Episode 2223 Scott Adams: Lots Of Veins Bulging News Today. Let's Have Fun Mocking It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Tucker Carlson Interview, ADL Myths & Facts, Cenk Uygur, Alternate Electors, Airline Masking Mandate, Democrat Benefits List, Republicans Hunted, Rob Reiner, J6 Sentences, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Peterson, Scott Adams Diet System, Processed Foods, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams and if you're new here, well, it's the beginning of the best part of your life because we take it up to levels that nobody's ever dreamed of.
You can't get this on CNN.
And if you want to join us in this marvelous experience this morning, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Very good.
Very good.
Some of our best, I think.
Well, let's talk about the most important news.
I like to do it from the most important to the least, so we hit all the big stuff right up front.
Dr. Carlson is going to interview a guy who says he had sex with Obama.
So that's big news.
Big news.
Big news!
Now, here's my take on it.
I would not believe it, short of physical evidence, such as, oh yes, let's say oral sex.
Somebody wants me to clarify that there was no penetration alleged.
It was only oral.
Okay, good addition.
But my take is that I don't believe a story of this nature Because it's in a category of stories that are sketchy by their nature.
But a lot of you are saying, but Scott, the evidence is overwhelming.
Because there are people who know this guy, and even I think Tracy Beans or somebody, said she knows him well.
Totally not lying.
And then I guess he passed a lie detector, somebody said.
I don't know if that's true, but they say he passed a lie detector more than once.
I don't know if any of that's true.
So is that good?
People who know him personally say he's definitely not lying.
The lie detector, allegedly, I don't even know if he took one, but allegedly that worked.
Is that good enough?
No.
It's not even close to good enough.
No.
Now, by the way, I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm saying if you want to convince me it happened, you're going to need more than an old junkie to say it happened.
So somebody on Twitter said what I've been thinking is, is there any possibility he thinks it happened and it didn't?
Yes, there is.
Yes, there is.
Do you know what the accuracy rate is of eyewitness accounts of crimes?
Well, I guess it's a crime if drugs were involved.
But if you get eyewitnesses to say, you know, who did you see standing right in front of you?
They have something like a 50% miss rate.
I had this experience when I worked at a bank.
The bank got robbed, and I described the person who robbed me.
Not even close.
In fact, when the FBI called me into their secret facility, and they played back the video from the security cameras to show the guy robbing me, They showed the guy standing in front of me, and they go, is this the guy that robbed you?
I'm like, no!
You kidding me?
That's not even close.
No, the guy who robbed me was, you know, and I described a totally different guy, 30 years of different age, different hair color, different height, and different clothing.
And they said, really?
This is not the guy who robbed you?
I said, he was standing right in front of me.
Yeah, I mean, he was this far away.
I was looking right at him while he robbed me.
Is there any chance that I got that wrong?
And then they said, watch this.
And they had like a hand crank where they could change the speed of the video.
And I watched this guy rob me.
And I was there like, what?
I have a perfect memory of a different person.
Which I still do.
Now I have a memory of what I saw in the video, but at the same time I have a perfect memory of a completely different guy robbing me.
Now I was robbed twice.
One time I was asked to pick the robber out of a lineup, and it was easy.
He was the only one smiling.
But I also recognized him.
As did all the other people, because he robbed a number of banks.
So everybody who was in the witness group, we all recognized him right away.
But the guy that I described completely differently was also described the same way I described him by another witness in the bank.
We both described a completely different guy, but here's the weird part.
Our two independent descriptions, we didn't compare notes, we were talked to separately, were the same not guy.
He wasn't there.
We both saw somebody who wasn't there.
Two for two.
There were only two witnesses, and we both saw somebody who absolutely was not the person who robbed me.
Now, if you say to yourself, he passed the lie detector, and the people who know him personally are positive he's not lying, what are the odds it's true?
It's about 50%.
Roughly 50%.
Yeah.
And I don't think he's necessarily lying.
So that's not my theory.
I think he may have had a memory of something that didn't happen.
Wasn't there something about Obama got out of the limo?
Wasn't part of the story like there was a limo involved?
I remember a story in my own life of somebody who was a limo driver and pulled up to give somebody a ride, and this person had a gay roommate.
She wasn't gay, but a roommate, you know, just had a gay roommate.
And the gay roommate ended up having a quick affair with the driver.
I don't know if it was while they waited for the ride or afterwards, but is there any chance it was the driver?
You know, I'm not saying that's the explanation.
I'm just saying that we live in a weird world where an eyewitness report just doesn't mean what you think it does.
It's maybe a 50% chance of being true.
Anyway, I don't care if it's true or not.
You can make an argument.
It's like, oh, because of this or that, it's important.
Not really.
Maybe it's only important in the narrow sense that it tells you how easily you could be duped about something ordinary.
But it doesn't matter beyond that.
All right.
As you know, the ADL, The Anti-Defamation League, which is really more of a defamation producer than a defamation thwarter.
But that's my opinion.
So I looked at the ADL myths and facts page.
Myths and facts.
I wanted to see if there's anything that people have been saying about them that was unfair.
And if I had said any unfair things, I wanted to see what their argument was.
Because I figure people probably say similar things.
So in my mind, I was thinking, all right, how long would I have to read their fact page where they're debunking the myths about them before I spot one that's obviously bullshit?
