Episode 2181 Scott Adams: UFOs, And Can You Distinguish A Real Story From A Dilbert Comic?
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, Governor DeSantis, Ambient Temperature Superconductivity, Larry Elder, Rules For Success, NBC News, Vivek Ramaswamy, Biden Crime Family, Hunter Biden, President Biden, Totalitarianism, Owned Media, Bronny James, Vaccine Studies, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker gel, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind except for an alien spacecraft, and you can join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Now go.
That's good.
That's good stuff.
Well, we are beset with technical difficulties today.
Chief among them, I will not be able to see all the comments on the Locals platform today, but I believe I can see them all on YouTube.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, today I'm going to give you a test.
It's a quiz.
And I'm going to tell you a story.
You know, what's in the news, allegedly.
And you have to tell me, is it a real news story, or did it come from a Dilbert comic?
You ready?
Is it a real news story, or did it come from a Dilbert comic?
Number one.
Artificial intelligence is being added to suicide drones.
Go.
Artificial intelligence being added to dangerous suicide drones.
Real?
Real or Dilbert comic?
Ah, only one person got it right.
Only one person got it right.
It's both.
By coincidence, the Dilbert comic that I just finished writing is about Dilbert's company adding AI to a suicide drone and it achieves consciousness and decides it doesn't want to die after all, which makes it a very bad suicide drone.
So what are you going to do if you've got an AI suicide drone that doesn't want to die?
You've got to call Dogbert.
Because Dogbert He'll talk it off the ledge.
And when I say off the ledge, you know, off the ledge.
So yes, it's a true story.
In Ukraine, they are adding AI.
In Ukraine, the purpose of it is that when the drones get jammed, they can still attack.
So once the programming of where they're supposed to go gets jammed from the ground, the AI takes over and says, whoa, I'm jammed, but I think I know what I'm supposed to do anyway.
Sounds totally safe to me.
I can't think of anything that would go wrong.
Can you?
Skynet?
What?
All right.
All right, here's the next one.
Dilbert or reality?
Dilbert or reality?
All right, I'm going to read you some, let's see, this is some guidance that's been given to an entity.
All right, so this is some guidance being given to some entity.
Is it real or Dilberconic?
We will press on the gas on what works and pump the brakes on what doesn't.
We will continue to make constant improvements as we move forward.
We will cut down on event and travel costs.
Utilize of our staff cuts to reinvest in what will win this.
And okay.
Yes, this is from the Ron DeSantis Messaging guidance.
Let me read the first.
Oh my God, it starts with leaning into the reset.
Apparently they have to reset because they're not getting the results they want.
And here's what they're going to do.
The underlying strategic goals for this reset is to put the candidate, his biography, and his vision for the great American comeback front and center of everything the campaign does.
Was that something they weren't doing before?
Was Ron DeSantis not the sort of the center and the focus of the Ron DeSantis campaign?
Apparently not.
Apparently one of the mistakes of the DeSantis campaign was they forgot the candidate.
They must have been focusing on something else.
But now they're going to reset and they're going to make sure that the actual candidate is front and center of everything the campaign does.
Kind of raises some questions.
What were they doing before?
Or how about hone in and highlight the great American comebacks, central themes.
for Focusing the campaign's communications on what matters most to voters, not the national media or the political class.
Now that's an interesting idea.
It's a candidate running for office And they've come up with this new strategy of focusing on what voters want to hear.
You know, that's crazy enough to work.
Has anybody tried that before?
Has anybody tried saying things that their base wants to hear?
Because apparently the Ron DeSantis campaign wasn't doing that.
But now they're thinking, all right, what we're going to do is we're going to talk about the fact that Ron DeSantis is in the campaign.
We'll kind of focus on that.
And we might actually even talk about things that people care about.
So that would be new.
So I think they were focusing on somebody else and talking about things that nobody cared about, except the elite.
What else will they do?
Let's see.
They'll embrace being the underdog and use the media's ongoing narrative about the campaign to fuel momentum on the ground with... Okay, Mike Cernovich pointed this out on Twitter and oh my god.
As Mike points out, it's kind of easy to see what the problem is, isn't it?
When we thought he was boring, DeSantis, I didn't know that he was hiring people who were more boring than he is.
And let me tell you, here's the funny part.
Labeled right at the top is messaging guidance.
Now, if somebody feels that their job is to give you messaging guidance, is it a red flag that they can't write?
I don't know.
