Episode 1999 Scott Adams: Documents Everywhere, Obesity Is A Bad Word, More Of Me Eating Crow
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Matt Gaetz targets the important issues
Josh Hawley's "Pelosi Act"
Gigantic liars not wanted on intel committee
America's deniable war with Russia
Whiteboard1: How To Decide
Whiteboard2: Penis Based Decisions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Assistants are terrible with classified information.
I didn't even know it was there.
Really.
So I thought I would... What the hell?
You're busy?
Oh.
Well, what's taking so long?
Bribing?
Taking bribes from oligarchs?
Yeah, that can take a lot of time out of your schedule.
Alright, well, I guess I'll just handle it myself.
Okay.
Alright.
And you have a good day, too.
Why is my phone yelling at me?
Well, if you'd like to take today's classified, top-secret experience up to levels you've never known before, this is how you do it.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or gel or styne, a canteen jug or a flask of 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sipping that happens now.
Go.
Do you see behind me two whiteboards?
Is there anything that can be better than coffee with Scott Adams and two whiteboards?
Yes.
Three or more whiteboards.
It's a trick question.
All right, there is so much news today, I'm just going to run through the important stories.
I'm going to start at the top with the most important stories, and then we'll work down.
Toward the end, I will be eating crow for all of my wrongness about the pandemic.
Those of you who like to watch me be wrong, you should wait till the end.
But the important story is first, and nothing more important than this one.
A&W Root Beer has announced that its mascot, Rudy the Great Root Bear, who formerly wore a shirt but no pants.
And they announced that their bear might be polarizing.
Polarizing.
It's a bear.
Bear might be polarizing.
If he had no pants.
And so now they're gonna put pants on their bear.
Thank God!
You know, I woke up this morning and I'm like, no!
Pantsless mascots!
Must be fixed!
Now, you know, this made me think.
I've seen a lot of videos of bears in the wild.
Haven't you?
And sometimes you'll see the grizzlies, and the grizzlies will be standing up, and they're like, how big is a grizzly?
It's like 8 feet tall, right?
When it stands up, it's like, grrr, like this.
You know what I've never seen is a bear's package.
You know, the boy bears?
Now, because they're standing like this, and they're big old bears, I feel like if I were in the woods, And one of these grizzly bears attacked me.
Like, I'd have two reactions.
You know, when I saw the bear and the bear went, like this, my first reaction would be, oh no, I'm going to die.
And then my second reaction would be, whoa, you're really packing.
Like, that's how I imagined it would go.
Because I just figured grizzlies, they got game.
I don't know.
I just assumed that.
Another important story.
60 Minutes, and Leslie Stahl was interviewing, I guess, a woman who's going to be in charge of the new government's dietary guidelines, who says that obesity is mostly genetic.
Genetic.
And that you won't lose weight just by eating less and exercising.
So, you know, at first I thought, well, that seems contrary to all common sense and all science.
But then I thought, oh, wait a minute, Scott, back up.
It's coming from the government.
So now I believe it.
All right, next story, which is also related.
I saw a tweet saying that obesity is like the new N-word for the people who are large.
Now I remind you that we do not do fat shaming.
Don't do fat shaming.
Because, as I often say, if I liked food as much as other people, I might weigh more.
That's my entire analysis.
So therefore, I don't fat shame because I would be one if I liked food more than I do.
I just don't.
I'm just not crazy about food.
You know, I don't like to sleep so much.
Not big on food.
I do them because I have to.
But I saw a tweet from...
Dr. Anita B. Eden, Ph.D., who says obesity is the N-word.
Her alleged profile says that she's a fat-affirming dietician with a Ph.D.
in body-positive medicine, and she's the author of Snacks Over Scales and Health at Every Happy Meal.
She's a feminist ally, and her pronouns are she and her.
Now, here's the funny part.
I literally couldn't tell if it was a parody for a few minutes.
I had to spend some time looking at it.
I thought, Anita B. Eaton.
I need to be eaten.
Okay, probably not real.
But the only takeaway from this is that the difference between complete parody and reality is so thin now.
It's so thin that you can really get away with parody like crazy because people can't tell.
They genuinely can't tell when you're kidding.
So, I mean, the fact that people can't tell when you're kidding, I mean, that opens a big opportunity for somebody like me.
But you know, I would never take care, take advantage of that.
Did you know that China has more than the TikTok app?
Oh, they have way more than that.
They have an app called WeChat.
Now, it's mostly used in China, I think, but there are 19 million users of WeChat in the United States.
I think mostly Chinese Americans or Or people with a more direct connection to China.
But it does all kinds of things like payments and it's just like a universal app kind of thing.
But apparently there are 19 million American users and China can monitor all their data and they basically know everything about them.
That's not too scary, is it?
But speaking of apps from China, I saw in the Wall Street Journal that the Biden administration is considering.
So watch out.
Watch out, everybody.
They're considering.
And when they're considering, that's something.
That's something.
So they're considering doing something about data safety with TikTok.
What?
So the Wall Street Journal, apparently, along with the Biden administration, are unaware that the risk with TikTok has very little to do with the data.
I mean, that's important.
You know, they should control the data.
But they're missing the whole story that TikTok and WeChat are literally, well, mostly TikTok, is literally, literally Literally, right?
You're going to think this is not really the right use of the word literally, but no.
Literally, used actually as literally should be used.
TikTok is a user interface for the Chinese government to control American minds.
Literally.
It's literally an interface.
It literally controls American minds.
It's not a metaphor.
It's not an analogy.
It's not a reminds me of.
It's literally an interface to control American minds.