Here's the first one, two, three, four.
Here's the first four words, the first four words on the page after the title, ADL Myths and Facts.
And I quote, as a nonpartisan organization, And we're done.
They're literally most famous for being a partisan wing of the Democrats that they use just as a attack dog to go after Republicans.
Now that doesn't mean they don't also do good work.
They probably do.
Because there's probably a bunch of defamation out there that needs to be rebuked.
But they are most famous for being a highly partisan organization.
And on their myth page, they actually have the guts to put the first four words.
That's a non-partisan organization.
Everything after that you can disbelieve.
You know the Judge Jeanine thing?
She didn't make it up, but she says it often.
That if the judge might instruct the jury that if the witness lies about anything, and you know it's a lie, or you're sure it's a lie, that you certainly are within your right to assume that everything said after that is sketchy.
There you go.
All right.
One of the most puzzling questions in my mind about the brainwashing that half of the country has experienced is how they think the January 6 fake elector scheme would have played out if it had gone a different direction.
So the so-called alternate electors that Trump and some folks wanted, that didn't work out.
Now the Democrats would call them fake electors.
The people who were in favor of this plan would have called them alternate electors and they would have said there's some precedent Hawaii blah blah blah.
But on the left they believe that this is obviously this was an insurrection coup kind of a thing because if Trump had gotten away with putting in some what they call fake electors well then he'd be president and you know that would be
Opposite of what the election outcome was and so that would be a coup So Cenk Uygur He was mocking Trump supporters and he said this today in a tweet He said who made Trump organize in all capitals fake electors to replace the actual electors he did that because he hates losing and he's an idiot who thought he could do a coup and
Against America!
It's against America.
When are Republicans going to stop their endless crying about how they are special fucking victims?
To which I replied, now the reason that I like replying to Cenk is he's not completely lost.
Meaning he does have the facility to adjust his opinions based on actual data, but I don't think he gets the same data that you and I do.
Yeah, I just don't think he gets... I don't think he sees the same things we do.
So I'm trying to help him out.
Trying to help him out.
So I responded and I said, game it out.
Jank.
Jank.
I said, let's say those alternate or fake electors went forward.
What happens next?
What would happen next?
Would everyone say, oh, OK, good play, Trump.
You got us.
You got us.
We did not see the fake elector play.
But as soon as you said, we're going to ignore the election and just put in fake electors, well, you became president again.
And what are you going to do?
What are you going to do?
Good play.
Was that going to happen?
Probably not, right?
The odds got low with that.
Or how about this?
An armed civil war.
As soon as those fake electors were approved, armed civil war, right?
Everybody gets their gun and says, oh, fake electors!
Fake electors!
Well, except the problem would be, it would be the unarmed part of the public that wouldn't like the outcome.
The people with all the guns would be the ones that are like, oh, those fake electors are pretty good electors, if you ask me.
I like the fake ones.
They're good.
I call them alternates.
Was that gonna happen?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
It didn't look like we were on the... I saw no signs that we were on a border of like an actual, you know, general civil war or something like that.
No signs at all.
Or is it more likely, here's the third possibility, that the fake electors went forward and let's say they chose Trump based on that process.
What would happen next?
Do you think it would go to the Supreme Court?
Like Gore versus Bush?
Of course it would.
Now what would happen if the Supreme Court saw that somebody was picking fake electors and didn't have a good argument for it?
Or they picked fake electors because they thought the election needed some extra checking.
What is the Supreme Court, even though it's conservative, majority, what would it do?
Well, it would either say, oh, those fake electors are no good, or it would say the election was no good.
And so, therefore, fake electors make sense.
Do you think that the Supreme Court, without any evidence of an election being bad, nothing that we've seen that seems credible, or nothing that a court has said is true, do you think that they were going to say, oh, that election was bad?
They didn't have any evidence of that.
Right?
No, the most likely outcome, two outcomes, is they'd either say, no, these alternates are inappropriate, you have to go with the ones that were picked, or they would have said they are legitimate.
And if the Supreme Court says they are legitimate, the alternates, then Trump is the president.
That's how it works.
That's the system.
That's how it's designed, and that's how it's supposed to work.
Now, was everybody happy when the Supreme Court ruled in a way that made Bush President instead of Gore?
No, they were not.
People were not happy.
But we went on, and we didn't call it a coup, did we?
Probably.
Probably somebody called it a coup.
But we didn't, you know, sort of generally say the country was taken over.
We said we had an ugly process.
It was really close.
And it's a good thing we have a Supreme Court, because then we can all go back to our lives and stop thinking about this.
Yeah, maybe Bush did win.
But there was still plenty of room for challenging.
You know, Gore could have carried it further.
He just decided not to.
So that's my challenge to Cenk, is to tell me how he thinks it would have played out, because I think it would have been fine.
All right, it looks like Alex Jones is going to be right again, as people keep telling me, that the TSA definitely is planning to bring back masks, and maybe, probably, planning to bring back the entire must-be-vaccinated protocol by the winter.
And so JD Vance.
is promoting some legislation to make that illegal, no more mask mandates for school kids or airline passengers.
Now, that's just the first things that came up.
Obviously, there might be other things later.
Now, I don't know if that'll get passed.
Probably not, because there are lots of people in Congress.
