My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Jerry Nadler, AI Wordplay Humor, Dementia Hitler Lies, President Biden, Woke Democrats, Texas Civil War, Yemen Houthis, Totalitarian Democrats, WEF Propaganda, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, NGO Democrats, Free Speech Censorship, Vivek Thomas Jefferson, WEF Disease X, Nikki Haley, Dr. Fauci, Harvard Antisemitism lawsuit, Mask Effectiveness, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think there's been a better time in your entire life.
If you'd like this experience to go up to levels that, well, you can't even believe, all you need for that would be a... What do you need for that?
You know.
A cup or mug or a glass of tanker shells to stay in the canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day thing that makes everything better it's called.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Looks like we got good sound on all platforms.
Everything's working today.
Yay.
How about that news, huh?
So according to the news, Sam Altman Just got married.
And imagine his year.
So Sam Altman launches the greatest new technology in our lifetime, which is OpenAI and ChatGPT.
Then he gets fired, or whatever it was.
And then it's a big drama and he comes back.
And AI is changing the world.
And the thing that we didn't know, During all of that drama, he was planning a wedding.
Have any of you ever planned a wedding?
Do you have any idea how much trouble that is?
Can you imagine his year?
This is like the year that nobody can even understand.
How in the world do you do all those things in one year?
So, congratulations to Sam Altman.
There's an app that I thought was very cool I'm going to tell you about.
It's called Hero.
And it uses AI, of course, but all you do is you point your phone to any object you own, and it will tell you how much you can sell it for.
Is that cool?
I feel like that's what I've been waiting for my whole life.
I just want to point my phone at, like, you know, my coffee cup and have it come up with a price.
I don't think it quite connects you, you know, the buyer and the seller, so there's another step there that could be cool, but Oh, eBay has something similar, you say?
I haven't seen that.
No, that's some AI I could use.
Just point it at something that tells you what it's worth.
Well, here's some really good news from Germany.
So Germany has managed to reduce their emissions.
So their emissions are low this year.
And you're probably wondering, how did they do it?
How did Germany lower its emissions?
Well, checking the fine print, Germany lowered their emissions by substantially lowering their quality of life and killing their economic engine of growth.
So, big success in Germany.
Good luck, Germany!
Congratulations on reducing your quality of life to the level that Klaus Schwab requires.
So, big winner, Klaus Schwab.
All right, Jerry Nadler was quoted as saying that one of the reasons, well two of the reasons really, that we need immigration, and even he says illegal immigration.
So at least he's being very honest about this and transparent.
And Nadler says, uh, our vegetables would rot in the ground if they weren't being picked by many immigrants, many illegal immigrants.
Yeah.
So when it comes to national security, Jerry Nadler is most interested in, checking notes again, his food, his food.
Yeah.
Jerry, Jerry wants to make sure we got lots of illegal immigrants because He's a he's a hungry motherfucker and he needs lots of vegetables.
Lots of vegetables.
So he needs more illegal immigrants to get to get his Calvary count up.
Now the one thing I should warn the immigrants about is if we run out of vegetables.
Jerry Nadler will you you you get that right?
You know if if it's up to Jerry Nadler.
First, he would eat the vegetables.
First choice.
But if there are no vegetables, Jerry still needs to eat.
He's going to be eating the illegal immigrants.
I don't know.
I just think that could happen.
I'm not guaranteeing it.
I'm just saying it could happen.
All I'm saying is he's very hungry.
That's all I'm saying.
Well, you'll be delighted to know That there's been a big breakthrough in AI writing jokes.
And this is quite exciting.
You know, I told you that AI would never be able to be good at humor.
Well, I guess I'm eating my words more than Jerry Nadler is eating illegal immigrants.
Because somebody made a George Carlin that doesn't sound at all like George Carlin.
And tells jokes that don't sound anything like George Carlin would tell.
But they've been deemed funny.
You know what the joke was?
Something about a fart that was trying to escape an asshole.
So that's the joke that AI came up with.
Now, in my experience, AI thinks that all humor is wordplay.
And the reason I know that is I've asked AI to tell me jokes, and I can say specifically, tell me a joke, but don't use wordplay.
And then it will tell me a joke with wordplay.
And then I'll say, okay, but try it again, but I want no wordplay.
There'll be no puns, no clever wording, no, nothing with wordplay, just a joke.
And it will give you another joke with wordplay because it actually can't do anything else.
Now, This is probably a quiz that you can all do well on.
Are fart jokes funny?
In the comments, tell me, are fart jokes funny?
To a segment of the population, 100% of fart jokes are funny.
You know that, right?
You might not be in that segment, but I think it's 25% of the public.
That's just a guess.
It feels like it would be 25%.
I think so.
All far jokes are funny.
My beloved late father was in that 25%.
If you wanted dad to laugh, I wouldn't go too clever.
No, but if you could make a good far joke, dad would be laughing.
I'll tell you.
That's funny stuff.
So here's what I need to tell you as a professional humorist.
What is the lowest form of humor?
Go.
What is the lowest?
Consider the least capable, easiest, lowest form of humor.
Some people would say wordplay and puns.
Other people would say bathroom humor and farts.
But AI apparently has risen all the way to the level of the lowest fucking humor you could ever write.
Wordplay about a fart.
And somebody was bragging about how AI had finally broken through into the humor domain.
No, it hasn't.
No, it hasn't.
If your best joke is a fucking fart joke with a wordplay, you have not entered the world of humor.
You have not.
You're knocking on the door, but you're not inside.
You're definitely outside the door.
So no, AI is not about to take your job.
Can you imagine that AI would ever be good enough to do a Dave Chappelle-like humor where he's weaving together a whole tapestry and you don't know where it's heading until the surprise ending that ties it all together and makes you question your convictions and makes you see things from the other side for the first time?
It can't do that.
Will it ever be able to do that?
Well, I don't think so.
Well, let me be specific.
I don't think that the large language models will ever produce humor that would be Chappelle quality humor.
Or Seinfeld, or most of the greats.
And the reason is that AI is designed to stay safe.
That's the first problem.
Because Chappelle never worked safe.
He doesn't work dirty.
But he's never safe.
And AI only has to be safe.
It's designed that way.
And more importantly, AI has to be boring and inoffensive.
I just can't see it doing it.
And the other thing is that a human is sort of surfing the zeitgeist.
