All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 21, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:07:07
Episode 1995 Scott Adams: Get In Here!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Almost instantly.
Alright, so the YouTube feed looks like it's working.
But, come on in here.
Get in here.
Come on.
A little technical difficulty, but you have arrived at the highlight of civilization.
And you've arrived in time for the simultaneous sip.
And if you're late for it, you probably wanted to be.
But all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
The other day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good.
Yeah, I hope... I hope those... I hope people are not stuck on some broken live stream.
I hope the old one broke.
I just love it when YouTube dies just before I need it.
Now, this was going to be the most important live stream I ever did.
In all likelihood, this would have been the highest rated live stream I've ever done.
Because I know the content, but you don't.
And of course the technology doesn't work on this one.
This could have been like a life-changing, you know, live stream.
Eh, it didn't work.
Changed history.
It could have changed the history, actually changed the direction of my whole life, possibly.
Alright, let's go private over here on the locals' platform.
You're private, thanks for reminding me.
All right, I think enough.
Oh, here we go.
Looks like everybody's back in.
Let's do this.
Number one, would you like some good news?
Anybody want some good news?
There's some really good news.
Like, really, really good news.
CNN reports that viruses are down everywhere.
The COVID-19, the RSV, the flu.
Basically all of them are starting to dive.
And it's winter.
What's going on?
I don't know why.
I'm not sure if it's going to last.
But I have a theory.
And the theory, the masks work.
Shut up.
I just have to tell you, somebody over on YouTube just says, masks work.
I assume that was a joke, but it was a good one.
Shut up.
That's funny.
Okay, you got me on that one.
But is it possible that through all of this badness and the COVID and everything, is it possible that we've just supersized our immune systems?
I can't think of any reason that all of the viruses would be down at the same time in the middle of the winter.
They should be sky high, right?
This should be the peak, and it's going down.
So it could be that Yeah, actually, the only thing that's going down is the hospitalizations.
So it could be that maybe something's happened.
Maybe our immune system's got maybe ramped up a little bit.
I don't know.
Or it could be that people are just not going to the hospital.
Yeah, they have natural immunity, right?
So there may be so many people who've been infected with something that's close enough to something else.
Because I can't think of any other reason, right?
Is there any other hypothesis Why all the viruses would go down at the same time, in the middle of the winter.
There's no other hypothesis, right?
It's a warmer?
No.
The weak people died off?
That could be.
Could be that the people who are going to die already died.
Anyway, I'm going to take it as good news.
One update on the fascinating story of Stephen Crowder versus The Daily Wire.
And remember he was offered a big deal, a lot of money, and he said, it's not about the money, blah, blah, blah, it's about whether he would be able to do what he wants to do and not be penalized in terms of censorship or losing money and stuff.
Now, I made my criticisms about a recorded phone call and went over the deal, but there's one part I left out that Well, remind me, did I leave this out?
It looked to me at the time, and I didn't mention it, I don't think, but Candace Owens did, that he's probably looking to just start his own thing.
And so one way to get a lot of attention for starting your own thing is to You know, make a big deal and torch the people who were trying to hire you.
Now, doing his own thing makes sense.
And I heard from Candace Owens on video that he had countered or he'd asked for $120 million.
Now, what does that sound like?
What's the first thing you think of?
And I don't have confirmation of that.
That's just something I heard on Candace's show.
What does it tell you that if the number was 120, what would that tell you?
Yeah, oh there we go.
Joe Rogan.
It looks like he was trying to get a bigger payday than Joe Rogan.
Doesn't it?
And that that was the play.
The play was to try to Joe Rogan-size himself because he can get a lot of attention by going, doing his own thing and maybe that's the only way he can say what he wants to say without getting censored.
So yeah, and the dollar amounts were spread over X number of years.
That's right.
So it sounds to me like it was probably a play where one of two things would happen.
Either the Daily Wire would either up their offer or modify their offer, or Or he'd start his own thing.
And at the scale and size he's operating at, starting his own thing makes sense, doesn't it?
I feel like it probably makes sense.
But we'll see.
So a story on CNN about the Wagner group.
I call them Wagner, but if you want to be really Russian sounding, let's call them Wagner.
Because they sound more dangerous that way.
Oh, whose army is coming after us?
The Wagners?
Reminds me of a dog wagging its tail.
The Wagners.
The Wagners aren't going to hurt us.
They're just going to be wagging.
But what if I told you the Vogners were after you?
Oh no, not the Wagners.
The Wagners are coming.
Now that's dangerous sounding, so I'm going to call it Wagners from now on.
That's what CNN does.
But I guess the story is that the Wagner group is getting all the good weapons and they're the only ones that are making any progress in terms of taking over territory in Ukraine.
And what's interesting is the head of the Wagner group is just saying it directly.
He's saying that only the Wagner group is doing anything and the Russian army is kind of useless.
And he's able to say that out loud.
Because apparently either Putin is losing control over him, because he's the only one getting any progress, or the Wagner group might be getting ready to take over Russia.
Is that even a possibility?
It doesn't seem like it would be.
I feel like there'd be enough firewalls there to keep the Wagner Group from taking over the Kremlin.
