Episode 2008 Scott Adams: China Spy Balloon, Biden Crime Family, Marxist AI, Hypnotist vs Scientist
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
China spy balloon over Montana
The party of "weak men and angry women"
Ron Klain says Biden economic plan working
AI programmed to be Marxist
Biden crime family
Ukraine biolabs, corruption, money laundering
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, and possibly robots as well.
Now, I'd like to take this experience up to a level that no one has ever experienced before, and if you'd like to join me, all you need is A cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah, that's good.
That's good stuff.
So, um, I just saw a note that YouTube is adding a feature where you can add a guest host.
Locals doesn't have that feature, so I can't use it for my morning streams.
But if Locals would get that feature, wouldn't that be cool?
I think this is another way that YouTube controls the narrative.
Here's how they control the narrative.
Suppose YouTube's new guest feature was so good that everybody who had a podcast wanted to use it.
And then that would allow YouTube to decide which podcasts are seen the most.
Because then they'd lock everybody in their ecosystem, and then they can control what you see.
And I'm thinking, I don't know if it's good for YouTube to have features that maybe other things don't have yet.
I think Instagram has that feature.
I haven't used it yet.
But I'd love to see that native on all of the livestream apps.
Here's an interesting development.
Let's see if you can predict.
Do you think that the charges against Julian Assange will be dropped by the Biden administration?
Go.
What's your prediction?
Now apparently the charges were put on during the Trump administration.
So that's your first hint.
So if Biden were to reverse it, he would be reversing something that happened under Trump.
Which makes it more likely, right?
So he would be spring-loaded to do whatever Trump didn't do.
Not always, but there would be a bias there.
But I read this today, which I was not aware of.
Did you know that five in the last month, so this is newish, five major media organizations, including the New York Times, including The Guardian from Great Britain, Put out an open letter basically saying that the indictment of Assange sets a dangerous precedent, because they had used his materials.
So five big entities that had used Assange's materials said, this is trouble, because he did basically what we do.
He had materials that he wasn't supposed to have, but he published them.
And the New York Times, to their credit, Says, that's what we do.
Because they do.
And here's my question.
Can the Biden administration resist the New York Times?
Because you know they're on the same team, right?
I don't think they can.
And I'm wondering if the New York Times is sort of the trial balloon.
You know, maybe it's a little bit testing whether they want to, you know, The public is willing to drop the charges.
I don't think the New York Times does this without the Democrats knowing it and agreeing about it.
I feel like the fact that the New York Times was part of this open letter suggests that Biden might be a little closer to reversing or dropping the charges than it would seem on the surface.
I don't think I would bet on it yet.
That would be a little greater certainty than I hold.
But there's definitely a suggestion that there's a little foreshadowing here, that maybe the Democrats are getting flexible on this.
We'll see.
Just a prediction.
Here's a funny story.
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, they're going to shut down its, what was called its Misinformation Research Program.
The leader of the misinformation research program was someone who was notably skeptical on the Hunter Biden laptop story.
Now, that's not the reason they're closing it down.
The reason is the person in charge was not a full professor and they have some kind of rule about that.
So, but how would you like to be paying for a Harvard education?
And you found out your kid signed up for the avoiding misinformation class, and the professor for that class believed the most obvious misinformation of our time.
I wouldn't feel like I was getting my money's worth.
It'd be sort of like taking a math class with somebody who can't do math.
We're taking a history class with somebody who was born yesterday or something.
I mean, it doesn't quite fit.
Anyway.
What about that Chinese spy balloon?
Is everybody watching the Chinese spy balloon that's over Montana?
Where we have missile silos, apparently?
Well, well, apparently the news is moving fast on this.
So China first denied it was theirs, and said, we got no spy balloon up there, that's not ours, but we'll look into it.
So they looked into it, and then they said, oh, wait, it is Chinese, but it's not a spy ship.
It's not a spy ship.
A spy ship?
Are you crazy?
No, it's a commercial craft.
It is Chinese.
It's a commercial craft that was doing some scientific stuff.
Scientific stuff.
But the problem is they're in a big old balloon and they can't steer it because the weather steers it.
They have limited steering.
But if they get in a big weather system, the weather system can apparently move them On top of our missile silos.
Weather does that.
I can't tell you how many times I've been in a weather balloon.
I think I'm going one place, and the next thing you know, I'm right over a missile silo.
You'd be surprised how often that happens.
Right over a missile silo.
Nuclear silos.
Yeah.
And that was done by coincidence.
So now we know it was just an accident.
It was just a commercial vehicle.
Presumably it's... Why do we not know if it's manned?
Manned?
You sexist bastard!
You mean personed.
Is it personed?
And I mean any kind of person, from pregnant women to pregnant men.
Could be anybody.
But the question is, is it manned or remote?
If it's personed, Then probably we don't want to shoot it down right away.
That would be bad for them.
So that would make sense.
They're probably just monitoring its signals and seeing what it's doing.
But I kind of wonder why we didn't shoot it down the minute China denied it was theirs.
Apparently it would have been some... If their story is true, it would have been a terrible tragedy because it would be civilians.
Just in terms of homeland security, if you see a giant balloon over your missile silos and it has Chinese writing on it, how long do you wait?
What is the proper time to wait before you shoot that down?
I don't know, I wouldn't have waited too long, but I suppose we made the right decision if it turns out it's a commercial craft.
Now, I don't know how, does any of this story sound like it attracts to you?
Do you believe it?
None of it sounds true, does it?
So let's agree that we're not going to believe anything about this story.
But I will note that we always seem to get reasonably good photographs of aircraft that do follow the laws of physics.
Have you ever noticed that?
If there's an aircraft that does follow the normal laws of physics, we usually can get a photo of it.
At least well enough to tell it's a Chinese balloon.
And if it's one of those glowing tic-tacs that keep violating the rules of physics and all the pilots are seeing them, well, those you can't photograph.
Never.
You can never get a good photograph of those.
And it's not just that they're violating the laws of physics, which they do, But even when they're just sort of sitting there or traveling at the same speed you are, still can't get a photo of them.
It's just a weird coincidence that means nothing whatsoever.
So Chinese spy balloon was not as fun as it should have been.
Unless we shoot it down, then it's going to get fun.
Or tragic.
Cybertruck is here.
I saw a little clip of Elon Musk in the Cybertruck with Jay Leno.
Jay Leno was driving and he was doing his Jay Leno thing.
And Jay Leno says, why does it need to be bulletproof?
And the answer to that question is like the fastest answer to why Elon Musk is rich and you're not, if you're not.
And his answer was, it's super cool.
And then Jay Leno starts pushing on him again.
Yeah, but, you know.
And then Elon says the ultimate ending sentence.
He goes, if you had a choice of your truck being bulletproof or not bulletproof, which do you want?
And then it's all over.
Yeah, I want my truck bulletproof.
Why?
I don't know.
It's super cool.
I don't really think it's going to protect me, but I definitely want the bulletproof one!
So, if you remember why Tesla is successful, and other car companies were not in those days, is because he built his first electric car to be exciting.
Right?
The first Tesla, the Roadster, it was better than a regular car, because it had more pickup.