But here's what I say.
If the airlines require masks, it won't be because the airlines asked for it.
Right?
It'll be because the TSA required it.
And give me a fact check on that.
That's true, right?
It wouldn't be the airlines making the decision.
They would just be complying with, oh, the FAA?
So it'd be the FAA?
Somebody's saying?
All right.
But in any case, it would be the government.
It would not be the airlines, right?
We should still, as a public, destroy the airlines.
Put them out of business.
Just bankrupt them totally.
Do I care that the government made them do it?
Nope.
Nope.
Would it be terribly unfair to the airlines?
Oh yeah, terribly unfair.
Would it be like super unfair to the employees who might lose their jobs?
Absolutely unfair.
Unfair like crazy.
Do it anyway.
Do it anyway.
Because you can't give away your freedom for nothing.
It's going to be expensive.
If you want to take our freedom, it's going to cost.
And if we have to destroy an entire industry to regain our freedom, I'm totally in favor of that.
No hesitation whatsoever.
Take out the entire airline industry.
And by the way, the airline industry is a mess.
If there's one thing that we should get rid of entirely and start over, it's the airline industry.
Does anybody disagree?
Airlines are the only thing I know that has gotten worse every year for my entire life.
For my entire life, airline flying has gotten a little bit worse every time.
We don't need that.
We should just wipe it off the map, bankrupt all those companies, and see if somebody can build something that makes sense and works.
So, yes, I'm in favor of J.D.
Vance's legislation, but if that doesn't get it done, we have to bankrupt the first company that, you know, goes forward.
And if it's all of them, you have to get them all.
Take out the entire industry.
All right.
Let's talk about those Florida Nazis.
Led by Boneface.
Is that his name?
Boneface?
And he's got some weird CIA connections, and he fought in Ukraine, which is weird.
He fought with the Ukrainian Nazis, which is weird.
But yeah, he's also strangely articulate for being the person that he is, which is weird.
But the worst thing about this story by far is Joe Biden calling them fine people.
Can you believe that Joe Biden, the President of the United States, stood in front of the world and called these Nazis, with actual Nazi flags?
And if you didn't notice, their veins were bulging.
Did you see the bulging veins?
That was the worst part.
And then he goes up there and he goes, these Nazis are fine people.
And I'm like, what?
What?
Did he really say that?
Like, I couldn't believe it when I heard it.
Now, some people are going to say, that didn't happen, but I heard it with my own ears.
So it must have happened, right?
Moving on.
I wanted to track the evolution of a Biden supporter.
And yes, I'm going to keep saying that, by the way.
I'm going to keep saying that Biden called those Nazis fine people.
I'm going to tweet it.
I'm going to say it every day until somebody says, what the hell are you talking about?
And maybe we'll have a conversation about how these things happen.
But if we don't, Joe Biden called the Nazis fine people.
And I think all of you should repeat that.
You should all repeat it.
Until you're deeply challenged about the factual value of it.
Make sure you just, oh, every time you see a Democrat say, well, you know he called them fine people.
Biden did.
It's hard to explain.
All right, so here's the evolution of a Biden supporter.
2016.
Trump is a liar.
Right?
That's all Democrats in 2016.
Trump, he's a liar.
We need an honest person as president.
He's a liar.
Lying liar.
So many lies.
2020.
Biden has replaced the liar.
Yay!
We got rid of the liar.
We got Biden in there instead of the liar.
Yay!
2020.
2022.
Well, at least Biden doesn't lie as much as Trump.
He doesn't lie as much.
Right?
So, we're way better off because we got a guy who doesn't lie as much.
That was 2022.
2023.
All right, maybe the substance of Biden's lies are far worse.
He did start the Fine People hoax, which is the worst hoax ever played in the country.
Yeah, I mean, that's pretty bad.
And he did do the laptop hoax and the whole cover-up of his Ukrainians' involvement.
And those are, well, maybe even the cause of a world war.
We don't know yet.
But those are the worst lies I've ever seen in the political world.
But look how many times Trump has lied about his crowd size.
I mean, how do you compare those?
Sure, Biden had the worst lies, but there weren't that many of them.
He repeated them a lot, but not that many.
Just that he was involved with something improper in Ukraine, which may or may not be a reason for us spending all our money and having a war over there that'll kill a million people.
Maybe.
Don't know.
And then we got 2024.
I'm looking ahead to the next evolution, and it'll be, all right, maybe Biden is brain dead now, but at least he lies less than Trump.
Yes, his brain is not working and he can't speak.
He's in a vegetative state.
But let's compare who lies more, huh?
Yeah, he's laying there unable to talk.
He's hooked up to machines.
But do you see any lying?
No.
The most honest president we've ever had.
Compare that to Trump.
Once again, he said his crowd size was twice as big as it was.
And I don't think we can live with that.
You know what I mean?
Can't live with that.
All right.
Speaking of Cenk, I had one other interaction with him.
So Cenk was making fun of Trump's boxes, his boxes of secrets.
And I said, I replied to him, because he thought the boxes of secrets were a reason not to vote for Trump.
And I said, if Trump had nuclear secrets, or UFO secrets, or Russia secrets, we would already know the general domain.
Let me go back.
First I said, if the boxes had anything that mattered, we would already know what's in them.