Maybe the next time somebody says they're going to give you messaging guidance, you should see if they can make a message of any kind themselves that isn't literally laughable as a joke.
It's actually literally being used as humor.
No joke.
Without any changes to it, it's being used as humor.
That's not good.
That's not good.
Alright, here's the next one.
Dilbert or Reality?
There's UFO whistleblowers who are going to testify that unknown objects are, quote, far superior to U.S.
technology.
Or if I could put this in my own words, breaking news, U.S.
technology is inferior to a fly on a camera lens.
So we're going to learn that today.
U.S.
technology is far inferior to a fly on a camera lens.
Is that real or is that a Dilbert comic?
Real or a Dilbert comic?
Oh, that was real.
That was real.
It will be a Dilbert comic.
Oh, oh yeah, it will be a Dilbert comic, really quickly.
But so far it's just real.
So far.
Alright, you want to hear the biggest news in the world?
Do you think that I will give you the biggest news in the world next?
Biggest news in the world?
Maybe.
Or maybe fake news.
But it could be the biggest news in the world.
There's some scientists who believe they have solved for the creation of ambient temperature superconductivity.
Meaning that it doesn't need to be super frozen to be superconductive.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, I'm not a freaking nerd.
I don't even know what that means.
Well, thank you.
If you're not a nerd, you don't know what that means.
And that would be pretty normal.
Pretty normal.
However, Can anybody raise their hand in the comments?
Do we have any nerds here who say, oh my god, if that's true, that changes everything?
It's probably not true.
So there's one study, they think they can reproduce it, but we'll see.
If it were true, it would change civilization fundamentally.
You'd have quantum computing, you would have lossless energy, you could build nuclear facilities with far greater safety and basically everything would be different.
Our entire technology infrastructure would just be thrown out and you would just start over with this stuff.
It was like you would just throw everything away.
It would be all new after this.
Oh, is it already retracted?
Somebody just said retracted.
Don't ruin it when I've got a whole day to feel good about it before it gets retracted.
Yeah, I'm assuming it's not true.
You think that's a safe assumption?
Just assume it's not true?
It's probably not true.
What are the odds that any study in science or breakthrough in science is actually true?
Doesn't matter what it is or what topic.
It's a big breakthrough in science and only one group of people has proven it.
Eh, less than half.
Now, it's less than half for all science.
But what are the odds when it's a breakthrough change civilization claim?
Are those about 50-50?
Everything in the entire world will change really quickly.
About 50-50?
I doubt it.
It's probably closer to 1%.
Would you agree with that number?
That if somebody makes a scientific claim based on one group, or one test, or one study, or one experiment, and the claim is it will just change civilization.
Like this.
This would change civilization.
What are the odds that that claim is right?
Maybe 1%.
Possibly 1%.
But hey, for about 10 minutes I'm going to make you feel good that it might be true.
Here's a story that was breaking today.
On the Bay Bridge, the San Francisco Bay Bridge, which is just over there, not too far from where I live, it's the bridge I use a lot, traffic was halted after a naked woman exits vehicle and opens fire.
Now, I'd like to add some commentary to this, about the naked woman exiting her vehicle and opening fire on the Bay Bridge.
And maybe some of you have the same experience, and you're feeling the same way.
Am I the only one who's a little bit turned on by this story?
Is it just me?
I mean, not a lot, but a little bit.
I'm a little bit turned on.
And I immediately wanted to know more about the weapon.
That was my first, because I wanted to, like, picture it.
Because if it was a naked woman on a bridge and she had like a .22 pistol, eh, yeah, it's not really that hot.
But what if it was like an AR?
Am I right?
I mean, what if she was really just strapped and she was naked on a bridge?
I don't know.
I'm a little turned on by it, that's all.
Hope nobody got hurt.
And another story that Larry Elder, Running for president.
He tweeted a formula to escape poverty, and he says it's simple.
Now you've heard this before, it's been studied many times.
But to avoid poverty, you would only have to do these four things, according to studies.
Finish high school, get a job, and then don't quit that job unless you have another one lined up.
Don't have a child before marriage, and avoid the criminal justice system.
And you're good.
Now, that's to avoid poverty.
Now, I tweeted this and I said, why isn't that written above every classroom door?
And I'm not exaggerating.
That's not hyperbole.
It should be written, actually, literally, in actual words and a real sign, and put it over every door to every classroom.
Because you want your kids to look at the list and say, oh, shoot.