No problem, the Biden administration.
But at least they're considering.
They're giving a strong consideration, boy.
They're considering it so hard, smoke is coming out of their brains.
They're considering so hard, dealing with something that isn't the issue, the data.
Also important.
Not nearly in the top 1% with the user interface for controlling brains.
No problem, just let that issue go.
Amazon has announced its prime members are going to have some kind of amazing deal on generics.
So for $5 a month for generics.
So it's going to be like super cheap generics through Amazon.
And it's most of the big stuff.
And I got all excited about this.
I thought, wow, this could be good.
It's not active in my state, California or Texas.
Why would something not be legal in California and Texas?
What do those two even have in common that they would have the same opinion on this?
I'm missing the reason why.
Just money?
But why would it be different for a red and a blue state?
Just population?
I don't know.
I don't understand this story.
So maybe somebody could work that out.
So if you're on Medicare or Medicaid, you can't use it.
And if you're in California or Texas, you can't use it.
Does any of that make sense to you?
No.
This would be a good case of our government.
It looks like they're not really serving our interests in this case, but I'm available to hear a better argument.
Maybe I'm missing something.
But just to me, it just looks like the government's just getting in the way of a good thing.
Am I wrong?
No, it wasn't accidental, to answer your question on locals.
But sometimes I don't give reasons.
Sometimes it's just personal.
For blocking.
All right, so here's my take on that.
Just the day before I heard this, I saw a tweet by, I believe it was Doc Anarchy on Twitter, warning against taking generic drugs.
Now, the argument is that the generics have less quality control.
Would you agree?
I don't know if that's the case often, or usually, or always.
I've heard this.
It's something I've heard, but I don't know how I would validate it.
I think it depends, right?
But would you know in advance which meds it depended?
I don't know.
I would say that I suppose if you take the generics first and you don't get a good result, Maybe try the name brand?
Is that the way to play it?
You know, depending if it's life and death.
I suppose if it's life and death, I might take the name brand first.
But let's say it's something like blood pressure.
In the short run, it's not really life and death.
So if in the short run it didn't work, maybe you try the other thing.
All right.
Matt Gaetz continues to say the most interesting things and do the most interesting things in Congress.
Here's a little, I'm just going to read to you several things that Matt Gaetz has said recently.
So, not in the same day, but just different tweets just recently.
I want you to pick up the pattern here.
And the pattern I'm looking for, well I guess I'm priming you for the pattern, so you don't have to look for it.
The pattern is, He seems to say exactly what you want him to say, and he seems to be focusing on the priorities that are apparently exactly the ones you would want him to focus on.
And what's weird about it is that it stands out.
Isn't that weird?
That he's simply doing his job.
It, like, stands out.
Why does that stand out?
Let me just read the things he said recently and you see if you can you see it.
In case it's my imagination, right?
So just in no order, these are things he said either on a podcast or in his own tweets.
Quote, our FBI is corrupted by political interests domestically and compromised by foreign interests financially.
How important is that?
Like right at the top.
Right?
That's really, really important to us.
And he just says it directly.
There's no hedging here.
Like, the part you don't want to hear is all the weird hedging.
No, this is just a fact now.
And he just puts it right out there directly.
Here's another one.
I'm not here for the document drama.
I think having people in the national security apparatus trying to shape the presidential field is not a good thing, regardless of your political persuasion.
So he doesn't care about the documents.
Okay, I'm totally on board.
I think we enjoy the documents as a political conversation, but I don't think anybody thinks they're important, so I agree with him.
And then he says that by having the national security apparatus shape our presidential field, yes.
Yeah, what's more important than that?
Yes, that's like right at the top of things you should be caring about.
Who else is talking about it?
That's the question.
Then Matt Gates asks, we are now funding Ukraine's government in our own.
Why should Ukraine get less oversight?
Because the money that goes to Ukraine just goes into a black box of corruption.
The money that we spend in America, we at least try to figure out where it went.
Is that a good point?
Yes.
It's probably the only good point about Ukraine.
It's the only point we should all agree on.
You know, you could disagree whether you should be there or not, or how you're handling it, but should there be any disagreement on we should know exactly where our money goes?
No.
How important is it?
Well, it's trillion, well, not trillions yet, but it's billions and billions of dollars.
Yeah, really, really important.
Thank you, Matt Gaetz, for pointing that out.
Another one.
Those who perpetrated the Russia collusion hoax on the American people were in fact taking corrupt cash from Russia.
So that's the new story about the FBI agent who was doing that.
How important is that?
Really, really, really important.
Really important.
So do you see it?
I'm not imagining, right?
That Matt Gaetz is accurately picking up the most important things, mostly to his base, but I would argue they should be important to everybody.
I don't know.
He's continuing to impress with what I guess you could call a comeback, but since the charges were dropped in that whole case, there's really nothing to come back from.
So he's doing great.
And somehow he's managed to continue to be a full-throated supporter of Trump, and it doesn't seem to be hurting him.
Somehow he's pulling this all off.
You're going to have to keep an eye on that.
Because when you see that much skill, it usually predicts.
All right.
Oh, let's see.
He also said, That's why Jim Jordan and I will hold hearings, bring whistleblowers forward and demand answers to determine how deep the rock goes.
Talking about the intelligence agencies and FBI, of course.
And then here's also Bill Gates.
I think he said this on Timcast.
We had bills that broke, bills, you know, legislation.
We had bills that broke up big tech.
We were waiting for them to come to the floor.
Then on the dip, you know, because the big tech The big tech stocks went down because Congress was going to scrutinize them.