So my statement is if the Mar-a-Lago boxes had things that were really dangerous for the country, of course that would have been leaked.
We would know something about that by now.
So here's what Cenk says to that comment.
See if this looks... I'm going to call this section stupid or just being partisan.
Stupid or partisan.
So, in response to my comment that we would know what was in the boxes if it was really a problem, Cenk retweets me and he says, Why is my page not working?
Oh, he said of my response, he goes, this is the most nonsensical response I can imagine.
That they're so important that they were classified as top secret.
And he says, you don't know what's in them precisely because they're so important to national security.
Now, did Cenk interpret my comment To mean that I thought we should know the details of those secrets.
Because he was responding as if he thought I had suggested that we would know the details of the secrets in the boxes by now.
The top secret boxes.
And he actually was, I guess he was certain enough that that's what I meant that he wanted to mock me in public for it.
Do you think that's what I meant?
Would any of you interpret that we'd know what's in the boxes to mean that we would know the details of what's in the boxes?
Now is that, is that TDS or is he just being partisan and he knows what he's doing?
Does he know what he's doing or not?
I don't know.
He's not going to respond to this.
I said, if Trump had nuclear secrets or UFO secrets or Russia secrets, we would already know the general domain of the secrets.
Do you agree?
We would know the general domain of those secrets for sure, if they were really critical and important.
They don't need to tell us what exactly he had, but if they say it was something about how to, you know, nuclear, Well, that would narrow it down, and I'd be concerned about that.
But we haven't heard that, which strongly suggests there's nothing in those boxes of actual importance.
All right, I was trying to think of all the things that Democrats have given us, and I noticed a pattern.
So I just wrote them down, and see if you can find any pattern.
I haven't identified the pattern yet, but I think there's one here.
See if you can find it.
The Democrats have given us the ADL to destroy free speech, the teachers unions to destroy education.
They've given us no bail and fewer police to destroy retail business and cities.
They've given us climate alarm to destroy our energy sector.
They've given us activists to destroy our domestic nuclear energy future.
They've given us bad judges, the January 6th outcomes, to destroy the credibility of our judicial system.
They've given us fake news to destroy patriotism and replace it with division.
And they've given us pandemic mandates to destroy our mental health and the future of our children.
They've also got the Ukraine War to destroy whatever's left over.
And some people added a few.
They said, you know, they gave us TikTok to destroy human reproduction by making everybody change genders, I guess.
And they've also given us windmills to destroy whales and Rob Reiner on the beach.
So, you have to respect the thoroughness of it.
And I thought, this is a pretty strong approach.
Yeah, it's a pretty strong approach to say that somebody like Vivek, for example, he's looking to build something.
And as is Trump.
So the Republicans are looking to make something.
And the Democrats have this long history of putting in place systems and organizations that seem intent on destroying something good in each case.
They use the border security to destroy border security.
That's like a real thing.
That's not even a hyperbole.
They're using border security to eliminate border security.
Now, do you think that the Democrats are aware that the way they did that is just to make all the illegal immigrants legal if they come in through the front door?
If you come in through the front door and you just say, I'm an asylum seeker, we're not allowed to question it.
We give them documents and say, enjoy your time in the country.
Seven years later, we may or may not contact them for a court date.
And in seven years, if there's a Democrat in charge, Probably instead of being evicted, they're going to say, what have you been doing for seven years?
And the answer will be, I've been working, paying taxes.
And then the Democrats say, well, it would be kind of unfair to kick you out at this point.
And it would be.
It would be, in my opinion.
So that is literally the elimination of border security.
It's amazing to me.
That the polling for the 2024 presidential election is close.
And I know that Democrats say the same thing.
They say, well, how can it be close when Trump's been indicted so many times?
They still don't get the indictment thing.
Do you feel like they don't get it yet?
I also saw a number of Democrats say they were happy that the January 6th people got these insanely long Jail sentences.
22 years for one who wasn't even there?
Wasn't even there.
The guy who got 17 years for shaking a fence or breaking a window or something?
Now, the Democrats seem to think those are reasonable.
Have you heard even one Democrat, even one, say, hey, that's too far?
Could you imagine if AOC came out and said, that's too far?
You know, these sentences are ridiculous.
You've made a mockery of our judicial system.
She won't, but it would break the world if she did.
I haven't heard RFK Jr.
talk about it yet, have you?
What is RFK Jr.
saying?
There's no way he's in favor of that.
Maybe just staying quiet about it.
That would probably be the best play.
But it's an amazing situation.
So that's the way, if I were running for president, I would frame it as the things that they're destroying versus the things you're building.
And I think a lot of that is the goals versus systems problem.
The Democrats have a goal, and then the goal makes them just do the thing.
Our goal is not to be mean at the border.
Well, if you're immediately trying to stop being mean, you end up just letting everybody in.
So their goal-oriented approach to everything is giving them exactly what you'd expect would be the result.
All right.
One of the most embarrassing things that Democrats have done to themselves is to make me the best predictor of all time for my prediction in 2020 on July 1st that Republicans would be hunted if Biden got elected.
I leave it to the audience.
True or false?
That Biden got elected and Republicans are being hunted.
100% true.
I was never more mocked for any prediction than that one.
But you could see it.
Well, I could see it.
I could see it was forming.
Because the way they felt about Republicans suggested some form of violence.