But they might be the only operating military in a year.
Like, it's possible that the Wagner Group is all that's left that's functioning in a good way.
So it makes you wonder if the Wagner Group could take over the country.
So that would be the scariest situation probably, even scarier than Putin.
Well, we'll watch that.
How many of you saw Tucker Carlson talking about the history of the CIA running the country from the Kennedy assassination through today?
Did anybody see that?
It might be one of the greatest things I've ever seen on television in all genres.
Like, that's a pretty big claim, isn't it?
The greatest thing I've ever seen on television in any genre.
Sports, news, natural disasters, anything.
Moon landing.
Now, I don't know if it's true.
Or, let's say, I think we know that the facts he gave are true.
They seem well-demonstrated in history.
But I don't know if the interpretation Is right on.
But if you missed it, I'll try as best I can to give you the summary.
But you really have to see it in context.
It honestly is one of the greatest things I've ever seen on television.
Maybe I oversold it, but definitely listen to it.
So here's the basic idea.
We know from audio tapes, as Tucker explained, that Richard Nixon believed he knew who killed John Kennedy because he said so to the head of the CIA on tape that we have.
And the head of the CIA answered with, no answer whatsoever.
So that's on audio.
So soon after, Nixon said he thought he knew who killed John, as he called it, Kennedy.
The Watergate thing happened.
Now here's some context that I was not aware of that Tucker filled in.
Did you know that Richard Nixon was the most popular president of all time?
According to the margin of his win for his second term.
If you look at how much he won his second term by, nobody's ever been close.
He's actually the most popular president In the history of the United States.
Did you have any idea?
I had no idea.
I would have thought he was closer to the bottom, but only because I was brainwashed.
I was a very young man when the Watergate stuff was happening, so I just accepted what the news told me.
I was totally brainwashed into thinking Nixon was a monster.
Do you know what else Nixon did?
He ended the war in Vietnam.
You know what else he did?
He made friends with China.
Who would not want those things to happen?
The people who sell weapons, for one.
So then the Watergate thing happens, which brought down Nixon.
Did you know that the four members of the Watergate break-in were ex-CIA people?
Did you know that?
The very group that we suspect, or it looks like, may have brought Nixon down.
Huh.
That's interesting.
How about, did you know that when Nixon, you know, the Watergate thing happened and he was removed from office, he was replaced not by his vice president, because the vice president had already been taken out, Spiro Agnew, but rather he was replaced by Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford
was an ex-CIA guy who also was the head of the Warren Commission that interestingly said it was just one shooter and nobody else was involved.
So the ex-CIA guy, who only was in the vice presidency because the deep state already took out the vice president, And then they took out the president and they installed the guy that they had installed at the head of the Warren Commission to say that nothing had happened to John Kennedy that was strange.
And then that guy, that guy became president.
That guy.
I didn't know this.
Well, I knew like a lot of the parts, but I hadn't connected them.
So then Nixon gets taken out by the Watergate thing, which was a bunch of CIA people.
And then the Washington Post writes about the story, you know, big breaking story, and it was Woodward and Bernstein.
Woodward was, was he somebody who came up through the journalism, let's say, path?
No, he was an Intel guy.
Woodward was an Intel guy who somehow got one of the biggest jobs in journalism at one of the biggest outlets without experience.
And then suddenly, he got all the scoop on Watergate from somebody in the Intel community he used to work for.
Is any of this sounding a little shady?
So it looks like maybe the Washington Post, and Woodward, and Bernstein were in on it.
It looks like Gerald Ford was in on it.
It looks like the CIA has been running things, or the Intel, or Deep State, or whatever, has been running things since the days of Kennedy or before.
And all of it is just orchestrated.
See Roger Stone, somebody says.
Now what else?
And then here's the question I ask myself.
Well, how do you explain Ronald Reagan?
Does anybody think Ronald Reagan was a CIA deep state person?
There's no suggestion of that, right?
And here's the thing you have to ask yourself.
So we get somebody who's not a deep state person and somebody tries to assassinate him.
Reagan got shot.
He lived.
But is Reagan like the exception that proves the rule?
That he was so popular he could get elected anyway, even if there's some movement against him.
But then he does get elected and he gets shot.
Like Kennedy.
Didn't matter if he was Republican or like Kennedy a Democrat.
If you're somebody who is not already deep state, you get assassinated.
Or they try.
Then who replaced Reagan?
Do you remember?
Do you remember who replaced Reagan?
Yeah, Bush Senior.
Head of the CIA.
Coincidence?
Head of the CIA.
Now, what about Clinton?
Clinton have any CIA connection?
Well, Clinton seems to have some deep state connection.
I don't know what else they have.
How about Obama?
Does Obama have any CIA connections?
Deep state?
Oh, I think you're going to find out something about Obama.
I might know more than you on this topic, but you might have some surprises in the future.
Might have some surprises.
All right.
So, then what about Trump?
Was Trump a deep state CIA guy?
Nope.
Did the deep state and the CIA take Trump out?
Yes, they did.
Right in front of you.
Yes, they did.
You know, when you see the whole history of it, as Tucker points out brilliantly, you can't miss it.