And then he says that when they went down, Paul Pelosi bought a bunch of those stocks, and then those bills never went to the floor.
Nancy Pelosi.
Now, how important is that?
Really, really important.
Like really, really, really important.
So again, he's just on the right things.
Now apparently Senator Hawley has introduced the Pelosi Act, which would disallow members of Congress from trading individual stocks.
Now they could still invest, they would just buy mutual funds and stuff like that.
There are a few ways they could do it, they just wouldn't be making their own decisions on individual stocks.
So, who knows if that will get passed?
It would be embarrassing to vote against it.
How could you vote against that?
Really?
Could you?
You're a member of Congress, and you would vote for allowing yourself to have special information and buy stocks?
Who could vote for that?
I'm sure the Democrats will find some reason to object, but it's going to be hilarious to hear the reason.
All right, here's what the Pelosi Act stands for.
So you know, they always make the act, it's not just because it's about Pelosi.
It's, it's, you know, a generic thing.
So the Pelosi stands for preventing elected leaders from owning securities and investments.
Pelosi.
I can't give them a compliment for how they're governing the country.
Okay.
Can't do it.
But their ability to make up clever names for legislation?
Unparalleled.
Unparalleled.
So good job there.
Here's something that I need a fact check on.
So you all know Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., right?
Everybody knows Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Very active in the vaccination conversations, both prior to COVID and throughout.
Tweeted tweeted at me today.
I didn't realize he follows me on Twitter, but he tweeted at me today, and he was telling me that At children's HD and hashtag the defender.
I don't know what they are they must be Twitter entities Has a more robust and rigorous fact-checking operation than any legacy news provider Remember I was telling you that what we need is some kind of independent fact checker for medical recommendations.
You know, somebody who can say, well, that used to be a good pill, but you know, there's a new study that says you shouldn't take it.
You know, that, that sort of thing.
So a consumer can get a medical recommendation and then just check it against somebody who's good at research, not necessarily a doctor, just somebody who's good at research.
And So anyway, so that's who Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
recommends, the Children's HD, I don't know what that is, and hashtag the Defender.
But then he goes on, he says, let me know if we ever air, oh, he must be involved with this.
So he goes, let me know if we ever air.
So I guess he has some involvement in those entities, or one of them.
We will apologize and correct.
And then here's the part that just totally threw me.
This is his last sentence of the tweet.
He's tweeting to me.
He says, thanks, Scott, for inspiring me to get surgery for my spasmodic dysphonia.
What?
No, I know I recommended it.
And I tried to get that message to him a few different ways.
But I wasn't sure that he had the same... Well, I know that he doesn't have exactly the same form of spasmodic dysphonia.
That's a voice disorder.
As I had.
But there are two flavors.
And I thought he might have the other flavor.
And I wasn't sure if there was a surgery for that one, but apparently there is.
Now, what I don't know is if he's still recovering from it.
Or, because we haven't heard him speak well in public yet, right?
Is that true?
We have not heard him speak well in public, which means he may be actually recovering right now.
Has anybody seen him in public recently?
And then I did a quick Google search and I didn't see anything about it.
Oh, he was on Tucker and sounds better.
And he was on Tucker last week, and did he sound better?
Oh, really?
Well, I'm going to have to look that up.
That would be amazing.
I hope that I actually helped.
You know, I've told you before that the weirdest thing about my life is how many medical cures I've been behind.
You know, that I've literally caused people to heal in a variety of ways.
Now, one of them is I was promoting the surgical solution for what had been an incurable problem for forever.
And anybody who got that surgery and got it fixed, if they heard it for me, then, you know, then I helped.
And there are a number of other, you know, diseases and stuff that I've helped with directly and indirectly.
All right.
The menu movie.
Okay.
So good luck to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
on his voice travels.
If his experience is like mine, shy bladder for example, if his experience is like mine, the recovery period lasts a long time.
So your voice will be better fairly quickly, but then it just continues improving as you You know, as your vocal mechanism heals to its perfect state.
So I think it took me years, actually years, for my voice to normalize.
But it did.
All right, Rasmussen poll says that the GOP is just creeping the Democrats on these three issues.
Energy, immigration, and spending.
Those seem like pretty big issues, don't they?
Energy, immigration, and spending.
The public by majority, not just a plurality, but by an actual solid majority, which means the independents and Democrats a little bit are crossing over.
So here are the numbers.
53% of likely U.S.
voters trust Republicans more to handle immigration.
So Republicans on immigration, 53%.
Only 36% trust Democrats.
And then, you know, there's the people in between.
That's a huge difference.
The Republicans just have a solid winning position on immigration.
Now, I'll say it again.
If Trump comes in and just says the same things he used to say about immigration, he will give away all of the advantage.
Am I right?
If he just acts the way he always acts, says the same things he always says, he will give away all of the advantage.
All he needs to do is just play it.
We need to control the border, and then we need to separate the question of who comes in.
Just one little change.
Just separate the question of who comes in from the management of the physical border.
You just do that, you own the topic.
Such a small change, and one that Trump would not disagree with.
Do you think Trump would disagree with separating the physical security, which he wants, from the decision of how much to open the door?
No, he said that directly.
Right.
He said the big beautiful door, so that you can let people in, but you do it, you know, reasonably and logically.
So I think, you know, I mean, this is just like a huge superhighway for a Republican to just walk into the office at this point.
Yeah.
So energy, of course, uh, you know, the Republicans are better on energy.
Let's say, uh, Oh, 48% trust Republicans.
So it's not over 50%, but only 40% trust Democrats.
