out of that ball.
So it turns out that somebody fixed sports.
At least once.
And here's how they did it.
They invented a new sport and they got rid of all the stupid stuff that ruins sports.
It's called pickleball.
And I was trying to understand why everybody was asking me, like everywhere, have you played pickleball?
Have you played pickleball?
Have you played pickleball?
And I hadn't until yesterday.
So yesterday I, you know, I have a tennis court, so you can use, roughly you can use a tennis court, you just mark down a smaller size.
And so I, you know, I just hit the ball around on a little bit of pickleball, and here's what I discovered.
They fixed all the problems.
Here's one of the things they fixed.
A pickleball paddle is a hard paddle.
You never need to tune up your paddle.
It's not like tennis where you need to fix your strings.
Let me tell you something that only tennis players know.
If you're like a serious weekend tennis player, watch the comments and the tennis players will confirm this.
Totally unexpected.
The number one correlation with whether I won my tennis matches against people I played with all the time or I lost was, what was the number one correlation?
How recently I had strung my racket and nothing else was even close.
There was no other factor that predicted who would win.
Now, just watch the other tennis players, they'll tell you.
You don't win, because usually you generally pick a player who's close to your ability.
And so the entire difference of who wins that day, you can play for two hours, and I can still tell you who's going to win.
It's the one who got their strings changed most recently.
Because it makes that much difference.
Now paddle, pickleball fixed that.
You never have to get it restrung.
The next thing is, you always have, your tennis balls are always too new or too old.
That's something else you wouldn't know if you didn't play.
When you take a tennis ball out of the can, it's too new.
And even an experienced player has trouble handling it for several minutes.
And then you wear them out a little bit, and then they're good.
But toward the end, they're all worn out.
So they play completely different in the beginning than they do at the end.
It's supposed to be the same sport, but it doesn't even play the same by the end of the match.
So with pickleball, you're using this little hard plastic wiffle ball that's exactly the same from beginning to end, and if you didn't want to, you would never have to buy another one.
You could have one ball that lasts you the rest of your life if you didn't lose it.
So, and then the other thing they did is that because it's a wiffle ball, when it bounces, somebody can hit it at you pretty fast.
But when it bounces, it slows down immediately and just sets up nicely so you can hit it again.
Exactly where you expect it to be.
A regular tennis ball doesn't even bounce to the place you expect it.
That's the hardest thing about playing.
Right?
Is the ball doesn't bounce the way you expect every time, it's different.
But the pickleball will bounce the same every time.
The other thing they did is that you don't have to run very much.
So if you were playing somebody competitively, you'd probably get a good workout.
Because, you know, you keep the ball in play for a long time.
That's the beauty of it.
And you would probably have plenty of running.
But you could also play doubles with your grandfather.
And your grandfather could play pickleball just fine.
Because there's not much moving in doubles.
So somebody actually invented a game That's perfect for this part of society.
A 12-year-old could pick it up and play with a 70-year-old, and they'd both be fine.
It's got a 15-minute learning curve.
Just think of that.
What sport has a 15-minute learning curve from never played to, oh, I can do this pretty well.
I can do this as well as you can.
15 minutes.
Soccer would be great if they shortened the field, got rid of out-of-bounds, which you do with indoor soccer.
Shorten the field, fewer people, six-on-six, indoors.
Now that's a good game.
That is a great game.
Outdoors?
Some people can play.
All right.
You might be aware that I've been mocking fired Twitter employees.
Because I think it's funny.
Because the funny thing about it is that when Elon Musk was firing people at Twitter, he was firing them in many cases.
They had too many people, that was the big problem.
But in many cases they were, let's say famously, not hard workers.
Now, I don't want to cast aspersions on every employee, obviously.
Clearly, some were hard workers and maybe others were less serious.
But I've been running a series on Dilbert this week where a number of the fired employees from Twitter have gotten jobs at Dilbert's company.
It's kind of perfect, isn't it?
Come on, admit it.
That is a perfect combination of headline with comic.
All right, so here's one of them.
So this is the new Dilbert employee from Twitter.
And here's the joke.
The ex-Twitter employee now working for Dilbert's company says, that's not how we did it when I worked at Twitter.
And then Dilbert says, maybe that's why Elon Musk fired you.
And then he says, how long are you going to use that on me?
And Dilbert says, I'm thinking three to five years.
Three to five years.
That's all for that.
Have I ever told you that I planned 60 years in advance?
It's actually literally true.
I planned my whole life.
It worked out largely the way I planned it, including being a famous cartoonist, which is weird.
It was that specific.
But there's one other long-range plan that I've had, which I have talked about publicly, but not for a long time.
It goes like this.
I believed I was born at exactly the right time in history, where if I could stay healthy into my senior years, science would figure out how to stop aging.
I actually bet That if I really, really worked on keeping myself healthy and kept my weight and stuff under control, if I could reach approximately my current age and still be healthy, that I could lock it in for the rest of my life.
Do you think that's possible?
Do you think anything like that's going to ever happen?
Where you could just lock it in?
Might be better than that.
So here's the story.
This is a real thing.
I'm not making this up.
So in a Boston lab, I guess there's some, let's see who's working on this, reversing aging.
But they got a big breakthrough.
We've heard this before, by the way.
You're all aware that there have been breakthroughs in aging before.
None of them really sounded real to me.
This is the first one that's ever sounded real.
And it's because of what they discovered more than how they're doing it.
Right?
Because I always thought to myself, can you really reverse aging?
Because the damage is already done, right?