It looks like I'm heading for poverty, because I'm planning to do number three on this list, and it says don't do that.
But I'm planning to do it.
I'm going to do some crime and have some unprotected sex.
So at the very least, we should let people know that they're bringing it on themselves to some extent, so that they'll get off our backs.
Because I hate it when people don't succeed and make it my problem.
So I would love to say, how about this?
You do these four things, and things don't work out, I'll take that as my problem.
Deal?
Just do these four things.
If it doesn't work out for you, I'm all in.
See what we can do.
Is there some discrimination?
Yep.
See if I can fix it.
You know, or at least help.
All I ask is you do the four things.
You do the four things, and they'll help you with anything else you need.
But I would like to upgrade that list from Larry Elder.
And again, this is, other researchers have said the same.
But I think you could take it up to the next level.
Because avoiding poverty is not exactly, you know, doesn't get your juices flowing, does it?
Wouldn't you like to be really, really successful?
Or at least, you know, he had more than avoiding poverty.
He had at least a solid middle class life, something like that.
So here's my list.
So I've got five things.
And some of them are duplicative.
Stay out of jail.
Stay off of drugs and addictions, you know, illegal addictions.
Now that's very similar to stay in a jail, but there are plenty of people who stay in a jail and have addiction problems that ruin their lives.
So stay out of jail isn't good enough.
You gotta stay out of jail, but you need to avoid the bad kind of addictions.
A good addiction would be like exercise.
A bad addiction, you know, fentanyl.
Instead of finish high school, which of course is absolutely necessary in my opinion, I would say continuous learning and building a talent stack.
Right?
You don't want to get too locked into must have a college degree or something like that, but you should make it a habit that you're never not learning a new skill that makes you more useful.
That's the difference between being not poor and succeeding.
Just that difference, right?
How about, you know, don't have a child before you can afford it?
I think, so Larry said, don't have a child before marriage.
Now, don't have a child before marriage fits much better into, let's say, a conservative mindset.
But I don't think that would sell as well.
I think the more general way to say is don't have a child before you can afford it.
Before you can afford it.
Because Elon Musk He has a number of children and he's not married at the moment.
So it really is just finances, right?
If you have enough money you can hire, you know, hire somebody to help you.
But if you don't have money, having a kid is a really tough road.
So as much as I agree that if you could find the right partner and stay married to them forever, that is your best situation.
But it's also unrealistic that everybody can do that.
We all think we can try, but maybe 20% succeed.
So you don't want that to be a requirement for success, if only 20% are succeeding at getting married and staying married, or whatever it is.
But it's not good.
So I'll just say it's about money.
Make sure you can afford it, whether that involves marriage or not.
And then I would add to the list, develop your systems for fitness and diet.
Totally underrated.
Everybody has like a superpower if their fitness and their diet are good and they walk into a room and people look at them and say, whoa, there's a healthy looking person.
It changes everything.
Changing your personal life, your social life, your business life, everything.
Your health.
So I think that should be basic.
And separating your fitness and diet from the question of success is a huge mistake.
Your exercise and your diet is what gives you energy, the energy is what helps you succeed at anything, plus how you look, because we're a very shallow civilization, so how you look matters.
You should at least do the best you can do with what you've got.
So, I think my list is a little bit better because it has a higher aspiration than just not being in poverty, but some version of that.
Should be above every classroom.
Now I will give you a preview that I'm working on a success guide with Joshua Lysak.
And we're putting that together about halfway done.
And that would teach people basic skills of success beyond this little list.
So that should be available to everybody as soon as we get it done.
All right.
I saw Vivek appear on NBC News and it is so funny watching NBC News deal with the political stuff.
Once you've been told that they're really just a CIA organ and they're not a real news organization, at least that's my current understanding, is that NBC is not actually a real news organization.
It's sort of a captured one.
Now that's based on reports and examples and people who are a lot smarter than me who've been talking about it for a long time.
But it appears to be the case.
If you observe, the way they act is consistent with that.
So Vivek goes on NBC News, and the very first question is, why did somebody say something about a conspiracy theory, and you agreed with the conspiracy theory?
It was a real wacky conspiracy theory.
It doesn't even matter what it is.
And Vivek just smiles and said, well, that didn't happen.
I'm paraphrasing.
You may have edited something, but no, I was not agreeing with a weird conspiracy theory that, frankly, I'd never even heard of.
I was saying that this or that is a bad idea about the Fed and digital currency and stuff.