You can't miss it.
It's right in front of you.
It's really incredible.
You know, my entire history is fake.
Like, everything I knew about the United States, it's all made up.
It's all fake.
Every bit of it.
Oh well.
And the reason that I can say this in public without any risk whatsoever... Do you know why I can say this in public without risk?
Because they're so firmly in control that I'm irrelevant.
It's not going to change anything that I say.
And they don't have to worry about me.
There's no risk to the system whatsoever at all.
All right, now...
Let's solve some more mysteries.
You want to solve another mystery?
Why is the government not working on TikTok to ban it, and Fentanyl to do something serious about it?
Only one reason.
Only one reason.
Yeah.
Somebody in intelligence doesn't want it to happen.
For whatever reason.
Don't know the reason.
But you can know who it is.
We definitely know who it is.
We just don't know why.
Can't we guarantee at this point that the politicians are not in charge?
Which would explain everything, right?
It would explain everything if the politicians are genuinely not in charge.
It's just the deep state telling people what to do and then they act like they're in charge.
That's the only way I can explain it.
I can't explain it any other way.
Somebody says defund the CIA.
Who do you think's in charge of funding?
That's asking the CIA to defund themselves.
They're already in charge.
Or, you know, some permanent members are in charge.
Not necessarily just CIA, but I'm sure they're part of the larger story.
Alright, there's more information about the lab leak theory in the Fauci files.
And now we know that behind the scenes, That the experts were saying it looked like there was a good chance it was a lab leak, but publicly the government was saying, oh, it's not a lab leak.
No, no, no, it came from some kind of a bat or a penguin or something.
But apparently behind the scenes, the experts were not saying that.
They did, however, seem to drift in that direction over time.
But the question is, why was our government lying to us When it was a very real possibility in the experts' minds, it was like a 50-50, 60-40 situation, whether it was natural or lab-related.
Do you agree with the government lying to you in that context?
Do you think the government should have been honest and say, Honestly, we can't tell if it's a lab leak or not, and our experts are sort of up in the air on it.
Yeah.
I was listening to Spaces yesterday, and I heard a counterpoint to that.
Your first instinct is right.
Right?
Your first instinct is, of course they should tell you.
Of course they should.
But then the counterpoint is this.
It's war.
The pandemic looked like war, and we didn't know who we were fighting.
We didn't know if somebody had intentionally let in a virus.
We didn't know if panic was going to be a bigger problem than the virus itself.
Everything was unknown.
So under those conditions, where the stakes are really the fate of the whole country, and it's all unknown, and your government decides to lie to you for your own benefit, is it unethical?
They're doing it for your benefit.
Literally for your benefit.
Is that unethical?
Yeah.
Probably.
Probably.
You know.
But I'll tell you that in general, if somebody's on my team and they lie to me for my own benefit, I'm going to treat that with Let's say more empathy than if somebody was just trying to screw me for their benefit.
If you're screwing me for your benefit, then you must die.
If you're lying to me for my benefit and you've got a good argument, even if you're wrong, you had a good argument at the time and you had my back, I'm not going to be as hardcore on that.
But you can be.
You can be.
I wouldn't criticize you for being a maniac on that.
That's sort of my current uncomfortable stance on it.
How many of you are aware that Dana White, who was caught on video slapping his wife after his wife slapped him first in Cabo, coincidentally was launching a new show on TBS called Power Slap, in which people stand there and slap each other in the face until one can't take it anymore.
Now, is that a total coincidence?
It doesn't seem like a coincidence, right?
Like, I don't know how many minutes of Dana White's entire life are caught on somebody's camera phone.
Camera phone?
On their phone.
But it was kind of a big coincidence that just before he launches a major show about people slapping each other, that just before that he gets caught on camera slapping his wife who slapped him first, but neither of them got hurt and neither of them complained.
Huh.
Now, there are two ways to say it's not a coincidence.
Number one, it was a clever plan for marketing.
Does anybody think that's possible?
Do you think it was all a setup and it was just marketing?
I would say that's very possible.
It's not my first conspiracy theory choice.
I've got a second theory that's sort of in between.
It goes like this.
If he's launching this whole new business, what do you think he was doing every day?
Probably every day he was talking about the word slap.
As, you know, it's like slap this, slap that.
And then he was looking at videos of people slapping.
He was probably looking at some, you know, test competitions to see how it would work out.
Probably all day long, this guy was around people slapping people in their face.
Then when he comes home, what does he talk about with his wife?
Oh, these people are slapping each other.
I got a slap thing.
I'll call it a slap fight.
Slap power, power slap.
It's going to be slap, slap, slap, slap, slap.
So he and his wife are talking about people slapping each other and not dying.
Because in theory, they're all supposed to survive, right?
It's just, ha ha ha, we slapped each other.
And the context is these people are really big and slapping the hell out of each other, as opposed to what the couple did, which was sort of got each other's attention.
Nobody was hurt.
So I think that the priming is what was the problem.
That's just a guess, right?
We can't know what was in their heads.
We can't know what really happened.