So if you were a sports person, you didn't need any of that, did you?
Did you need an electric car that goes faster than your Porsche or whatever you're comparing it to?
Not really.
But do you want an electric car that goes faster than everybody else's car and looks kind of cool?
Yes, you do.
Yes, you do.
And that's what makes Tesla successful.
Does today's Tesla car need a bioweapon defense?
No, no, it doesn't.
It doesn't.
But if you had a choice, Of having a car with a bioweapon in defense, and one that doesn't.
Which one do you want?
So I think this is something that Musk gets right every time.
He always calculates in the excitement, the irrational desire, your cravings.
Like he just puts the cravings into the product.
If you don't do that, you don't really understand product development.
And he does.
Well, I believe I've solved a mystery that I've been wondering about for some time.
I saw a clip in which Joe Rogan was talking to Alex Jones, and Joe was saying, Alex Jones, everybody says he's crazy, but he keeps getting a bunch of stuff right.
For example, the example given by Joe Rogan was that Alex Jones was talking about elite pedophile islands even before we knew everything about Epstein.
And then Alex Jones described why he knew so early.
He said he had a source, this FBI agent named Gunderson.
How many of you have heard of this?
FBI agent named Gunderson, who Alex Jones talked to.
I guess he knew him.
And that agent told him, absolutely, absolutely, there are pedophile rings.
So most of you have heard that, right?
A lot of people on the right have heard it.
Now, are you aware that Gunderson is, among other things, he is famous for being an investigator on the McMartin Preschool case.
Have you ever heard of the McMartin Preschool case?
The McMartin Preschool case that Gunderson was an investigator on was Where the kids said that they had been taken to underground, well, in the basement of the preschool.
They said that they'd been taken to the basement of the preschool, and they were part of satanic rituals and abuse.
And then Gunderson investigated, and the evidence that it was true was that a whole bunch of kids independently said it was true.
When they were interviewed independently, They confirmed that there was this massive pedophile thing going on.
Have you heard this story?
Now, how could it not be true?
Seriously, how could it not be true if the kids individually were interviewed and individually had similar stories about a basement?
So they dug the basement, you know, they dug a hole and found out there was no basement.
There was no basement.
Do you know how that's explained?
Turns out that children will imagine anything you tell them to, and they will lose the distinction fairly quickly at that age.
They'll lose the distinction between reality and the thing they just made up, if you work on them a little bit.
And when investigators played back the interviews with the children, you could see that they were leading the witness.
Instead of saying, can you tell me if anything happened, Which might invite them to say something happened in the basement.
They say stuff like, and I'm just making this up, but it would be like this, did anybody ever take you to the basement and perform, like, weird things?
And then the kid will say, no.
Well, you know, the other kids say, the other kids say that they were taken to the basement and weird things happened.
Did anything like that happen to you?
No.
All right, I'm going to ask you again.
Did anything happen to you?
In the basement, because the other kids say it did and they say they were wearing costumes and you were hurt in a ceremony.
Nothing like that happened?
Well, maybe something like that, right?
So the kid will start to imagine that it really happened if you ask the right questions.
That's a well understood phenomenon with children.
So apparently Alex Jones talked to Gunderson Gunderson is famous for being fooled by children's testimonies.
And his evidence that there's a worldwide ring is children's testimonies.
Now, I don't know that he has other evidence, but now we have Epstein's Island, so that's clearly true.
So if you believed that what Joe Rogan said about Alex Jones, Alex Jones was on this pedophile ring early, you should know that the person he got that from is famous for being the most fooled person in the FBI.
The most wrong person in the FBI.
Famous.
It's actually a famous story of how wrong he was.
And confirmed wrong.
Confirmed wrong because there's no basement.
And no evidence ever was found that any of it was true.
Now, does that mean there is no elite pedophile ring?
Well, Epstein was real.
Epstein's real.
And other people who are smart say, there's always been one.
There's always been one everywhere.
Because every government probably gets entrapped that way.
So there's always somebody who's trying to entrap and blackmail everybody.
So over time, you always have some, you know, some kind of that thing going on in any government, you know, from historical till today.
Because as long as blackmail works, people are going to be trying to get people to do things with people they shouldn't be doing things with.
So there's certainly some truth to it, but if you believed it because Alex Jones talked to the guy who's famous for being the most wrong on this topic, If you look at Wikipedia, you'll be famous for being the most wrong on this topic.
Which doesn't mean that it's not true.
Epstein is not a pedo.
Technically correct.
Technically correct.
But not a distinction that's important for political blackmail.
If somebody's under 18, That's sort of all you need for political blackmail.
But it is true that there are different names for what age the adult is interested in.
Technically true.
But not an important distinction for blackmail.
All right.
The funniest hashtag on Twitter is fertility spelled with a P-F.
Like Pfizer.
Pfizer is P-F.
And so the hashtag is fertility spelled with a PF in the front.
And this is based on the Project Veritas video of the Pfizer employee talking about concerns about pregnant women and fertility.
So within Pfizer, we know that at least one person was talking about fertility problems and they were concerned.
I don't know that, you know, Who knows how big a deal that is yet.
But something to worry about, for sure.
All right.
I'm going to save this point until later.
So at the end, I'm going to tell you some things you didn't know about COVID.
But I know some of you don't want to have anything to do with that.
So we'll save that to the end so you can bail out after the other stuff.
All right, Rasmussen has a poll that says that even Democrat voters, only 63% of them think Harris should be Biden's running mate again.
That is way higher than I expected.
Did you think that 63%... Let's go private over here.
All right, we're private and locals now.
Did you think that two-thirds of Democrats thought Harris was good enough to be the vice president again?
That's weird.
It's just bigger than I expected.
You know, obviously Republicans say she's a bad idea.
Alright, did you see the story about Yolanda Omar?
She was kicked off her committee by the mean old Republicans who are in charge of the House now.
And the squad got on and they yelled and cried and trashed around.
And the fun part of this story is Tucker Carlson's characterization of it.
He said, quote, the theater kids completely lost emotional control, which is sort of what it looked like.
And they said, it really is the party of weak men and angry women.
Now, did I say that first?
Because I've been telling you for a while that The Democrats are the party of women and weak men who support them.
I've never heard Tucker say it until now.
But it's kind of obvious now, isn't it?
Isn't it sort of hard to refute?
I mean, it's very clearly the Democrats, the women in the Democratic Party get what they want, and the men go along with it.
I mean, it's very clearly what's happening.
So even though there seem to be a lot of men in charge on the Republican side, they can't do anything the women don't want.
They're very much under their control.
Well, it's interesting that that idea is spreading.
Ron Klain said that the Biden plan is working because it looks like the recession might be less than some people predicted.
What do you think of that statement?
And what does it remind you of?
Right?
So the person in charge says that they're going to do better than predicted, so therefore they did a good job.
If it's better than predicted, that's a good job, right?
Who can argue with, if it's better than predicted, it must be a good job?
You all agree with that, right?
Because that's how we measure everything.
In business, in business you predict what your budget and your expenses and stuff will be, and then your performance review Correct me if I'm wrong, your performance review is compared to what people thought would happen.
And if you did better than people thought would happen, you get a big raise, maybe.