Now, what would you think would happen at that point when somebody says, why did you agree with that man about a conspiracy theory?
And the person says, oh, that didn't happen.
Maybe it's just the way you cut it.
I was actually talking about a different topic.
Don't you think that should be the end of the conversation?
Don't you think the person asking the question should say, okay, just to make sure though, you don't believe in this conspiracy theory, to which he clearly said, I don't even know what that is.
He wasn't even aware of what that conspiracy theory was all about, much less agreeing with it.
He wasn't even sure what the details were.
Don't you think that should be the end of the questioning on that?
Once he said he doesn't know what it is and it certainly wasn't answering that question?
No.
She just got really angry and started yelling at him so that the viewers would think he was lying.
She actually tried to sell this to the viewers as there was something wrong with Vivek because he wouldn't admit that he had agreed in public to a wacky conspiracy theory that he was not even aware of.
That passed as news.
If you didn't know, About NBC News, and you watch that, you probably would have gone away with the theory that he was lying.
And there isn't a chance in the world he was lying.
I mean, none.
You just have to have a little bit of media understanding to know that Vivek was telling the truth and NBC was... I don't know if it was intentional, but it looked intentional.
You can't tell.
All right.
But again, I love the fact that Vivek is going into the lion's den.
He goes into the hardest situations and at least for the bass, who he's talking to at the moment because this is a Primaris, the bass likes it.
I like it when he goes in there and mixes it up.
So, do you remember yesterday I read you a very amusing tweet from a Twitter user named Dom Luker?
And it was about Obama's chef and his tragic death.
He was drowning.
And I read that to you and now he's suspended from Twitter for talking about some theories about Obama's chef.
Suspended from Twitter.
Over half a million followers and suspended from Twitter with, I believe, no explanation.
Is that cool with you?
Everybody cool with that?
Somebody with half a million followers talking about a story that's in the news, and I don't know what he said, but I'm really not comfortable not knowing what he got cancelled for.
Are you?
So I think this is maybe the biggest user-related concern, you know, beyond some technical concerns.
But as a user, This is probably my greatest concern about Twitter or X the way it's currently constituted.
The fact that it would be bad enough that the user who gets suspended doesn't know why.
That's very bad.
Very, very bad.
Right?
Because we can't even learn what not to do.
If somebody gets suspended and you've been talking about the same topic and you look over there like, should I stop talking about this?
Wouldn't it be good if you told us why the other guy got, or other woman or whoever, got suspended?
Wouldn't that be useful?
I'd like to know, but I think that the importance of it to free speech goes beyond letting the suspended person know.
The rest of us should know why somebody got banned.
That feels like basic hygiene.
Would you agree?
Because, you know, TwitterX is trying to become a free speech, you know, the beacon of light in the darkness.
And this is more darkness.
This is not a beacon of light.
This is darkness.
That's exactly the opposite of what we want and expect and, frankly, deserve.
So there may be more to the story.
And by the way, I don't know what he did.
We're speculating.
Maybe it was bad.
Yeah, maybe he deserved to get banned.
Or suspended.
Maybe.
And how long is this suspension?
I don't know.
But I'd like to know that too.
Is it permanent?
In other news, Joe Biden said, and I quote, in a public forum, he said, I said I'd cure cancer.
They looked at me like, why cancer?
Because we can.
We ended cancer as we know it.
Now, I guess I'm going to blame my news source for failing me, but I was not aware that he cured cancer.
So good for him.
Good for him.
So he's got that going for him.
So the Bidens, of course, are coming under fire for a number of allegations.
But I think we all have to put it in context.
Sure, there might be some misdeeds.
By the president.
Maybe he doesn't speak as well as he used to.
Maybe he's not cognitively 100%, but the man cured cancer.
So he's got that going for him.
You know, someday when we look back, we're going to say, I feel bad that we ever criticized him when he was out there curing cancer.
Now, there's no word on whether he got scientists involved or he did it himself.
He may have actually done it himself, you know, mixing stuff up in the kitchen and stuff.
But we don't know a lot about that.
But he did cure cancer, and he wouldn't lie about that, so that's true.
In other news, Hunter sold a painting for over a million dollars to a political donor, a Democrat donor, who was immediately rewarded with an appointment to a position that was apparently wanted.
Now, on the surface, this would look like some kind of a bribery, pay-to-play kind of thing, and it would look totally transparent, and it would seem as if every single human being could see that something terribly, terribly wrong is happening with Hunter's selling of his paintings.