And the form that they're choosing is the legal system, because they have enough judges that they can just put Republicans in jail, basically, as long as they want.
So yes, Republicans are in fact being hunted.
And thank you, Democrats, for making me the best predictor of all time.
People have been telling me they haven't been seeing any anti-Semitism, and I keep saying, but I see tons of it.
And I realize that people don't know what it looks like.
So if you haven't seen it, this is what it looks like.
I say anything about something going wrong in the country, and that then one of the anti... All right, let's see if I can keep the connection working for like a minute.
So the people who come into my comments and say, who are they?
Who are they?
Are the anti-Semites.
And what they're trying to say is that there's a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world and something like that.
And the comments are going wild with anti-Semitism right now over on YouTube.
YouTube's just a toilet.
But if you don't recognize it, that's what it is.
So it's not the only way to recognize it, but it's one way.
Yeah, I'm just looking at your comments to be so I could be horrified for a minute.
Yeah.
But the problem that they people have is they can't explain how you wouldn't get exactly what we observe in the world today just by knowing that Jews like to get good educations.
That explains everything you see.
You don't need a worldwide conspiracy that for some reason I've lived my entire life and never seen any hints of.
I'm completely immersed, or have been until recently, in successful Jewish leaders and publications in every realm.
Just completely all the time.
I mean, you can't be operating at a high level in business unless you're running into successful Jewish people everywhere.
I've never heard anybody, even a whiff, of anything that's like some big conspiracy.
It's just a bunch of people looking out for their own interests like everybody.
Now, I'm pretty finely tuned for conspiracies and even racism.
I feel like I see it even when I don't see it.
But I don't see any.
Decades and decades being immersed in that world, I've never seen anything.
And if you've not been immersed in that world, probably your opinions are a little under-informed.
So just ask yourself this if you're one of those, who's they, Scott?
If you're one of those people, just ask yourself how it would look if the only explanation for all of it is a high interest in education and high achievement in education.
You get the same look we have now.
It'll look exactly like what we have now.
All right.
Rob Reiter seemed unusually happy about the J6ers and their long sentences.
And, you know, he actually tweeted about it, and I thought to myself, they're so broken that if they can't get Trump, they would be happy to jail forever somebody who supported him.
And it's very obvious, the Democrats are actually happy That the January 6th people are getting sentences that nobody thinks are realistic in terms of being appropriate to the crimes.
Nobody.
And they're delighted.
So when I say that Republicans will be hunted, hunted suggests recreation, doesn't it?
Right?
Hunters are doing it not just for the food, sometimes for the food, but recreationally.
When I see Rob Reiner tweet about this, it looks like he enjoyed it.
It looks like he got some pleasure watching Republicans be put in jail for what are clearly, you know, inappropriate sentences.
So that's haunted.
Haunted means recreational.
There it is.
All right, here's something I hoped I would see, but I did get to see it finally.
So, you know Dr. Peter McCullough.
Would you say he is one of the doctors who has been anti-vaccination?
And also, maybe a, let's see, what would you say, a rogue doctor?
You know, doesn't go along with the mainstream?
But I've had my own criticisms of Dr. McCullough, because even if it turns out he's right about everything, which is possible.
I wouldn't rule that out.
He might be right about everything.
But his understanding of studies and statistics looked to me like that wasn't his field.
And I tried criticizing just his understanding of some studies and data in the past, and I got slapped down so hard.
That I just said, all right, I'm out.
It just isn't worth it.
Because people want to believe him.
And therefore, it doesn't matter what the analysis is.
So then I saw this tweet.
So Dr. McCullough had this tweet.
He said, there is some new evidence that heavily vaccinated have the highest all-cause mortality.
And if you're unvaccinated, you would have the least all-cause mortality.
So what about that?
I mean, that's pretty conclusive, isn't it?
Would you say that's kind of conclusive?
Let's say the data is true.
Let's say the data is true.
And the most heavily vaccinated also are the ones dying the most.
For a variety of reasons.
Variety of reasons.
Dying the most.
That is strong evidence that the vaccinations are bad for you, right?
That's what Dr. McCullough is saying.
How is that wrong?
If the people who are most vaccinated have the worst medical outcomes for all causes, isn't that proof?
Aren't you completely sold?
Why not?
What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with that analysis?
Well, let's see what Dr. Jordan Peterson says about that analysis, quite politely.
Now, if you don't know Dr. Jordan Peterson, he knows what a study is.
He knows how to interpret that.
He knows bullshit when he sees it.
And he's generally one of the smartest people in the public conversation, scientifically as well as socially and culturally.
And Dr. Jordan Peterson saw that tweet and he said, very politely, politely, an objection, parenthetically, even though I don't trust the VAX companies a bit.
He says, how do you know that those who are more generally unhealthy weren't more likely to take the vaccine because of their health concern?
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated all cause mortality is only a valid stat when assignation to group was random.
Is it not?
Do you see how politely he approached this?
Because Dr. Jordan Peterson knows, as I know and as you know, that if anyone were to disagree with Dr. McCullough, they would be slapped so hard for just disagreeing with his statement.
Because I know I was.
So he's putting it in the form of a question, but it's not a question, is it?
Is it a question?
It's not exactly a question, is it?
It's sort of a question statement.
Which is, this is bullshit.