Again, it's pretty big difference between 40 and 48.
And, And then on environmental policy, 43% trust Republicans and exactly the same trust Democrats.
What about crime and homeland defense?
That's not the subject of this poll.
Do you think that Republicans or Democrats would win with the general public on crime?
Oh, spending is the third one, sorry.
Somewhere there's something about spending.
50% trust Republicans more on spending and only 35% trust Democrats.
Thank you.
And so what about crime and homeland defense, you know, national defense?
Don't you think Republicans win that too?
Like, I haven't seen the numbers recently, but I think so, right?
So this would mean that Republicans are better on Fiscal things.
I think you could call that the economy.
Fiscal handling.
Energy.
The environment.
Immigration.
Crime and Homeland Defense.
And the election is still going to be close.
Thank goodness for mail-in voting, huh?
Because it doesn't look like we would have a two-party system anymore if we didn't have interesting election mechanisms.
I don't think it would even be close.
The polling shows that you couldn't win as a Democrat today.
Am I wrong?
Because here's the other thing.
Here's the thing that the Republicans did brilliantly.
Here's something they did brilliantly.
They got abortion over with.
They got it over with.
So they took a hit.
The Republicans took a huge hit by pushing it back to the states.
But now that it's pushed back to the states, that's done.
It's pushed back to the states.
It's completely a state issue now.
So if you just wait a bit longer, Nobody's going to be voting because of Roe versus Wade at the federal level.
They'll definitely vote at the state level.
But at the federal level, the Republicans have, I think, you know, this is a psychology question, so you can't know for sure, but I think the Republicans have removed their biggest negative issue by dealing with it fast.
Basically, they ripped the Band-Aid off.
You know what Republicans are good at?
Ripping the Band-Aid off.
Am I right?
If you had to pick somebody to rip the band-aid off, just take the pain and get on with it.
Just take the pain, do it now, just eat the shit now, and get on with it.
It's always going to be Republican.
I know, it's a gross generalization.
But it does seem to be built into the philosophy.
Alright, Pence has documents, so...
Ex-Vice President Pence discovered some classified documents in his home, but apparently it's all taped shut and it's maybe one box and he put it in a safe and he did all the right things.
So, Pence, I'm going to say it for the millionth time, because I love it when somebody just does all the right things and then they just keep doing it.
Pence is probably the most reasonable, grounded, Patriot of all time.
Like the fact that he stays in his lane and just like masters, he masters his domain.
I know that's a funny reference, but he's sort of a master of his domain.
Like even the thing that we laughed at him the most, that he wouldn't go to lunch with a woman unless his wife was there, totally right.
Totally right.
Pence was so right about that.
The Pence rule, don't do something with a woman who's not your wife, totally right.
But nobody's been more right than that ever in the history of rightness.
Well, he's playing the odds right, I think.
All right, well, we have to talk about mass shootings.
You know, I've told you that I don't like to talk about the individual shootings and crime.
I don't like to give them attention and I don't have much to offer, right?
Because it's always the same argument.
It's just a different shooting.
But I'm going to make one alarming prediction.
We see already that the number of mass shootings is starting to really hockey stick up.
Everybody Everybody sees it now.
Like the number of mass shootings is just climbing.
That is not going to stop.
Do you know why?
Do you know why the number of mass shootings is going to skyrocket?
Not because of gun ownership.
Not because of gun ownership.
I mean, it requires gun ownership.
It wouldn't happen without it.
But it's not the reason it's going to skyrocket.
All right, I'm just going to say the same thing that I said on Twitter.
Men, no.
Men, no.
Women don't know what's happening.
Women are completely confused.
Do you know why women are confused?
Because they don't give a shit about men.
That's the whole reason.
Women don't care anything about men.
What they think, what they feel, what their situation in society is, and how it's basically gone to crap.
You have an entire gender Who don't have any hope.
They don't think they're going to date because Tinder took away their dating options.
Because only the top 10% date.
You can't date.
So if you can't date, you can't get married.
You can't afford getting married.
You can't have a kid.
And if you did, you would be the third class citizen in the marriage.
You would be less important than the wife, less important than the kids, less important than the dog.
And that's what men have to look forward to.
What they have to look forward to is putting a lot of investment in something that won't pay off.
There's no longer a path for men.
Now, that might be true for women as well.
I don't know.
Because the same way that women don't have a full appreciation for men, men don't have a full appreciation for women, and vice versa, and whites and blacks and everybody else, young and old.
Actually, young and old is the only one where I think the old can still have some appreciation for the young, because at least they used to be young.
So that might be the one time that somebody can understand the other category.
Because old people can sometimes understand young people, but not totally.
So, everything that I see suggests that the number of men who have no hope, and just want to do something exciting before they die, are going to do this.
And that doesn't explain all of them.
Some of them are just a beef at work and some of them are crazy people and all that.
But I think you're going to see like the bottom 10% of men who just don't have any hope, but they do have access to guns.
And they're just going to make themselves important because society has made them unimportant.
Let me ask you.
So my take is that nobody cares about men, and they know it.
We all know it.
And that they don't have hope anymore.
Because society has changed.
Women don't really need men.
And women have stopped wanting to have babies.
And men can't afford to be the sole breadwinner.
Are you all buying this?
You know, what's interesting, I don't see anybody pushing back.
I see no pushback.
Now, I'm going to go further and say that men generally understand this.
Women probably only understand it because they're hearing it and it sort of makes sense when you hear it.
But did you know this?
How many of you women understood that the situation for men is beyond dire?
Dyer is where you're uncomfortable and it's serious.