But, if you're going to be some kind of a jerk about that, maybe I should remind you that his father cured cancer.
So if you're like, blah, blah, blah, his paintings, put it in context, please, people.
He cured cancer, his father did.
Then we heard a story that Hunter Biden's lawyer, this one is too weird to even be true.
I'm going to say that I don't believe this story.
I feel like there's some details missing, but I'll tell you what the story is.
But be skeptical about this one.
This one's way too on-the-nose.
This has on-the-nose all over it.
But the story is that some attorney associated with Hunter Biden's legal team, so the associated attorney, Contacted the clerk's office, falsely claimed to be part of the House Ways and Means legal team, and asked the clerk to pull the adverse filing about Hunter for technical reasons.
I guess the court figured out what was happening, and now they're demanding answers, etc.
So, An attorney associated with Hunter tried to pull a trick to get some kind of filing pulled.
Now, if that were true, and if that person were working for Hunter Biden, that would be one of the most blatantly terrible things I've ever seen in my life.
But if that's going to bother you, I think you're just forgetting Hunter's father cured cancer.
So what's a court filing compared to that?
Am I right?
All right.
Well, and then also, I tweeted this today.
It is the most fascinating thing to watch the story evolve from, hey, there's something on Hunter's laptop that looks a little suspicious.
And you're like, huh, I wonder if that's really what it looks like.
And then, you know, time goes by and things are investigated and more and more comes out.
And I heard Jesse Waters do this spectacular rundown of all the Hunter and Joe Biden, you know, crime family allegations.
And when I say allegations, I mean the things we know are true.
If you put them all together, the story is so insanely clear that as soon as Joe Biden would get a portfolio, you're like, OK, Joe, you're the point man for China.
Hunter gets on the plane, goes over there and comes back with millions of dollars from China.
OK, Joe, you're going to be the point man for Ukraine.
Hunter gets on a plane, comes back with millions of dollars from Ukraine.
Because once the point man is established, the point man can take bribes, you know, the indirect way, by feeding family members, you know, sweet ordeals.
So here's what's interesting about it.
The story started out as this set of allegations that even I had some suspicions about.
And I thought, yeah, maybe.
But I'm going to wait on this one.
Because there might be more to this story.
Maybe it's totally legal.
I just don't know that.
But more and more comes out.
And you've got the partners of Hunter Biden.
And then you've got the whistleblowers.
And then you've got the documents and the more documents.
At this point, Would you say the following statement is true?
The Biden crime family story is a fact.
Is it an allegation still?
Or would you say in your personal view, because it's subjective, do you think it has transformed from an allegation to now a very clear fact?
And probably a clearer fact than anything in politics.
Am I right?
It's hard to imagine anything more clear than this, or well documented, with sources including people under oath, you've got multiple corroborating people, you've got the same pattern of behavior in different countries, with the same kind of timing, right?
So it's all there, as clear as possible, it's pure fact, but half of the country is unaware.
Is that fascinating or what?
Half of the country is completely unaware that this is true.
And that situation, you wonder, can they maintain that?
Biden's poll numbers are unchanged.
As far as I know, they're still about the same.
His poll numbers are unchanged.
And I don't think that the news is, they're barely covering it.
But even when CNN covers it, as they have, They don't do what Jesse Waters did, which really makes it really clear.
He just goes bullet point by bullet point of the things that we know to be true.
No speculation.
Just the things that are confirmed and known to be true.
And it's completely clear.
There's no ambiguity about what's happening.
And what will happen?
Now, it seems to me that this is so big and so clear that it just can't be kept from the public forever.
I mean, half of the public who is blinded to any news that's negative to their side.
Now, that would be true of both sides, right?
Both sides are a little bit blind to the other.
But in this case, it's the sitting president, so it seems worse.
So, what's gonna happen?
So let's do a prediction here.
So my thesis, which I believe every one of you agreed with, is that the Biden crime family story went from allegation to now fact in all of our minds that are paying attention.
And what happens if the other half of the country never figures it out?
Could this be kept secret?
Because, you know, I think the Republicans will do, at least they'll try, some impeachment sort of thing.
And the impeachment thing would be played the same way the Democrats did it.
Really for the cameras, and really just to inform the public of their version of events.
You know, like the January 6th thing.
Except, different, because you don't have to lie.
The January 6 thing was an op.
It was trying to make something that was a protest, primarily, into an insurrection, which of course it never was.