But apparently, this is what some Boston researchers, I think at least one person's associated with Harvard, but they found out that it's an information problem, not a damage problem.
It's an information problem.
In other words, your body loses the information of what your DNA and your genetic makeup is.
And once it loses the information, it doesn't know how to make a new copy.
Here's what they discovered.
There's a backup copy.
No shit.
There's a backup copy.
They found the backup copy.
I'm going to say that three more times.
It's so mind-blowing.
It's so mind-blowing.
I just have to say it three times.
Just indulge me.
They found the backup copy.
They found the backup copy.
Did I mention they found the backup copy?
They figured out Yeah, I don't think it's in the stem cell necessarily.
I don't know the answer to where it was.
But they can actually, they can take a mouse that's old and they can restore its eyesight by making it younger.
They can restore its muscles.
They can restore its brain.
Its brain.
Not only can they restore it, they've experimented going both directions.
They can make the mouse older, intentionally, and they can make it younger, intentionally.
Now, what you're usually thinking in these cases, right, is okay, a lot of stuff works on mice, and even though mice are 98% similar DNA to humans, that 2% is a really big difference.
when it comes to estimating what will happen.
There's a reason you go from mice to monkeys to humans.
You've got to test them all.
The mice aren't going to tell it.
But, suppose it's true that in humans as well, it's an information problem and there's a backup copy.
Because that appears to be the case with the mice.
It's just an information problem and they found the backup copy.
If they do that with humans, I hate to say it's common sense, because common sense is totally magical thinking and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that if it's an information problem, and this is a big leap I know, there's a greater likelihood it would work in humans without bad effect.
Does that make sense?
It's not like they're introducing a chemical necessarily that's, you know, changing the nature of your DNA or something.
If the only thing they do is find the backup copy and, you know, restore it, I wonder who we might actually be able to change aging.
You know that big problem of the demographic bubble?
It's gonna get worse, but maybe better.
Because maybe you take a bunch of 70-year-olds and you say, oh no, if we make you all live to 100, we're not going to have enough money to survive.
But instead you say, hey, you're 75 years old, you used to be retired, but now we're going to make you feel like you're 25 years old.
If you want, go back to work.
And people say, oh, OK.
I feel good.
I'll go back to work.
The way that things could play out in the next 50 years are so unpredictable.
If you had AI, And immortality, and robots, and space travel.
How do you predict anything?
There's literally nothing you can predict anymore.
All right, there's a company called, I wrote about this in my book, Loser Think.
There's a company called Climeworks, C-L-I-M-E, Climeworks, all one word.
And they're in production now with a A carbon sucking machine.
So it sucks carbon out of the air, and they store it underground.
Now, what is the first thing you'd say about a thing like that?
That couldn't possibly be cost effective, right?
Takes a whole bunch of energy.
You know, that's a bad thing to need.
So you gotta use a lot of energy to suck it out of the sky, but there's no way it can be economical.
They found a way to make it economical.
That's a big deal.
And the way they did it is that there are such things as carbon credits, and there are big companies that can't reach their carbon, let's say, goals.
So a company like Microsoft will say, oh damn, we can't really beat Microsoft and not meet our climate change goals.
That's just too politically Employee-wise, it just is a bad look.
So Microsoft will go to a company like this and say, what's it going to cost me to pay you some money to remove some carbon that I can claim because I paid the money?
So you don't have to do it yourself.
You could just be the one that causes it to happen and get some kind of carbon credit.
So Microsoft goes to them and says, what's it cost to remove a bunch of carbon so I can meet my goals?
And they give them a price.
And then what does Microsoft say?
Holy what?
You're going to charge that much?
That's insane.
That's like a hundred times more than I think it's worth.
And then what do they do?
Then they pay it.
Then they pay it.
Because they don't have another choice.
Because not meeting their climate goals would just be so terrible.
And Microsoft is so big that they can overpay by a hundred times on some smaller part of their financial statement.
And it still makes sense.
Because they're not really buying a better climate.
They're buying reputation.
And so this company allows you to buy reputation.
At the same time, you might be doing something good for the climate.
They actually solved the economics.
Do you know what a big deal that is?
It's almost incalculable in terms of what a big deal that could be.
It could make it completely practical to do this technology.
Now you remember, I think this is still in place, but didn't Elon Musk offer some kind of X Prize for whoever comes up with the best carbon capture technology?
So this company is using the technology probably at least part since 2009.
That's when they started, around then.
So they've been in business for a long time and it takes a long time to build the assets.
So they're probably, just guessing, five to ten years behind the technology curve.
Because at some point you just have to build what is available.
You can't wait forever.
It takes a few years to build it.
So you're always behind technology by the time you're done.
Yeah.
I see the comments.
I understand that it's ESG.
But the carbon credit part, if that's the only part and big companies just buy their way out of it, it might turn into something good.
Good.
Now you could argue that there's no reason to do it and they'll suck all the carbon out of the air and all your plants will die.
But I feel like the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters is working perfectly for climate change.
Because one of two things is going to happen.
We're going to find out it was never real.
Totally possible.
I still want to kill ESG, but I don't think you need ESG to have a climate objective.
I think the companies just do that on their own at this point, because it looks good.
I don't think they need ESG to be driving it.
So I think you can separate those two things.
Alright, here is the least surprising news item you'll ever hear.
ABC is reporting that climate change is causing heart attacks.
Can you all join me?
In a long, sarcastic sigh.
Because sometimes words, words don't really capture what you're thinking, right?