We're all the way to men are just going to kill themselves and as many people as they can kill at the same time.
Because they don't give a darn.
See how well I did?
That was totally a place where I would have sworn if this were not 2023.
I totally would have let loose a whole tirade of horrible words, but I did not.
I held back.
I held back.
It wasn't easy.
All right, so mass shootings, expect them to skyrocket, and expect that nobody will do anything about it, because nobody cares about men.
They'll just go after the guns.
Here's a simulation alert.
So you know that Schiff and Swalwell got kicked off the Intel Committee.
McCarthy did a pretty awesome job talking to reporters in public and telling them why he kicked those two people off.
And I think most Republican-leaning people looked at that and said, yep, that is what we wanted.
That is exactly why we want you to be in charge, if you're happy with McCarthy.
If you are, that's why.
He gave the right answer.
He basically said, you know, they're available for other committees.
We're not saying that they can't be in Congress.
That's not up to us.
We're just saying this one specific thing requires somebody who are not gigantic liars, and those two proved that they lied to the country about about classified information.
They didn't just lie in general, which would be, you know, everybody in Congress.
They lied about the stuff that only they could see.
Now, that was more Schiff.
I don't know what the Swalwell thing is.
Now, the Swalwell spy thing, I'm gonna go with Matt Gaetz on that, that maybe we're making too much of that because that happened a long time ago, and it wasn't when he was in Congress.
So you can use your own judgment about that.
The only thing I'd like to add to this conversation, and I haven't heard anybody do it, is that we make fun of Swalwell for allegedly having gas on camera.
That didn't really happen, but it's a funny story.
And we, of course, we make fun of Schiff because his last name reminds us of something.
So what are the odds that we're in this simulation and the two people in the headlines are literally Schiff and Fart?
Schiff and Fart, the two guys that got kicked off the Intelligence Committee.
Schiff and Fart.
Come on.
Is that funny?
No?
Okay.
Well, moving on.
That's all I had for that.
That's all I had.
That's my only commentary.
So Ukraine is interesting in the sense that it feels like the U.S.
is at war, but we're doing war the way war will be fought in the future, which is we'll use our technology and we'll get people who are more local to the problem to do the fighting and dying.
So it feels to me like the United States is at war with Russia, and we're just using Ukraine as the cut out.
Now, Ukrainians think they're at war with Russia, but from my perspective, it just looks like we're at war with Russia.
And we're just doing it in this semi-clever way so that Russia doesn't treat it exactly like a war with the United States.
It's like a deniable war that's obviously a war.
It's a weird little thing, like we're all pretending it's one thing when it's obviously another thing.
But even Andrew Yang was saying, he tweeted today, he was glad the U.S.
is going to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine, and then I guess the Germans are also going to send their Leopard 2 tanks.
I don't know a ton about tanks, but I'm guessing tanks are mostly offensive weapons, right?
Is that true?
Tanks are mostly offensive weapons?
Which would suggest that Ukraine's getting ready for an offensive?
So is Ukraine going to go into Crimea?
I feel like Ukraine's best play would be to make a move into Crimea, suck all of Russia's resources out of the disputed areas, then you can take over the disputed areas because they'll just have conscripts and crap there, and then also win in Crimea and you're done.
So if they can bring the depleted Russian forces into Crimea, because they would have to go, right?
There's no way that Russia would, you know, allow Crimea to not be perfectly defended, because he can't lose Crimea.
But it looks like Ukraine is getting ready for a headshot.
The headshot is Crimea, right?
If Putin loses Crimea, like just loses it, That's pretty bad on his end.
It would be hard for him to even stay in office without people really questioning his abilities at that point.
So you're saying that 30 to 50 tanks without air superiority would be meaningless?
Yeah, by themselves, sure.
But it would help.
So, here's the question.
You're missing the Poland role that's coming.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
If there's one thing that you're disappointed in me, it's that I haven't seen that one person on Twitter who told you something you believe.
And that's unbelievable that I'm missing that.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible.
Wow, that sounded like Corinne Jean-Pierre.
Let me be as clear as possible.
I don't know what's going to happen in Ukraine.
How would I know?
I'm just saying, you know, as observers, it looks like that's what they're clearing up to do.
Now, whatever's happening in Poland and Belarus and all that, there's probably a hundred things that I'm not taking into account.
But, on the surface, it looks like they're going to threaten Crimea, to drain Russia into Crimea, and then they'll have a better situation when the snow goes away.
That's what I think.
And then maybe Russia is planning its own advance.
So I would say after the snow melts, it's a free-for-all.
Would you agree with that?
After the snow melts, there's no way to know if Russia or Ukraine will have the advantage.
Because they're both gearing up, and we don't know who's gearing up better.
There's no way to know.
So all hell's going to break loose.
But it's unpredictable after this.
So if it sounded like I predicted something, I didn't.
All right.
I'm going to eat some more crow today, for those of you who like to see me be wrong.
Here's what I think a proper apology should include.
It's never enough to just apologize, is it?
An apology should come with, you know, you know the harm you did.
You know, first the apology, then you acknowledge the harm you did.
But then you've got to do the third thing, and the third thing is the hard thing.
The third thing is you have to create a plan so you don't do it again.
Or at least you have to tell people what you're going to do differently so you will not make that same mistake again.
So I did a deep dive on the people who got the pandemic stuff right, and I learned much more about where I got it wrong.
And with your indulgence, I would like to take some moment to beat myself up for missing some really obvious signals.
Really obvious signals that you did not miss.
All right.
So this is what I've learned.