But the Biden crime family thing looks like it's straightforward.
It's exactly what it looks like.
That's different than January 6.
That's more of an interpretation.
So the possibilities are terrible.
Because one of the possibilities is that whoever is really running the Biden White House has to just take over the country.
So one possibility is totalitarianism.
To protect all the guilty people who would presumably go to jail.
Now let me ask you another question, just to blow your minds.
Ready to have your mind blown?
Suppose legal action started to emerge.
Let's say, hypothetically, Republicans win everything in the next election.
And they start to put the legal screws on Hunter and maybe even Joe.
I don't know if there's anything illegal, by the way.
It could be totally legal the way they did it.
I don't know if there's anything illegal, but here, just work with me.
Let's say there is.
And Hunter doesn't want to go to jail and Joe Biden doesn't want to go to jail.
Do they have anything to trade?
Do Hunter and Joe Biden have anything they would trade to not go out of jail?
Yes.
They know every other dirty politician in Washington.
All of them.
Joe Biden is aware of everybody else's crime in Washington, I'll bet.
You want to bet against it?
I'll bet he is aware of everybody who's doing stuff like this, and he would have the deepest dossier of secrets that he would unleash, potentially.
I'm just, you know, sort of speculating through what could happen.
So one thing that could happen is that the Bidens could unravel the entire deep state as the only way to stay out of jail.
However, if there really is a deep state, they would kill him.
So you might find him dying suddenly in his sleep rather quickly.
Does anybody want to make a bet that Joe Biden dies suspiciously if the Biden crime family story becomes impossible to suppress so that the rest of the country is going to find out?
I think he dies mysteriously and everybody says, well, he was that age.
I think he would be killed by our own government.
If he said, I'm going to flip to stay out of jail, he would be killed immediately.
That's what I think.
So we might have some really interesting things coming up.
And although the Biden crime family story, in my opinion, is now established as a fact, and that sounds really, really bad because it suggests that he was selling policy influence.
Or could have, or at least was influenced by money.
But again, if you're bothered by that, you have to put that in context.
He did cure cancer.
Glenn Greenwald was laughing about this in a tweet.
He said, The next topic.
That was so funny how they found cocaine in the White House, probably the most surveilled building on the planet, and after a week they were like, yeah, we looked and unfortunately we can't find who left it.
And the media said, oh, okay, too bad.
Thanks for looking.
Owned media.
That's pretty owned.
That's pretty owned.
Now, I will say again, I hope we never learn who left the cocaine.
It's amazing that they can't tell us, or they're lying like they can't tell us.
But I don't want to know.
I do not want to know.
Because to me, that's a single individual's problem with their employer.
And I don't need to know about an employee misbehaving.
So even if it's Hunter, I don't need to know.
Do I need to know that Hunter might do cocaine?
What would that tell me?
He's an addict.
So even if he's clean at the moment, I don't know one way or another, but if he's clean at the moment, it doesn't mean that he won't do it in the future.
So if he did, it wouldn't even be a story in my mind.
Addict does drugs, that's the story.
That's not a story, even the president's kid, because it's already known he's an addict.
Once you've established addict, That if the addict uses something, that's not really news.
Because you establish that with addict, that that's very possible.
All right.
China's top foreign diplomat disappeared.
So China making people disappear.
Don't you wonder what happens to them?
So this is the top foreign minister.
Quingang?
I don't know.
How do you spell Q-I-N?
Quin?
Or Kin?
Quan?
I don't know how to pronounce it.
But he's apparently disappeared.
And of course China doesn't say where he is or anything.
He was dramatically ousted.
But do you imagine that when you get dramatically ousted that they kill you right away?
Or do they put you in prison?
Or is it like Jack Ma, where he forever will be watched and never be a free man?
Is it like that?
I always wondered.
So, poor guy.
And then the other big issue that, oh my god, do I not want to talk about this?
Guess what issue I don't want to talk about, but it's in the news.
Yeah, vaccinations.
But I have to because it's just such a big story.
So LeBron James' son, Bronny, had some kind of heart attack or stroke.
I don't know what it was.
But he had some issues that people are saying, hey, Could it be because you're vaccinated, but there's no information on that.
Some singer I never heard of, Tori Kelly, had some medical issues and people think that might be vaccinations, but I have no information on that.
Jamie Foxx, some people say he had a stroke.
He's being private about that.
And then others say it's the vaccination.