So Chappelle knows what you're feeling and thinking, and then he crafts his work around it.
And it would change in a month from now if you were feeling and thinking differently.
AI can't do that.
Not even close.
All right.
Microsoft has overtaken Apple as the world's largest, well, most valuable company.
So Microsoft is the most valuable company.
I told you a while ago that I was selling all my Apple stock.
This is not financial advice.
Not, not, not financial advice.
Because I don't give financial advice.
I'm not good at it, really.
But I did sell my Apple stock because I was worried about the risk of AI, because they seemed behind.
And I did buy a bunch of Microsoft stock before it had its run.
So, God, I got lucky.
Man, you know, the most important part of investing is pure luck.
Pure luck.
The Apple part, I may have guessed right, but if Apple introduces their own AI, and it's great, Then I really fucked up.
Right.
If AI and Apple work well together, and it probably will, probably will, then holding Apple would be the best bet.
But there's no way to know.
So it introduced some risks.
Dementia Hiller.
It's coming out with some new lies.
He said, today's data shows that we ended 2023 with inflation down by nearly two-thirds from its peak and core inflation at its lowest level, blah, blah, blah, blah.
When was the last time Joe Biden tweeted something that was true?
Have you noticed that?
It's almost 100% false when he tweets.
Now, I think in this case, he's just playing the game of, you know, what base do you start measuring?
You know, if you start at this base, inflation is up.
If you start at this base, it looks like it's down.
So he's obviously just playing, you know, numbers games here, which I would consider a lie.
I don't know.
I feel like, I feel like Trump lied way less in tweets.
Am I wrong about that?
A typical Trump tweet would be a joke, which is not a lie.
He could simply say what the numbers are.
You know, inflation is 2% or whatever it is.
And that wouldn't be a lie, because he'd just be telling you what the statistic is.
And then he gives you opinions, which are not lies.
You might not like them, but an opinion is not a lie.
And then there are insults about his enemies, which might be hyperbole.
But you would recognize it, obviously, as hyperbole, and you would judge yourself.
I would say, I don't know if this is purely me being a team player.
I guess you can judge me on this.
I want you all to judge me.
Right?
This is a category where I can't judge my own performance.
I'm not sure you could either.
But judge me on this.
Am I being just biased and blind when I say, in my opinion, The social media posting of Biden is far more factually inaccurate than Trump.
And I'm not saying that Trump passes the fact-checking.
I'm just saying he doesn't post a bunch of lies.
It's not that he hasn't.
I'm just saying that he's more likely to go with hyperbole and opinion and what's important in America first.
And they're not exactly lies.
You know, most of it.
But I feel like when Biden says anything, it's just a flat lie.
That's what it feels like.
But am I wrong?
Is that my way off base?
I'm just biased?
Because I might be.
I'm open to the fact that that's a false pattern.
But I can tell you that this tweet proves that Dementia Hitler doesn't know the difference between up and down when it comes to inflation, anyway.
Maybe other things, too.
All right, my minor theme for today's show is everything you suspected is true.
That's sort of a continuing theme, in a sense, because we've all been saying that.
It seems like all the conspiracy theories are coming true.
And that's, of course, not actually true.
Not all the conspiracy theories, but a lot of the fun ones.
So let's look at a few.
Apparently the passports, the U.S.
passports, have been redesigned and the Biden administration has removed the eagle and the flag.
In other words, the American imagery has been removed from the passport and now it's just a document.
Why would you do that?
What conversation went into that?
And what it looks like is something that I kind of resisted.
You know, probably, I don't know, how many years ago did the crazy people on the right start saying, I think the Democrats and the Marxists, especially the Marxists, are trying to destroy the imagery and sort of the culture of America so that they can, you know, slot in their belief systems better.
And I remember thinking to myself, well, that's really giving them a lot of credit for long-term planning that feels like too much credit.
So I was kind of on the side of, well, I see what you're saying, but I feel like it's just a bunch of things that are coincidentally heading that direction.
But then you see the passport, and I honestly can't think of any reason you would remove American imagery from a passport.
Maybe there's some reason.
Is it an international standard and we're just trying to be more international?
Is that why?
Do other countries not put National imagery on their passport?
Were we just trying to be standardized?
Whatever the reason, it probably wasn't good enough.
Yeah, so everything from, right, the standard, the family, to what is a man, what is a woman, all the CI and diversity and all that.
It all seems like, it does feel like it's designed to destroy The core of America values that made America what it is or was.
Maybe was is a better word.
But yeah, it looks... It looks coordinated.
It actually looks, you know, maybe not in the sense that they held a meeting and talked about it, but there does seem to be some general sense on the Democrat side to destroy all that binds us together as Americans.
It's starting to be hard to ignore.
You know, I'm not so big on, you know, just images and stuff, but it does seem comprehensive.
It would be hard to imagine that it's all coincidence at this point, but you can't rule out coincidence.
All right, so Texas is at war with the federal government.
The End Wokeness, one of my favorite accounts, reports this, that the Texas National Guard just seized control of Shelby Park and Eagle Pass.
That's the place the illegals were coming through the fence.
And they banned federal agencies from accessing the area.
Do you understand the magnitude of that?
The military of the state is militarily acting against the federal government because the federal government is putting them at too much risk.
Thank you.
Thank you, Governor Abbott.
Absolutely.
And they're putting the razor wire back.
And in my opinion, this is a civil war.
Is it not?
If the state uses military arms to take control back from the federal government, what is that?
That is a civil war.
I mean, not big and official, but if the state is militarily moving against the feds, it doesn't matter that the feds back down.
That's a civil war.
So I would say that it started.
This is the beginning of the Civil War.
Now, I hope that it stays small.
You know, maybe it'll just be some more rumblings like this.
Probably.
You know, the most likely outcome is, you know, more conversations and the Supreme Court will get involved.
You know, people will back down and stuff.
I don't think this is going to blow into, you know, Civil War II.
But this is literally a civil war.
Am I wrong?
Am I being too hyperbolic?
If your state is moving militarily against the federal government, what else is that?
That's only a civil war.
There is no other way to label that.
Keep in mind everything... Yeah, okay.
Well, let's talk about Yemen.
Now, many of you have made the following joke that the Houthis, the name of the people firing the missiles at the ships in the Red Sea, That it sounds like Hootie and the Blowfish.
That's almost clever.
That would be AI level cleverness.