And if you only did what people expected, well then you get maybe whatever's the normal compensation.
And if you did worse than what people expected, you might get fired.
What does this remind you of?
Maybe a Dilbert comic?
Because I tweeted back to Ron Klain and said, you know, his theory was, quote, that he said, I hate to break it to the haters, but the Biden plan is working, meaning his economic plan.
And I tweeted, or experts are bad at predicting.
Why?
I found this on the web.
For what is that said?
I hate to break it to the haters, but the Biden plan is working in his.
All right, shut up.
All right.
All right.
So where was I?
All right.
So let me ask you this.
Who is making the predictions?
Who makes who makes the predictions?
Well, it's a lot of individual people, right?
CNBC, lots of predictions.
Everybody's making predictions.
So, why do we think the predictions are good, and therefore our performance can be measured against the predictions?
Why would we think the predictions are good?
What possible justification would we have for imagining that some group of people can see the future?
Nobody knows what's going to happen next year.
So if you compare somebody's performance to what happens next year, that is purely absurd.
It's a pure absurdity.
Let me tell you how companies predict how they'll do next year.
All right, I'm the CEO.
So I ask all of my managers, tell me what you think you can do next year in your line of business.
How much do you think you can boost sales?
What do the people say?
So the CEO asks the managers, what can you do next year?
Do the managers say, you know, honestly, I think I'm going to kill it next year.
I am going to slay it next year.
Does anybody say that?
Even if they believe it.
Does anybody say that?
No.
Nobody's smart?
No.
Everybody who's giving a prediction knows that their performance will be measured against the prediction.
So everybody gives a low prediction.
Everybody.
If you've never worked in a corporation, this isn't obvious, but I used to do budget planning.
Do you think that the people who ask for a budget ask for exactly just enough?
No!
Every single person asks for, I don't know, 20 or 30% more than they need, because they know it will be cut, and at their very best they can say, well, we didn't spend it all, I did a great job.
So the game is not the performance, The game, that's not how you win the game.
The game is how you set the expectations.
That's the game.
So that's all gamed.
So that where the expectations are and the predictions, that's all gamified.
That's all the managers trying to make it sound as low as possible.
So if they exceed it, they can say, look at me, look at me.
Or as Ron Klain said, but the Biden plan is working.
Haters?
Yeah, no, it's ridiculous.
Because it's all based on predictions and nobody can predict.
I signed up for the Mike Cernovich sub-stack yesterday, because damn it, he wrote something that made me have to see the rest of it.
Which is good marketing, I guess.
And I recommend it.
I always recommend Cernovich.
Everything he says is more interesting than everybody else, basically.
And he's consistently more interesting than other people all the time.
So, go read it.
But he has an article about...
Why, the danger of AI is not that it will hate people and try to destroy us.
The danger is it's a Marxist.
And it'll just turn us into Marxists and then we'll destroy ourselves.
And the argument for this is, we already see with ChatGPT, that, I don't know if you saw this experiment, but somebody said, write a poem praising Donald Trump.
And chat GPT said, oh, I can't do that.
You know, that would be inappropriate.
And then you ask, write a poem praising Joe Biden.
Boom!
Here's your poem.
Joe Biden, he's great.
He's amazing.
And it all rhymes and everything.
Right.
Yeah, that's a real thing.
That's a real thing.
AI is already programmed to dislike Trump and to like Joe Biden.
It's easy to demonstrate.
Go do it yourself.
You'll find out.
Now, so obviously the big problem is that AI won't be AI.
The big problem is it will be fake AI that is just programmed to be a Marxist because the people creating it have those leanings.
Is that a good point?
See, this is why you follow Cernovich.
I hadn't really thought of the implications of that.
I just thought it was comical, but I hadn't really thought it through.
But once you think it through, yeah, that is a big, big problem.
Way bigger, I think, than AI becoming sentient and wanting to kill us.
The reason I'm not worried about AI becoming sentient and wanting to kill us is that it doesn't have needs.
Humans have needs.
They're baked in.
So I might need to kill you to reproduce.
Right?
If I think you're a threat or something.
But AI doesn't even need to protect itself.
It just doesn't have any needs.
It's just going to respond to what we ask.
So I'm less concerned about AI unless somebody builds in an evil intention or something.
I don't even think consciousness would give it cravings.
But it might.
So that is a risk.
All right.
I'm going to go into a big complicated story here about Ukraine and the Biden crime family.
And I'm going to call out, as I have in the past, Ken Ekoa and his substack and his threads on Twitter.
K-A-N-E-K-O-A.
Now, I don't know what to believe, so I'm going to tell you what he reports.
I have no idea what's true.
In this case, more than others.
But here are the threads he's putting together.
So we go back to 2012, and we know from a Ukrainian news report that the US Department of Defense was building biological weapons laboratories in cities across Ukraine as part of its Biological Threat Reduction Program.
What?
That was actually reported in the Ukrainian press in 2012 because it didn't seem like a big deal, I guess.
So the news just reported it.
Now, what's the difference between a biological threat reduction program and a biological weapons program?
Do you know what the difference is?
Who's talking about it?
That's it.
Who's talking about it?
Functionally, they're the same.
Because the way that you figure out how to reduce your risk is to create the risk.
You have to create the risk to test what to do about it.
So it ends up that there's no difference between a bioweapon lab and a risk reduction lab.
They end up doing the same work with probably the same risk.
So unbeknownst to most of us, in 2012 the US had this big program And even further back, in 2005, Senators Lugar and Senators Barack Obama signed the Ukrainian-Nun Lugar Biological Agreement.
So all the way back to 2005, we see at least one Democrat, Obama, part of these biological weapons labs.
And so we had cooperation and agreement and storage agreements.
Now, why is it do you think that the US set up biological labs in Ukraine?
And lots of them, apparently.
I don't know how many.
Why there?
Isn't it obvious?
It's obvious, right?
Well, the most obvious reason is to do things you can't legally do in the United States.
Duh, right?
It's because they had, you know, fewer restrictions.
The second reason would be, if you pump money into a corrupt place, you could probably skim some off for yourself.
As in, we're going to pump a bunch of money in here, but I'm not going to say yes until you say you're going to give me 10% of it for myself.
That's how corruption works.
So, maybe corruption.
That would be unknown.
So I don't know there is corruption.
But that would be one of the reasons you do it.
The other reason would be, yeah, and the money laundering, etc.
But the other reason would be that they have lower standards for safety.
So it could be both of those or one of those.
All right.
It goes on.
This gets better.
And again, this is all from Kinakoa thread on Twitter.
All right.
And those labs were being upgraded by the U.S.
to control everything from anthrax to a bunch of other things, typhoid, cholera, etc.
Now, the cover story, which might be the true story, was that the U.S.
wanted to make sure that these biological agents didn't get released.
So we wanted to control them.
And that makes sense.
It might not be the whole story, but that much of it certainly passes the sniff test.
All right, but it turns out here's a new fact.
Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was financially involved with the Ukrainian biolabs well before we knew any of the Hunter Biden stories.
Now, he was involved with the biolabs through a company that one of his companies had a big investment in, MetaBiota.
They were a pandemic tracking and response firm.