I'd like to lead you all in a long sigh about ABC reporting that climate change is causing heart attacks.
At this time, at this very interesting time, of course they are.
Of course they are.
But here's the interesting thing.
They might have data to back it.
Apparently it's a thing.
Apparently it's a thing.
So they believe they found correlation between excess heat and athletes dying suddenly from heart attacks.
Turns out, they claim that the athletes keeling over with heart attacks are far more likely to happen in these unusually hot places.
Do you believe that?
That's a little hard to believe.
But, I would like to refer to you to the Sherrill Law of Restaurants.
The Sherrill Law of Restaurants Is that as soon as anything changes in the environment, people stop going to the restaurant for a while.
So if it gets really warm outside, like the weather is really nice, for a few weeks people stop going to restaurants.
If it rains, people stop going to restaurants until it stops.
If it's tax day, People stop going to restaurants.
Basically, anything that changes makes people stop their behavior.
And what happens when people change their behavior?
Stress.
So it's also a thing that whenever there's any big change in society that's disruptive to us mentally as well as physically, people have more heart attacks.
Basically, everything that's a big change Causes heart attacks.
And so, one expert, I told you about already, said that the pandemic itself, and the lockdowns, should create a lot of heart attacks.
That's exactly what you should see.
A lot of unexplained heart attacks.
So, I'm not going to be the one that tells you that the vaccinations are completely safe.
Because nobody ever thought that.
Even people in favor of that knew that there was risk involved.
For some people, for sure.
So, it does, even to me, and I'm trying to remain skeptical as long as possible, it does look to me like the myocarditis is not entirely environmentally caused.
Can we agree?
It sure doesn't look like it.
Does everybody agree with that statement?
You know, we could all be surprised by data being misleading.
But it sure looks like something's going on.
So I agree with you on how it feels.
And I agree with how it looks.
Now, what happens when somebody like Lisa Marie Presley dies, unfortunately, at 51?
What was she, 54?
She was early 50s, right?
And she died of heart attack.
Now, she also had a history... 54 years old, okay.
She also had a history of drugs.
And if you see any picture of her, she does not look like a healthy person.
So if you're going to pick somebody to have a heart attack, she'd be on your short list, I think.
Even at her age.
So, of course, we all will jump to conclusions about what killed her.
I'm sure it was climate change.
Just kidding.
All right.
Believe it or not, it's also true that pharmaceutical medicines can work differently in high heat.
I think it's true, or at least it's reported.
Let's assume that everything could be sketchy, so we won't assume it's true.
But they actually have some indication, maybe short of proof, but they have some indication that a medication that was really good for you will kill you above a certain temperature outdoors.
If you're active, I guess.
Not if you just walk outdoors.
But... I don't know.
Does that sound true?
I don't know.
Maybe.
I saw a tweet by Antonio Gutierrez, who claims that the past eight years were the warmest on record globally.
And, you know, therefore, blah blah blah.
Now, what is left out of that?
Well, I'm not sure, because I don't believe anything about data and temperature, but I just saw a claim the other day that 2022 set no records.
Could they both be true?
Could it be true that 2022 set no weather records, while at the same time the past eight years were the warmest on record globally?
Because that is a record.
So we've got one person saying no records were set, And another would say, yep, we just set a record for the eight hottest years.
Both could be true-ish.
Could be true-ish.
But you see the problem, right?
There's a class of people on Twitter who really, really like to argue the technical, factual accuracy of statements that really should not be analyzed for exact technical accuracy.
This is one of them.
If you're nickel and diming me about the words or really talking about two different things, I get it.
I get it.
They were talking about two slightly different things.
But it is nonetheless true that you either set a record or you didn't.
You know, that's kind of binary.
But here's my larger point.
Can you trust anything on records and weather?
I don't think so.
Let me do something that confuses the clop birds.
I'm going to say something that sounds like I'm disagreeing with my own Let's say team.
Because I roughly identify with a group of people who have similar opinions.
So now I'm going to criticize an argument by my own team.
Here's the worst skeptical argument about climate.
This is the worst one.
It used to be warmer, and there used to be more CO2.
Which are different points.
Because the points are that it used to be warmer at lower CO2, and there used to be more CO2 at lower temperatures.
So if you look back in history, you can see that what we're claiming today doesn't make sense.
The Nickelback theory of death.
All right.
So here's why those arguments are the worst.
I'm not talking about the last 20 years.
If you're debating the last 20 years, that's probably fair.
But if you go back to the early days of the planet, and you say, well, in the early days of the planet, we had way more CO2.
Does everybody know why that argument doesn't make sense?
Are you all aware of why that's a debunked argument?
Because if you go back far enough, there were other things that were different.
For example, the intensity of the sun was different.
The composition of the atmosphere was different.
So if you go back far enough, it doesn't matter what the CO2 was, that doesn't tell you anything.
Because everything else was different.
Does that make sense?
If everything was the same, except for the CO2, then that might tell you something.
But if everything was different in the past, including CO2, then there's nothing about the CO2 that tells you anything.
Too many variables.
And that's the case.
Yeah, the sun was different, different intensity, just everything was different.
However, if you want to make the argument that the alarmists have been wrong for 50 years, Daniel says incorrect.
No, Daniel.
The word incorrect means that you're incorrect.
And the word wrong means that you're wrong.
Because if I were wrong, you'd give me a reason.
Wouldn't you?
I think you would.
Yeah.
Yeah, there were differences in how many plants.
There were all kinds of differences.