So I've talked to quite a few people about how they got the right answer when I got all the wrong answers.
And here's what I learned.
So this was roughly the decision tree that we were dealing with.
So the question was, so the young people and the old people, I think we all agree, had a different risk factor.
But individually it was the same layout, just different risk factors.
So you would look at the risk of the shot itself.
And when they did, they said, oh, that is greater than the risk of COVID death, which is practically nothing.
Would you all agree so far?
The risk of dying of COVID, even really early on, well before the so-called vaccinations were available, we really knew that for most people, the risk of death was vanishingly small.
Agree?
So in that case, the risk of the shot would certainly, for the young people, would be greater than the risk of dying of COVID.
And then that's the end of the conversation.
So it's just the risk of the shot versus the risk of the COVID death.
And then if that's bigger, you're done.
So a lot of people correctly looked at the data.
They did their own research, and they looked at the numbers, even the pharma numbers.
When they looked at them, they said, holy cow, the risk of the shot for young people is definitely bigger than the risk of dying from the COVID itself.
So I would be crazy to get the shot, because that's a higher risk than the COVID.
And then they were done.
That's all you need to know.
And I'll tell you how they determined this risk in a minute.
Is there anything I'm leaving out?
I don't think so.
But then, there's a second part of the analysis.
When I say young, I mean people under 65.
The people under 65 said their risk of getting the shot was greater than the risk of COVID.
And therefore, I made a mistake.
So even though I'm in the 65 and older category, because the young people did the research, they felt that the risk of the shot is greater than the risk of COVID, I made a big mistake by getting a shot.
Now that wasn't obvious to me before, because I thought these were different risk profiles.
But after talking to a lot of people, They're quite clear on it, that when they analyze their own risk, and then they compare what they did to what I did, I've made the wrong decision.
So, I'm learning from that.
Now, before we go on, is there anything on here I've not discussed yet?
Because I learned that there's this other box that I thought was real, that I learned is not even real.
Did you know that?
A lot of people knew the risk of long COVID way before the medical community.
And they just said, no, I know this risk.
Now I thought it was unknown.
Now let's also do a definition.
My definition of long COVID would include several months of feeling like crap.
Not necessarily, you know, years.
I mean, it could be years, but my definition was months.
Now, if you're a young person, And you got long COVID, probably you would kick it in, you know, a few days is no big deal.
Don't you think?
Like the young people just like brush off the COVID because they never, they don't get sick.
They don't get that sick in the first place.
So you'd expect if they don't get that sick, their risk of long COVID is probably zero.
Now, if you're an older person, let's say you're over 65, let me tell you one of my own, just like a personal medical criteria.
If I get any kind of major medical problem, whether it's COVID or I break my leg, do you know what happens to you when you're 65 and you lose, let's say, several months of good health?
Do you know what happens?
I'll tell you what I think happens.
I think you never recover.
Like, never.
As in, you don't recover.
Now when I say you don't recover, I mean, you'll never get back to your fitness, the fitness level before, because it's just too hard to crawl back when you're a certain age.
So I've always been concerned that my health, which is very good, at my current age it's very good.
I've always, and I had my blood done, it's just perfect, everything's good.
And I was concerned, I was always concerned that if some major problem happened, That it would take me a year or more to recover.
Now, I'll give you an example.
When, during the pandemic, I had to take prednisone to get ready for some sinus surgery.
Now, because of the pandemic, my surgery was delayed.
So they put me on prednisone a second time, and then it got delayed, and then they put me on a third time.
You should never be on three doses of prednisone, like long doses in one year, because getting off it is really, really hard.
Like you feel terrible for a long time.
Now the prednisone problem alone probably took nine months out of my life, because for months and months I could barely exercise and barely get up to where I am now.
Now, at the moment, I'm back up to my peak.
Everything's good.
But it took me maybe a year to get back.
I was concerned that if I got long COVID and just had a normal week-long terrible COVID, that what would happen is that I would lose a year of quality life.
And maybe it would never get back to where it was.
So remember, when a young person gets long COVID, that's not really much of a problem.
They probably just shake it off.
But if a longer, if a older person got it, that would be a criteria.
Now, what I learned was I'm the only person on this live stream who cares about long COVID.
To me, that was the biggest variable.
But what I learned is you can just ignore it because you don't know anybody who had this problem.
Hadn't thought of that.
But if you don't know anybody personally who has had long COVID, or you think it's just ordinary people get sick and then it takes a while to recover, then you wouldn't worry about this.
But I was just watching Joe Scarborough yesterday.
Joe Scarborough said that, at least Mika, his wife, who was on the show, said that he took like three months to recover from his most recent COVID.
And that was just Omicron.
I don't know how old Joe Scarborough is, but he lost three months of his life.
Three months of quality living he lost to one infection.
Now, I thought, but of course you can't trust the government, that if the shots did nothing but decrease how much you suffered, It would probably decrease your long COVID, because the long COVID probably comes from how bad your original infection is.
I just assume they're connected, but I don't have any science for that.
All right, so what I learned here is that as long as you think young people and old people should be treated the same, and as long as you ignore what I think is the biggest risk, because none of us believe that the risk of dying, if you're youngish and healthy, was worth considering.
So I think we all discounted the risk of dying if we were generally young enough and healthy enough.
And even I'm young enough, you know, even at 65.
I'm young enough to think that the risk of dying was basically zero.
But I didn't know about this one.
So I didn't do the right thing, which is to discount my biggest risk.
So I should have said my biggest risk was actually zero, and then I would have gotten the right answer.
Now here's how I would have done it.