Seriously?
What?
Hunter Biden was involved with these labs through an investment that was a pandemic tracking and response firm.
I mean, I wonder how well a company like that would do if a pandemic broke out.
I wonder how well they do, huh?
Pandemic breaks out and you've got just the right product for it.
That would be lucky, huh?
For somebody.
But he was not only involved in the biolabs.
This gets better.
Are you ready for this?
Are you ready to have your whole head blown off?
Assuming this is true, and I'm just reading from this thread.
So not only was Hunter involved in pandemic-related company for the biolabs in Ukraine, but his boss at Burisma, you know he was on the on the board of Burisma, Turns out that the guy who had the controlling interest of Burisma at the time was this billionaire called Kolomoisky.
Now so far that's okay, right?
We know that Hunter was on the board of Burisma and we're pretty sure it's because of his name, right?
He's pretty clear about that.
But so there's this one billionaire.
But did you know that this same billionaire is the one who bankrolled the career of a Young actor named Volodymyr Zelensky.
Now the president of Ukraine.
Same billionaire.
So interestingly, Zelensky and Hunter Biden were controlled by the same Ukrainian billionaire.
Interesting.
What a coincidence.
Then Zelensky went on to have fame in his TV show that was funded in part by this billionaire.
And the billionaire also provided security, lawyers, and vehicles for Zelensky's presidential campaign.
It's nice to have a billionaire like that supporting your presidential campaign in your big old corrupt country.
So, let's see.
And apparently the Pandora Papers, I don't know what they are exactly, apparently revealed that Zelensky was a beneficiary of a web of offshore firms created around 2012.
Around 2012, same time as stuff was happening with those biological labs.
Probably a coincidence.
And the same year Zelensky Production Company entered into a deal with the same billionaire's media group and received $41 million.
From this billionaire's private bank.
And then there was a 2012 study.
2012 is an important date here.
A study of Burisma Holdings, funded by George Soros and the State Department, found that the owner of Burisma Holdings was Kolomoisky.
So apparently it wasn't clear who the controlling person of Burisma was, but it was this billionaire.
So Hunter Biden and Zelensky were working for the same Ukrainian billionaire at the same time.
All right.
And let's say he had controlling interests, blah, blah, blah.
The same billionaire funded the Azov, Adar and Dnipro battalions accused of shelling children and war crimes in eastern Ukraine.
So one billionaire is behind starting the trouble that caused the war, and he owns Zelensky and Hunter Biden, which means he owns Joe Biden.
So there's one billionaire behind everything.
And in 2020, the DOJ accused this billionaire of laundering $4 billion from his private bank into American properties.
So the summary here is that Joe Biden sent $100 million to Zelensky in Ukraine.
The billionaire and his son, Hunter, laundered it, blah, blah.
So everything about this story suggests... Oh, and then it goes on, right?
And then Kanekoa points to another thread by A user named Clandestine.
His username is at WarClandestine.
So, this goes a little bit further than my credulity can go, but it might be true.
Might be true.
I can't debunk it.
But it's a little bit of a stretch.
Let's see if I can take you this far.
So, WarClandestine says, In 2005, the Washington Post describes those labs in Ukraine as, quote, part of a Cold War network of anti-plague stations.
So when Russia does anti-plague research, it's bioweapons.
But when the U.S.
does, it's not bioweapons.
Depends who does it.
All right, so here's some more.
And they admit that the anti-plague work produces bioweapons in order to do the work.
Alright, let's see.
Then Obama opened the floodgates, this is from the same Twitter thread, for the deep state.
So here's where it gets a little speculative.
I'm not sure I can go this far.
And created biological weapons programs with the Ukrainian government, so this is Obama, and established connections for U.S.
oligarchs to build biolab companies in the lawless land of Ukraine.
Now that I would need a little more research and evidence on.
Are there rich Americans who are benefiting from these biolabs?
Or maybe they were doing research for American companies that couldn't do it in the US.
So I don't know what to think of that connection.
Then the situation turned sour.
So up until this point, the story, and I'm not sure I would believe all of it, but the story is the U.S.
essentially captured Ukraine to use it as a bioweapons wasteland and maybe a way to launder money.
So that's the accusation.
But then the country went into civil war.
That was when the State Department, Hillary Clinton, and the CIA took full control of Ukraine's government, according to this threat.
This is not my claim.
And that Victoria Nuland facilitated a regime change, again, according to this.
And said out loud, I guess, quote, there was a fear of, quote, the Russian forces getting their hands on the biological weapons research.
So the U.S.
picked a puppet government that happened to be Zelensky.
And now they have control over it.
And Biden's visited Ukraine 13 times, securing U.S.
funding for Ukrainian oligarchs.
Again, these are just the claims in this thread.
Then used his power to fire a state prosecutor who figured out Biden's kickback laundering scheme.
That's a little speculative.
Because we do know that other countries wanted that same prosecutor fired for corruption.
So if all the other countries wanted him fired and Joe Biden got him fired, you can't say for sure that there was a bad reason for it.
There is a potential not bad reason for it.
But we don't know.
So the conclusion is that the reason all of our tax dollars are in Ukraine Because Ukraine is a deep state proxy controlled by the ruling class, the DNC, and George Soros.
Now that's a lot of things to pull together, so I'm not sure, I'm not sure it's as organized as it sounds.
But it sounds, here's the part that I think we can say with some certainty.
I don't know how much of this speculation is true, but even without it, The Biden family is a crime family.
Is there any doubt about that now?
Just based on what we do know from the laptop and the 10% for the big guy, and then just looking at the deals Hunter made, it's obviously a crime family.
I don't think that could be more obvious.
Why do we not call them the Biden crime family?
Like, why do we even refer to them, you know, by their last names and stuff?
They should just be the Biden crime family.
Now I know there's some people probably refer to them that way sometimes, but I feel like that should be the only phrase.
The Biden crime family.
Right?
I will say that I find this speculation credible.
Meaning that that doesn't mean it's true.
But it's credible.
Meaning that the The way the story fits together all the pieces, they do fit.
The pieces do fit.
Doesn't mean it's true.
But the pieces fit.
So you can't ignore that.
All right.
So here's more on that.
And the reason that the House Democrats went insane over Trump's phone call to Zelensky is they needed to get rid of Trump because he was going to find out All the money laundering and bad secrets in Ukraine.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Totally feasible.
Totally credible.
But not necessarily the whole truth.
Not necessarily.
But maybe.
It looks credible to me.
Here's the part I don't believe.
That we knew Putin was looking for the bioweapons.
How does that make sense?
Why was Putin looking for the bioweapons?
Now, of course, he was.
But that would be part of the invasion.
It would just make sense.
But do you think Putin wanted the bioweapons so he could embarrass the West?
Or he wanted them so he could use the weapons because Russia doesn't know how to make bioweapons?
But I think they do.
So that part is not fitting perfectly.
All right.
And I guess the World Health Organization advised Ukraine to destroy all their pathogens at the labs that the mainstream media said didn't exist.
Because the WHO knew Putin was looking for the bioweapons.
Okay, that's too far.
Too far.
How would we know that the WHO knows that Putin is looking for the bioweapons?