Right.
So if you were an AI, you could come up with that joke.
Oh, it's like Hootie and the Blowfish.
It's wordplay.
Wordplay.
But if you're going to do wordplay, you have to take it another level.
No, it's not Hootie and the Blowfish.
It's Hooties and the Blow Ships.
That's right.
Hootie.
Hooties and the Blow Ships.
Much better.
That's called an upgrade.
See your AI do that.
Now if I could maybe tie this in with a fart joke.
Let's see.
Blow Ships.
Hooties.
We got your missiles.
Fart joke.
I'm going to have to work on this.
I'll work on this and get back to you.
Tootie.
Okay, you beat me.
Tutti and the Blow Ships.
It's a far joke.
All right.
Okay.
You win.
Did you know that Joe Biden in 2020 railed against Trump for starting a military action without getting Congress's approval?
Yeah, that really happened.
Now, what is Joe Biden doing?
He's attacking a foreign country without congressional approval.
And Thomas Massey is quickly getting into the, hey, you can't do that game.
And Ro Khanna, Democrat, is joining him.
Where they're joining each other in opposing the military action without Congress's approval.
I saw Nancy Mace weighing in the same.
So we do have a little bit of bipartisanship in terms of Congress should be in charge.
But I have a technical question.
My understanding, and I guess I don't have an understanding, of how the Congress interacts with the President for military stuff, Can you give me a fact check on this?
Is it true that the President can instigate military action without asking Congress, but he has to inform them within 48 hours?
Is that correct?
So Biden, 90 days?
Oh, 90 days to get their approval or cut it out, right?
But he has to inform the government within 48 hours, which I believe has happened.
So does that mean he's got 90 days and he's totally within his legal balance, right?
You keep yelling War Powers Act like that's telling me something.
I'm asking you what's in it, not the name of it.
So stop yelling War Powers Act.
Tell me what the rules are.
That's what I'm asking.
Here's what I don't know what the law does say.
But here's what it should say.
Yeah, I think it is.
It should say that the president can do things without getting approval in the short run.
Because that's what you want.
You know, you don't want your Secretary of Defense to be unconscious.
You want to be able to act fast because these are existential risks.
So I don't know that anybody has yet violated any laws.
I don't think Biden's violated the War Powers Act, has he?
I mean, he could if he doesn't get through approval and he keeps going.
All right.
So I don't have a complaint with how Biden is handling Yemen in terms of his dealing with Congress.
But if we stay there, you know, if it's not just a punch and go, then Yeah, Congress has to get on board with that.
That's the only way this can work.
All right.
And we will all be reminded today that Trump designated the Houthis in Yemen as a terrorist organization.
And then one day after taking office, Joe Biden rescinded it and said, you're not terrorists.
And now he's bombing the hell out of them.
The people are not terrorists.
So, I don't know how many more times people can say this, but if the Democratic Party's policy is to do whatever Trump didn't do, that's not even governing.
What is that?
That's not even trying.
Yeah, that's ridiculous.
It's absurd.
It's incompetent.
You can't even say enough bad about it.
I mean, you could not design the system.
That was more incompetent than doing the opposite of what the other guy did.
You could not even come up with any idea worse than that.
Let's see.
So, yeah, Benny Johnson reported that Trump said, let's be clear, Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war.
That was in 2020.
War with Iran, he was talking about.
Well, Mike Cernovich weighed in with some classic satire and he says, America can't win the war against hoodies without diversifying and inclusion.
Diversity and inclusion.
Institute the draft for underrepresented groups immediately.
This is a matter of both national security and social justice.
So jokingly, Mike is saying that if diversity and inclusion are so important, We better build the military around those principles so we have a strong enough military.
Because you don't want a bunch of weak white people running your military with all their white supremacy.
That's just a big mistake.
So, here's what I say.
I say white males should avoid every organization that is DEI-centric.
In other words, if any organization, whether it's the military, any other part of the government, I'm a private corporation.
If they tell you, and they're not hiding it, we have a DEI program here, stay away.
No white man should join the military.
Let me say that as clearly as I can.
If you have a son or daughter, poor daughter, although I don't know how it works for daughters.
Maybe they have some advantages in the military these days.
I don't know one way or the other.
But if you have a son, a white son, You should steer him away from every DEI organization, especially the military.
Especially the military.
Now, I would not fight for a country that has a DEI program.
Let me say it again.
I would not join the military and fight and die for a country that treated me that way.
I'm willing to live here because I was born here and I think we can improve, but I'm not willing to fight for this country.
I'm going to say that as directly as possible.
The country's not fighting for me.
I'm not going to fight for it.
And if you're white, I wouldn't join the military.
Man, why would you?
Find something you can do where you're not being discriminated against.
And by the way, I would give the opposite advice to any person of color or woman.
I would say you should go toward DEI because that would be your best strategy.
So, Follow your best strategy.
I'm not saying DEI is good or bad.
I'm saying if you're a white man, it's terrible.
Run away.
If you're a person of color or a woman or LGBTQ, go toward it.
That would be your best strategy, of course.
But yeah, white men, you should get the fuck out of the military because the military doesn't want you.
Your government doesn't.
By my count, America is fighting five wars.
Let's see, that would be how many more than during Trump's administration?
That would be five.
That's five more wars.
You think we don't have five?
Here you go.
You got Ukraine.
You got the Hamas-Hezbollah thing.
We're not, maybe not firing shots, but we're supporting it.
You got Yemen today.
You've got, what about all those Iran proxies in Iraq and Syria?
We're in wars with them.
And now, In my opinion, the flow of illegal immigration is an invasion.
I've resisted for years.
I think you've seen me.
I've resisted calling it illegal immigration an invasion because it was still at a low enough number that we could absorb it okay.
And it was coming from countries that I felt more comfortable with.
Central America, Mexico.
You know, I have a feeling of comfort with that community.
They're very American.
They like families.
They like hard work.
Give me more.
But we're at a level now, and they're coming from places that we have a little less comfort with culturally.
Not as easy fit as these Central and South Americans are.
And I would call it a war.
That's not too strong, is it?
Yeah, I don't think that's too strong.
I think it's a war.
And then I would say that American citizens have an extra war.
So if you're an American citizen, you're supporting a government that's in five different wars, but you have an extra war if you're a citizen beyond the one that you're supporting your government for, which is the war against the government itself.