This is absolute, unmitigated bullshit.
Unhealthy people get the most vaccinations, and they're most likely to die from those other unhealthy things.
The whole reason that they're the most vaccinated is because they're most likely to die from... Say it.
The reason they're highly vaccinated is they're most likely to die from.
All cause mortality.
Exactly what the study is.
All cause mortality.
So the people who have all cause comorbidities, strangely enough, are also the most likely to die.
I mean, who saw that coming?
Now, two years ago, when I was saying to you, all right, I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure that Dr. McCullough is not kind of understanding studies.
And boy, did I get my ass handed to me.
Scott, you're no doctor.
Who knows how to look at a medical study better?
Do you think the doctor knows or the cartoonist?
Yeah.
So for two fucking years, I had to put up with idiots telling me that I could not tell that Dr. McCullough may have made a slight Analytical error in the data.
But Jordan Peterson took a run at him.
So I'll let Peterson take this from here on.
Godspeed, Dr. Peterson.
Good luck.
I wouldn't touch it.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're coming to the conclusion of what I would consider Let's see what the dumb people say.
Shall I read the dumbest comments?
I'm gonna pick this one out because it's in all capitals.
This is on YouTube.
Well, I don't get comments like this on locals.
The dumb people are all on YouTube.
All right.
Richard says this.
Richard, we can call him Dick.
In all caps, so I'm gonna say it like all caps.
Who would deliver you a claw shot without caring what would happen to you?
Okay, that's not even a sentence.
But I'm sure you're very passionate about those random words that you put in all caps.
Okay.
Here's Mike.
COPE!
COPE!
Good one, Mike.
Because my insightful analysis, which you agree with, the best way to summarize that is COPE!
Or... COPE!
All right, let's see some more.
McCullough was talking about a controlled trial.
A controlled trial.
Controlled in what way?
by comorbidity.
Scott.
Oh, that's a different topic.
Signals require further evaluation.
McCullough is simply highlighting a signal.
Is that a signal?
Is it a signal to see exactly what you expect to see?
There almost couldn't be any other way.
What makes that a signal?
Human beings sometimes die.
Well, it's a signal that somebody's killing us.
No, we sort of die on our own.
There's no real signal there.
All right.
You don't expect the outcome in working age people.
Yes, I do.
Working age people with comorbidities.
I do expect to die more often than people who don't have comorbidities.
I do.
I mean, that's on me, but I do.
do.
What else?
What evidence would I need to try an all-meat diet?
Oh, I'm glad you brought that up.
I have a hypothesis that I haven't done any research.
Okay?
So this is based on my own experience, so it's observational and anecdotal and not scientific.
But it goes like this.
So you've heard that Dr. Jordan Peterson had great health outcomes by going to an all-meat diet.
You've all heard that?
So he had terrible, some number of, I don't know, maybe unspecified kinds of problems, meaning I don't know if they had a name.
But once he went on the all-meat diet, they completely resolved.
Now you've heard other people, Who have gone the other way, have you not?
Have you not heard of people who had problems and then decided, I'm just going to eat vegetables, whole foods and vegetables, and they'll report, oh, all my problems were solved.
Have you ever heard of that?
I've heard of that.
You've not heard of that.
You've not heard of anybody who resolved their health problems by moving to a primarily vegetarian diet.
You've never seen that in the news?
Seriously?
That's like one of the most common news stories of all time.
You don't see it as much, but it used to be one of the most common ones.
Now, I'm not promoting either diet.
So before you get mad at me, I'm not telling you what to eat.
Nothing like that's happening.
I'm a vegetarian.
Well, pescatarian.
I'm a grudgingly lead fish.
I don't like it, but I feel like I need it.
So I'm not telling you not to eat meat.
I'm not telling you to eat meat.
I'm not telling you to eat vegetables.
I'm not telling you not to eat vegetables.
Nothing like that.
So get that in your head.
We're just going to look at the facts.
Here's my hypothesis.
That you will get healthier if you eat only meat, but also if you eat only vegetables and no meat.
You'd probably have to supplement in that case.
But let's say you do it right, you supplement a few things, so you got enough protein.
Here's why I say that.
In both cases, it's about what you don't eat.
In both cases, the magic is that you're not eating processed foods in either case.
No sauces, no preservatives, no processed foods.
So in my personal experimentation, when I go a day or two without processed foods, which is really hard, I feel great.
But if I eat, let's say, just restaurant food, or stuff that comes in a package, or heat it up in a can, or something like that, I feel terrible.
And I don't know what's the cause.
I like just sort of an all body, things aren't working.
I feel like I have allergies.
I feel like I have inflammation a little bit.
You know, I feel like I'm tired.
Like all of it, like just a general malaise.
And one of the reasons that I've lost so much weight lately, there's a few different reasons, but I wasn't really trying.
I just stopped eating processed foods because I was sort of experimenting.
And I thought I would, you know, maybe, you know, get my weight to exactly where I wanted it, which I have right now at my exact weight I want.
But it does seem to me that Dr. Peterson is on to something with the meat diet, but mostly because what he doesn't eat.
And that's why I think the people who go all veggie... Have you ever seen somebody who did a real clean diet?
I had a friend once who was the cleanest eater I've ever seen.
I mean, just crazy clean.
Wouldn't even use regular toothpaste.