That's too far.
So I can't go with this thread all the way there.
But it does look like something potentially sketchy is happening over there.
The trouble with these confusing stories that are long is it's just hard to keep it all together.
So here would be the speculation that I don't buy into.
That somebody intentionally, you know, let out COVID-19 because a bunch of people figured out how to make money if it happened.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that COVID-19 was released intentionally?
To make money?
Because it seems like a terrible way to make money.
I do have some yeses.
Yeah, some yeses.
You know, we've seen through history people do worse.
Am I right?
Am I wrong?
We've seen people do worse.
This wouldn't even be the worst thing that's happened.
Not even close.
So you can't rule it out because nobody would do something that bad.
I would think the best reason for ruling it out would be too many people involved to get away with it.
Too many people involved.
And if anybody got caught doing that, that's the death sentence.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
If somebody did that and got caught red-handed, is that racist?
That's racist, isn't it?
Getting caught red-handed?
That's racist, isn't it?
Does that come from, like, Native Americans or something?
Oh, it's not racist?
What does the red mean?
Oh, red means blood.
Oh, that makes sense.
Yeah, blood.
Sounds racist.
But it means blood, I guess.
So, anyway.
I'm not sure I believe that it's all a plot.
But there seems to be a lot of people doing a lot of sketchy things everywhere.
All right, here's a question I asked on Twitter.
We're getting into the material now.
Some of you will want to run away.
Run away.
Now, I should warn you.
It would have been fair to warn you, but I didn't.
I should warn you that when people say to me, Scott, stop talking about this topic, that I do block you.
Because my job is largely a creative job.
And the last thing I want to hear is somebody telling me what not to do.
So while I understand that that's your opinion, and you're welcome to your opinion, I don't even disagree with it.
I'm just saying that if you're tweeting at me to tell me to change what I'm doing, I'm blocking you.
Because I don't want that noise in my life.
Now, I'm perfectly okay with losing immense amounts of money because people stopped watching.
You understand I'm okay with that, right?
I mean, I couldn't be more transparent.
There's nothing I'm doing in public that makes money.
It's all bad.
Now, I'm monetizing some of it that takes some of the edge off, but it's all bad for me.
There's no way I would be saying the things I'm saying if I were trying to make money.
Or even get power.
I know how to make money, and I know how to make power, and it's just taking a side and agreeing with them.
It's very easy.
There's no complexity to it at all.
So, if there's one thing you can know for sure, I'm not doing it for the money, and I'm not doing it for some kind of weird power, because it's not working, right?
But I'm keeping doing it, so I'm either crazy, or there's something else going on.
There is something else going on.
Eventually, that'll become clear.
But I ask this question for those who... And by the way, the reason I talk about it is primarily because I think it's fascinating to know how people make decisions.
And it's fascinating to know when they do it right and when they do it wrong.
That's my interest.
It's not my interest whether you get vaccinated or not.
Totally uninterested in that.
But the decision-making process and the who is hallucinating is my mainstream topic.
Here's a question I asked.
If a hypnotist and a scientist come up to you, and I'm going to add this, I didn't have this in the tweet, but I'm going to add this to the mental challenge here.
The scientist and the hypnotist, somehow you know by magic that they don't lie.
They could be wrong, they could be mistaken, but they definitely don't lie.
So a hypnotist and a scientist come up to you at the same time.
The scientist says, I just discovered something amazing and breathtaking and changes everything about how we see the world.
The hypnotist standing right next to the scientist says, don't listen to him.
He's hallucinating.
And nothing like that actually happened.
So my question on Twitter was, who should you believe?
And there's one right answer.
There's one right answer and all the other answers are wrong.
Who should you believe?
The hypnotist or the scientist?
Go.
Who should you believe?
There is one right answer.
Barnes.
The right answer is neither.
Why is the right answer neither?
You think the answer is neither because you can't trust anybody until you look into it yourself, right?
Nope.
Nope.
Here's why neither.
It's built into the question.
The question answers itself.
Did you see the word that's the trick word in the question?
Should.
What does should mean?
I said, who should you believe?
What the hell does should mean?
Should?
Should what?
Should is not a reason.
Don't do anything If the only reason is that you think you should.
Because that's not a reason.
Now, as soon as anybody says, you should do this, your answer is no.
It doesn't even matter what it is.
No.
If that's the best you have, is that I should do it?
No.
No reason there.
We use the word should in the limited situations where we all know the risks, right?
So here's a proper use of the word.
I don't think you should walk into busy traffic.
Because the should is not the important part.
The busy traffic tells you what you need to know.
Oh, that would be dangerous.
We all understand.
So that's a proper use of the word should, because everybody understands the context of what the risk is.
But if I just tell you a scientist and a hypnotist walk up to you and say, who should you believe?
As soon as you hear the word should, the answer is neither.
You shouldn't do anything unless there's a reason.
If I'd given you a reason, and I said, here's the reason, and then this is why you should do it, it's not the should, it's the reason.
Does that make sense?
So the phrasing of the question guaranteed that the right answer was only one.
Don't believe either of them, because you shouldn't have to do anything.
You better have a reason.
All right, but beyond that, let's go to the next level.
Suppose, I didn't use the word should, and I replaced that with, you're trying to maximize your odds.
So you're just playing the odds.
You don't know for sure if the hypnotist or the scientist is right, and you don't have access to the data.
So let's say you can't do your own research, and you're going to have to make a decision.
Now, I know what you want to say.
You want to say, well, I'm not going to make a decision.
I'm going to wait until I look into it myself.
But I'm taking that option away.
You have to make a decision.
There's a time limit.
You have to trust either the hypnotist or the scientist.
Now, what do you do?
Hypnotist or scientist?
Go.
Hypnotist or scientist?
You're just playing the odds.
I'm seeing scientists, scientists, scientists.
Hypnotists, hypnotists, hypnotists.
Your mom.
Okay, mom is a good answer.
Scientists, hypnotists.
Okay.
Here is the correct answer.
Depends which one's better.
Now that's not in the question.
But if Einstein came to you, And said, I have discovered this something.
And then at the same time that Einstein is standing in front of you, somebody who learned hypnosis last week says, oh, I learned hypnosis last week.
I think Einstein is hallucinating.
Who are you going to believe?
I think I'd go with Einstein.
I'd go with Einstein.
Now, let's say you have a good, solid scientist, somebody who's published, a well-published scientist.
But you also have a really experienced hypnotist.
So let's say you knew, it wasn't in my question, but let's say you knew they were both high-end of their profession.
Who do you trust?
The high-end scientist who's got a real good resume?
Or the high-end hypnotist who can identify hallucinations?
And the question is, is it a hallucination?
Go.
Hypnotist or scientist?
Only one of them is an expert on hallucinations.
Why would you defer to the scientist?
The scientist is the one who can't know the answer.
If the scientist is in a hallucination, they can't know.
That's what a hallucination is.
If a hypnotist sees a scientist in the hallucinating, and it's a good hypnotist, they would know it pretty well.
I'm pretty sure that I have the tools to identify somebody who's hallucinating.
Pretty sure.
And I think that anybody with my same experience could do it.