Because the government has created a web of censorship Uh, entities that are funded through, you know, various Democrat and non-governmental forces.
They have the effect of taking your freedom away and turning the country into no free speech, eventually you'll take your guns away, etc.
And I would say that citizens are literally fighting a war against their own government.
Is that too strong?
Don't you feel like the citizens are at war with their government?
I mean, not militarily, but the government is jailing dissidents for pretty much bullshit.
They're trying to put Trump in jail to make sure that they have a totalitarian situation.
There's nobody running against them that could beat them.
If you're taking away my free speech and putting people like me in jail, I'm at war.
Let me say it again.
I didn't start this war.
I didn't start it, but I'm at war with the government.
Not militarily, I hope.
Not violence, I hope.
But it's a war.
It's a war.
If we lose this, we are fucked.
We are completely fucked.
And we're on the edge of losing it.
Now, I think we're going to win.
It looks bad now because, you know, the election is coming, but I don't see any possibility of a Republican losing the next election.
Unless it's Haley, I suppose.
But even if she wins, she's a little bit warlike, so it would be in the same place, perhaps.
Yeah, so how in the world does the Republican candidate, whoever it might be, lose Against a candidate who has created five wars the government is fighting, and a sixth war against the citizens themselves.
Which he's fairly overt about, because he does talk about MAGA being, you know, the biggest problem.
And then you look at the WEF, the World Economic Forum.
Did you see what they listed as their biggest risks in the next few years?
To the world.
To the whole world.
The World Economic Forum Did a deep dive and they said that the biggest risk is disinformation and misinformation.
What kind of a entity says that's the biggest risk?
Not nuclear war, not poverty, not... Who says that?
Here's what they had number two, extreme weather.
Number one is misinformation.
Number two is extreme weather.
What do those two have in common?
Misinformation and extreme weather.
What do they have in common?
Come on.
Don't make me ask AI.
Damn it.
AI, can you please make a joke that involves what do climate change and misinformation have in common?
They are both examples of hot air.
Oh, wordplay.
Wordplay.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Let's make it better.
Improve your joke.
Extreme weather is like a fart from Mother Nat- Yes, that's good.
Oh, that's good.
Extreme weather is like Mother Nature farting.
Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah.
All right.
um But that's only number one and two.
You get to the important ones, number three.
Number three is societal polarization.
What causes the societal polarization?
Huh.
You know, I guess it kind of happens on its own, doesn't it?
You know, I was sitting around the other day and There was some societal polarization that came through, like the weather.
There's nothing you can do about it.
It has nothing to do with what we're doing.
No, it has nothing to do with our policies.
It's just sort of a force.
It's like a field in science, a field.
It's just sort of always there.
Yeah, got that societal polarization All right, let me ask you a question.
Ladies and gentlemen, who do you think was the author of this report?
A man or a woman?
Top three are misinformation, extreme weather, and societal polarization.
War is down the list.
Of course, it was a woman.
Let me explain to you women the inner life of a man, okay?
If you've never heard this before, this will be shocking to you, but turn to the closest man and ask him if it's true.
You get dressed up and go to a nice restaurant with your man.
What you're thinking is, how do I look?
How do the other people look?
What am I going to order?
You're thinking about your date.
Does my date like me?
How are we getting along?
You know what your date is thinking?
Let me tell you what your date is thinking.
All right, we got 15 men who look like they could be dangerous.
There are the exits.
What kind of things could I use as a weapon?
Got some forks.
Don't have a steak knife yet.
I think I could take the three by the door.
The guy over there, I'm gonna have to throw something at him and just run.
Unless I can get him from behind.
I think I can fight my way out of here.
Look at the comments, ladies.
We're at war.
All the time.
We're never not at war.
You're at war when you're talking to your best friend.
You are always at war.
It doesn't turn off.
And by the way, that's not a complaint.
If it sounds like I'm complaining, I'm not.
We're actually comfortable with that mindset because we're designed that way.
It's like evolution just turned us into that and we just embrace it.
But look at the comments.
The comments are just all confirming.
So, if a man writes, what are the biggest risks?
He's gonna say war.
If a man writes this report, war.
Right at the top.
You know what's number two?
If it's a man?
Economics.
Do you know why economics is number two?
Because you can't win a fucking war unless your economy is really, really good.
So basically, this is a DEI kind of work.
I'm not sure women should be judging risks on a global level.
That might be the most sexist thing I've ever said, but look at the result.
This is a pure female product.
Am I right?
This is a female product.
I think you need the people who live war all the time to kind of tell you what your big risks are.
All right, Vivek, and he's campaigning hard in Iowa.
Is it my imagination or is about half of all the news made about the election being made by Vivek?
Is it only because that's what I see?
And people send me those tweets and stuff.
But I feel like he's doing, by far, I mean, maybe by 5 to 1 ratio, he's doing the best job of creating positive news for his campaign.
He creates a lot of news and it's almost all interesting and positive and capable.
But today, again, he's in Iowa and he appeared with Steve King, a retired representative from the state, and Candace Owens.
Now Steve King was famously driven out of office, in a sense, by being accused of being a white supremacist.
So now Vivek is standing there with somebody accused of being a white supremacist, and with Candace Owens, and he laughs.
He says that he's with these two other controversial people.
He says, what will the media write?
Will they call it the brown face of white supremacy?
Which is a good comment.
So he jokes and he says, the media accused Steve King of racism and criticized me for failing to condemn, quote, white supremacy, whatever that means.
That's what I want to hear.
I want to hear after the two words white supremacy, everybody who uses it, I want to hear somebody say whatever that means.
Because that's the important part.
Whatever that means, means it's subjective and it's not a standard which you can use for government or anything else.
If you can't put it into words and explain it, it's not a standard.
You have to ignore it and mock it out of existence, which is what he's doing.
And then he says, the visual image of Candace Owens, Steve King and me on stage together yesterday was inconvenient for their narrative.
Sure was.
Yeah, I mean, this little group of pirates... Oh, by the way, what do I always tell you I love about Trump's entire approach?
Not just to politics, but life itself.
I love Trump and his pirateship approach to life.
And what I mean is that in both his personal life and definitely his political life, if you're a pirate, but you're on his side, And you're pro-America?
Let's get together, pirate!
I'm going to forgive your pirating as long as you're pro-America and we can work with you.