But my best theory is if all day long you're talking about people slapping each other, and then you get drunk, and your wife slaps you because she knows it's not going to hurt you, and all day long you're talking about people slapping each other, and you get slapped, and you slap back.
I think that's what happened.
The fact that it was on camera is probably just because he's famous.
So people probably always take his picture if they recognize him.
It's probably pretty common.
So that's my theory.
What do you think?
Do you think that the excessive priming about slapping just bled into his normal, let's say his reflex drunken decision?
That's what it looks like.
Now also you have to know that for him to launch a slap network, what must he have done in his mind?
In his mind, he must have talked himself out of it being dangerous.
You know, or at least too dangerous.
Obviously, there's some danger.
But he must have talked himself out of it being dangerous.
So that when he did it, he was already in the frame of, well, a slap isn't going to kill you.
It's literally entertainment.
He made slapping entertainment.
That's probably how he thought of it.
And he didn't hurt his wife.
So that's important.
All right.
If you've seen the advertisements for it in the video, I'm just going to say it directly.
I'm not a doctor, but it looks like a brain damage competition.
Because the people who get slapped, at least in the previews, they look like they have brain damage to me.
They're actually wandering around.
They don't even know where they are.
They can't even stand up.
They don't have their balance.
And they don't even, you know, they act like they're not even conscious for a little while.
You know that a concussion is brain damage, right?
Like, it's brain damage.
That's what a concussion is.
Now, I don't know if they're getting concussions, but I know they act like it.
So, in my non-medical opinion, it's a show about people who are giving each other brain damage.
I'd love to tell you, therefore, I'm not going to watch it.
But honestly, watching stupid people slap the shit out of each other is way more entertaining than it should be. - Okay.
Like, I'm not proud of this moment.
And I'm going to be less proud in a moment.
By the way, does anybody want to hear me say that the anti-vaxxers were totally right?
Hold on for that.
Hold on for that, because it's coming.
Now, well, good.
I gave you a little thrill.
It's going to get better in a moment.
I got double whiteboards.
Double whiteboards.
That's how right you are.
All right.
But anyway, power slap is interesting.
Have I ever mentioned that I end up in the middle of national stories way too often?
And it happened again yesterday.
I don't know if you caught this one yet.
But it starts with Elon Musk tweeted that his cousin, who is young and in peak health, had a serious case of myocarditis after the shot and went to the hospital.
But he said that after he'd said that he himself, Elon Musk, had major side effects from my second booster shot, felt like I was dying for several days.
Hopefully no permanent damage, but I don't know.
Now, This is a headline story on Fox News just a few hours after he tweeted it.
Here's how I ended up in this story.
He was responding to my tweet.
So somehow I'm in the middle of this story.
I wasn't talking to him, I was just tweeting about something.
And then he responded to it and then it's a national story.
So somehow Like this is what makes me feel like I'm living in a simulation.
Because it's just too weird how often I get in the middle of a story.
It's hard to describe and it's hard to understand in any normal way.
But here's the fascinating part from this.
And so that you will all stay with me, here's what's going to happen.
I'm going to tell you that the anti-vaxxers appear to be right, but then I'm going to talk about some why, right?
I'm going to give you some details why.
Usually most of you disappear when I talk about anything vax-related, but I'm only going to talk about how we analyze it.
I'm going to start with an admission, okay?
Just so you'll stay around.
At the moment, And anything could change.
But at the moment, the anti-vaxxers appear to be the ones who are the most right.
And the ones who are the biggest winners.
Did I say that directly enough?
Now, do you accept that as a direct statement?
Right?
Are you okay with that?
That at the moment, with what we know right now, It would look like the people who didn't get vaccinated are the lucky ones or the right choice.
Could be one or the other.
But wouldn't you say that they... So here's their situation.
Let's compare it.
I got vaccinated, reluctantly, and I waited as long as possible, and blah blah.
But... So I had no bad outcomes.
I got a little bit of Omicron, Few days of discomfort, no big deal.
So now I have natural immunity from the Omicron.
But I also have this, you know, let's say not perfectly understood vaccination thing inside me forever.
So how happy am I that we're sort of on the other side of the pandemic, I would say.
But I have this extra like nagging thing in my body.
Am I happy?
Well, I'm not unhappy, but I could be a lot happier, right?
My perfect situation would be natural immunity and no vaccination in my body.
So that's not the best situation for me, right?
Best situation would be somebody who did not get vaccinated, got a little Omicron, Or maybe even a worse one, but recovered.
Now you've got natural immunity and you have no vaccination in you.
Can we all agree that that was the winning path?
Everybody?
Is there anybody who would disagree with that?
That based on what we know today, which could change, you know, I'm going to stay open to reversing this decision if anything changes.
But at the moment, every day we get more bad news about the vaccinations, the shots, but we don't get better information, right?
Every day it's just negative.
One of the biggest wild cards was this long COVID.
Anecdotally, it looks like the vaccination side effects appear to be bigger than the long COVID.
Now, I don't know that to be true.
And if I learn later that it's not true, I might reverse my decision.
But at the moment, just anecdotally, I'm not hearing tons of people saying I had bad COVID experience that's lingering.
They do exist.
Dr. Drew being, you know, a notable person with that case.