But I don't think a new hypnotist could do it.
If you learned it last week, I don't think you could do it.
And so here's my dilemma.
When I get into a conversation with a doctor or a scientist about anything COVID, They're usually talking about the data, and I'm just looking at them.
And I'm saying, well, I can see a hallucination going on.
And then they say, but you have to look at my data, which I don't know how to do.
I don't know how to look at scientific data and know if the data is real.
I don't know who got funded.
And nobody can do that.
Nobody can do that.
Nobody can look at data and know who got funded.
Do you know why?
Do you know why you can't tell who's getting paid for doing a study?
Do you know why you can't tell?
Does anybody know that?
Well, in some cases you can, and that's what fools you to think maybe you can always tell.
In some cases there's a public record if somebody did some work for the pharma company.
So sometimes you can find it.
Here's the reason you can't find it.
Because the payment comes after the thing.
The payment doesn't always come before.
If I were working in the, let's say the pharma domain, and I wanted Pfizer to pay me a bunch of money, but I didn't even have a relationship with Pfizer in any way, but I wanted them to give me a lot of money, how would I do it?
I would do a study that I designed and made sure agreed with something they really wanted to be known, and then I would publish it, and then Pfizer would contact me.
Because they would say, hey, we really like that thing you wrote, that study that agrees with us.
How would you like to come give a speech to some people who we'd like to convince were right?
And then the guy says, oh, that's a good idea.
We both want to talk to that audience, and you're going to pay me.
So I'll get paid to give a speech of something that I believe, because I just wrote this paper about it.
So if you think that people only get paid during or before They work for the pharma company, you don't know how that works.
People are doing it before they get any money, so they will.
You think you can look at a study and know that the scientist who was in charge of it had no intention of someday being asked to give speeches about his study by the big pharma?
How would you know that?
You'd have no way of knowing that.
How about if the big pharma invested in a company that your spouse has a financial interest in?
Would you know that?
It's just a startup.
And your spouse has some equity in it.
And then later, after your spouse invested later, big pharma comes in and also makes an investment.
And then suddenly your family gets rich.
And doesn't look like there's any records connecting.
So if you don't understand that everybody can be bribed, then you're going to be very confused when you say, oh, these ones are good and these are not.
I can't tell the difference.
So if you believe you can tell who's been bribed and who hasn't, well, you have a power I don't have.
I don't have that power.
If you believe that you can look at the data and tell from the written conclusions that they collected the data correctly, how do you do that?
I can't do that.
I know what they say, but that's all I know.
How do you know something more than that?
So, anyway, I have no ability to look at scientific studies, but a lot of people say they do.
I do have the ability to identify people who are hallucinating, and here's the thing that scientists and doctors don't want to hear.
On that one question, I'm the authority.
I know.
Now, if the question is, is this research correct?
Don't ask me.
I've told you forever.
I don't know which side is correct, because I don't know if any of it's correct.
But I can definitely tell you if somebody is hallucinating, with maybe 85% accuracy.
Not every time, but 85%.
So if I tell you that somebody is hallucinating, and they tell you that they're a scientist doing a great job, I would listen to me.
If you replaced out the personalities and just took some other person who has the skill, I would trust them.
I love watching how the comments change, because I can tell when an idea is starting to settle in.
And How many of you thought that going into this whole, you know, vaccination question, that I was subordinate to the experts?
Meaning that whatever I knew was certainly a lesser important skill than whatever the scientists knew.
You just assume that.
But in this very narrow area, I am the expert, not the scientist.
Scientists don't know hypnosis.
They don't know when they're in an illusion.
That takes somebody who knows how to do that.
I know how to do that.
In fact, how many times have I demonstrated to you intentionally triggering somebody into cognitive dissonance?
How many times have you watched me do it?
Like, I do it as a live demonstration in lots of different venues.
And you always get the word salad and the change of topic as soon as it happens.
And now you can identify it too, right?
I've taught you.
I've taught you that as soon as you get the word salad, Where there's words but they don't make sense, that means they hit their cognitive dissonance level.
If they change the topic when it was just a clean question, well, why do you believe this?
And then they go, well, back in 1944, you go, no, no, that's cognitive dissonance.
If you can't answer a simple direct question, because you know it will trigger you, it means you're already triggered.
And then there's also the eyes.
Now, I don't have the science to back this one, but I have a lot of years of experience.
You can tell by the eyes when somebody is hallucinating.
It's like really, really clear.
And Anomaly had those eyes.
He had the hallucination eyes.
Here's how I trigger people into cognitive dissonance.
So I'm going to do it to some of you right now.
Not all of you.
Anybody who's still here, you can probably handle this.
But if there's anybody here who should have left already, I'm going to trigger you into cognitive dissonance right now.
Let's say you're a person who believes that you can do your own research, and you did, and you researched the so-called vaccination that's just a shot, and you researched it, And you got the good answer.
And that's why you got the good answer.
Because it's your good research.
Now here would be a question I would ask that would trigger cognitive dissonance.
If you can't understand my tweets, why would you be able to do that?
Because the level of complexity of understanding my opinion and reading my tweets would be about a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Looking at research and second-guessing the experts and seeing something that they missed, when you don't have that expertise especially, that would not apply to somebody like Brett, who does have the expertise.
But why would you think that if you can't even read my tweet and know my clear, clean opinion on it, why do you think you can do deep research on a field that's not necessarily your field?
Now, those of you who have, you know, followed the whole topic, that doesn't trigger you.
But for some of you, that just triggered the fuck out of you.
Because you're thinking, huh, why do I think I can do this highly complicated thing that even the experts are getting wrong while I can't read a tweet and interpret it?
Now, is that only because you can't tell when I'm kidding?
Have you seen how many people couldn't tell if I was pranking?
If you can't even tell if I'm pranking, you're probably not the person that should be researching this and telling the rest of us.
Now again, I'm not saying you got the wrong answer, because all the people who are not vaccinated as of today, that's a pretty good position to be in.
Pretty good position.
Well, you might want to look at an exchange I had with comic Dave Smith.
Who, I don't want to say he was an anti-vaxxer, because people get mad at me when I use that, but I think he was, let's say, very hesitant about the mandates in general.
And when I pushed a little bit to see how he reached his opinion, that the vaccinations would be more danger than good, I asked him how he figured out his risk of long COVID.
Now, what happens when you say to somebody who is convinced they did a good, logical, analytical case, and then you say to them, how did you judge long COVID?
Because everybody knows that we don't know what that is, right?
And he said that his odds of getting long COVID were extremely small, or worse to that effect, extremely small.
In other words, he guessed.
How do you interpret that?
He didn't use analysis.
He just said, my risk of long COVID is very, very small.
Based on what?
Because if you were to read the news, the news says your risk is anywhere from 15 to 60%.
That's what the experts say.
But how did a comedian, who I don't think is a scientist also, how did he know that his risk was extremely small?
Now, by the way, he might be right.
Here's a megacropper.
So here's this to my appointment.
So megacropper says, come on, Scott, you were a big pharma simp until you got off the BP meds.