So he collects people accused of every damn thing in the world as his supporters, including me.
People who have been accused of every bad thing in the world.
And he makes that work.
And the reason Trump makes that work?
He doesn't judge them.
Just think about it.
Trump might be the most opinionated person you've ever met, at the same time he might be the least judgmental about just ordinary people.
He doesn't talk about, you know, some group of citizens being, you know, bad.
That's sort of Biden's territory.
So I like the fact that Vivek is in that, at least a little bit, in that model.
That he would have controversial people like Steve King.
Candace, of course, is popular among Republicans, but also she's a lightning rod, you know, in her party and out.
So the fact that you can stand on stage and have support from, you know, two of the pirates is great.
I love it.
And if you have a president who's planning to bring the country together, You stand on the stage with Steve King and Candace Owens, and you say, we all want what's good for the country.
That's good stuff.
Good imagery, good everything.
That's just good everything.
Speaking of Vivek, there was a video of Mike Benz driving his car, and I guess Mike is in Iowa.
And Vivek's in the car, and he asked him some questions.
And the topic was, as Mike Benz is the best describer of this situation, The government can't censor you directly.
That would be illegal.
So instead, the government and all of its buddies in the personal world, they have lots of money.
They fund these external organizations that are allegedly non-government.
You know, they're watchdogs and they're fact-checkers.
You know, they're making sure there's no misinformation, disinformation.
But of course, they're largely fake.
And they're just Democrat organs designed to Promote Democrat policies and insult Republicans, basically.
So Mike Pence was asking Vivek what he would do about that, and I'm going to kind of paraphrase a longer discussion, but the idea was that Vivek would create a report that would add transparency so you could see every instance in which the US government
had been or is influencing private industry to do things that a government couldn't do directly and that there would be consequences for anybody trying to do an end run to the Constitution by using these private companies to do their winged monkey business.
Now, I don't know how close you could get to actually mapping that out and doing it fairly, but the fact that he's willing to take that on That's huge.
I mean, Vivek is offering you a specific plan to get your free speech back.
Who did that?
Is there any Democrat who is offering any path to get your free speech back?
No, they want to take it.
They're actually literally telling you that you should have less free speech.
But how about DeSantis?
How about Nikki Haley?
How about Trump?
Have any of them given you a way that they're going to return your freedom of speech?
Haven't heard it?
Haven't heard it?
What's my number one most important thing?
Not disinformation.
It's the ability to say what you think.
It's free speech.
Free speech is sort of the, you know, the linchpin.
Is that the right analogy?
The thing that's holding everything else together, at least in America and Democracy-leaning countries.
If you don't have that, you don't have anything.
You know, all the rest falls apart for sure.
So Vivek not only has the correct priorities, he understands the immense risk of this situation, but he also has a very specific, and to me this sounds very doable, plan for dismantling.
How do you beat that?
Now I understand that anybody can lose the election, So you can beat anybody electorally.
But who is even in this class?
I don't think I've seen an election before where it feels like Vivek having a whole bunch of good ideas that would work, including reducing government by 75% on day one.
I mean, that would be hard to do, but if you're working in that direction and working hard on it, you might get pretty close.
I would say that he's almost not running against anybody.
Is he?
Because there's nobody on the other side of this topic.
And there's not even anybody on his side of the topic.
And yet it's the most important topic.
It's the number one.
And he's alone.
He's literally alone on the number one most important thing with a practical plan.
How the fuck do you not vote for that guy?
Come on!
What are you thinking?
Now, I love Trump, and if he gets the nomination, I'll support him, of course.
You know, against Biden, that's a no-brainer.
But, Vivek is in a class by himself.
If you haven't seen it yet, you need to pay more attention.
You're seeing something that I never thought I would see.
You remember how, well not remember, but you're certainly aware that the founders of the country were not an ordinary group of people.
Ben Franklin wasn't just a normal dude.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't just another slave owner.
George Washington didn't just get lucky.
Hamilton was a smart guy.
The founders were special.
They were very special, and we got amazingly lucky that they all happened to be in the same place at the same time and on the same side.
That was real luck.
But I always said to myself, why will there never be one of those again?
Now, part of it is we build up the reputations of our heroes, so some of it might be hyperbole.
But why don't we ever get another Jefferson?
Well, I guess we got a Ben Franklin.
Elon Musk is Ben Franklin on steroids.
So I guess we did get a Ben Franklin.
But you know what?
We also got a Thomas Jefferson.
We just got to wake up.
Vivek is Thomas Jefferson.
He's not fucking around.
He's not looking to tweak things.
That's what I think set Jefferson apart.
He wasn't looking to make minor improvements.
He's going to do the Louisiana Purchase and the American Revolution.
And he's, you know, he's going to write the preamble, or whatever he wrote.
Yeah, I think Vivek, and believe it or not, I don't think this is hyperbole.
As outrageous as this is going to sound, he is Thomas Jefferson for 2024.
for 2024. If we let him go, my God, my God, why would you let him go?
Right?
Well, you know, Trump is a force of nature, and that's probably going to happen.
If you're going to play the odds, it's going to be Trump.
But, man, don't let that go.
So, what else is going on?
Let's see.
Peter Sweden reports on the X platform that the World Economic Forum, again, As announced, they're holding a meeting to prepare for what they call Disease X. They're holding a meeting to figure out how to deal with Disease X, which they say could be 20 times worse than COVID.
Now, if you read this quickly, you probably think to yourself, hey, they're worried about another virus.
But have I ever taught you And I'm sure that's what they'll talk about, these viruses.
But have I ever taught you the hypnotist trick for reading minds?
The hypnotist trick is that when people choose their words, that's more revealing than what those words say when they're in a sentence.
So when they form the sentences, they're trying to tell you what they want you to believe.
When they choose the words that are in the sentence, they're often telling you what they're thinking, but they're not aware of it.
That would be like a Freudian slip.
The example my hypnosis instructor gave me, and I use this all the time, is if you're on a date, it's a new date, you don't know the person, and your date says to you, instead of saying, I'm famished, before you go to dinner, she accidentally says, I'm ravished.
That was actually an example that my hypnosis instructor gave us.
She's telling you that the sentence tells you she's hungry, but the word choice tells you she's horny.
And that is usually accurate.
Check the word choice.
The sentence says they're getting together to hold a meeting to talk about the next big virus that might be worse.
That's what their sentences say.