I'll tell you, this crow tastes good.
Eating all this crow.
So, we start with science.
And there was lots of science around the COVID and about the vaccination.
And the science was doing all the randomized controlled trials and the meta-analysis and the data.
They did the observational studies and the peer review.
And that part That part we all appreciate.
The science doesn't get the right answer every time.
But at least it's a process that we respect.
Would you agree?
We're crawling toward the truth, usually through a lot of wrongness until you get to the truth.
So the science isn't about being totally right the first try.
It's a process.
And there were at least three different ways that people departed from science to make their decision.
The dumbest people listened to the government and Big Pharma and the news and said, well, that sounds right.
If these three entities, which have lied to us consistently forever, if they say it's OK, I'm taking it.
And then they got the wrong answer.
So they believed people.
Now a lot of people thought I was in this group.
But I wasn't in that group.
I was in this group.
I thought I didn't understand anything about the science and didn't have a way to really understand it.
So I used my penis to make my decision.
And my penis said, if I get the vaccination, I can go on a trip to Santorini.
Later to Bora Bora with a beautiful woman instead of being locked down with COVID.
Now, so I use my penis and my penis, I don't like to admit this, my penis has a terrible track record.
For decisions.
I don't know about yours.
And I know many of you don't have a penis, so I'm just speaking to those who do.
Is your penis smart?
Because my penis, it doesn't know anything.
Like, I keep expecting it to make good decisions, and I'm like, hey, what do you think we should do about taxes?
Nothing.
Basically won't even help me on my taxes.
So this was a big, complicated medical decision.
I delegated my penis, my penis got it wrong, and that's on me.
That's on me.
So, shoot me.
But the people who were correct used a much better and more rational decision-making process.
They looked at all the science, and they said to themselves, that's not enough.
We must use our personal research and assessment to find out what this really means.
We've got to look deeper.
We've got to look at not just the mainstream.
We've got to look at the critics.
We've got to look at the bigger world.
And I want to be complimentary about this group, because I know I've been harsh in the past.
I want to be very clear.
That in order to do good personal research and assessment of this, what seems like a very complicated area, the people who did this right were not just experts.
They were not just people who were data analysts.
They were not just doctors.
They were not just researchers.
These were ordinary people, blue-collar people, people with every kind of education.
And they were fully qualified, every one of them, To look at this complicated stuff that, you know, to me, I just couldn't figure out anything.
I didn't know which was a bigger risk.
But if you did your personal research and you ignored long COVID, that was important, you would get the correct answer.
Now, I like to show both sides of every argument.
That always gets me in trouble.
So, I'd like to point out that there are some critics of this approach.
I'm not one of them, so don't put this on me, please.
This is clearly the approach that got the right answer, it is rational, and compare it to the alternatives.
Am I going to recommend that you stop using your rational analysis and use your penis?
Half of you don't even have one.
How's that going to work?
You can't make a decision with a vagina.
That would be stupid.
But you know, sometimes a penis gets it right.
But still, it's not recommended, right?
And nobody's going to recommend you listen to the government informant in the news.
Those are your other choices.
So I think you would join me in saying, don't use your penis or vagina to make a decision.
Don't listen to the government big pharma news because they're professional liars.
Do a rational process.
Be you a scientist, data analyst, or just somebody who's a smart person who's doing the work.
Do your personal research and assessment to get the correct answer.
And we see that they did.
They did in fact.
But it has to be said there are some critics.
It would be some people who would disagree with this.
We'll just use some examples of people who disagree.
Isaac Newton.
Isaac Newton wouldn't want to see this.
Because Isaac Newton would say, wait a minute.
I invented science so that you wouldn't do this.
Because that's what we were doing before.
So I invented science because this would be sort of adding a subjective layer on top of the science.
So Isaac Newton wouldn't like this.
But can we agree that Isaac Newton, he pooped in a hole and he was, you know, he was in the 1600s and we don't really need to listen to an old dead guy.
So we can discount Isaac Newton, I think.
What about Is there anybody else who would disagree?
Carl Sagan.
Carl Sagan wouldn't like this at all, because he would like this part, but I think he would probably have some complaints about non-scientists doing their own deep research.
He might say, oh Scott, that's taking the entire benefit of science and discarding it like it didn't count.
But Carl Sagan is dead.
Are you going to listen to a dead guy?
I mean, how smart is he?
He died anyway.
I saw Jimmy Dore was talking about my analysis, and he says that not only am I just the Dilbert guy, but he is very annoyed at my arrogance on this topic.
My arrogance.
Do I seem arrogant?
I don't seem arrogant, do I?
I'm eating humble crow as hard as I can.
I told you you're all right and I got it wrong.
I told you I have great regret because I'm not of pure blood.
But Jimmy Dore had some good criticisms and I'd like to address them on his show.
He talked quite a bit about me and my opinions on this.
And the first thing when I saw the show, I said to myself, Wow, Jimmy Dore's not doing too well, but age catches up with all of us.
Now, I hadn't seen a Jimmy Dore show in a while, and it looked like he had sort of aged.
And when I listened to it, I thought, oh, God.
Can somebody stop me before I start sounding like an old man who's lost it?
Because somebody, I thought, somebody needed to talk to him.
And I was trying to figure out how old he was, and I thought, just based on listening to him, I thought, mm-hmm.
High 70s.
He looked like he was in kind of good shape.
You know, maybe he takes care of himself.
But I thought he was probably 75, 76.
Something like that.
And, you know, you have to, I think, forgive people for being a little less quick when they reach that age.
Yeah, he was pretty old.