Now, given that this person has a complete hallucination of who I was before BP meds, because he thinks I was pro-vaccination, which is the opposite of what was happening, how do you think You can analyze a complicated topic of COVID versus vaccinations, that are not vaccinations, if you can't even figure out what my opinion is.
How do you do that?
I mean, you're clearly wrong about my opinion, and I can say that with certainty, because I'm me.
I don't have to research that.
So I know that you're wrong about me, but why are you right about your analysis of things that are outside your field?
Does that give you any pause?
That you're so wrong about something so easy.
So easy.
But did you believe a comic that you saw on the internet?
And that was your research on me?
All right.
There was a, I saw it tweeted today, there was a VA study in 2021 that predicted basically that people getting COVID were going to have a big wave of cardio problems.
And sure enough, we are.
So it was a huge veterans admin study that had, you know, just, I don't know, millions of people, I think.
And apparently we know that after any bad flu, there's a high risk of heart attacks.
So the evidence from a massive study is that every demographic group should have cardio problems, even the young people.
So the COVID itself is well understood to create massive cardio problems.
Do you believe that?
I don't.
I don't.
Do you know why I don't believe it?
You know, I don't believe that the virus itself causes really fairly extreme, I would say, heart attack problems later.
I don't believe it.
And they compared it, and by the way, they also compared vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
That's your first question, right?
Your first question is, but Scott, they were all vaccinated, right?
And you're going to tell me, but really it was the vaccination that's not really a vaccination that gave them the heart, the cardio problems, right?
Is that where you're going to go?
Do you think that they, do you think they looked at the vaccinated and the unvaccinated separately?
What do you think?
Do you think they sorted out the vaccinated from the unvaccinated?
Yes, of course they did.
Of course they did.
And they found out that it didn't matter whether you were vaccinated or not, if you got COVID, you definitely had cardio problems.
So if you believe this massive Veterans Administration study from 2021, everything you're seeing is exactly what was predicted by the experts.
And they've studied it and found out it wasn't the vaccinations, it was the COVID.
Now, how do I know that that's not believable?
It's easy.
Because if this is true, it would mean I made the correct decisions.
And we know that didn't happen.
Am I right?
This can't be true.
Because if it were true, then everything I did would be right.
And other people who are my critics would look wrong.
And we know that's not the case.
Since we know I'm wrong, you can reason backwards to know that the study is wrong.
That's the way I did it.
Here's another thing people said to me.
So I've got a little questions on this.
I said, How did you know that these vaccinations would be more dangerous than we hoped?
And people said you could tell because how hard they were trying to sell it.
The extreme pressure that they put on people, mandates, laws, the peer pressure, the shame, the penalties.
Once you see all that pressure that people are putting on, that's enough to tell you that it's dangerous.
Anybody agree with that?
How many would agree that once you see that, you don't need to know much else?
Yeah, and the EAU and the freedom from lawsuits.
Like, that's all you need to know, right?
Okay.
How many of you wear seatbelts?
Which are mandated.
Do you wear seatbelts?
Because I think I'm going to stop wearing seatbelts.
Sort of a protest.
Because once I realize that I'm being forced to do it, I'm like, hmm, you're really trying really, really hard to make me wear these seatbelts.
I think how hard you're trying is a tip-off, that it's not based on real science.
What are your comments?
Oh, somebody's saying the seatbelts have been tested for 75 years.
Well, if you want to believe that, I believe that it's how hard they push that matters.
But if you think seatbelts are a different situation, then you're not on the page that says how hard they push is all you need, right?
So would you agree it's not the fact that it's mandated?
Do you know what else is something that the government pushes really hard?
Every law.
You can go to jail if you break them.
So it turns out we live in a horrible country where the government is forcing us to do stuff all the time.
Don't kill your neighbor.
Don't steal that money.
Don't say things like that.
And so I'm going to look at everything the government's telling us to do, and I'm going to start doing the opposite.
Because they wouldn't tell you to do it and force you to do it at gunpoint unless it wasn't real.
No?
All right.
You're not buying that.
You all saw that there was that huge study that said that masks were useless.
Did everybody see that?
It was like a massive, biggest study that showed that masks were just totally worthless.
Did you all see it?
It came out recently.
600,000 participants.
And they concluded that masks made, quote, little to no difference in preventing infection.
Yeah.
So we're done here, right?
Big, massive study.
It's the newest one.
No evidence that masks work.
And we're done.
What kind of study was this?
Oh, a meta-study.
A meta-study.
Now, let me ask you this.
It's a meta-study.
What percentage of meta-studies in general do you think are valid?
Just the whole field of meta-studies, of all topics, everywhere.
What percentage usually are wrong?
If you didn't know that, could you have a reasonable opinion about this mask study?
Knowing it's a meta-study.
Now a meta-study is where they look at other existing studies, and they sort of add them all together, and they take out the ones that are, you know, most effective.
The answer is almost all of them.
Yeah, it's like 90% or something.
If the only thing you knew was that it was a meta-study, what would be your rational conclusion?
You don't know anything else.
It's just a meta-study.
Probably fake.
Yeah, probably fake.
Exactly.
Now that doesn't mean masks work, because in my opinion, there's no signal for them working.
No signal at all.
In macro numbers.
So it doesn't really justify that kind of pain on people.
But if you believe they don't work because there was a meta-study, then you are being non-scientific.
In the sense that as soon as you heard it was a meta-study, you should have said, oh, that's probably fake.
Doesn't mean it is fake.
But you should have played the odds.
Overwhelmingly, the odds are it's fake.
Did you know that?
Because a lot of the studies that we're depending on are meta-studies.
And most of them are fake, just in general.
It's an important thing to know.
If the only thing that I ever taught you, ever, was not to trust meta-studies, you would be the smartest person you know.
Because everybody gets fooled by that, and they just keep pushing them at us like they're real.
Some of them are real, but you can't tell which ones are real in advance.
That's the problem.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that.
I have only one more comment.
Can you think of any alternative reason that our government would have tried so hard to get you vaccinated?
Now, you've got a lot of conspiracy theories and etc.
But one reason would be that they know the shots are dangerous, so they have to force you to do it.
What would be another reason that they would try really, really hard?
Money, okay.
What's another reason?
What would be another reason?
Because they know you're stupid, control, boredom, cognitive dissonance, They trusted it.
They were lied to.
Yeah, maybe they had good intentions, but they're wrong.
That's possible.
A noble lie.
Ego.
There is one possibility that you're completely ignoring.
Maybe people wanted to save civilization?
What about that one?
Do we believe that there was literally nobody in the entire healthcare community The entire healthcare community, all the experts, all the politicians, there was nobody there who wanted to save civilization.
No?
Maybe not.
But I love how cavalier we are with tossing out the most likely explanation.
If you put me in charge of the government, And I came to believe that the vaccinations were helpful.
Do you think I wouldn't push you pretty hard if I genuinely believed it was going to save the country and maybe the world?
If I really believed that, you don't think I would push like a mofo to save your life and mine at the same time?
Because remember, I wouldn't be just saving your life.
I'd be saving civilization.
And here's the argument.
We don't know what would happen if The vaccinations had never been rolled out, do we?
You think you do, don't you?
You think that without vaccinations, herd immunity would have been reached quickly, and then we would be past it.