But what did they decide to call it?
The Z is X. Do you know what the World Economic Forum's biggest problem is, that's 20 times bigger than COVID, for the World Economic Forum?
It's Elon Musk, his free speech, that exists in exactly one place in the world right now, on the X platform.
So yes, For the World Economic Forum, for them personally, Elon Musk's X platform is 20 times worse than COVID.
Literally, literally, it's 20 times worse than COVID for the members of the WEF.
Personally.
Because I'll bet almost none of them died from COVID.
Their reputations are getting trampled on every day on X. So, I don't think it's an accident that X is used in that.
Now, you might say to me, and you probably do, but Scott, they came up with that phrasing long before the X platform and long before Elon Musk.
That might be true.
But you know what else is true?
They had plenty of time to rename it.
They had plenty of time to give it another letter.
You know, so it's not associated with.
And they didn't.
So it probably means something.
All right, here's another Vivek news-making thing.
He makes a prediction.
And he's a little more specific this time.
He says, here's the plot.
So he's literally predicting this.
Number one, narrow this to a two-horse race between Trump and a puppet they can control.
Two, eliminate Trump.
That leaves you with the puppet.
And then trot their puppet into the White House.
And then he says, next up, and this is his prediction, next up, Ron DeSantis joins Nikki Haley's ticket as VP.
Whoa!
Okay, and then Ron may not know it yet, but he won't have a say in the matter.
So Vivek is claiming that there are, you know, powers behind the curtain so strong that they can manipulate this situation into being
Which would put Nikki Haley, who many say is a neocon war-loving spender, in charge with Ron DeSantis sort of deneutered by putting him, you know, basically they get him out of Florida and they neuter him by making him a vice president.
I don't think there's any chance of that.
I don't think there's any chance of DeSantis being a vice president for Nikki Haley.
What do you think?
Part of it is the age situation.
Because DeSantis is young enough that if Trump were not in the race, he would be an obvious frontrunner.
And Trump only has four years maximum left.
So if you're Vivek, going into the vice presidency where only bad can happen, if you're DeSantis, going into a vice presidency where only bad can happen, Versus running Florida and continuing to be, you know, one of the best two governors with Abbott.
I think DeSantis' strategy would be better.
Now, what Vivek is saying, very directly, is that even if DeSantis wanted not to be vice president, that the powers that be would force him into it.
Now, that's a bold prediction.
That's some bold prediction there.
Now remember, predictions are not always just predictions.
Sometimes a prediction, and I use them this way myself, is a way to tamp down the actual possibility.
So if you predict something bad is going to happen before the bad people make it happen, it suppresses their, let's say, their freedom to do it, because you've called it in advance.
So Vivek is poisoning, he's poisoning the well, salting the field, and making it harder For what he speculates could be the plan.
He's making it harder for them to do it, because if they do it exactly the way he calls it out, it kind of, you know, shows the whole op.
So I do love the prediction as a Poison in the Well plan.
I predict against DeSantis being Vice President to Nikki Haley.
So I'm going to go the other way prediction-wise, but I understand why he would make the prediction.
You know, think of it more as positioning and priming and not exactly a prediction.
All right, so we've heard now, you probably heard this, that Fauci finally admitted that the whole six-foot distancing rule was not based on science.
Or as he says, it just sort of appeared.
It sort of just appeared.
We literally organized our entire lives around staying six feet away from people, and there was no basis for it at all.
People aren't even sure where it came from.
I don't even know where it came from.
It just sort of appeared.
Now, on the other hand, it also wasn't crazy.
Doesn't it feel reasonable to you that if you're six feet away from somebody, you have less chance of getting their virus?
I mean, it doesn't sound crazy.
It just wasn't based on science.
All right.
Challenge accepted.
Challenge accepted.
You're going to find out about that.
All right.
The IG reports that the Pentagon failed to account more than a billion dollars in weapons sent to Ukraine.
Is there anything we keep track of besides DEI?
In this country?
We've lost everything from laptops to billions of dollars in Ukraine and billions of pieces of equipment and billions now.
I feel like the only thing we don't keep track, well the only thing we do keep track of is do we have too many white men?
Like I'm glad that we know exactly the number of too many white men we have in the country.
Wouldn't it be nice to know where our taxes went?
Yeah, that'd be nice.
All right, because you challenged me, you're going to get it.
I think I'm going to wait on this.
So Bill Ackman is talking about a lawsuit by a bunch of students on Harvard, and they're suing Harvard for being a racist place that is not protecting them from massive anti-Semitism.
And according to Bill, the claim is really strong.
He expects them to win against Harvard.
And, uh, you know, I just did a quick reading of the complaint.
It's pretty strong.
It's a strong complaint.
I don't know how any, any judge or jury would imagine that their allegations are not effectively true.
I mean, maybe in some detail or something, but, but directionally, yes, absolutely true.
Absolutely true.
So that's interesting.
So it's another bad day for Harvard.
Well, let's see how things are doing in other places.
Well, let me ask you this question.
Imagine you were a CEO of a major American company.
And you've got a DEI group in your company, and you're watching Harvard being sued Because the DEI has caused the discrimination and the anti-Semitism.
And the suit looks strong, like they're going to win.
And Harvard has been disgraced with their over-DEI stuff and ruined their reputation for who knows how long.
Now you're a CEO of a company and you're doing exactly this strategy, a DEI group, and putting a focus on it, the same strategy That literally is destroying the most respected upper education facility in the world?
In the whole world?
And you're a CEO and you're doing the same plan that you're watching destroy Harvard in real time.
How do you justify that?
Fear.
Because you know if you cancel DEI you'll get canceled.
I can't imagine anything worse than this, if you're a CEO.
This has got to be embarrassing, to be doing the same policy that is destroying Harvard, while you watch, while you watch.
Amazing.
All right, End Wokeness is reporting, this is an exclusive from End Wokeness, the account on X.
In the Denver Public Schools, there was an internal memo sent to staff and teachers at Denver Public Schools with the Black Excellence Pledge.
And included in the pledge was that they want people to understand the prevalence and deep harm that whiteness brings to students.
Equity-based revisions to curriculum.
So they want the curriculum changed so it's more equity-based.
And working to dismantle the system that allows certain students to excel and others to perish.
And that it also states that all whites are racist and perpetuate racist ideologies, policies, and practices.
So that's less than ideal.