I think Did Dr. Malone say he had some long COVID?
I can't remember.
I think he did.
So there is some notable, we know that both exist.
You know, there is something that people identify as long COVID, and there are things that people identify, correctly or not, as a VAX injury.
But it does seem like the vaccination we hear more about than the long COVID.
So, you know, so that looks like a win.
Here's the most interesting part to me.
First of all, is everybody accepting that that's where the data is at the moment?
That the smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn't get the vaccination and are still alive.
Now, there is a category of people that, according to mainstream medicine, are only alive because they got the vaccination.
Do you believe that that's a true thing?
Do you believe that the medical professionals... Oh, you don't?
Okay.
But I'll just say that they believe it, right?
The medical professionals still say that, you know, millions of lives were saved of the older people.
But at the cost of maybe lives of the younger people, and maybe at a cost of, you know, longer-term damage that we can't predict.
Now, I'm only saying that's what the experts say.
I'm not saying that you agree with it.
Would you agree that the experts still say, most of the experts still say, that the vaccination probably saved millions of lives, but we don't know any long-term damage, and it definitely killed some people, too.
Definitely killed some people.
So, I'll allow that you disagree with the experts, but that's where the bulk of experts are at the moment.
Now, So if I compare myself to an anti-vaxxer today, I would say the anti-vaxxers have a right to be happier than I do.
I want to make sure that I'm not leaving any wiggle room for myself.
Have I?
Have I said as clearly as possible they're the happy ones right now?
And have a reason to be, completely?
But here's the fascinating part.
Somebody asked, let's see, it was Elijah Schaeffer.
He says, I'm still intrigued by how many intelligent people got duped into taking these.
He was responding to Elon Musk.
Are you intrigued about that or curious?
Why did so many smart people take the vaccination?
And let me list some people who got vaccinated.
Dr. Robert Malone got vaccinated, and he was one of the inventors of the technology.
Now he's, of course, not getting boosted, because information has come out that makes that look like a sketchy decision for most people.
So Elon Musk, who most people consider one of the smartest analytical people in the world, he got vaxxed.
Dr. Malone, who invented it, got vaxxed.
The executives of Pfizer, who should have known the most about its safety, they took it.
They ate their own dog food.
All of them.
The scientists who invented it all took it.
Now, I go, okay, okay.
I accept that you don't know if they took it.
Okay, let me just do a little carve-out here.
We all accept that we don't know for sure who took what, right?
You don't know.
If we found out later that the Pfizer executives just said they took it and didn't, well, we get a big problem.
That would be a death sentence.
Do you agree?
If you ever found out that the Pfizer executives only lied and didn't take their own vaccination, that should be a death sentence.
Death sentence.
In fact, if the legal system can't kill them, the public should hunt them down.
No, just kidding.
You can't say that on social media.
Nobody should be killing anybody.
Don't do any violence.
But it would happen, right?
It would happen.
Like they'd be hunted down.
I think the public would actually tear them up to pieces.
Now, I think they took the jabs.
If I had to bet on it, I'll bet all of the executives took it.
But if I had to bet on it, I would not bet that all of their scientists took it.
Would you take that bet?
There's no way we'll ever settle the bet.
But I'll bet that all of the executives took it because, you know, they had the executive pressure on them.
But the scientists?
I don't know.
Maybe not.
I'll bet not all of the scientists took it.
That's just a guess.
It's just a hunch.
I can't prove it.
It'll never be proved.
But I wouldn't be surprised if all the executives took it, would you?
Executives are just sheep, right?
So basically, if the CEO took it, and maybe he had to for You know, his risk-reward to make his billions of dollars.
It was a good risk.
But if the CEO took it, you're pretty much, your ass is going to get fired if you don't take it.
So I think the executives probably took it.
How about our government?
How about the members of the CDC?
Do you think the members of the CDC, who had maybe more information than we did, do you think that they all got jabbed?
I'll bet they did.
No, I'll bet they did.
Same reason as the executives.
Did Fauci get fully vaxxed and boosted?
I'll bet he did.
Do you think Fauci himself didn't take the vaccination?
The shot?
And why would he take it if he knows so much and he knows it's dangerous?
Why would the Pfizer people take it if they know so much?
Well, let me give you an answer.
The Pfizer people and Fauci don't have the same calculation that you and I do, because they get rich if they're right.
So even if they think the vaccination is dangerous, let's say you came to me and said, Scott, there's an incredibly high 10% chance this shot will kill you.
There is a 9% and a 10% chance that if you take the shot and convince other people to take it, you will make $10 billion.
And really quickly.
Would I take the shot if there was a 10% chance it would hurt me, and a 90% chance I'd make billions of dollars?
I don't know.
At 10%, maybe I wouldn't take the chance.
But let's say you said it's 2%.
If it were 2%, the vaccination would be like mowing down people like crazy.
Because 2% of a billion or whatever, however many get vaccinated, Is a big, big number.
But I'd take a 98% chance of dying for a billion dollars.
Would you?
I would.
So Fauci and the executives of Pfizer, it does make sense for them to get vaccinated if there's only a 2% chance they're going to drop dead from it.