Is that what you think?
Is that your belief?
That if we had not treated it at all, left everything open, that we would have had a tough few months, but then we would be past it.
Because here's the thing that you haven't quite modeled.
Our system came to the edge of crashing the healthcare system, and probably vaccinations are the only thing that changed that.
Probably.
Don't know for sure.
So you can't really say that everything would have been fine if we didn't do vaccinations.
It might have been.
I wouldn't rule it out.
But I would say that the evidence suggests you don't know what would have happened.
You don't know.
What might have happened is, I believe we were very close to complete disaster.
And complete disaster would look like we wouldn't be able to keep the lights on because too many people are sick at the same time.
That's what I think.
I think we might have been close to not being able to keep the lights on.
And it could have been a massive problem.
I think our supply chain would have failed.
And there would have been mass starvation and freezing to death and stuff like that.
And I think we were actually very close to that.
So it's possible that vaccinations were terrible for us and saved civilization.
I'm not saying that's the case.
But I'm saying that's very possible.
Very possible.
It's very possible that these so-called vaccinations killed way more people than, you know, any other approved pharma product.
Totally possible.
At the same time, it may have saved civilization.
Don't know.
Doesn't mean we should have done it.
Doesn't mean we should have had mandates.
I'm anti-mandate.
But if you believe you know what would have happened, I think that's just silly.
You don't know what would happen.
And of course, to believe that you do know what would happen is to believe that there was no difference between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated.
And people do believe that.
There are a lot of people who believe that nobody was protected by the shots.
How many of you people believe that?
How many of you believe that during the alpha phase, let's just take the alpha phase, during the alpha phase only, how many of you believe that the data is wrong?
And that what appears to be a massive benefit, according to the powers that be, what appears to be a massive benefit in every place, every place that they were used, these particular ones, that everybody is lying on the data.
How many of you believe that everybody in every country is lying about the effectiveness of the vaccinations?
Some of you do.
And the thing is, that's not impossible.
That's totally not impossible.
It's totally within the realm of possibility that it never worked.
Now, if we had not lived through, you know, the Russia collusion and every other hoax in the world, that would be a crazy thing to say.
It would just be crazy to think that we didn't notice it didn't work.
Like every country, everywhere, didn't notice it didn't work at all.
Nobody noticed.
That would be crazy, except in 2023.
And in 2023, you could actually make a story that says that... Well, you could make a story in 2023.
The survival rate is so high, so the number is not believable?
I'm not sure you did the math right there.
The high survival rate is not...
Doesn't have much to do with the fact that there would still be enough to crash the whole system.
Because just the sickness would crash the system, right?
You don't have to die to make the supply chain fail.
You just have to not go to work.
Went from flatten the curve to flatten Trump.
Yeah.
Oh, so Al wants me to answer this question.
So Al Carey says, Scott won't answer this question.
Is the Vax spike protein toxic?
Is that a good question for me?
Do you think that was a question I should have answered?
Well, let me answer it.
Okay, so for the guy who can't understand my opinions, let me do my research.
Spike protein, spike protein, oh, oh, oh, spike protein, oh, oh, oh, all the professionals got one answer, but I got the other answer.
Seriously, can you stop pretending that you think I can research deep science And guess something the experts missed?
Do you really believe I can do that?
Now, I'm willing to accept the wildly ridiculous notion that you can.
I'm willing to accept that.
I will enter your fantasy as hard as you want.
You can do that.
But why can't you teach me to do it?
This is where I'm confused.
There's so many of you, especially with lower levels of education, who can do this, and even though I have two advanced degrees that suggest I was trained to do it, I can't.
I guess I don't know how to compare things, even though my entire educational process was how to compare things correctly.
But apparently I didn't learn it, because I don't know how to do this.
But so many of you do.
It's really impressive.
It's called wisdom.
Thank you.
Do you know why science was invented?
Do you know why science was invented?
So that people would not say they could use their wisdom to make good decisions.
That's the whole point of science, is that you don't have wisdom.
If people had that kind of wisdom, oh, let me use my wisdom.
I haven't collected any data.
Use my wisdom.
Remote viewing.
I can see inside the laboratory.
I see their documents.
The level of self-deception involved in thinking you can look at the science It makes me laugh every day.
It makes me laugh every day that you think I could develop those skills.
The entire reason science exists is because people like me can't do what you say I can do.
Or that you say you did.
But I accept that you did it.
I'm just really mad at you for not teaching me how.
Could you do it for the next thing?
So you did it for this.
Could you do it for the next thing?
I can't wait.
Somebody at Locals is embarrassed for me for mentioning I have advanced degrees.
You understand that to do this job, you can't be that much of a pussy?
So that's why you do your job, which is watching, and I do my job of talking in public.
If you're going to be that much of a pussy that you can't mention something that's an obvious, useful fact about the conversation, if I tell you I have degrees that are relevant to the topic, To the exact topic.
You don't think that that's worth mentioning?
Because it would be too creepy?
Maybe it's too much egotistical?
To mention that I have the exact kind of qualifications for this question?
You need to be much less of a pussy.
Alright?
If you can't say the truth, because it would be too embarrassing, you gotta get rid of that.
Elon tweeted something.
I'm getting some notices here.
I should see what Elon's up to.
I don't assume it's about me, is it?
Share ad revenues.
What?
Holy cow.
Whoa.
Was it about the sharing revenue part?
Did you see this?
Starting today, Twitter will share ad revenue with creators for ads that appear in their reply threads.
That's kind of brilliant.
Oh my God, that's brilliant.
Oh my God.
You know, what is the biggest complaint I have about Twitter?
My biggest complaint is that I spend hours a day, and it's not a source of revenue directly.
Obviously, it's important to my business model.
But if it were directly related to my income, you couldn't keep me off it.
Oh, that's so smart.
Does anybody have any complaint about that?
Am I wrong that this is brilliant?
Am I wrong?
Does anybody see anything wrong with this?
I just have to say this to the locals people.
I'm very aware that some of you don't want me to talk about the COVID decision-making process.
But I'm going to continue to talk about whatever I want.
Because that's the only way I'm useful.
As soon as I don't do that, I'm going to be really boring.
Trust me.
As soon as I do what I think you'll be okay with, if I only do what you'll be comfortable with, that's not anything that I want to be involved with.
So, you do have a choice of subscribing or not, and that's the beauty of the local system.
And I would encourage you not to subscribe if that's a problem to you.
All right, so that was what you wanted me to look at, right?
So everybody's testing this, making their Twitter account private to see if... Wow, that is a problem.
So I guess that's what you're talking about.
Oh, this is interesting.
Here's a little fight I may have started.
Maybe indirectly.
Remember Alex Epstein was doing some math and he said that it would be impossible to use solar for, you know, most of our energy.
And Elon Musk tweeted two days ago that wind and solar, combined with batteries, of course, will solve sustainable energy for Earth.
But I'd love to see him get into an actual math battle.
Do an actual math battle and say, hey Alex, Show me your math, I'll show you mine.
Because I think that as much as I love Alex Epstein... Okay.
Yeah.
Alright, that's all for now.
I'm gonna go do something else and I'll talk to you later on YouTube.