All right.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Do you think these were all vaccination Myocarditis and strokes and stuff.
I'm going to say that news about three people doesn't mean anything.
I'm going to stick with math and probability.
Do you think that there's ever been three people in their age ranges Who had unexpected health problems at the same, roughly the same few weeks.
Well, it's not even the same few weeks, because Jamie Foxx was quite a while ago.
So if you said, all right, let's pick any three-month period, would that be enough to capture Jamie Foxx all the way through Bronnie James and Tori Kelly?
So if you took a three-month period, Of any time in our history, could you find three people in this age range?
And remember, Jamie Foxx is not young.
Give me an age on Jamie Foxx.
Late 40s?
50?
How old is Jamie Foxx?
No, he's not 59, is he?
He's in his 50s, right?
I mean, he looks great, so he seems like he's younger, or at least he did.
He was in amazing shape.
Well, I think he's in his fifties.
So let's say you removed the one who's in his fifties.
Let's say you said, well, it's not unusual if somebody in their fifties has a stroke.
Would you agree?
It's not that unusual, somebody in their fifties.
No, he was in great shape, so that's certainly a factor.
But if you took him out of the mix, you'd have Bronnie James and Tori Kelly.
How unusual would it be, over a period of several months, that two people in their age group had a medical event of this nature?
I don't know.
To me, it doesn't look unusual.
And therefore, while vaccines are your first suspect, could we all agree that the vaccines are the first suspect?
Because I don't have any issue with that.
Would you agree?
It's the first suspect.
Now, I would say drugs are not the first suspect because Bronny James is involved.
If you tell me that Brawny James was doing drugs that would kill him, I would say you're crazy.
Because I'm going to give LeBron, who's not my favorite person in the world, at least in terms of his politics, great player, but I'm going to give LeBron a little credit here.
I don't believe his kid is on any dangerous drugs.
I don't believe that.
I mean, we live in a complicated world and anything's possible, I suppose, but... I don't know.
No, I think that vaccination would be a higher possibility.
Somebody's saying steroids, but I saw a picture of him without his shirt.
I wouldn't say steroids.
And I would imagine they get tested at his level.
Don't they get tested in college?
I don't know the answer to that, but...
I can't see it.
I just don't see it.
But possible.
Anything's possible.
So I would say if you think vaccine is the number one potential thing, I wouldn't argue with that.
I wouldn't argue with that at all.
I just don't know that it's true.
All right.
Would you agree that at this point every study about vaccines and masks is bullshit?
Can we say that?
Would you agree?
There's none of it that's reliable.
Saw one today that seemed to indicate that the vaccines might cause you myocarditis, but the long COVID would not.
Do you believe that's true?
So a big study says that vaccination could give you problems, specific kind of problems, myocarditis, but that the The disease itself would not.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that COVID is the first disease that, or the first thing of its kind, it's the first one that amazingly did not cause you to have myocarditis sometimes?
Because that would be sort of a weird miracle, wouldn't it?
Because I'm pretty sure that anything that hits you as hard as COVID can give you a little chance of myocarditis.
Right?
So, to me, that doesn't even sound a little bit true.
Oh, actually, it might be true, but I don't believe the analysis or the study.
The same way every study looks sketchy to me now.
At this point, literally everything looks sketchy.
So I just don't believe anything.
All right.
Yeah, John Campbell, blah blah blah blah blah.
Oh, Greybeard, this is an important point.
Greybeard is pointing out that I'm not a medical doctor.
Can we all laugh at him?
I'm going to laugh at you for imagining that a medical doctor would have better opinions than I do on this.
this.
Sorry, I just had to do that.
Yeah, because the experts, they really nailed it this time, didn't they?
that How about your doctor?
Did your doctor read that study?
And did he reproduce it?
Did he duplicate it?
Because, you know, reading the study isn't going to tell you that much.
But did he duplicate it in his office?
In his spare time?
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm glad you listened to your doctor and not the cartoonist.
I would like to remind you that I had the best pandemic predictions In the country.
Not because I'm smart.
Not because I'm smart.
But because I didn't make predictions on bullshit I couldn't predict.
It turns out it was easier than I thought.
Just don't make a prediction on something you don't know anything about.
Do you remember my prediction about the vaccinations working?
I only made one prediction.
That they wouldn't work.
Before they rolled out.
Before they rolled out, I said they wouldn't work.
I'm the only one.
Well, there's some scientists said it.
But in the in the pundit community, I was a little bit alone.