That's less than ideal.
How much do you need a Republican president now?
It's like we're going to be begging for one.
We'll be begging for it.
All right.
So Brett Weinstein announced today that he's removing a very early post that he made in the beginning of the pandemic, in which he had argued that the requirement of the mandatory masking was no big deal, and if it might help, It would be no harder than washing your hands, and that's pretty reasonable anyway.
Now remember, context matters.
This is the beginning of the pandemic, when nobody knew exactly how bad things were, or if for sure masks worked.
Now there was an argument that the masks don't stop the virus because the virus is too small, but that hadn't been, you know, studied in a way that you could know for sure.
So I would agree that Brett was accurate in his initial statement that if everything's up for grabs, we don't know anything, because it's the beginning of the pandemic, and it looks like it could be the worst thing ever happened to the world.
It turns out it wasn't.
But in the early part, it looked like it could be much, much worse than we eventually learned it was.
As bad as it was.
Millions died, but it could have been worse.
So I would say, and Brett is getting rid of the tweet, the post, not because he's changed his mind about what made sense in the beginning, but because people are having trouble distinguishing the early opinion from what made sense once you learn more.
So he's deleting it, but he's doing it publicly and telling you he's doing it because he just, he's getting, I guess he's tired of explaining himself.
I'm okay with that.
I'm going to back him on this.
I'm going to back him on removing the tweet.
He's doing it publicly, so he's telling you he's doing it.
He's telling you why.
It's a good reason.
And his initial opinion, he says he's modified and thinks his initial opinion was off base.
What else do you want?
Is there anything else you want?
To me, that's a perfect opinion.
A perfect opinion.
I got it wrong, but it was in a period where it was a fog of war, so people were guessing.
Now I'm updating it.
I'm telling you what I'm doing.
That's everything right.
Do you agree?
I want to hear if you're... I got a no.
So you're disagreeing because his initial opinion, we knew later, was wrong.
Is that your standard?
What kind of standard is that?
Too little, too late.
He was one of the major voices against the mandatory everything.
That was too little.
He literally sacrificed his career for it.
You're pretty tough graders here.
Is it my job to defend him?
Because I'm going to have to.
No, you want more of him.
I was listening to him on Tucker, and I was really taken by how well he explains complicated things.
He really is a treasure.
Now, whether you agree with him It's a separate question.
I'm going to give you a little disagreement later.
But his ability to explain a complicated thing is unparalleled.
I mean, it's just the best.
And his bravery of, you know, bucking the system, A+.
So, and in his dedication to following the data as he sees it, again, you could disagree, but his dedication to following the data where it went, perfect.
Perfect.
You know, you could say people like him made some early mistakes.
Maybe you think they still made some mistakes.
That's fair.
But you want more of him, not less.
It's like free speech.
We want more free speech, even though people say crazy stuff.
You need more Brett.
More Brett.
Even if he gets one wrong, you need more of him.
All right.
Now I'm going to disagree with him.
I primed you just right.
So here's something that Brett said.
He said he was initially in favor of the mask because it seemed like not much to ask, but he's deleting it.
And now he says, a riddle for you.
Given the size of the holes in a window screen, why would anyone believe they could prevent transmission of malaria?
You think your screen door would prevent transmission of malaria?
To which I say, I don't know too much about malaria, but doesn't it travel on an insect?
Can a mosquito get through a screen door?
I thought the screen door was specifically sized to prevent the mosquito.
Wait, you're saying they could get through a screen door?
A mosquito?
I guess it depends on the mosquito.
I'm thinking of them like those big mosquitoes with the big beaks.
That take a pint of blood from you.
I know they can't get through.
Anyway.
Have I ever told you that the least scientific thing you could do is use an analogy?
Well, but it's in the service of making a point.
So that's the right way to do it.
If you use an analogy in the service of explaining how a point works, that is a correct use.
So he's using it correctly.
I mock people for using analogies to win arguments.
But if you're just doing it to explain the argument, that the size of this is bigger than the size of that, that's actually the correct way to use an analogy.
That's rare.
So again, rat for the win, because he did the rarest thing.
He used an analogy correctly.
How often do you see that?
It's actually kind of rare to actually know how to use it correctly.
But here's my disagreement.
And I explained this in a reply back to this post.
So I'll just read it to you, because it's so perfect.
Here's how events unfolded.
Experts told us the size of the initial infection mattered, and that the more virus you got, the sicker you got.
Do you remember that?
I don't know if that was ever confirmed, by the way.
It makes sense, but I don't know if it was ever confirmed.
So the question is, if you've got like one One tiny little virus that like hit you on the side of the lip, would that be enough to infect you?
One, just literally one.
Literally the side of the lip.
Would that infect you?
I don't know.
I think the experts were indicating maybe not.
Maybe not.
But if you got a mouthful, probably yes.
Probably yes.
So if you French kissed somebody with, you know, a terrible load of virus, almost certainly.
Almost certainly you get enough.
Now, not only is the level, does it matter to whether you get it or not, but if you do get it, the experts also said that the more you get exposed to it first, the worse it could be.
Do you remember that?
That the viral load was important to how bad you got it.
So if you maybe spent the night right next to somebody with a lot of it, you'd be really sick.
If you got the slightest little whiff of it, Because you walk through a crowded room, you still get COVID maybe, but maybe not so bad, because it would start slow and your body would have time to, you know, to mount its defenses before it was overwhelming.
I don't know if that was ever confirmed, but would you agree with the following statement?
That in the fog of war, when the experts thought the more virus the worse it would be, that if you had any mechanism that could reduce How much you got from one person at one time, that would give you a little bit of advantage.
Would you agree with that?
I want to see somebody disagree with that, because I know you will.
Disagree with that?
All right.
If you disagree with that, you're just being silly.
That's just silly.
I can't take you seriously.
This is not the part you can disagree with.
All right.
So if you... Now, and I'm saying, I don't know if the viral load does make a difference.
I'm saying the experts said it.
So I'm just quoting the experts, right?
And then I go on, and I would say, then they told us that the virus traveled on air droplets that were often, but not always, bigger than the holes.
Often, but not always, bigger than the holes.
Which means that some virus, of course, gets through, and is still airborne on the droplets, and it can infect people.
And let me ask you this.
If an infected person wore a mask, and you knew they were infected, and you knew they've been breathing into their mask all day, would you take their mask, if you weren't infected, and put it on your face?