It was just a whole bunch of normal products that she wouldn't use at all.
I've never seen a healthier person.
I don't know if it's cause or effect.
It's just anecdotal.
But when I see people who are really serious about avoiding processed foods, they almost always look way healthier than other people.
But they're probably also doing everything else because they care so much about their health.
So you can't really get a clean read on whether it's that one variable.
But it is something, like somebody said, it's a signal.
It's something that goes, hmm, maybe I should look into that.
How many of you think I'm on to something?
And by the way, I don't think I invented this idea.
You're going to tell me somebody else is already on to this because it's a little bit obvious.
But wouldn't you say that both diets are probably better than a normal American diet?
Like in the way that makes you feel good the same day?
Yeah, and sugar is poison for sure.
I'm gonna do a little favor to those of you who are not familiar to my work.
Is there anybody on YouTube?
I know all the people on the Locals platform have heard this before.
But on the YouTube platform, is there anybody who hasn't heard my diet system?
It's in my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I'm gonna give you just a little bit of it.
There's a few parts of it.
It goes like this.
The first thing you do is you replace willpower, which is not real anyway, with knowledge.
Because if you're using willpower to resist eating the bad foods, you'll eventually break down.
Everybody has a bad day.
So willpower as a mechanism to try really hard, that doesn't work.
Doesn't work.
Instead, you want to make sure that you get the same amount of dopamine With the diet you're leaving, as with the diet you're going to.
So if you use knowledge, you can figure out how to prepare foods that are not your normal foods, but are, you know, organic and good for you.
And you can make them taste delicious.
For example, watermelon isn't too bad for you, right?
Am I right about that?
Watermelon's okay for you?
You're not gonna get fat or sick from a watermelon, right?
Did you know?
Try this at home.
But by the way, this will sell the whole, my entire concept will be sold the moment you try this.
Take some watermelon chunks, put lime juice on them, you know, really slop them with lime juice, and then put salt on top of them.
I like a lot of salt, but, you know, salt to taste.
If you eat a piece of watermelon that you already thought was pretty darn good, And you put lime juice on it, it's even better if you use a real lime, squeeze it on, and salt, you'll eat it like it's dessert.
Your brain will go, what?
Nobody told me about this!
And you'll be almost angry that nobody told you watermelon could taste that good.
I eat like a bowl of watermelon almost every day, if I have it in the house, because I can't stop eating it.
And what am I doing while I'm eating that watermelon?
I'm not eating processed foods.
It's about what I'm not eating.
That's the secret.
Now, take the watermelon trick, and then multiply it by every food.
There's a way to make broccoli that you'll love.
Same with most of the vegetables.
There's 10 ways to hate them, and there's going to be at least one way you're like, what?
Here's the weirdest one.
Try this one at home.
Have you ever eaten a piece of cauliflower with, you know, just some salt or something?
It's not very good, is it?
Take a little clump of cauliflower, just put a little salt on it and go, and you'd be like, no thank you.
I will not do this again.
But, take that exact same piece of cauliflower, slice it with a sharp knife so it's really fine little, fine little slices, And then put some salt and pepper on your cutting board.
Not on the food, on the cutting board.
And take your flat little piece that you've cut from the cauliflower and push it down into the salt and pepper and rub it around.
And then eat that little piece.
It's like the best thing you ever had in your mouth.
It goes from completely terrible To, oh my god, I could eat this whole entire head of cauliflower if I do it this way.
Now, for almost everything that you eat, there's going to be one of those.
If you had enough knowledge, right?
Here's where knowledge replaces willpower.
If you had the knowledge to make your watermelon and your cauliflower taste amazing, how hard would it be to avoid the other thing that tastes good but isn't good for you?
Same amount of dopamine.
If you think of your diet plan as a dopamine management system, then you get all the right answers.
Because if you get as much dopamine from the stuff that's good for you, which requires knowledge.
Knowledge, not willpower.
Just knowledge.
You have to experiment until you find what makes it, like, really delight you.
So, once you've replaced willpower with knowledge, you're about a third of the way to losing weight without any effort at all.
No effort.
You're still eating delicious things.
Here's the next trick.
And this one's really important.
If you were to say, all right, I'm going to go on this diet.
I'm not going to eat any of these bad foods that I love so much.
How often do people succeed at that?
Not a lot, right?
Because those foods are just so delicious.
And then you usually say something like this.
Well, I'm going to have a cheat day.
of a cheat day so that I'm not completely denying myself.
So I can't live if I deny myself totally, but I'll have a cheat day.
Worst idea ever.
A hundred of you could tell me that that saved your life to have a cheat day.
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
Not gonna hear it.
Cheat day is the worst idea of dieting.
Here's what you do instead.
You pick one food, and only one, that's on your problem list.
Let's say you've got a dozen things that you eat that are all problems, right?
Like for me, it was french fries and Snickers candy bars, cheesecake.
You know, I'm not really sweets, but there are a few that, I don't know, I like the texture or something.
So instead of getting rid of all those things that you like, you pick one.
You say, all right, I'm not going to do chocolate candy.
But that's the only thing I'm not going to do.
I can still eat all the watermelon I want.
I can still eat all the cauliflower I want.
But I can also, and this is key, I can eat all those other bad foods.
I'm not banned at all.