So I looked up his actual age.
He was 57.
So that was shocking.
I thought he was closer to 75.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Because, you know, I'm 65 and I thought, well, I'm losing a step.
But he looked like he'd lost a lot of steps.
You'd have to see it to know what I'm talking about.
But he also, he criticized me for calling the the purebloods.
Anti-vaxxers.
And I'd like to clarify, if you will allow me to clarify.
When I use the term anti-vaxxer, I'm not talking about all vaccinations.
It's always in the context of COVID.
I've never talked about vaccinations in general.
Ever.
And in fact, a lot of people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, don't throw us into the anti-vax category, because we're only concerned with the COVID one.
And in fact, our kids are vaccinated with the regular vaccinations, but they've been tested in the normal way.
So, I wasn't aware of this, but were you aware that the normal childhood vaccinations have been tested?
Because I thought they weren't.
Have they been tested?
Childhood vaccinations?
Because I thought they were only tested individually.
But the way we give them is collectively, right?
We give like a combined shot, but that's never been tested, has it?
The combined shot?
Or do they only test them individually?
They tested some?
Yeah.
So, I don't know much about the ordinary vaccination story, but I was unaware that they've tested them the way they're given.
They were tested individually.
But I don't think they were tested the way they're given, you know, all at once.
Yeah, I think that's RFK Jr.' 's point.
I think Trump made that point as well.
So, there are a lot of people who are happy with an untested vaccination for their children, but they make a distinction because the mRNA is unknown.
So, they're more comfortable with the unknown of the combined childhood vaccination than the unknown of the mRNA.
So that seems reasonable.
And yes, we'll get to some of your points.
I see it going by.
All right, so the first thing you need to know is that when I talk about the anti-vaxxers, some are taking that as I was making an insult.
But I'm not.
To me, the anti-vaxxers were the people who didn't want to take the COVID vaccination and got the right answer.
And if I had been talking about all the other people, I would have included the fact that there's some question about whether the childhood vaccinations have been tested the way they should be tested, you know, all together instead of individually.
So, I'm not anti... I'm not against anti-vaxxers.
Does that make sense?
If this ever sounded like I was, Why would I be?
It doesn't even make sense that I would be.
All right.
What else did he say?
Oh, and then on the Jimmy Dore show, they speculated that the reason I was so pro-lockdown and pro-vaccination, according to them, not according to anything I actually did or said, but it's because of my hatred for Trump.
I'll just leave that there for a moment.
Yeah, so after they had analyzed me completely, their bottom line was that it could be the reason I'm so wrong is my hatred of Trump and that that spread over into me disliking my entire audience.
So.
But he's only 57.
Jimmy Dore's only 57.
Very surprising.
yours will leave 57.
Very surprising.
All right.
Now, a lot of you said that the way you did your analysis and your personal research and assessment was not just about the science.
Some of you were good at that.
But they were good at not trusting the people who were withholding information and making money and all that.
But I think that argument Is one I've always agreed with, right?
So the people who said all the people who are making the vaccination can't be trusted, the government can't be trusted, nobody can be trusted.
I was always on that page.
I was only questioning the long COVID.
And apparently you knew that it wasn't a problem for me because it wasn't a problem for young people.
No mandatory shots, right?
- Yeah, I've never been in favor of any mandatory shots, that's for sure.
Yeah, I actually led a anti-mask movement, but Jimmy Dore knows better.
He knows what I was really thinking and doing.
But anyway, I would like to push back on Jimmy's... Oh, and then there were also a number of people who wanted me to say that when I said that the un-vaxxed people won, that they want me to clarify that nobody won.
So the people who did not get vaxxed do not want to be labeled as winners, because that would make them seem small, as if they didn't care about the people who were injured.
But of course they do care about them.
And so I won't call it one, I'll just say they were right.
Is that better?
Now, oh yeah, Alex Berenson offered to talk to me, to explain to me how he got the right answer, and I didn't.
The last thing I'd like to deal with is Jimmy Dore thinks that I'm arrogant.
In general, I think, but on this topic.
I would like to defend myself against that charge.
Does this look arrogant?
Does this seem arrogant?
Now, here's my argument.
If I were going to be arrogant, I would act a little differently.
Would you mind if I showed you just like a fictional version of what I would look like if I were acting arrogant?
Because then you can contrast it to the way I am acting.
So I'd like, with your permission, I'm going to model what it would have looked like had I been arrogant.
Okay?
Ready?
This is me doing an impression of Scott if he were arrogant.
Well, you looked at the science and then you did your own research.
Some people would say there's a step missing in which the psychology mattered.
I can't reach it.
I'm strapped into my But some would say that the people who understand persuasion would know that this is nothing but confirmation bias.
And so the people who said they did this and then, you know, trusted their gut instinct, if I were arrogant, I would say, well, you've just described the exact reason that science was invented.
Science was invented so you wouldn't do this.
That was to prevent you from doing this.
And this.
Because these are not science.
Science is the solution to doing this.
This would be the problem, not the solution.
This would be everything wrong, according to somebody who understood psychology.
Now that would be arrogant.
That would be messed up.
And that's why I don't do that.
Instead, I say, the people who got the correct answer, it's obvious that they used the right process, and that's the end of the story.
And if they ignore the biggest risk of long COVID, it's not because I know how to do things right, and I include all the risks, that would be arrogant.
Instead, I learn from the people who got it right, and I try to improve my game.
So don't let me be like that, because that would be arrogant.
No more arrogance.
We won't do that anymore.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the end of my program for YouTube.
I'm going to talk to the locals people for a minute.