And would you worry?
Now forget about the icky part of it.
Wouldn't you know that with 100% certainty that the inside of the mask has virus on it?
You'd know that, right?
Because it'd be wet.
It's moist.
If the inside of the mask is moist, By definition, it stopped droplets.
Almost certainly they had virus on them.
So some, could have been very little amount, but some gets trapped in the mask.
Does anybody disagree with the fact that if you're infected and the inside of your mask is moist, which it would be, some, but we don't know how much, it could be trivial, it could be one particle, but some is on the inside of the mask.
There's no question about that.
Now, here's what else we knew at the beginning.
I said the better analogy is a flea on a dog trying to get through a chain-link fence.
So if the flea is on the dog, it doesn't matter that the chain-link fence has a big hole on it.
The dog can't get through the hole, and the virus is on the dog.
So that would be the better analogy.
And the way Brett used it is correct.
Because he made the point that the hole is bigger than the virus.
And I'm making another analogy, which is also a correct way to use them.
Because I'm adding that the water droplet is bigger than the hole.
I'm just using a dog for my analogy.
So that's a good way to use an analogy.
Both of us are using it correctly.
All right.
Then, yeah, let's see.
So I would say, This was my take after we learned enough about masks.
In the rarest situation, it might hypothetically make a difference.
Let me give you the rarest of situations.
You have to go say happy birthday to your... Hold on.
Hold on.
You've got to play fair.
Don't be a reflex.
You haven't even listened to what I said.
The rarest of situations.
You've got to go say happy birthday to your great-grandmother who's 100 years old and she's in the nursing home.
Now forget about for a moment that it would be a requirement to wear a mask.
Let's say it wasn't a requirement.
If you're just going to go in for a minute, you don't want to be too far away from grandma and you just want to get close enough that you made a human connection and then you're going to withdraw.
So you're only going to be there a minute.
Would a mask make a difference?
Go.
You're going to be there one minute.
One minute only.
Close to grandma.
Mask make a difference?
Yes or no?
All right.
Everybody who said no is wrong.
And everybody who said yes is wrong.
The person who said probably or maybe is correct.
The person who said maybe is correct.
If you said no for sure, that's completely wrong.
If you said yes for sure, I think you're probably right, but nobody knows.
It depends.
So I'd say you could construct a situation that's very artificial, that in the most extreme situation, you can imagine it was the difference between the virus being enough on grandma and not quite being enough.
How often would that happen?
Close to never.
Close to never.
And I'm pretty sure if you sat in a room with highly infected people for days at a time, it wouldn't matter if you had a mask on.
We all agree on that, right?
It wouldn't matter.
So, when you look for the effect of masking in populations, and you say, this city had masking mandates, this one did not, how'd they do?
You don't really see the benefit.
Do you agree?
That you could imagine a scenario, very, very strange and unusual one that'll never happen to you, That it would make some difference, but not in the real world.
In the real world, you don't see the effect.
So given that you don't see the effect, can we all agree, ladies and gentlemen, mandatory masking is evil and wrong.
It's wrongheaded.
It's unscientific.
It's unjustified.
There's no statistics.
There's no data to justify mandatory mask.
Thank you.
Now, But I'm going to completely agree with Brett that because the effect of the mass isn't identifiable at a population level, it's safe enough to say they don't work.
Are you okay with that?
That given that we don't see it working at a population level, it's fair to say they don't work.
But it's not fair to say they don't stop any virus, because obviously they do.
And it's not fair to say that there's no situation, no matter how rare, where it could help somebody.
Because it might.
Don't know for sure.
So on the first weeks of the pandemic, when the government said, hey, maybe we should try this mask thing, that wasn't crazy.
And Brett was not crazy and said, you know, it might be worth a try, short term, see if it matters.
And then he changed his mind when he had better data.
That's perfect.
If you're judging him for being once wrong, you're missing the show.
You don't judge people for being wrong.
You judge people for how they adjust it.
That's the way to judge people.
Did he adjust correctly?
Yes!
Yes!
You can't get more correct than this.
This is 100% the way you want all people to act if you were king.
You'd want all people to be human.
Maybe you make a mistake.
Maybe you don't have enough data.
Maybe you're guessing.
Maybe you're doing good risk management.
I'll even go further.
I think Brett is kind of nobly taking responsibility for being wrong when he was actually right.
He was right from a risk management perspective.
He was wrong on the details, meaning it didn't work.
If you make a proper risk management decision, that does not mean you made the right decision.
That's very important.
But if you properly assess the odds and took the high probability route, that's the right decision, even if later you find out it was wrong.
What Brett did was say, short term, we don't know for sure, Deadly pandemic.
We don't know how bad it could be.
All variables are on the table.
They're asking the citizens to try this.
He's arguing we could all make it work.
You know, it's not much harder than washing your hands.
That was the correct risk management take.
So he's not only correct in the entire arc of how he handled it.
He was correct in the first place.
Because he treated it as a risk management decision, which is what it was.
If he had treated it the way many of you did was, does it work?
Does it work?
That was the wrong way to think about it.
The right way to think about it was risk management.
And he got it completely right.
And then when he had more data, he got it completely right twice.
He was right twice.
He was right twice.
Right.
All right.
Rasmussen asked people if they know people who had VAX injury.
53% say they believe they know somebody who was injured by a vaccine.
What percent of adults say they personally know someone who was affected by the VAX?
Did I miss a page?
I think I missed a page.
Yeah, 24%.
So 24% think they know somebody was injured by a vaccine.
You can draw your own conclusions from that.
Here's why I think it's dangerous to believe you know somebody injured by vaccine.
And by the way, some of you do.
There are plenty of people injured by vaccines because it was such a massive rollout.
So whether or not the vaccines were safe enough is a separate question from whether there were injuries.
Because vaccines, most medicine has some injury.
But probably what's happening, some of you know real injuries, and you're right.
And others of you know somebody who had an injury soon after vaccination, and you might be right, but you don't know.
Yeah, the myocarditis would be a stronger signal than some of the other stuff, because that's so specifically, you know, indicated.
Seizures would be a strong indication.
But some of them will be coincidence.
You don't really know.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my amazing show for today.
Thanks for joining, everybody on the YouTube and Rumble and X platforms.
I hope you're still happy with the sound, my upgraded sound system.