So if you're going to use the past to make your argument, I'd use the last 50 years, but I wouldn't use thousands of years ago.
That's a bad argument.
Does anybody agree?
Because you can still be super skeptical on climate change, but don't use the historical, you know, middle... What do we use?
The dark ages and shit?
Just ignore all that.
And I don't really believe we can tell the temperature even 50 years ago, frankly.
You know, Tony Heller is back on Twitter.
Does everybody remember Tony Heller?
He's the most prolific data skeptic about climate change.
Now, he goes after the data.
He says, this data is incorrect, and he gives his reasons.
Now, I spent a lot of time interacting with his material, and I came to the following conclusion.
I don't know if, you know, I can't judge all of it, but there were enough things there that were clearly wrong, In my subjective opinion, that I discounted everything else he said.
Because unfortunately, even if you're right about a bunch of stuff, if you also say a bunch of stuff that is clearly not true, then I discount all the rest.
But it doesn't mean it's not true.
I mean, I have a feeling he's got some good points in there.
It's just you can't tell which ones.
Because some of them clearly don't look true to me.
Just, you know, you can just almost tell what's wrong with him by looking at him.
Now, he does a lot of analysis on a lot of different things.
Is there any chance he could be right about any of it?
Or, I'm sorry, is there any chance he could be right about all of it?
Because he makes a lot of claims.
Not really.
There's nobody who could be right about a lot of claims on sketchy data.
Nobody could do that.
Is he right about some of it being a lie or misleading?
Almost certainly true.
Some of it.
I just don't know if it's important.
But what's interesting is that he was completely suppressed by the platforms.
When he's not suppressed, and he's back on Twitter quite active, he does move the, he moves the ball.
He actually changes the whole argument, in my opinion, because he always presents graphics and data, he always shows his work, and what have I told you about a documentary?
All documentaries are persuasive, even if they're lies.
They're really persuasive, because you don't see the other side.
When Tony Heller does his presentations, they are super persuasive.
Persuasion-wise, he's a champion.
He's really persuasive.
But what he isn't, necessarily, is credible enough that I could accept his more extreme claims.
But he was really interesting.
I'm kind of glad he's back, frankly.
I like the fact that he makes everybody answer to his claims.
And you should also know that there are people who make a job of debunking him and do a good job.
So if you were to just Google his name and Google the word debunk, which is a good thing to do, by the way, You're gonna see a lot of his claims allegedly debunked, but can you believe the debunker?
What do you think?
Can you believe the debunker, no matter who it is?
Doesn't matter who it is.
Can you believe him?
No.
No.
Because they only show one side.
Everybody who's just saying one side, you don't believe any of them.
They're advocates.
Now if the debunker said, And I don't believe this has ever happened.
But if the debunker said, you know, I gotta admit, 40% of the things he says, they check out.
But you know, be careful, because 60% doesn't.
I would believe that debunker.
I would immediately say, oh, that's the first credible person I've heard, because they're saying some true, some not.
That feels like a fair analysis.
Because there's no way he's wrong about everything.
Right?
He produces a lot of content.
He's not wrong about everything.
That would be almost impossible, because he puts a lot of intellectual rigor in it, whether it's right or wrong.
Anyway, if we can't predict... Here's my point.
I don't believe we can even agree what the weather was recently.
True or false?
We have trouble agreeing what the weather was, even recently.
How the hell are we going to predict the weather in 80 years?
Who predicted that ClimbWorks would find a model that works?
Who predicted that Elon Musk would offer an XPRIZE for carbon capture?
I mean, there's just so much that's going to be different.
All right.
So what about those gas ovens?
There's a whole bunch of confusion about whether the Democrats really wanted to take away your gas oven, or did they really want to just ban the future ones, or was it all made up?
I can't even tell.
I'm not even sure it matters.
But is it perfect that they're actually gaslighting us?
That's a little too perfect, isn't it?
It's literally Gas Light.
I mean, it's less about the light, but it's more about the gas.
And it's just too weird.
It's just built into the name there.
Alright.
So, I guess our gas ovens might be killing us, and of course climate change might be killing us, but not those vaccinations, dammit!
That you call jabs.
Couldn't be that.
Couldn't be that.
Let me ask you a question.
Regardless of how much damage is or is not done by the jabs themselves, would you agree with the following statement?
There is a mass hysteria going on right now about the side effects of the jabs.
Even if it's true.
Like, even if some of the data is alarming and true, wouldn't you say that there's a mass hysteria at the same time?
I'm seeing more yes than no's.
Because it could be true at its base, but also blown up into something a little bit bigger than that.
To me it looks like, at the very least, it's a mass hysteria.
So I'm going to say the one thing that I am sure of at this point, Is there some percentage of it is mass hysteria?
Because that's what gets you to talk about... I mean, Lisa Marie Presley was not a healthy looking person.
Not healthy looking, and she had a history of drug abuse.
You know, if you see that one, and you see the football player, and your anecdotes, which actually might be, it might be exactly what you think they are.
I'm not eliminating that.
I just think it's obvious at this point we've also reached a hysteria.
Even if there's something at the base of it.
And at this point I'm leaning toward yes.
In case you're wondering.
I'm leaning toward they're just, you know, the signals are so big and the pharma companies appear to have been lying to us.
Now I heard a hypothesis from Dyson.
What's the name of the astrophysicist, Dyson?
What's his first name?
He's got like a three-name name.
Give me his name.
Neil... Neil Dyson.
Neil Freeman Dyson.
Okay.
I always get his name wrong.