I'm not saying there is a 2% chance.
I don't know what it is.
But it's not 10%.
Probably.
There's some news out now that the CDC knew that Like, close to 80% of people were having terrible side effects that were permanent or something.
I don't believe that.
Like, that would be jail time if they knew that.
But, you know, maybe.
Maybe.
I suppose anything's possible at this point.
All right.
But we're in the phase where... How about college professors?
What percentage of college professors across all disciplines, these are the smartest, most analytical people, what percentage of them took the vaccination?
Close to 100%.
Well over 90%.
So, if you ask why did Elon Musk get vaccinated, You have to ask, why did the people who make the thing get vaccinated?
Why did the people who know the most, the CDC, get vaccinated?
Why did all of our politicians get vaccinated?
Why did almost all college professors get vaccinated?
Why did Dr. Fauci himself get vaccinated?
Now, some of them, maybe they're lying, but... Are professors 100%?
You're right.
I think you're right.
Paranoia?
All right, let me go to the board.
All right.
Having said as clearly as possible that the anti-vax people seem to be the winners, I want you to hear that clearly, the anti-vax people appear to be the winners.
But I'd like to give you a little lesson on how to properly analyze things, what to compare to what.
VAERS report.
Historically, you know, X number of people reported bad vaccination related things for different vaccinations.
As soon as the jab became available, the COVID jab, the VAERS report skyrocketed to levels never seen before.
Now this is a comparison of the COVID vaccination to prior vaccinations.
Now, the VAERS report, of course, is not a study, but suppose it's all true.
What would that tell you?
What it would tell you is that the COVID vaccination is way more dangerous than prior vaccinations.
So far so good?
That, you know, even if it's inaccurate, it's so different that it's definitely telling you something.
Would you agree it's definitely telling you something?
And something you should totally pay attention to?
All agree?
But, is this the right comparison?
No.
This is the wrong comparison.
It's the right comparison for looking for a danger signal.
That's the right way to use it.
It's the wrong comparison to tell you if you should or should not take the vaccination.
Here's the correct comparison for that.
It's comparing the outcomes of the vaxed versus the unvaxed, or the shot versus unshot, because you don't want to call it a vaccination.
In the early days, this is the data, whether it was true or not, we don't know if it's true.
We don't trust any data.
But the early Alpha Delta situation, where the virus was more deadly, it seemed that the unvaxed were having worse outcomes.
Now, I'm not saying it's true, But you'd all agree that's what we were presented with, right?
This is the correct comparison.
It might not be the correct data, and it might not be the correct decision, but it's the correct comparison, right?
You don't compare COVID and a pandemic.
To other vaccinations, not in a pandemic.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
It's just a signal to look deeper.
That's all it is.
This is where you look.
Once this gives you the signal, then you look over here.
And this was telling us the opposite of what this was scaring us.
But this was the correct comparison.
Were they lying to us about the data?
Were people being over-counted and under-counted?
Yes.
Is there any pandemic data that you should trust?
No.
So I'm not saying this is accurate.
I'm saying that was the context in which all these smart people got vaccinated.
Would you agree with that?
Would you agree that the context of which all these smart people got vaccinated, from Musk to Dr. Malone, etc., was when it looked like there was a big difference between the outcomes?
Even if it was wrong, and even if it didn't count side effects.
So that's where we were.
So it's easy to see how smart people would have gotten vaccinated.
But correct me if I'm wrong, because I might be a little out of date.
Is it true that the current information we're getting, which is no longer the deadliest virus, it's Omicron, That we're seeing this happen, which is this is reversed.
We're seeing more of the people with vaccinations who are having bad problems.
Can you confirm?
Can you confirm that the situation has reversed, at least in the data, from when all those smart people got vaccinated?
So the same smart people who got vaccinated are not getting boosted.
I don't think Musk got boosted.
I don't think that Dr. Malone got boosted.
I know I didn't get boosted.
Because I'm now in this context.
Now, what does this tell you?
Is this telling you that getting vaxxed is more dangerous than not being vaxxed?
No.
It's not telling you that.
That's the wrong comparison.
See, it's always a comparison problem.
It's always the same problem.
It's the wrong comparison.
Because at this point, the people who are getting vaccinated are old, frail people.
Right?
If the old, frail people didn't get vaccinated, They'd probably be dying at twice that rate, according to the experts who might be lying to us, who knows.
So that's not my opinion.
So what you should compare here is that these old frail people, do not compare them to the unvaxxed, compare them to the old frail people who didn't get vaxxed.
So you should only look at old, frail people compared to old, frail people.
But at this point, every old, frail person is vaxxed.
Am I right?
Everybody who was old and frail got pushed into it because why?
Because they're old and frail.
If you're old and frail, do you think you put up a fight about the vaccination?
Not a chance.
No.
Grandma, at 80 years old, did not have a choice of getting a vaccination.
I mean, on paper she did, but she didn't, right?
So basically, you're just vaxxing the shit out of the people who are going to die tomorrow anyway.
You should see this.
This doesn't tell you the vaccinations don't work.
It also doesn't tell you they do.
It literally doesn't tell you anything.