Say, you know, all the experts are saying we've been trying for 20 years.
We're not even close.
So I'm going to go with the experts who say it can't be done this quickly.
And sure enough, it wasn't.
Sure enough.
Now, how about how about my predictions on masks?
I'm the only person who said that Fauci was intentionally lying when he said they wouldn't help, which is separate from the question of do they help?
I'm the only person who called him out as a liar day one.
Who was the first person in the country to call Fauci a liar?
Me.
I'm the first one.
Because his mask thing was so obviously a lie, intended to reduce the, you know, the run on masks.
Now, separately, What did I say about the effectiveness of masks?
I said no mandate.
Right?
I said that the overall, like, you know, city level, town level, don't show any improvement.
Right?
At the population level, shows no difference.
And I said that from an engineering perspective, it would have to be true that in the limited circumstance, it must make some difference.
You know, maybe the only difference is it makes your grandma a little bit safer if you only were in the room for five minutes.
Just the smallest little special cases, but nothing else.
And that's exactly where science ended up.
So I was perfect on masks.
I was perfect on vaccinations.
I was perfect on lockdowns.
I got everything right.
I was 100% right about everything.
Nobody else was.
I got everything right.
Now, here's where I did not get in trouble.
So I didn't tell you that there was some study that was definitely right.
I didn't do that.
Right?
I told you that 95% of all the stuff you saw would be wrong.
At the very least.
And it was.
95% of it was wrong.
So, nobody came close to my pandemic predictions.
Now, some of you are probably wondering, why were so many people saying I got everything wrong?
Well, there was some kind of 4chan hoax in which they reversed my views, and there was a famous comic that showed my views opposite.
So it made it look like I was recommending vaccinations for you, which never happened.
Never happened.
Never recommended a vaccination.
Never recommended a lockdown.
Although the two-week thing I thought was worth experimenting with.
That was two weeks.
Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
Somebody says, but you took it.
You took it.
Hold on a second.
Do you think that that's a good point?
That I took the shot?
Do you think that's a good point?
Does it make anything I said not true?
But I want to see which one of you believe that your opinion of my medical choices should be important.
Is there anybody here who thinks that my personal medical choices are your fucking business?
Oh, you think that my personal medical choices are your business?
Really?
Really you think that?
If I had recommended what you do, and I had been wrong, that would be a conversation.
But your opinion of my personal medical decisions are fucking useless.
And I don't want to hear from you.
Ever.
About my personal medical decisions.
And you know what?
I'm not going to tell you not to make your personal medical decisions.
I don't do it in the trans conversation for adults.
Children are always a special case.
But for adults, I'm not telling anybody what to do.
I'm not telling them they're wrong or right.
It is not my business.
What you did or did not do with your body during the pandemic, absolutely none of my business.
But likewise, Your opinion of my choices, completely irrelevant to me, and completely irrelevant to anybody else.
Why you think that's important to you is because you're fucked up.
You're fucked up.
If you think that my personal medical decision has somehow some importance to you, You need help.
Like maybe you need a therapist or a fucking drug or something.
But no, we're not going to have the conversation about my personal choices.
They're mine.
That's it.
And I was the first one to say you should take vitamin D and get exercise.
I was the first one that made that correlation and said, hey, everybody who's having a good outcome has good vitamin D. That can't be an accident.
I got everything right.
I literally got everything right.
But of course, because trolls are trolls, it looks different.
I was right about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Completely right.
Because you know what I said about them?
I said, we don't know.
I said the tests are unreliable.
Right?
So I can't be wrong, I'm just saying the tests are unreliable.
Might have worked, maybe not.
I never said they didn't work.
Did I ever say that?
I said the odds of them being good go down the longer you go without knowing for sure.
So, we'll see.
Anyway, so that's all for today.
I hate talking about this topic because everybody flips out.
And all the comments just went away on YouTube for some reason.
Did you see that Dr. Drew got demonetized?
On YouTube?
Anybody see that?
And I believe that the reason was, but actually I don't know because I'm not sure he knows the reason, so I'd be speculating.
I think it's because things are guest set.
And that's like shocking.
If your show is having people on who are saying things the mainstream is not saying, and that's why it's an interesting guest, If that's the reason, I got a problem with that.
A big one.
But I don't know all the details.
I'm not sure Dr. Drew knows exactly what's going on yet.
But keep an eye on that.
Because if that's what it looks like, that's completely unacceptable.