As much as you want.
The only one you can't have is the one you picked.
Wait two months.
This is the key.
Two months.
After two months, watch what happens to that favorite food.
It goes from, like, God, I gotta put this in my mouth.
Like, you'll actually be shaking.
You wouldn't be able to hold your favorite food in your hand, near your head, and then put it down.
Like, you just couldn't do it.
But after two months, your favorite food, if it's a sugar food, this only applies to sugar, basically.
If it's a sugary food, after two months, you'll look at it and say, why did I like this?
I had probably 12 Diet Cokes a day for 30 years, 40 years, something like that.
And it took two months of being off it to look at it as, why did I put that in my mouth?
It's like chemicals in water or something, right?
Like, I don't even know what this is.
Like, why would I want that in my mouth?
So, two months to lose any craving for any one item.
Now what happens after two months and you've succeeded in getting rid of that one item?
Repeat.
Pick the next item.
If you're also at the same time working on your knowledge...
You're not losing any dopamine.
The problem with diets is dopamine.
Oh, I can't wait for the weekend.
I'll never lose my addiction to sugar.
I'll just have to wait till the weekend.
Terrible, terrible, terrible.
I've never known anybody who had a cheat day who also succeeded.
In the long run.
People will succeed in the short run with everything.
Everything works in the short run.
But if you have a cheat day, you're not going to get rid of your craving.
A cheat day actually increases your craving.
It increases your addiction because you want it and can't have it easily.
That makes you want it more, not less.
You want to say, I can have everything I want, I can have all the dopamine I want, I just can't have this one thing and I won't even notice.
And then you just keep adding up the one thing.
So if I take care of my worst things, then my weight just drops indefinitely without effort.
So I lost 10 pounds since roughly this time last year.
And I didn't put any effort into it.
I just realized, oh, 10 pounds is heavier than I want to be.
All I did was I stopped eating bread.
Do you know how hard it was for the first two months of not eating bread?
Really hard.
It was kind of hard.
But since I could eat everything else, and I have a generally good life, I had all the dopamine I needed.
I didn't need the bread to get me to my minimum level of pleasure for the day.
I could reach my minimum level of pleasure every day without bread.
But if I had nothing else going on to give me pleasure, yeah, I would have had the bread.
Because the other theory I have is minimum pleasure.
All humans need a minimum amount of pleasure, dopamine, in order to stay alive.
You'll actually just go kill yourself if every day you woke up and you didn't have dopamine.
You'd just say, alright, I'm done.
So you have to find pleasure, but you've got to make sure that it's not the bad kind.
So you've got to make sure you're hitting your pleasure minimums or you have no hope for a diet.
In fact, you have no hope for anything.
If you're not hitting your minimum pleasure for the day through healthy means, get outside, take a walk, pet your dog, You know, hug your mate, whatever it takes.
If you're not getting enough there, you absolutely 100% will get it in an inappropriate way.
You're going to have reckless sex, you know, twice as much porn, you're going to take drugs you shouldn't be taking, you're going to be eating food you shouldn't be eating, because you've got to get the minimum.
Humans will not put up with less than the minimum that they require of dopamine.
Once you realize that we're dopamine machines, And if you manage the dopamine, everything works.
Your life just changes.
Now, I'm watching the comments as I'm talking, because I know the people on Locals have heard all or most of this.
This is all familiar to you, right?
On Locals?
Because you've read my books and stuff.
Yeah.
I'm sure I've said it on the livestream.
Now, let me check in with the people on YouTube.
How many of you just said, you just reframed my entire eating situation?
That sounds like it could work.
Yeah, watch the comments now.
Watch how many people can tell.
Yeah, the comments are coming in.
They can tell.
They can tell their lives just changed.
I'm not joking when I say I changed your life just then.
You'll never be the same.
Because the thing about a reframe is that you only have to hear it once.
If it's meaningful to you, you'll never forget it.
One exposure, done.
For the rest of your life.
That's just what happened to a bunch of people there.
The comments are just screaming in right now.
Now, if you haven't bought my book... I wasn't planning to do this, but...
Since it fits so perfectly.
That's the sort of thing.
This doesn't concentrate on diet so much, but my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything, and still when big, does.
It's got more details.
But this is full of reframes that are like that one, except shorter.
The reason it's not here is it takes more explaining.
But that's how powerful reframes are.
And I can see a number of you can feel that I just changed your entire existence with a reframe.
That's how it works.
All right, on that note, I haven't heard of Brian Johnson, though.
Should you read How to Fail First?
Let me ask the people who have read it.
Okay, on Locals, the question is, would you be better off, for those of you who have read both books, would you be better off reading How to Fail first, and then Reframe Your Brain second?
I'm seeing all yeses, but not necessarily.
So they do stand alone.
Let me be clear about that.
There's no necessity to read one to fully get the benefit of the other.
But a lot of people said that one maybe gives you more context or something.
I don't know.
Yeah.
If you want the DAIA stuff in particular, which you don't really need because you just heard it, then How to Fail would be the one.
Get the second edition.
And if you just want 160 reframes in all kinds of domains, which is also in How to Fail.
They both have lots of different reframes.
But you'd want the reframe book if you just want to get right to it.
Yeah, they're different and complementary.
Let's say that.
Yeah, running does the same thing for some people.