Neil deGrasse.
Tyson.
Neil deGrasse Tyson.
All right, sorry.
I apologize to Neil for butchering his name.
So he had a theory that I thought I heard on a podcast that goes like this.
Do you remember when the claim was that the vaccinations were like 100% effective in stopping the spread?
You all remember that, right?
It's hard to forget.
And then it turned out, not even close.
Closer to zero, in time.
Now here was his explanation that I'd not heard before.
And I'm not going to, for the clopberts, I'm going to describe what he said, which is different from me agreeing with it.
You get that?
But I'd never heard this explanation.
And the explanation was, That when Alpha was essentially the primary thing they were looking at, it might be true that the original vaccination, it might be true that if the only thing out there was Alpha, it might have actually stopped the transmission.
And that might be what they tested.
But since the virus was mutating quickly, A vaccination has to be sort of perfect for the virus, because a virus will mutate away from the vaccine so quickly that it's as if there was no immunity at all.
So could both of those things be true?
That in a weird little, technical, very temporary time and space, It was 100% effective, but within minutes, it was zero effective.
I'm going to say minutes, just to make the point.
True.
Because I do think if they knew exactly what the virus was, they could make a vaccine.
So that's the fact check.
Could you make a vaccine for this if the virus never mutated?
I think the answer is yes.
I think the answer is yes.
And I believe the reason that The researchers said they'd never be able to make a vaccine is because of the mutation.
I don't believe anybody ever said, if this virus never changes, we can't make a vaccination.
Because I think if it never changes, they can.
So I'm not making a claim.
It's more of a question.
But could that explain Why the pharma companies were claiming it was 100% effective.
Because remember, it wasn't just the pharma companies.
You know, it was other people involved and they were making the same claim.
So, here's what I think.
Here's my current assumption.
Would you agree with the following statement?
That the pharma companies were using motivated analysis.
In other words, they had to analyze all this data, but they were motivated by their own objectives, and so they kind of saw what they wanted to see.
And even if they knew they should have looked around the corner, they didn't.
It looks like a motivated analysis, right?
Now, when I say motivated, that still leaves some wiggle room about whether there was intent.
So I'm not saying there was illegal intent.
There might have been.
I wouldn't rule it out, because so much money was involved, there might have been evil intent.
But there is a thin explanation that doesn't require anybody to have evil intention.
And my problem with this all along is that so many people were involved, it would be hard to imagine they all had financial intention.
But they all had motivated reasoning.
They all had motivated reasoning.
They wanted it to work.
They wanted to be heroes.
They wanted to report it worked.
And everybody wanted the pandemic to end.
So I think it was just wishful thinking that blinded them to the obvious fact that they should have mentioned, the moment this thing mutates, the vaccine won't work.
All of these people, by not telling us directly, this is what they all should have said in retrospect, right?
Hindsight.
Hindsight makes us all brilliant.
But in hindsight, you wish they had said, our test shows it really worked on alpha, but we don't think alpha is going to last long.
What do you think?
I think that's what they should have said.
Because everybody who worked on these respiratory viruses, I believe every one of them knew that if it mutated, the vaccine wouldn't work.
They were just hoping it would.
They were sort of hoping that if it didn't mutate too fast, and it didn't mutate too much, you might be able to get some purchase on it.
But that was motivated thinking.
There was nothing to suggest that that was going to happen.
That was just like optimism or something.
So, for sure, we know that they told us things that were not true.
For sure, we know that they, meaning Pharma and the governments, told us things that they should have known were not true.
That's where the crime is.
If there is a crime.
That's where it would be.
Would you agree?
Or do you believe that they all knew and they were just playing it for the money?
Like hundreds of thousands of researchers were all in on it?
There probably were a lot of people in on it, but I don't think all of them.
My assumption that they knew it would mutate.
100% of the people that I heard ever talk about it said that.
All of them.
They all knew.
They all knew because they'd been trying for years to make a vaccine, and the reason it didn't work, it was always the same reason.
Because it mutated, right?
They all knew that.
Everybody in the business knew it.
We didn't know it, maybe.
I think even I knew that.
Thomas Massey makes a good point, as he often does.
So, you know, you can't sue a vaccine maker Because they have special protection.
So if a company makes a vaccine, can't sue them if it goes wrong.
But what if they tell you they're making a vaccine, and it doesn't stop any transmission, and they probably knew it?
Is that a vaccine?
I'd say no.
And so therefore I'd say, If it's not a vaccine, then you can sue them.
You can sue them twice.
Once for saying it's a vaccine when it's not, and once because if somebody got harmed and they didn't have full information.
But the CDC apparently evolved their definition of a vaccine during the process.
So if you were a vaccine, you couldn't be sued.
But then they made something that wasn't protective of transmission.
And the definition said, protective of transmission.
So they changed the definition to match what it was doing, which was protecting people from bad outcomes.
And then what if it didn't do that?
I'm not sure that's the case.
But what if it didn't?
So I think Thomas Massey has a real good argument that I would love to see taken to the Supreme Court.
If it's only legal because it's a vaccine by a definition, and then somebody that you're colluding with, yes, colluding with, the CDC, if the people you're colluding with change the definition so you stay legal, is that cool?
Is that cool?
I don't think so.
I think I want to see the Supreme Court work that out.
It's not obvious to me if that's necessarily illegal.
It's sketchy as all hell.
But I'd like to see it.
Well, yeah.
I don't know if lying is always illegal, though.
Yeah, by the time the Vax arrived, the original screen was already dying out.
That is correct.
I would like to reiterate something I say once in a while, but it's important again.
I put this under the category of youthful dumbassery.
Was anyone smart when they were young?
Was anybody a genius until they were 25 and then they turned dumb?
Like, I don't think so.
So why do we judge people by what they said in college?
So there's another situation, and I'm not going to name a name, The reason I'm not going to name a name, there's somebody who's getting some trouble for something they said at college, is that I don't think it's fair.
So don't even Google it.
Do me a favor.
If you're curious, who are you talking about?
Who is this?
Don't even Google it.
Because we should not be judging people by what they did in college.
Unless it's Greta.
Right.
Because she was in college when she was doing it.
Or she was that age.
So, without naming who it was, there's some other person who said something super inappropriate that may or may not have been in an academic, you know, making a point kind of context, but it doesn't matter.
Just whatever they said under the age of 25, just let it go.
If people never improved, then yes, you should judge them by what they said in college.
But if you know that 100% of people, or something close to it, Evolve.
You know, we evolve into something different.
Might be better, might be worse, but it's different.
So why would you judge somebody today by what a different person did?
You know, somebody whose brain wasn't developed.
Anyway, I like to say that once in a while.
Now, there's been a lot of negativity in the news, and I thought today, especially because it's Friday the 13th, you needed some positivity.
Would anybody like some positivity?
Because it's all this negative stuff.
Yeah, you need some.
So I made a little list.
I tweeted out earlier of some positivity.
So on one hand, the COVID jabs are, it looks like they're going to be super overpriced.
Super overpriced in the context of we already have inflation.
And then these jabs are going to go to like 400% what they used to be, et cetera.
But on the plus side, apparently you don't need them.
So It doesn't really matter what it costs if you don't need it.
Now, I'm not giving you medical advice.
You're not getting any medical advice from me.
I'm not telling you not to take it.
I'm just saying it's literally true that the price is going up 400% at the time that the utility is down about 1000%.
So, if the price is going up as the usefulness is dropping like a rock, I don't know that that's entirely bad news.
I don't care what it costs because I'm never going to get it.
Backpedaling.
I'd like to ask you, Coach, let me ask, I'm going to talk to Coach here.
Coach, what I like to do is base my decisions on the knowledge that I have, and then if the data changes or we learn more, sometimes I will modify my opinion to fit the new data which refuted my old opinion.
Now, I know that you call that flip-flopping and backpedaling and walking it back, but I'm a little bit curious how you play it.
When you have an opinion and then the information is updated to show that your original opinion makes you look like a monkey, do you say to yourself, you know, I was pretty comfortable with looking like a monkey.
I think I'll ride that horse.
Monkey horse.
Got too many metaphors in there.
But do you keep your opinion just the same?
Or do you say, And I'll bet you do this, Coach.
I feel like you're this kind of person.
I think you're the kind of person who can go into a fog of war where none of the data is reliable and you can have certainty from the first moment.
And then, based on that certainty, it really wouldn't matter how much the information changed.
You could keep that same opinion.
Because you were certain, even when there was no information.
So, coach, is that how you play it?
Because, you know, there are a lot of us who are playing it the dumb, old way, where if the data changes, we'll update our opinions.
But not you.
No, no.
You've got a progressive, kind of a Klopper kind of opinion, where the change in the data should not have any difference to your opinion.
Yeah.
It's cheating, as somebody says.
Yeah, it's cheating to update your opinion with new information.
I hate to do that.
All right, here's some more positivity.
If you have a son who's a little bit too rambunctious, in the old days, what could you do about it?
Nothing.
I mean, I guess in the old, old days, you could, like, use corporal punishment.
But, you know, you can't do that anymore.
So what could you do?
If you had a rambunctious son, there's nothing you could do.
But now, on the plus side, you can legally remove their balls.
I'm no doctor, but I think that calms them down.
That'll settle you down a little bit.
Now, you can't remove their balls unless they want you to, right?
Even though they're children, they still get a vote.
So you can't really go to your son and say, hey, I was thinking of removing your balls and transitioning you to a woman, because it'd be easier for me.
Now, the kid might say, whoa, whoa, whoa, I'm totally a boy, and I have no interest whatsoever in transitioning.
But here's the good part.
Children can be hypnotized really easily.
It's a real thing.
When you learn to be hypnotized, one of the things you learn is, children, you don't even have to work at it.
You could say two sentences and make a kid hallucinate.
It's very easy.
So you can convince your child Of really anything.
Children are sort of a blank slate.
You could just work on them.
So if your son is too rambunctious, even though it would be totally unethical, you could probably convince him to have his balls removed if you worked at it long enough.
So that's the good news.
Here's some more good news.
Things could be much worse.
Things could be much worse.
For example, you could live in Canada.
I mean, It could be worse.
Could be worse.
Number four, again in the context of inflation, wouldn't you like to know that some prices are coming down?
And they are.
For example, fentanyl, because of supply and demand, the supply is through the roof.
So the price of fentanyl, totally reasonable.
And nobody talks about that.
That's good for inflation.
I don't think when they calculate the inflation, they include the price of fentanyl.
If they did, I think it'd look a lot better.
Look a lot better.
Bad news.
Here's some more good news.
Do you remember when bad news used to be all there was on the news?
Like if there was something bad happening, you turn on the news and you're like, oh, it's like a fire hose.
All this bad news coming at me.
But now?
Fully 50% of all the bad political news Is suppressed.
Well, that's an upgrade.
You only have to hear half of the bad news.
It's all about Republicans.
But all of the bad news about Democrats, suppressed.
You never even have to see it.
And that feels good.
That's like a... It's better than that Andrew Huberman breathing technique.
It just makes you feel good.
And then, of course, some of you were worried about some of our national secrets getting out, because you heard about Mar-a-Lago.
Yeah, Mar-a-Lago.
Maybe those national secrets might get out.
But these days, much better situation.
So we don't have Mar-a-Lago.
Now we have Car-a-Lago.
Car-a-Lago.
That was Jesse Waters' joke.
It was pretty good.
Car-a-Lago.
And our nation's secrets are safe in the bins next to Joe's Corvette in his garage.
So that's a lot of good news.
And people don't report the good news.
I feel that that's good.
Now, do you think that the headlines are all organic?
Or do you think that we're always being played?
What do you think?
Do you think our headlines are organic?
Or are we always being played?
You're always being played.
Because the headlines could be anything.
The headlines about any politician could be positive or negative.
Could be anything.
So whoever chooses the headlines, they're presenting a narrative.
Interestingly, Here's a pro-vaccine story, but not about COVID.
Not about COVID.
So the Wall Street Journal has a pro-vaccine story about the HPV vaccine, which they say has been a big part of dropping U.S.
cancer mortality by a pretty big amount, like down by a third or something.
And it's because of the vaccine.
Do you see it?
Let me ask you this.
Would there have been a pro-vaccine story if we were not questioning the vaccinations about COVID?
Isn't it interesting that there would be this totally unrelated story that just happens to highlight the magical abilities of vaccinations?
At just the time the public is starting to question the value of the COVID vaccinations, huh, the Wall Street Journal has a nice pro-vaccination story.
Just a coincidence?
Maybe.
Maybe, but maybe not.
Maybe not.
Yeah, it's plausible that it's a coincidence.
That is plausible.
But in today's environment, it's a little harder to assume that that's the case, right?
But I'm glad cancer's down.
There's been a special council has been named to look into the The news that Joe Biden has a bunch of, a bunch of, several cases of confidential information.
Two for sure, maybe some third one.
And so they got a special counsel to look into that.
My biggest problem with the special counsel is I don't know this person's pronouns.
And it's a little confusing because the person's name is Robert Herr, spelled H-U-R.
I think his pronouns are him and her, H-U-R.
That's the way I'd go.
I'd go with my pronouns are him and her.
Yeah, that's how I'd go.
But we don't know.
And I also ask myself if Robert Herr Married Dean Cain's sister.
I don't know if he has a sister.
I don't know if her last name would be Cain if she's single.
But it's funny.
Just go with this.
And they hyphenated the names of the kids.
They would be Hurricane.
Hurricane.
And I wondered, what would be the funniest first name to go with a last name of Hurricane?
I was thinking Wendy.
Wendy.
How's that Hurricane?
Well, it's pretty Wendy.
Pretty windy out there in that hurricane.
Yeah.
Or how about Ima?
Yeah, Ima hurricane.
Yeah.
Killer.
Stormy.
Stormy hurricane.
There you go.
Stormy Daniels.
Stormy hurricane.
Camille.
Yeah.
Okay, Kansas.
I don't think Betsy.
Why do people say Betsy?
Is that funny?
Herder.
Herder.
All right, well, Robert Herr is going to look into it.
And so that should take care of it, right?
The good news is that an objective person has been put in charge so that we can... What?
He's not?
What?
Oh, according to Kash Patel, Robert Herr is a, quote, swamp monster who was involved with The Russia collusion hoax.
Literally, the worst person in the world to be in charge of this.
The worst person.
Okay.
Now, the left says that this person was appointed by Trump.
Isn't this sort of normal to have lower level people approved by a president and the president has no idea who they are?
They could be the other party.
I mean, it's lower level people.
It doesn't matter.
Doesn't it?
Isn't it common for people to get nominated who are not necessarily your same party?
So I don't think that means anything.
But it does look like the fix is in.
And he looks like he'll be the fixer for this.
Do you remember I was telling you that it looks like the Democrats are trying to take Biden out with this document thing?
Do you remember me saying that?
I even put hashtag conspiracy theory, because when I said it I thought, okay, I know I'm going a little too far here.
So I called it out as my own conspiracy theory.
And then I turned on Tucker Carlson, and he says it directly.
He just says it directly.
So it does look like the Democrats are trying to take Biden out.
It actually does look like that.
Now that doesn't mean it's true.
But that hypothesis fits everything we see.
The other hypothesis is it's just business as normal.
So you have the other possibility.
But I ask this question.
Can documents be fingerprinted?
Because wouldn't you want to know who's touched those confidential documents?
Wouldn't you like to know?
And doesn't that make a big difference?
What if you see Hunter's fingerprints on them?
That's a problem.
Do you think Hunter's fingerprints will be on any of those documents?
I don't know.
There was a reason that they were not where they were supposed to be.
Maybe it's an accident.
Maybe not.
We'll see.
But here's what I would look for.
If they do not fingerprint the documents, the fix is in.
Can you agree on that?
If they don't fingerprint the documents, then you can know for sure that it's just a cover-up operation.
If they do fingerprint them, you can still wonder if they told you the truth, but if they do fingerprint them, and they find Hunter's fingerprints on them, then I'd be willing, just as one example, it could be somebody else, but I'd be willing to say, oh, that looks like they might actually be serious about this.
Which would also suggest the Democrats are out to get rid of Biden.
Here's my take on Biden.
I think that Biden was helped into his election by lots of powerful people behind the scenes.
And then he came to believe that the job was his, and it was totally up to him whether he runs for re-election.
So he said, yeah, gonna run for re-election.
I don't believe that the people who installed him are necessarily on the same team.
And I think they might need to take him out.
Because he's an old man who just claims he should stay.
So... Have you noticed that even CNN is creating this... CNN is treating the Biden documents Like it's as important as Mar-a-Lago, and it's the top story.
It's actually the top story.
An anti-Democrat story.
CNN's top story.
Does that mean that CNN has successfully pivoted to the middle, at least on this story?
Or does it mean that the signal is that the Democrats need to get rid of Biden?
It doesn't mean they had a meeting and they colluded, it could be just everybody's on the same page so they all know what to do.
Yeah.
It does, it's a little bit suspicious.
I would expect CNN to do a whole bunch more of minimizing it, and they're not.
They're actually maximizing it.
So, it does look like the fix is in.
But not necessarily.
All right, there's not much to be said about the fact that the documents were in the garage park next to a car.
You know, we can make all the jokes about how secure that was or wasn't, whatever.
Here's a story that might be fake, but it might be fake and also tell us something.
So I'm going to say the odds of this being true are low, but the odds of it meaning something important are very high.
And what I saw was just one social media account.
So it's not the regular news.
So at the moment, the regular news is not reporting this.
So it might not be true.
But there are Wagner soldiers who videotaped what they claim are captured Ukrainian drones that are clearly outfitted for chemical warfare.
Meaning they have tanks on them that obviously are meant to hold A chemical or a gas.
They wouldn't have any other reason to be there.
And there's a bunch of them.
It's like a room full of drones, small ones, that have been modified to carry some kind of a gas canister.
Now, the Wagner Group claims, you know, that they've been used.
Now here's the thing.
Do you believe the Wagner Group?
No.
No.
No, you shouldn't believe anything that comes out of Ukraine.
But here's the only thing I wonder.
Were the drones real?
Do you think they faked it by making a whole room full of drones that have canisters attached?
Because that would be a lot of work.
If you were planning to fake it, how many do you need?
You only need one.
You literally just need one.
Because it would be just as convincing as a room full.
Because if you saw one and you believed it was real, you'd think there were more.
You know, you would never believe there was only one.
So if it were fake, they only need to show you one.
Now, I believe it is fake, but maybe not for the reasons that the drones are not real.
It could be fake in the sense that it's Wagner's own drones.
It could be that the Wagner group is the one with making the gas drones, and since they're definitely going to get caught, What they did was say, oh, look at these Ukrainians.
So if you ever see one, the first time you ever find one that crashed, you're going to say, oh, the Wagner group warned us about this.
These are those Ukrainian drones.
So this could be the Wagner group getting in front of a story they know is going to break.
The sooner or later, somebody is going to find a drone with a canister on it.
And so they're making the case that it's the other guys before it happens.
That's what it looks like.
But there's a bigger question.
If those drones are real, and again, I don't know why you would have so many of them.
If you're going to fake it, you don't need that many.
It would be a weird way to fake it.
If those are real, that's what's coming.
And my book, The Religion War, written in 2003, I think, predicted this.
And it's predicted based on the following technology predictions.
That drones would be widespread and hobby-sized.
That regular people could get a drone that could do a lot of stuff.
So that, I predicted in 2003, that came true.
The other thing I predicted is that because the drone won't be able to carry a lot of weight, it's going to want to use weapons that don't weigh much.
And the ultimate weapon that doesn't weigh much is gas.
So it's almost guaranteed that somebody's going to use these for crop dusting their enemies.
So it's coming.
Whether these are real or not, it's definitely coming.
And what do you think would be our response if our homeland were attacked by chemical weapons and drones?
And let's say it happened more than once, and it looked like there was nothing we could do to stop it.
What would we do?
What would the United States do if we knew the drones were coming from a specific country, and they just kept coming?
And imagine what that would do to our cities.
Like, people wouldn't go outdoors.
They'd stop commuting.
I mean, it would just wreak havoc.
There's only one thing we would do.
We would pave that country.
And that's what my book was about.
We will, in all likelihood, there'll be drones that terrorists use with chemical weapons.
In all likelihood.
And if they do it more than once, and it becomes like a pattern, We won't be able to find the specific terrorists, probably.
We're going to just take out the whole country.
And we just might not have any other choice.
Because we wouldn't be able to live with it.
And we would do whatever it took.
And it would be genocide.
It would be pure genocide.
So that's the setup in the book.
The book is, what happens when genocide's the only solution?
What happens when it's the only solution?
I hate to use that word, solution, for obvious reasons.
But do you think that that's likely?
Do you think it's likely that that kind of a weapon will come to our shores in numbers?
And is it likely that we would respond in any other way than just eliminating buildings in the country?
We would just make sure everybody had to live outdoors.
I think we just eliminate it.
Yeah, we get it.
Yeah, we get it.
Is it genocide if it's self-defense?
Yeah, it would be.
Because it would be genocide against 99.9999% innocent people.
Depends on the president?
I don't think so.
See, that's the hard part.
I don't think it depends who's in charge.
Because they'll only have one choice.
Eventually.
That's not woke.
Send in those robot soldiers.
All right, that's enough for today.
I'm going to go do something else.
I think you'd agree.
This is the best live stream you've seen so far today.
And it's only going to get better.
And remember, everything that you've been told is backwards, including Friday the 13th.