Because it's not a comparison that makes sense.
You're comparing healthy people to frail people.
Under every situation, the frail people are going to be dying, even if you did all the right stuff.
You could do everything right for this group, and they're still going to die ten times more than healthy people.
Does that make sense?
So, I'm going to try to have it both ways.
I'm going to try to have it both ways.
The anti-vaxxers clearly are the winners at this point, and I think it'll probably stay that way.
And I don't want to put any shade on that whatsoever.
They came out the best.
They have the winning position.
But if you think they got there by good analytics, that didn't happen.
No, that didn't happen.
Because you could analyze it correctly and make the wrong decision.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that you could analyze it with the best analytical capabilities, but all the data was bullshit?
The data was just bullshit.
So there wasn't really anything that we knew or could guess.
So my take was always this.
It's going to be a guess, because I don't know what long COVID would do to me.
And I still don't.
But I also didn't know what the vaccination would do to me.
And I still don't.
So to me it was two unknowns that were both enormous and both of them could have ended your life or your life quality.
So I waited as long as possible to reduce the risk that something quick would happen.
I looked at people in my category and then I did what people in my category were typically doing.
Am I glad?
No.
No, I'm not glad.
No, because as things turn down, the unvaccinated have a current advantage.
Because they feel better.
The thing they're not worrying about is what I have to worry about, which is, I wonder if that vaccination five years from now.
No, not regret.
All right, let me stop you right there.
Did you hear me say I regretted anything?
Did anything sound like regret?
No.
Also, if the data had gone the other way, I would not ask the anti-vaxxers to regret it either.
If it had gone the other way, if the data had, let's say, amazingly said this was just a miracle drug, and everybody who didn't get it was a big ol' dope, would I be telling you you should regret not getting it?
No, I wouldn't.
Because you didn't know.
And I didn't know.
We were just doing the best we could.
But it does turn out that the heuristic, or the rule of thumb, that everything the government does is bad for you, it turns out it worked this time.
It worked this time.
Because really, the anti-vaxxers, I think, were really just distrustful of big companies and big government.
That's never wrong.
It's never wrong to distrust government.
It's never wrong to distrust big companies.
But it wasn't necessarily right.
Right?
Every now and then, a big company will produce a good product at a good price, and nobody dies.
Hey, it happens.
Every now and then, our government does something right.
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
It happens.
So if you just took the position, let's just distrust everything the government did, well, you won.
You won.
You won completely.
Now, as far as I know, I feel like I'm on a shrinking piece of ice floating in the ocean, right?
Somehow I got trapped on a little iceberg in the ocean.
It's just like shrinking as I'm floating into the sun.
I am currently in The only remaining category of people who might have made the statistically right choice, by accident.
Totally by accident.
Because people in my age group, it looks like maybe there was still some benefit.
Not necessarily to me personally, which is why I made the wrong choice.
Or the suboptimal choice.
Wrong implies that I analyzed it wrong.
Suboptimal means, you know, you may have analyzed it right, but you didn't end up in the right place.
I did not end up in the right place.
Agree?
You would all agree with that, right?
I did not end up in the right place.
The right place would be natural immunity, no vaccination.
But to say that I got there by making bad decisions, That's a completely different argument.
I think the people who understood how to make decisions all ended up in the wrong place because they knew how to make good decisions.
Just the data was, unfortunately, not good.
So, what do you think?
I'm not seeing much pushback, so I think So I think maybe we're almost on the same page here.
So the weird thing is we're actually coming together in the weirdest way.
In the weirdest way, I think our positions are starting to merge.
What's from Ben Garrison's cartoon?
Well, Ben Garrison is literally an idiot.
I would not argue that idiots got the wrong, the right... Would you agree with the following statement?
Some idiots got the right decision.
Some idiots got the wrong decision.
Some geniuses got the right decision.
Some geniuses got the wrong decision.
And lots of them.
Not just some, but lots of them.
So what does that tell you about intelligence?
That if all of your data is non-credible, intelligence doesn't help you.
That should be your conclusion, is that intelligence didn't have any role in this.
But instead, the people who ended up in the right place are enjoying the feeling that they were the smart ones and that it was obvious all along.
And here's where I'm going to make a departure from my past.
If you're one of those people, that has to feel really good.
Doesn't it?
How many of you are feeling like that?
Like that righteous, oh my God, I was right from day one.
That has to feel great.
I think you should enjoy it.
And so I'm going to say, enjoy it.
And you can enjoy it at my expense.
You can even enjoy it at my expense.
But don't be, don't be inaccurate.
Don't be inaccurate about me.
But just enjoy your feeling.
It might be my opinion that what we've proven beyond any question whatsoever is that your intelligence and your wisdom and your experience had nothing to do with your decisions, and that being smart and being well-informed just didn't help at all.
Didn't help at all.
But you should take victory, and I should take defeat.
We can agree on that, right?
That my position is now the weakest, and your position has gone from the weakest to the strongest, and that we can just say that's true.
Now, this is how I try to protect myself from cognitive dissonance.
The way I try to do it is by being wrong without hesitation, when it looks like that's the case.
The people who didn't get vaxxed are absolutely in the winning position.
We all guessed.
You guessed right.
And when we guess right, what do we always do?
We say it was because we were smart.
You don't think I would have said the same thing?
I hope I wouldn't have.
Like, my hope for myself is if it turned out that getting vaccinated was just unambiguously the right thing to do, and let's say it cured your cancer at the same time, that's not the case.
But suppose I had been right.
I like to think I would have told you I guessed.
I'd like to think I would have said, you know, I got everything right, but honestly, it was a guess, because I couldn't have known.
I don't know if I would.
Maybe I would be doing what you're doing, like dancing on the graves of the people who got it wrong.
I might be.
But I'd like to think I wouldn't be like you.
But you win.
You win.
You win.
You are the winners.
You are the winners.
Let me say that part with no ambiguity.
You won.
You won.
I don't know if you... Somebody says you got it right for the wrong reason.
No.
That would be too strong.
I'm not going to say you got it right for the wrong reason.
Because your reason was you didn't trust the big companies and you didn't trust the government.
How is that wrong?
That was exactly right.
No, you didn't get it right for the wrong reason.
It was impossible to know, but your heuristics worked, and my analytics did not.
Fair?
All of my fancy analytics got me to a bad place.
All of your heuristics, don't trust these guys, it's obvious, totally worked.
Now, there may be a class of people Who use your heuristic, did not get vaccinated, and are dead.
Do you think any of those exist?
Do you think there's anybody who did the same thing some of you did, most of you probably, and said, no, no, I don't trust the government, did not get vaccinated, and then they died.
But they're not here to be part of the conversation.
So you can take total victory because the people who would argue with you are already dead.
So there's nobody here to call you wrong.
I'm here and I'm calling you right.
So the people who are here are more likely to say, yeah, I guess you got it right.
The people who would disagree with you are all dead.
So they're not here to argue with you.
Yeah.
All right.
They would be dead either way.
Maybe so.
Maybe so.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is my provocative live stream for today.
I was gaslighted.
Weren't we all?
That Pilate story is true, by the way.
Well, I heard from a... Oh, on the pilot story.
So there's a story about rich people don't want to hire pilots who are vaccinated.
And that got conflated with commercial airline pilots in general.
Commercial airline pilots in general, if you're working for one of the big airlines, they're not going to be penalized for being vaccinated.
If you are a rich person who is anti-vax, you might just have a personal preference for an unvaccinated pilot.
That's just a personal preference.
So I think that affects probably, I don't know what percentage of pilots.
So it does seem like there's two different situations.
So much more you don't know.
Wasn't that always true?
There's somebody here saying there's so much more I don't know.
That's always true.
How was Sri Lanka forced by the WEF to give up fertilizer?
Wasn't it just the leader trusted him?
Wasn't it just the leader make the decision?
The WEF didn't make anybody in Sri Lanka do anything.
All right, I guess I don't understand that.
All right, the leader was WEF.
So the leader was a WEF person.
But he wasn't forced by the WEF, he just believed them.
That was the problem.
But he also acted in a way they didn't recommend.
Because the WEF didn't recommend that all countries stop doing that.
He just took it too far.
Yeah, messing with the food supply, that was crazy.
Watched the Dr. Ju interview with Zelenko.
You know what I was expecting, but never, haven't seen yet?
I kept expecting somebody And I don't think this is the case.
To say that the excess deaths were caused by anti-vaxxers who were taking hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
Didn't you expect that story?
Because at around the same time that the vaccinations kicked in, don't you think people were also taking a lot of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine at about the same time?
Now, I don't think those things were killing anybody, but didn't you expect somebody would try to make that case?
You know, some pro-vaxxer would say, well, it's not the vaccinations that are killing you.
It's the hydroxychloroquine that we told you not to take.
It just, you'd expect somebody to try that.
Like, I don't think it's the case, but you'd expect somebody to try it.
Yeah.
All right.
Have I forgotten any stories?
Sweden for the win.
Anybody who believes that Sweden made all the right choices and got a good outcome, that's just so not what happened.
That's so not what happened.
Sweden just has too many differences.
Let me just tell you one thing about Sweden that you didn't know.
Did you know that the Swedes routinely supplement their vitamin D, because they know they don't get enough sun.
So it's very typical to take like, I don't know, the cod oil or the fish oil or something.
So they're all vitamin D'd, so that helps.
Number two, apparently it's the easiest culture to stay away from people, because it's not that dense, and they have the highest ratio of people who live alone, and also have a second home.
Thirdly, even though they didn't have mandates, people did naturally stay away from each other because it was a pandemic.
So if you think Sweden ignored everything and got a pretty good outcome, just everything about Sweden is different.
You can't compare.
I don't know anything about the J&J being a better choice.
No, hydroxychloroquine is not listed as a treatment.
It's not true.
Except on some fake website.
You have bonuses for getting, wow.
I also think the Swedes are probably not very fat and they're not very old.
So basically, they had everything working for them.
And their results look exactly like you'd expect for their country.
Yeah, the J&J wasn't available to me.
I didn't have that option.
All right, that's enough for now.
YouTube, talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection