Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, LA Fires, Pacific Palisades, DEI System Collapse, LA Empty Reservoir, LA Water Chief, Janisse Quinones, Anti Elon Musk Propaganda, Havana Syndrome, President Trump Deplatforming, Judge Merchan Trump Sentencing, Anti-Trump Lawfare, President Trump Inauguration Guests, LA Fire Rebuilding Permissions, Michael Shellenberger For Governor, META DEI Cancellation, Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon DEI, Mel Gibson's Friends Cancer, Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, 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.
Let me see if I can get some comments working here.
Oh, it works.
All right.
This isn't going to work at all.
All right.
So this morning, that's a little trouble with the streaming technology, but it looks like it's working at the moment.
However, it distracted me, so I started to pick up my notes for the show, and I realized I haven't printed them.
So that's going to happen.
We'll print these notes.
And if this works, we're going to have a show.
Hey, it's working.
Good news.
How's everybody's Saturday so far?
It's kind of early, but is it often?
I don't even have the lights right.
I'm a mess.
So the interface we're turning on my side lights is so poorly designed that I have to wrap the cord around the object until the place that they put the activation button way down on the power cord-- It's somewhere near the device I'm operating.
it's just the worst design see this is the part of the show that the locals people see every day in the pre-show but I couldn't get that working this morning but it looks like everything's good on locals at the moment We are fully functional people for the best show you've ever seen.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup of mogul glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, we're ready.
We're ready.
Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Well, there's, according to the brighter side of news, Joseph Chavit is writing.
Is that his real name?
Is she of it?
I feel like there are some kind of names that I just have to stop and say, what if it were the 70s and he got married to somebody and then they decided on a hyphenated name?
I used to work with a woman named Debbie Beavers.
Debbie Beavers.
Anyway.
You can complete the joke on your own.
I think I've given you enough.
Complete the joke at home.
I'll wait.
Well, anyway, Joseph Shavett tells us that there's a new drug that might be able to prolong life 30%.
How does it do that?
Well, according to the Mayo Clinic, it's something about a senolytic drug that gets rid of the zombie stuff in your blood.
Then you live longer.
All right.
So we're going to live 30% longer, maybe.
Good news, huh?
But wouldn't we need 30% more food?
What would really happen if you had people living 30% longer?
Wouldn't it be kind of the end of civilization?
Because it would be nothing but super old people that weren't adding as much as they were subjecting.
I feel like it's good news, and also the end of civilization.
But on the other news, we're going to need a lot of energy with all those people.
According to David Dalton in Nuknet, I guess it's Nuknet, there's some kind of steel that's been made that is so good and so strong, they call it fusion grade.
So there's a working group working on some kind of...
Steel is so hard, it would bring down the cost of building a nuclear reactor.
It would bring down the cost by an order of magnitude.
Now, what would happen if you brought down the cost by an order of magnitude and maybe even made it more resistant?
Pretty good.
A whole bunch of things happening in the nuclear world.
You may have heard the story about the...
The poor residents in the L.A. area got a fake emergency alert.
So there were real alerts and there's a real fire.
But apparently the system, on its own, no human pushed the button, they say.
The system, because of some kind of bug, sent out an alert and scared the bejesus out of about a million people.
But then the authorities went on TV to make sure that you knew it wasn't their fault, because that's the important part.
Whose fault it was.
And they say, not only did they not send it, but their technicians are looking into it and they don't know what happened.
Just sort of a weird technical glitch.
But if you haven't seen the video of the spokesperson trying to explain it, I just have to give you my impression of it.
Because he's got the interpreter.
So you've got the interpreter who's got this huge personality.
I'll just...
This is just so you get the visual.
This is not a racial thing.
It's just the visual.
Imagine, if you will, this super charismatic semi-Afro black man who's the interpreter, and he's killing it.
I mean, I assume he's really translating it correctly.
It'll look like it.
But he's really, really impressive.
So he's...
Doing big pictures and his face is really nailing this impression.
And I can't take my eyes off him.
He's really interesting.
And then you look over to the actual spokesperson.
So he's this little white guy.
We didn't push the button.
We don't know who pushed the button.
It could be some kind of technology thing.
But we didn't push the button.
And then the interpreters.
It's the most hilarious contrast of charisma and non-charisma you're ever going to see in your life.
Wonderful.
Anyway, a miracle has happened.
According to James Woods, his home in the Burndown area survived.
All the houses across the street from him were burned.
And he was sure his is burned.
I think he had been told that.
But it wasn't.
I'm not even sure it was damaged by Fire and Dell.
You know, obviously there's going to be smoke and damage and utilities will be turned off, so it's not like it's totally good luck.
But I don't know what this means.
Oh, Adam Carolla's condo.
I think he thought that was lost, but it wasn't.
I'm 8 for 8 on this tragedy.
Now, you know, I don't want...
It's a bad form to say anybody's lucky or having a good time because most of the people are suffering and are going to be suffering for a long time.
I mean, the devastation is incredible.
But it is nonetheless true that there were eight homes I was worried about because of personal connections and or just affection.
So I certainly wanted James Woods and Adam Carolla to come out well.
They're the only ones I'll name.
Others were personal contacts, family, that sort of thing.
But there were eight homes I was worried about.
And they were all in the either evacuate now or get ready to evacuate category.
So far, all eight have survived.
And all of them are against the odds.
It's like the one building standing, that kind of thing.
I don't know how that happened.
I'm eight for eight.
Is that a coincidence?
Or are we going to find out?
Will we find out that there are far more people who came through it than didn't?
Well, not than didn't.
Most of them have just pure tragedy.
But are there going to be more not-so-bad-as-you-thought stories?
Or did it just sort of concentrate in my little world?
But I'll tell you.
I'm still dedicated to making sure that Californians do all right, so I'm all in on making this better, but just on a personal note, wow.
Here's something I didn't know about the Pacific Palisades that I'm just learning this week.
Apparently, it wasn't just a good place to live.
It might have been, according to what I hear from locals, maybe the best place that anybody ever lived.
I was completely unaware that there was any place in Southern California that I would not be too hot to live.
Like, I don't like the too hot places.
But apparently the weather was great because it was on the beach.
You could leave the windows open all year long.
You could walk everywhere.
Every store was clean and awesome.
The neighbors were wonderful.
There wasn't much traffic in that area.
There wasn't much traffic.
And, you know, just the amazingness of it.
Everything worked.
Everybody was happy.
It was like paradise, apparently.
And this is, unfortunately, this is part of the story.
It would be great if it wasn't, but it is.
Pacific Palisades was 84% white.
How many places are 84% white?
I live in a relatively, you know, whitish area of California.
We're not 84% white at most.
I don't know.
60%?
Probably not that.
Maybe 50?
I'm not really sure.
It could be lower.
It could be...
I don't think it's 40. But it could be around half.
So that would be the normal California situation, closer to half or less.
So 84% white.
Honestly, I didn't even know there was a place in the United States that was 84% white.
Now, Michael Schellenberger writes in detail, I'll just pull down a piece of it, but his larger argument is fascinating.
You should follow him on X. And what he points out is that the, this is his words, the so-called progressives, Finally achieved what they supposedly warned us of, but in truth wished for, the eviction of the affluent descendants of colonizers, the incineration of their homes, and the destruction of a city that, more than any other, represents our bloody history of white supremacy and conquest.
Now, he doesn't claim, Schellenberger, because he's very smart and doesn't say crazy stuff, he doesn't claim that it was some kind of big organized plot.
To do bad things to white people.
Nobody's saying that.
I'm not saying that.
He's not saying that.
Five minutes later, somebody's going to say, why do you think it was a plot against white people?
Not saying that.
Not saying that.
Don't believe it.
However, intention sometimes shows up in your priorities.
Meaning, it doesn't have to be a plan.
It can just seep into your priorities.
And then you end up in the same place.
Let me read a little more.
Now, this is sort of getting toward, let's say, this is getting toward the conspiracy theory part of it.
Now, I want to be really clear.
I do not believe there's a conspiracy, a larger conspiracy involved.
I do not believe that at all.
I do believe that we're going to see the result of DEI hiring.
We don't know what percent and which people.
It would be unfair to say this one person is a DEI hire and they're the problem.
I don't see that.
I don't see the DEI and a specific person doing a specific thing.
I don't see that.
It could be, because you wouldn't know.
If you see people making mistakes, you don't know why, from our perspective.
You just know their mistakes.
You could know their DEI hires, but you know they make mistakes.
But Gavin Newsom isn't a DEI hire, and we think he made some mistakes.
So just, you know, kind of chill your enthusiasm for the anti-DEI stuff, because I'm pretty anti-DEI, as you all know.
But as soon as you tie it to an individual person and an individual act, you've lost the plot.
You should think of it as a system collapse problem, not a thing that one person did that time.
That just doesn't help anybody.
Because you can too easily just slide, without even intending it, you can just slide into pure racism when that's not really the complaint about DEI. I mean, it ends up being racism against white people.
But the complaint is it's a destruction of the entire system over time.
Anyway, so Joel Pollack, who you should follow if you want to really know what's happening with the fire, because he's not only a local.
But he's on the scene and he's getting some reports that I haven't seen anywhere else.
So, for example, Joel Pollack said that this is the, he's got a picture of it, he says, this is the Santa Inez Reservoir above the Pacific Palisades.
I noted on Sunday, two days before the fire, that it was largely empty.
Apparently, according to the LA Times, it was down for maintenance.
Really?
It was down for maintenance?
In the height of the fire season?
Well, I'm not sure if this is the height, but the winds made it a dangerous possibility.
And this is amazing.
Now, not only is Joel asking the question, and the rest of you are asking the question, why was that thing down for maintenance?
And, you know, was that a contributing factor?
Was that incompetence or necessary?
So here's one of those cases where you're going to say to yourself, ah, whoever took that down for maintenance was a DEI hire.
Maybe they were.
Maybe they were.
But maybe there was also a necessary reason they took it down and there was nothing they could do.
So I'm trying to do the best I can not to jump to conclusions that are not in evidence.
And it is not yet, not yet, in evidence.
That incompetence caused that to be, you know, empty just when they needed it.
Don't know, but you know who else doesn't know?
Governor Newsom.
So he's opening an investigation into why the heck that thing was empty and why it was down for maintenance then.
And Colin Rugg is pointing out on X. That the water chief makes three quarters of a million dollars per year and oversaw the emptying of that reserve.
Now again, I want to be really clear because this is important because this is a real human being and it's not my job to dump on some real human being if they did the right thing even if to me it looked like the wrong thing because we don't know the full context.
But apparently the head of the water chief head She had previously sat on a podcast and maybe other places that her main concentration was equity.
So she had a recent podcast with Janice Kanonis, who was hired by Karen Bass, Mayor Karen Bass.
Oh, so that's the water chief.
And you're going to say, well, is she a DEI hire?
And the answer is, we don't know if that's the problem.
But yes.
Yes, probably.
But we don't know that that's the problem.
All right?
But here's my take.
So she says pretty clearly that her, you know, among her top priorities was equity.
And here's my observation.
There's no difference in how it would look in the end.
If the reason we're in this situation is a conspiracy, or even terrorism, or if it's just the result of people having the wrong priorities.
Because we can observe plainly that the priorities are misplaced.
So that's obvious.
If what you can observe clearly would explain everything you see, you don't really need the conspiracy theory, which doesn't rule it out, by the way.
It's not ruled out.
But you don't need it.
Everything's explained by the most ordinary, obvious, observable, lack of right priorities.
If you have the wrong priorities, the odds of you getting a good result, pretty low.
Pretty low.
And I would go further and say what I've said before, that a total system collapse in the United States from DEI as your priority is predictable.
It's predictable.
Now, I've told you before that the human brain is not good at knowing reality.
And I talk about how you can all look at the same facts, but you can see two completely different movies on the same screen.
Same facts.
You're looking at it at the same time.
But you see one movie, I see another movie.
That's ordinary.
Most ordinary thing.
So I say that you can't really tell what is reality.
You can never really know.
So the best thing you can do, in my opinion, is pick the reality that predicts the best.
So if you have a view of the world that accurately predicts what's going to happen, you're probably close to the truth, or whatever truth a human brain can get to.
And you all saw me, for the last several years, predict that DEI, no matter how well-meaning it was, would cause total system collapse.
And that everything it touched would be destroyed in roughly the order in which it first started DEI and how much power, how much emphasis they put in it.
The sooner it started and the more emphasis, the more guaranteed and the sooner you'd see a system collapse.
We don't know yet if this is what caused all the, well, what looks like bad management in this area.
We don't know.
But it was predictable.
And if this problem is not caused by it, you could predict pretty clearly that eventually there would be.
So whether we're seeing it already, or it's ahead of us, maybe even worse, it's guaranteed.
It's a system design guarantee.
If you design a system that says, take your eye off the ball, because this unimportant ball is the important one.
Everybody can predict how that turns out.
A child.
A child could look at that and say, what?
You're going to not look at the important thing as the most important thing?
How old would you have to be before you knew that was going to be the collapse of the system?
Ten?
Ten-year-olds?
Maybe a ten-year-old could figure that out?
That's our current situation.
All right.
So the New Yorker has a...
It has a cover of Elon Musk being sworn in.
It's a comic, so it's a picture of him being sworn in, and Trump is sort of caught out of the picture, and what they're trying to do is tell the world, oh, Elon Musk is really the one in power, and they're trying to create this conflict between Musk and Trump.
Let me ask you this.
Why would Democrats, and this is just a Democrat propaganda publication nobody should take seriously, The New Yorker, but why would the Democrat machine try to drive a wedge between the most effective operator in the world, Musk, and the best president in the world, Trump?
What would be the point of just putting a wedge between such...
Capable and well-meaning people who are clearly in it for what's good for America.
Why would they do that?
Well, they must think that it would destroy the effectiveness of the president and that somehow they'd get some political benefit from that.
This is so far away from being any kind of a positive thing with the country.
You know, I love competition.
I like when the parties are competing for ideas and people compete in capitalism, etc.
But what is this?
It's just a sabotage that, if it worked, would greatly degrade the effectiveness of the administration for your benefit.
They're trying to destroy the government, or really one of the strongest parts about it, which is this alliance.
And by the way, if they manage to take Musk out, don't you think they'd just move to whoever is the second best person on the team?
Right?
You know, you could argue that maybe somebody else is already the second best, or the first best.
But it doesn't even look like the Democrats are trying to do anything but destroy.
And all they have left is these weird high school taunts.
It's like name-calling.
You know what?
Let me put it into words.
What that New Yorker story is saying in different words.
Neener, neener, neener.
Musk and Trump sitting in a tree.
K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Am I wrong?
It's literally a 12-year-old's attack.
It's empty, stupid, embarrassing, unproductive.
Incredible.
I mean, it's just so, so stupid.
And evil that I don't even know if I have enough words for it.
Speaking of that, Joe Biden was asked some questions about Havana Syndrome.
This is according to Lucas Tomlinson on X. He says that Havana Syndrome is where there's a suspicion that a secret sonic weapon was injuring people in the embassies and causing some brain damage.
And other damage, I guess.
But Biden asked about Havana Syndrome, and he answered talking about ISIS and the rampage in New Orleans.
Okay, so he was asked about Havana Syndrome, which was allegedly an attack on some government officials, but he answered about ISIS and the rampage in New Orleans.
Is it possible that the entire explanation of what happened to Biden's brain as he...
He was attacked by a secret sonic microwave weapon.
Did the Russians cook his brain?
I don't think so.
I'm just saying it's funny.
Anyway, you can connect the dots.
Maybe Russia got his brain.
We don't know.
Speaking of stupid Democrat publications, do you remember when Fortune magazine was like a respectable actual magazine?
And Dilbert used to be on the cover all the time.
I think once a year, for a number of years, Dilbert was the main cover of Fortune.
It was usually their episode about best place to work.
And so this just happened.
So a prankster pretended to be a whistleblower and talked to Fortune magazine, and they ran the story, completely fake, saying that the X platform was going to remove all timestamps from your posts.
And start charging $8 for anybody who signed up.
That was completely made up.
Completely made up.
And it was a prankster who said he was an engineer recently fired from X. Now, so Alex Finn is reporting on this on X. And his take on it was that Elon Musk has killed Fortune magazine and all traditional media, which is a pretty good title.
But yeah.
That's basically what happened.
So when you watch anything that looks like traditional media, it's pretty much because it's funny.
Am I wrong about that?
When I talk about X, I talk about amazing content.
It's like, whoa, Tucker Carlson had a guest that is blowing my mind.
Elon's posts are great.
And it's just one amazing thing after another on X. Great opinions.
Schellenberger.
Pollock, you know, just really brilliant takes all day long.
And then you go to the media, and the New Yorker is doing neener, neener, neener, and Fortune magazines didn't fact-check a hoax.
It gets worse.
It gets worse.
Next story.
Molly Hemingway has a piece in The Federalist about Jake Tepper and the Russia collusion hoax.
Now, I don't want to ruin it for you, because this is one you just have to go read, because if you don't read the whole piece, you're going to miss the magic of it.
But there's one little anecdote in it, or a little story in it, where I guess Molly Hemingway was appearing on CNN some time ago, and the Russia collusion thing, I guess it was in the early days of that, and the allegation is that, I think it was Jim, Scudo on CNN started to report the truth.
Started to report the truth.
And according to Molly, Jake Tapper grabbed him by the wrist and squeezed it to stop him from talking.
Now, if you want to find out what was the truth he was saying and whether or not that was an accurate impression of what was happening, you've got to read the story.
So just follow Molly Hemingway.
Tremendous talent as a writer and observer of politics.
One of my favorites.
The ALX account on X tells us that four years ago today, Trump was banned on most platforms.
Four years ago today.
Now, I never knew how many platforms he was banned on.
You knew about the big ones, right?
But it's funny how many people thought that banning him was also their job.
Listen to this list.
So these are the ones that banned Trump four years ago.
Facebook, Twitter, Google.
Spotify?
Well, okay.
Spotify because they have podcasts on there.
Really?
Snapchat, Instagram, Shopify.
Shopify?
He wasn't allowed to shop?
Really?
Really?
You could take away somebody's right to shop.
Reddit, of course.
Twitch.
YouTube, of course.
TikTok.
TikTok.
Okay.
But the funniest one is Pinterest.
Pinterest.
He was preventing from making homemade crafts and selling them on Pinterest.
Do you think Pinterest was just trying to get on the action?
Hey!
Hey!
We're going to ban them from making ashtrays and trying to sell them on our site.
Okay, sure.
So this is the beginning of me describing to you the greatest comeback of all time.
So four years ago, January 6th, banned on all the major platforms.
And then also, of course, you know about the law fair going after him.
Sort of a partial result on that.
You remember Judge Marchand, so he did the sentencing yesterday, and this was the Stormy Daniels case.
Now, if you don't know what law Trump broke in the Stormy Daniels case, there wasn't one.
They actually made up a law by combining things that...
We're irrelevant and nobody had ever done before until they could kind of invent a law that he broke.
Essentially just invented one.
And managed to get their biased jury to get a conviction.
Then when Trump got elected, it became obvious that sentencing him wasn't going to work.
Like they couldn't get away with sentencing him.
But they still had to have the sentencing hearing because that's the process.
And by the way, it's not just me who's saying that there was no actual crime.
Jonathan Turley does a better job of it.
He knows what he's talking about.
So they do it, and they basically sentence him to nothing.
So they have this whole trial.
They find him guilty.
And then when it comes to the sentencing, they're like, nothing.
No fine.
Nothing.
Now, of course...
You know, it's politically pretty much required that they don't put him in jail.
But the amazingness of this is that, according to Turley again, and again, he's a good resource on this.
You should follow him on X. The conviction should be overturned on appeal.
Now, when he says should be overturned, It's because the case was just the biggest legal embarrassment mess of all time.
The judge was a Democrat activist judge.
That was demonstrated to be true.
So it was biased.
The charges were made up.
I think there were things that maybe they should have been included that weren't.
It was basically lawfare and a completely illegitimate process.
But it allowed Trump to trash the judge in the process.
As part of his statement, which was wonderful.
And now Alvin Bragg, who sort of bet his career on getting this done and doing a solid for the Democrats, because that'd be good for him, ends up embarrassing the Democrats terribly, failing terribly, but more importantly, has sort of ripped the roof off the Democrat corrupt machine.
These lawfare things, in my opinion, made it really obvious that the Democrats are not just the competing team.
That there's a level of evil there that's just not related to...
Anyway, I'm sorry, I just saw an image on Locals because they can put images in the notes.
Very distracting.
It was me on the beach with Stormy Daniels.
I don't know why we were on the beach, but we looked happy in that picture.
That was an AI picture.
Anyway, so here's what I think.
The entire reason that the Democrats are happy is that now they can say he's technically a felon.
So they wanted to give Trump the scarlet F, you know, the scarlet letter that, yeah, maybe you're doing some good things and maybe people voted for you, but you're a felon.
And they're going to use that.
Now, I would say that's just as effective as neener, neener.
You're a felon.
Neener, neener.
That's all it is.
It's absurdly stupid.
But it's even dumber than that because if it doesn't survive the appeal, and I don't think it possibly could, is he really a felon?
Have we ever seen a situation where every smart person looking at this, somebody who's a lawyer, says to himself, well, he's temporarily a felon, but there's a 100% chance it's going to be reversed on appeal.
Maybe the Supreme Court, who knows how long it takes, but reversed.
So all they got was a reminder of the lawfare.
They didn't get the scarlet letter.
This scarlet letter is on Alvin Bragg and Judge Mershon and all the Democrats who apparently, allegedly, colluded for this lawfare.
When I see the whole felon thing, I don't even think anything bad about Trump.
I just think, oh, you're reminding me of the lawfare and how bad the Democrats were.
Got it.
So I don't think the Democrats could have failed any harder or that Trump could have won any harder.
Do you know what would have been less good of a victory?
Less good of a victory would be innocent of all charges.
Are you with me on that or no?
If you're just looking at winners and losers, and we're in the context of Trump has already won the election with the majority of the votes, which changes everything, right?
He's already won the election, and it was legitimate, just had more votes.
All that does is just make this look so corrupt that you can't see it any other way.
But pure corruption.
Anyway, the scarlet letter turned out to be an FU on them.
Trump is having this interesting experience in his transition.
So instead of people resisting him like you'd expect, or even like a lot of people said they would, according to real clear politics, He said in his recent appearance, I haven't had anybody saying anything bad about me.
I'm not used to it.
So, as you know, the various leaders and bankers and people are coming in and essentially just asking how they can help.
Now, I think that Trump has accidentally created the ultimate fake because.
Now, I talk about that all the time, the fake because.
It's a persuasion term that I like to use.
A fake because is giving somebody a reason that really isn't the real reason, but it frees them to do the thing they wanted to do for their own reasons.
So the fake reason is, well, I guess the country is turning in this direction.
We're a big corporation.
We serve the entire country.
So for that reason alone, that more people voted for Trump, we're going to...
We're going to be good with Trump and we're going to work with him and be productive and all that.
Now, do you think that some of these big companies didn't already want to work with the administration?
Didn't already want to get rid of their DEI program?
Didn't already want to be a productive part of the civilization instead of just being a resistor?
I think most of them did.
I think most of them wanted to have a good relationship with the government.
It's essential.
And I think that they wanted to help the country because, you know, by the time you're a CEO, you're kind of thinking I'd better protect the whole country to keep my own stuff.
So it's the ultimate fake because.
So yes, I think that the CEOs didn't feel they had cover for doing what they probably wanted to do, which is the smart way to run the company.
But now this gives them cover.
And here's the best part.
All right.
Now, I have to apologize in advance before telling this next thing.
And my apology is, I'm aware of the fact that sometimes it feels like I go too far in complimenting Trump's technique.
Because to me, it's just off the chart.
It's just next level.
And I'm running out of words.
So I'm just going to tell you what he just did.
And I hope you can agree with me that this isn't ordinary.
This is not just a politician who had a good day.
It's just part of a pattern of next-level thinking, operating, persuasion, whatever it is.
All right, here's the story.
Now, according to the New York Post, the inauguration is coming up, and Trump has invited some foreign leaders that he likes that kind of tell the story that he wants to tell in his administration.
So, for example, that would include Italy's prime minister, Giorgio Milani.
She's going to try to make it.
He invited President Xi.
Now, keep in mind that it's not traditional to invite any foreign leaders to the inauguration.
It's sort of not the business of the foreign leaders.
So Trump is, first of all, doing something that hasn't been done, inviting foreign leaders.
But it gets better.
It gets better.
So he invited President Xi.
Who won't be coming, but he's sending some high-level emissary, which I think was Xi's right play.
I think he found the exact middle there.
So, nicely done, President Xi.
He's invited Argentina's Javier Millet.
Plans to go.
All right, that's a win for Trump.
He invited El Salvador's Bukele.
I don't know if he's going to come, but he's been invited.
And also...
Former Brazilian President Bolsonaro.
Now, here's the fun part.
Apparently, since Trump opened the possibility that a foreign leader could go to the inauguration, which would be the ideal place for said foreign leaders to get their little word in with the American president because it really matters.
And apparently this has caused some kind of a mad rush.
Of foreign leaders who are not on that list, because it's his favorite ones, of people begging and trying to find some way to get invited to his exclusive club of favorite leaders.
They're all scrambling to become part of Trump's club of favorite foreign leaders.
Who can do that?
Who can do that?
Am I going too far?
Am I giving him too much credit?
Or the team?
Because it's not necessarily just Trump coming up with ideas.
Remember, he's got a really strong team at the moment.
Best I've ever seen.
And he takes their best advice, apparently.
This is just so good.
Who?
He's not even in office yet.
And he has foreign leaders.
Begging to be in this exclusive club of favorite foreign leaders.
It doesn't get better than that.
You can't be more effective than that.
This is like things that people don't even think of when they think of being ineffective.
This is so next level.
It's crazy.
Golden age.
Here it comes.
Once the fire's out, maybe.
Now, one of the big problems I've been posting on and got quite a few million views on it is how tremendously difficult it's going to be for the LA area to dig its way out of this fire problem.
The homeowners are going to be looking at an insane amount of complication and approvals and steps and things to get anything done.
I predict that given the current system, It would take five to ten years for any one person to rebuild.
Five to ten years.
So if you've got kids and living there was, you know, because a great place for kids, maybe that's out of your reach now.
Because if it were two years, then you'd say, well, yeah, let's do it.
If it's five to ten, which is what it looks like, what do you do?
So an enormous problem.
But I'm going to read you a take by an ex-user called Dr. Insensitive Jerk, who you should follow on X. Dr. with a D-R. Insensitive Jerk, separated by a lowercase, lower underscore.
And here's what he says.
I'll just read his words.
He goes, this time it feels like those building rules might be loosened.
Which I agree.
I think even the most incompetent government Might look to loosen some rules under this situation.
But why?
He says.
Whether it's one homeowner or 2,000, the moral question is the same.
Should they have to wait years for government permission?
Right.
Whether it's one person or lots of them, should they wait years for government permission?
He says this time it feels like maybe they won't, and the reason is important.
Really?
There's a reason.
Okay.
The reason is not moral or even practical.
It isn't?
It is bargaining power.
Now the homeowners have it because of their sheer numbers.
Oh, yes.
Before, individually, they did not.
You're right.
An individual homeowner trying to get any of these rules changed, no way.
But this many homeowners were high-functioning homeowners.
These are not your normal homeowners.
These are people with money and resources and talent, and there's a lot of them.
So, yes.
But here's the kill shot at the end from Dr. Insensitive Jerk.
He says, if you feel that too, meaning that the sheer number of them will make a difference to the government, it means in your heart you believe the government is not your ally.
The government is at best your rival and more likely your enemy.
If the government were on our side, our bargaining power would not matter.
Dropping my mic.
And we're done.
That was my mic drop in case you're listening.
That's right.
If the government were on our side, we wouldn't need massive bargaining power to get ordinary things that people want.
Ordinary things.
That's it.
That's the frame you need to get into.
The frame is the government's your enemy.
As soon as you believe that they're your friend, you're not going to understand anything you see.
Nothing will make sense.
And I think the government in California, or at least Southern California, in my view, just looking from the outside, appears to be in it for money and power.
And absolutely my enemy.
My enemy.
Let's ask anybody, wait three years and see what any of the victims of the fire tell you.
Do you think your government in California is your friend or your enemy?
What do you think they're going to say after the experience that they're about to go through?
And I'd love to say that some of the rules will get relaxed.
I'm not even sure that will happen.
I'm not even sure this is enough bargaining power.
Because if the government is completely captured, which it looks to be, why would they change?
If they still have the power to do whatever they want, no matter how many people are complaining, why would they change?
Just because a lot of people are complaining.
Wouldn't be enough.
Do you think there's enough to turn California red?
Get a Republican governor?
Well, here's the problem.
Name that prominent Republican who's already got a good name and some experience, and if they ran, you'd say to yourself, whoa, okay, that's serious.
There's a Republican who really can make a difference.
There's a Reagan.
There's a Trump.
There's a DeSantis.
Who is it?
Who in California?
Because I've been trying to think, like, who would I even trust?
Who would have the stones to get it done?
Larry Elder.
I love everything about Larry Elder.
I don't know if he could get...
I don't think he could get elected, because he's tried before.
James Woods?
I don't know.
I don't know.
He may be a little bit of a...
I think he's branded himself out of that, because he seems like more of a pundit.
Cernovich would be my first choice.
I see in the comments, Mike Cernovich.
But, you know, he'd have to deal with a lot of...
He'd be an easy target for critics.
So you don't want somebody who's too easy...
Mike Groh.
I don't know if Mike Groh is a Republican, but he has...
That would be interesting.
Adam Carolla, I can't imagine he'd want to take that job.
There you go.
Michael Schellenberger.
Would Michael Schellenberger have the right tools?
To be a governor of California.
I'm going to give you an unambiguous answer.
Yes.
Yes.
Now, I don't know if his public profile is sufficient to, you know, to be that charismatic person.
But here's one thing he has.
He used to be a Democrat.
Used to be a Democrat.
Which also means he fully understands all of their arguments and techniques.
And he got, I don't want to say he got red-pilled because that, It sort of puts my thoughts into another person, so I'm not going to say that.
But he is very clearly in the common sense camp.
If you look at any way he dissects any issue, it's always brilliant.
It's always complete.
It always shows that he understands both sides.
I've never seen anything like it.
So if you wanted to move from...
Complete politics and DEI and just nothing but the drama of politics and the corruption and all that.
If you want to get an operator who has a track record of really making a difference in this world, I believe that nuclear energy is only having a resurgence because of one person.
I think it was Michael Schellenberger.
Probably the most important thing that's going to happen in the country, because if we don't have energy, we're just in trouble.
So, I see people say Rick Grinnell, but does he live here?
Devin Nunes?
Oh, that's interesting.
Devin Nunes.
I don't think he has an interest.
So, we'll put Devin Nunes in the shortlist, okay?
So, I'd say Schellenberger, Devin Nunes.
You're saying Rick Grinnell.
I don't know that he lives in California, but if he does...
If he does, he's on my short list.
All right.
So I think really California doesn't have the Reagan-esque character.
I can't think of one.
But we might have enough.
Enough to get it past the Democrat goalkeepers.
All right.
Meanwhile, as you know, Metta is ending DEI. Zuckerberg is...
He's got quite a change of heart.
In a good way.
But here are the things they're doing at Meta.
They're taking the tampons out of the men's restroom.
Lucky Palmer says he has some story about that, about the origin of the tampons in the restroom.
That's a funny story that he's going to tell us soon, I believe.
So Meta no longer will have DEI teams, and they're going to end their supplier diversity effort, making sure their suppliers are diverse.
And they're going to end the practice of requiring that diverse candidates be considered for jobs.
And they'll focus on merit.
Sounds good.
And all DEI representation goals will be eliminated.
Now, Zuckerberg also was on Joe Rogan.
And in my mind, he answered the mystery of Zuckerberg.
Because all of you are saying, hey, is he just like a weasel who knows that the wind changed, so he's just going to change with the wind?
Is he just trying to make money because Trump's in charge, so he knows that Trump might come after him?
Well, all of those are true.
He wants to make money, doesn't want the government to be his enemy.
He'd rather befriend Trump than have him on the other team, obviously.
These are just obvious things that every CEO would want.
So I take them off the table.
Because they're in the category of, obviously, everybody wants that.
But, like you, it doesn't seem to explain it.
Of course he wants what every CEO wants, but you don't see every CEO doing such a radical change in what looks like personality.
I mean, it looks like a change in personality driving the change in business, doesn't it?
So you say to yourself, is that fake?
Like, is it a fake change in personality just so we can get the CEO benefits of, you know, working with the government productively?
I don't know.
But then he explained this on Joe Rogan, and in my mind, I'm done with the mystery.
This explains everything.
It was fascinating.
He said that, I think he said he had three sisters, and then he had three daughters and a wife.
And so he lived in a completely, what he called, neutered world.
Where it wasn't male and female, there was no male.
He just lived in a female bubble.
Then, apparently the way he escaped his bubble, and this is his telling, it's his own telling, that when he got involved in MMA, martial arts, and started hanging out with more, he didn't use the word, but manly men, he rediscovered the value of male aggression.
Because he was literally doing practice fighting, or real fighting in a recreational way.
And that it sort of activated some long, covered up or unexpressed part of him that was male.
So his telling of his own transformation is that he didn't know how to be a man.
Now, those are my words.
But, you know, listen to yourself and see if that doesn't sound like a good summary.
He didn't know how to be a man.
Again, that's my interpretation.
But the way he says it, that's what it sounds like.
And then he rediscovered that through interaction with other men.
Now, once he saw both sides, and he saw, you know, the male part, the female part, Then he was in a position to choose which one made more sense, both for him and for the company.
And he chose common sense.
There's nothing about what he's changing to that is beyond just common sense.
So he'd been in the female world, where there was sort of a feelings-based preference.
Once he was exposed to the male world, where what matters is if you win the fight.
What matters is if you win the fight, and also, what matters is if you win the fight.
But there's a third thing that matters.
Did you win the fight?
The female world is not about winning the fight.
It's about feeling good, making sure other people feel good.
And you can't run a world that way.
You kind of need both.
You can't be heartless, but you also can't lose the fight.
And I think there was some part of him who said, I think I'm losing the fight to get the feelings right.
Again, this is my interpretation.
It's always sketchy when you're trying to interpret somebody else's thoughts.
But he explained it masterfully, so I would recommend you watching the Joe Rogan episode about that.
He also said, and maybe this is the bigger story, that the censorship that he was receiving, the censorship pressure, From the Biden administration was apparently outrageous.
Apparently there were administration people, he said, who were calling and literally yelling at Facebook staff to censor something that he knew to be true.
Imagine that.
So this is coming directly from the most authoritative source at Meta, and he's telling you specifically People yelled at their staff like they were the government's little bitches.
Hey, you little bitches, you better do what I say.
And they threatened them.
They threatened them.
The government told them to censor true information that was valuable, very valuable, in my opinion, I think it was about pandemic stuff, and threatened them.
Now, Imagine you're...
I'm going to take this a little bit further.
Imagine that you grew up in a female environment and then suddenly the government's like yelling at your people and threatening you and taking away freedom of speech, basically.
But you've awakened in this male world of MMA fighting and suddenly you say, you know what?
What matters is that I beat these people.
It doesn't matter that I make them happy and that we all feel good.
It matters that I beat them.
And when Trump won, he said, here's how I beat them.
I just go along with common sense.
You know, you don't want your government censoring your free speech.
You've got a leader of common sense and free speech now in office.
Of course you pair with him.
Why?
Because winning is really important.
Winning is really important, and the third thing, winning is very important.
Very important.
There's a fake story.
I'm going to call it fake.
It's based on real facts.
The real facts are that Amazon has declared that it's going to get rid of its outdated DEI programs.
But they're going to sort of fold that function, if you will.
Into the ordinary operation of the company.
So there won't be a DEI department.
They'll just have people doing hiring like they always did without that hanging over them.
And then they said this.
I'm just going to read it.
This is from Amazon.
This is from Amazon.
So they say they're getting rid of DEI. And so your thought is, wow.
Finally, everybody will be treated the same.
Wouldn't that be great?
And then they said in their statement, and I quote, We also believe that inequitable treatment of anyone, including black people, LGBTQ plus people, Asians, women, and others, is unacceptable.
Is anybody left out?
Is there anybody left out of that?
The reason that DEI is unpopular is that it's racist against white people, specifically white men.
Now, also, there are probably, you know, I'm sure there's an impact on, let's say, Asian men and Asian women, maybe.
I don't know.
But the main problem, the main problem is that it's racist against white men.
And when they get rid of it, They say, well, we're going to make sure we're good to everybody but white men, unless I'm in the category of other.
So Amazon gets no credit.
No credit.
This is a zero.
You don't get any credit for getting rid of your DEI. That's the way to save money.
All they're doing is returning to the 1980s, where the hiring manager knows damn well.
That if they don't get enough diversity, it's going to bite them in the ass later.
Nothing changed.
Nothing.
And here's the good news.
The smart people on the conservative side, they didn't buy it.
They didn't buy it because here's an updated list of the companies.
I think Robbie Starbuck has this.
Updated list of the companies that did get rid of DEI in a way that looks like it's serious.
The Amazon one is a nothing.
But here are the companies, and they don't put Amazon on the list.
So it's an extensive list to show victory in flipping companies away from DEI. It does not include Amazon.
That's correct.
Robbie Starbuck nailing every good point on this whole topic.
So these are the ones that seem to be serious about getting rid of DEI. Meta, McDonald's, Walmart, Boeing.
Molson, Coors, Lois, Ford, Jack Daniels, Harley, Davidson, John Deere, Tractor Supply, Toyota, Nissan, Caterpillar, Inc., Stanley, Black& Decker, DeWalt, Tools, Indian Motorcycle Craftsman, Polaris.
I recommend every one of those companies.
If you're thinking of buying a product and one of these companies makes it, give them your business.
Because I think they're taking seriously their shifter away from DEI. Amazon, of course you're going to have to give Amazon your business because you can't avoid it.
Yeah, I can't.
But no credit.
You get no credit for what you've done.
That's just the 1980s where all the managers discriminate just like they discriminated against me back in my banking days.
Yeah, all right.
Here's me causing a lot of trouble online.
But I'm going to tell you, not everybody will know this if they don't follow me on my live streams.
I'm causing trouble for a productive reason.
If you look at it from the outside, you're just going to see me being an asshole.
All right?
And some of you already think that on this topic.
It's the topic of Mel Gibson being on Joe Rogan and saying that he had three friends cured of cancer by ivermectin and fenbenazole.
Two over the, not over the counter, but two drugs that already exist and don't have major side effects.
Used properly, they don't.
And here's what I'm doing.
I'm debunking that, and I'm pushing hard, saying that there is no real example of this ever happening, that there's no confirmed, there's not one.
You will never see Mel Gibson's three friends sitting with her doctor saying, yes, the only thing we did is use these drugs, and it cured my cancer that was otherwise incurable.
So I'm saying that doesn't exist.
Now, somebody said, are you saying Mel Gibson is a liar?
No.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no.
I'm not saying Mel Gibson is a liar.
I believe his friends told him this.
And I believe lots of people are saying it.
And people say to me, but Scott, Scott, it's so well demonstrated.
But here's what happens if you go down one level.
Now, here's what I'm trying to achieve.
I would love this to be real.
It might be.
It might be.
At least for maybe some sorts of cancers in some kinds of situations, maybe in combination with other treatments.
So there might be something here.
And if there is, I want to move this faster.
So I'm going to become the foil.
I've taken the role of the bad guy in the story for productive reasons.
I need them to fight me.
I want the people who claim this is real to absolutely destroy me.
I want them to dogpile on top of me until I can't breathe.
Then we'll find out if it's real.
For some reason, all of these claims, of which there are numerous, very many claims, none of them seem to be able to come public with their doctor and say, here are my lab tests before.
I didn't do anything else, or maybe I did it in conjunction with something we know doesn't work completely, and now I have complete remission.
Just show me one.
Just one.
Because there are many, many assumed cases.
So how could it be?
I mean, how could it possibly be that so many people would say, I personally, and they do, they say, I personally got better on this.
My friend got better.
I know three people.
There are doctors who say, I know a dozen.
How is it possible?
Well, I'll tell you.
I'll give you, I'll give you, so there's, if you study persuasion, It's really obvious how it's all possible.
If you don't, it looks like it couldn't possibly be fake if so many people have had the exact same experience.
Number one, this is one of those stories where a lot of people have heard about the same guy, but they've heard it from different people.
So if a different person tells you, I know somebody who got better, you think, well, that's 10 stories about, so it must be true.
What you'll find out is all 10 of them are talking about the one person who has never been tested to see if he's cancer-free.
So that's the first thing.
If you can tell me the name of the guy, and I won't name him because I don't want to do that, but if you say, here's the name of the guy who took these drugs, ivermectin and or fentanyl, and he got cleared, if you know the name of the guy, you're all talking about the same guy.
There's basically one case that's It happened.
And you hear somebody talking about somebody talking about somebody who knows somebody.
It sounds like a bunch of guys.
That's exactly what happened to me in a project I was working on in my corporate days.
I was told to build a laboratory for all the customers who wanted to test their things before they bought them.
And I said, how many people want to do that?
And everybody I talked to, all the managers, all the managers, said, it's just a lot.
I mean, all the time.
We're just getting pestered.
Everybody wants to test it, but we don't have a way to do it.
I put together a $10 million plan to build a lab.
But I kept looking for the people who were asking for it because I wanted to confirm it.
Turned out it was one person once, one person once, talked to one manager once and said, I wish I had a lab to test this.
Turns out he didn't really need the lab.
Found a way to, you know, make the right decision anyway.
So there was one person who didn't actually need it.
And that person talked to another person.
Hey, what can we do about a lab for this person?
That person talked to another person.
Everybody's asking for a lab.
That person talked to the vice president.
My God, it's like I got to do something.
Everybody's asking for this laboratory.
It was one person who didn't need it.
And I investigated myself and confirmed that was true.
There was not one person that wanted that.
$10 million.
Now, that's actually ordinary.
It might be happening here.
Here's what else is wrong.
Why could it be that so many people have had a miracle cure of cancer and yet they're not willing to come public?
Because if they came public and they could show their work, you know, show their lab tests, they would be the people who cured cancer.
Because even though they're not the drug, they would be the person who said, look, The medical community is trying to sell you these expensive treatments.
I want to show you that I got better with this.
And then maybe there'd be another one.
And maybe another one.
And maybe another one.
Do you know how many there are so far?
Apparently there are a lot of people who have been fucking cured of cancer who don't want to tell you about it.
Does that sound real?
They don't want to tell you about it?
Do you know if I took an over-the-counter or just some ordinary prescribed drug and it cured my fucking cancer, You would never hear the end of it because I would not let millions of people die of cancer unnecessarily if I knew it worked.
Not one?
Not one person wants to come public?
Nobody.
It's working all over.
I mean, just Mel Gibson alone knows three people, but they don't want to come forward?
They don't want to talk to us?
The only one I've seen come forward seems to be getting paid by the doctor.
Who's selling the treatment?
I don't know that.
But let's say the context suggests that the person is getting paid to support this story.
It suggests that.
So here are the stories that I've heard personally.
So people say, no, I know a guy who had prostate cancer that had metastasized.
Now, that's incurable.
It's incurable.
And he reports to his friend who talks to me and says, look, my friend has it.
It's incurable.
He took these drugs and it's confirmed that his cancer spots in his bones shrunk.
Now, that sounds pretty good, right?
If it's an incurable disease, the tumors shrunk after he took the drug.
Well, that seems pretty darn impressive, right?
And if it shrunk it, well, probably it could keep shrinking it, right?
And maybe completely go away.
Here's what almost certainly really happened.
People who have metastatic prostate cancer, typically, no matter what treatments they're doing or not doing, there's going to be some point where they're in pain.
And it's because the tumors in their bones have reached a certain size.
The standard, ordinary...
Almost universal treatment is to use radiation on them because it can shrink the tumor.
It can't cure your cancer.
It can shrink the tumor.
Whoever it is who had tumors that were big in his bones and then they were being measured and then they later shrunk, go back to that person and ask him if they also were doing radiation, which we already know 100% of the time.
Reduces the size of the tumor, but it doesn't cure you, so you eventually die from it.
So let me put it in a visual way, all right?
So if you can't see this on Spotify or audio, but I'm going to make a big circle with my hands.
This big old circle is what the oncologist understands about cancer because it's their specialty.
So what they know is this big ball.
If you get diagnosed with a cancer, you are going to become kind of an expert on your cancer.
And you're going to learn a lot.
Not nearly as much as the doctor knows.
Let's say you're the size of a bowling ball compared to a beach ball.
That's how much you know.
But it's a lot.
Then you talk to your friend.
So you've got a bowling ball now.
That is not as big as the beach ball that the doctor knows, but you know a lot.
You've got a bowling ball-sized knowledge.
Then you talk to your friend.
When you've talked to your friend, how much does the friend know?
The friend is Mel Gibson.
How much does he know?
Ping-pong ball.
The friend knows a ping-pong ball worth of knowledge about the topic, and specifically about this specific patient.
So you're listening to the Ping-Pong Ball Guy.
If you think that these treatments are working, talk to an oncologist and ask them how many of their patients are on ivermectin and fenbendazole.
Do you know what the answer will be?
A bunch.
Pretty much every one of them.
Because they've all heard these stories.
Every single person who's in this situation has heard that these things might work.
Doesn't have much of a downside.
Of course they're going to try them.
And they're going to tell their doctor, yeah, I'm on this, blah, blah, blah.
So if you talk to your oncologist, will your oncologist tell you that, yeah, you know, I've seen some miracle cures, I've got to say.
You know, you might as well try it.
I've seen good results.
No, you're not going to find any oncologist who says it.
Do you know why?
Because they've never seen it work.
There's no oncologist who's seeing patients, like currently seeing patients, who's ever seen it work.
They've never seen it cure an incurable cancer.
Never.
Or they'd tell you.
So if you know anybody who has cancer and they have an oncologist, of course they will, ask them to ask their oncologist if they've ever seen even an anecdotal case where it cured or even fixed anybody's cancer.
The answer will be no.
But Mel Gibson, if you talk to Mel Gibson, he's seen it all over the place.
Because he's not the beach ball, and he's not the bowling ball.
He's the ping pong ball.
Do you think that Mel Gibson could have asked the question that I asked, which is, was he also on radiation therapy, which nearly 100% of people in his situation would be?
Do you think he knew to ask that question?
No.
Because when I dig down, usually they have some other therapy going, which could actually even cure the cancer.
This one is an uncurable, but it might have been a curable one.
So, what else we got?
Oh, also I talked to one person who didn't want to be public.
Somebody cured their cancer, an incurable one, an incurable one.
Totally clear.
Didn't want to go public.
But was willing to chat with me sort of, you know, as long as it wasn't public.
Do you believe that?
Again, do you believe there's somebody who cured cancer?
And knows the cure for cancer, and it's just an inexpensive little pill that anybody could get, and he's not going to tell you?
He's not willing to go on CNN and say, hey, I better bring my doctor and let everybody know?
Look for the pattern.
Now, you want to know the kill shot?
Here's the kill shot.
Let's just calculate the odds of this, all right?
Here's the odds.
Ivermectin, oh, and here's the other thing.
People would send me link after link saying, Scott, you idiot.
You're not doing the homework.
Don't you know that there are multiple clinical trials showing the ivermectin specifically, and I think also finben, that both of those do work against cancer?
And they send me the link.
What do I know about the link before I read it?
It does not prove that any of those have an effect on cancer.
So I open it up.
In the laboratory, in a Petri dish, Cancel.
Next one.
In a laboratory.
In a petri dish.
Cancel.
In a laboratory.
Do you know what kills cancer in the laboratory?
Piss.
You could piss on the fucking cancer in the laboratory and it's going to kill.
I don't know if that's true, but it's funny.
Everything kills cancer in the laboratory.
It doesn't have any predictive value.
None.
None.
So people are hearing Mel Gibson's friends and...
All these hundreds, maybe dozens, maybe hundreds of people, and plus the clinical trials, because they don't know that clinical trials just means in the labrador.
I fell for one.
Here's what I fell for when I started looking into it.
I was told that it worked in animals, that they'd done it in the Petri dish.
Again, that's not exactly what's happening.
But they did it in the lab, but it also worked in animals on cancer.
So I said to myself, whoa, that's way better than a lab.
If it worked in animals, you're getting a little bit closer to something that has at least a 5% chance of working.
Because it's about a 5% chance that if it works in animals, it works in humans.
How many of you knew that?
It's only 5%.
But still, if it's a cure for cancer, you're going to look into that 5% pretty hard.
So it turns out...
That once I made that claim to somebody who had done a little more homework than I did, she said, what animal trials?
And I said, the ones I heard about, there are no animal trials that worked.
What?
There's no such thing as an animal trial that cured cancer with the animals.
And I said to myself, but why would people say it?
And certainly, I've never seen any evidence that it's ever worked in an animal trial.
I can't rule it out, but I believed it.
You know why I believed it?
Heard it from multiple sources.
By the way, if you can find the link where it cured cancer in an animal, I would love to see it, because if I'm wrong, that'd be great.
But here's the ultimate tell.
What are the odds that it...
Let's just pick ivermectin, but the argument works for fenbenazole as well.
What are the odds that in the lab, or maybe even in animal tests, that you just give them this drug and nothing else, and it just kills the cancer?
But here's what happened.
The claim is that if you only do those things, it might not work.
In other words, if you don't do any other treatment...
You just take the two drugs, that it's not enough.
But what really does work is if you're doing the treatments that we know work, at least a little bit, at the same time.
Wait a minute.
What are the odds that the reason they were interested in it is that it directly kills cancer, which is one set of mechanisms, but that when they tested it, by miraculous luck, Even though it didn't work in humans as they hoped, here's how lucky that is.
It did work if you did the other things that work.
But that hasn't been tested in a big clinical trial.
It's just people anecdotally saying, huh, I gave you chemo, I gave you radiation, I gave you hormone therapy, all things that work in some contexts, but not every context.
And I also gave you these pills, and one of you got better.
That's nothing.
That's nothing.
Because those other treatments have highly variable outcomes.
Sometimes they work well, sometimes not so well.
You can't tell what was the effect of the pill on top of it.
So again, I remind you, I'm not here to tell you that these don't work, because I don't know.
I do not know if they work or they don't.
I can tell you that if they work, the motherfuckers who are not going public are almost criminal.
Because if I ever find anything that cures cancer, you're going to hear about it.
And you're going to hear about it.
So let's ask Mel Gibson if he would try to cure cancer in the world by asking his friends to talk to me and bring their doctor.
And I want their friends with their medical tests and their doctors.
To tell me that they think this worked.
If they can do that, this would be amazing.
I want it to work.
Just to be clear, I'm anti-cancer.
I'm pro-cure.
And if either ivermectin or fenbenazole are part of the cure, I'm all for it.
I'm so for it.
So, again, I remind you, I'm playing the bad guy.
Because if I don't do this, you're never going to find out.
So I'm going to push this to destruction, right?
I'm going to push it to destruction.
I'm probably going to get killed.
And already you can see online.
Do you know what the most common response to me online is?
Somebody that believes the hoaxes about me and the vaccine.
And so they say, well, let's tell everybody in the world that you've got everything wrong about the pandemic when in fact my actual opinions got everything right.
So they're going after me.
They're trashing my reputation online for trying to fix this.
And I know that.
But I'm not going to stop.
Because getting trashed online is just my normal day.
You get used to it after a while.
So, no.
I'm going to push this.
And we're going to find out if it works.
Or if there's even any evidence that it works.
Or even any evidence that would be sufficient to say, you know, we should fund a clinical trial.
Because we're seeing, you know, can't prove it.
But we do have some cases that can't be explained any other way.
Just one.
Give me just one person with their doctor and maybe some tests that shows it's real.
Just one.
Mel Gibson, that's for you.
Anyway, there's a CNN editor.
I guess he's throwing Jake Tapper under the bus in this lawsuit.
There's a billion-dollar defamation suit.
The Washington Free Beacon is writing about this, Jessica Kostescu.
And so apparently the problem is that Jake Tapper accused a Navy veteran of being some kind of black market, I don't know, that he was an illegal profiteer in some kind of black market thing.
Now, the editor who wrote the text, For the story.
Or edit it.
He didn't write it.
He edited the written portion of the report.
He testified that it wasn't his intention to describe the person as a black market.
And he says, quote, the text I approved did not include the phrase black market.
The banner, you know, the thing that runs at the bottom of the show, and Jake Tapper's lead-in did that.
In other words, the editor...
Did not do anything that would have been something that he could get sued for.
It apparently was Jake Tapper.
At least that would be the telling of the...
We don't know.
I mean, you have to listen to all the sides.
It wouldn't be fair to judge this before all the evidence is out.
So I'm going to pull back a little on that because Jake Tapper may have a perfectly good defense.
If you haven't heard it, it wouldn't be fair to assume that this one guy has all the truth and Tapper has none.
But...
But I will tell you that what happens if there's a billion-dollar judgment?
Can CNN even stay in business?
Anyway.
Meanwhile, BlackRock has created some kind of climate group they were part of.
And this is reported by Ross Kerber and Reuters.
And the reason they're pulling out of this environmental climate group...
Quote, this is from BlackRock, quote, however, our membership in some of these organizations have caused confusion regarding BlackRock's practices and subjected us to legal inquiries from various public officials.
So basically, they're saying that they're getting out of these climate initiatives because there's too much pressure from the world and the governments.
Good.
That might be just the right amount of productive.
So that, again, looks like the Trump effect.
Meanwhile, speaking of treatments for cancer, according to New Atlas, Michael Irving, there's a steam blast treatment for prostate cancer.
Now, this would be non-metastatic kind, the more ordinary kind.
It's the kind that is curable.
But regular prostate cancer is curable with...
Some combination of chemo and hormone therapy and radiation, and those are really big side effects.
They're really big.
So this is, they send a little micro needle into your prostate, and they blast steam.
Just steam.
Apparently the steam does a good job of killing the cancer cells while leaving the other cells intact, which is really everything you want.
That's everything you want.
You want to leave the other cells intact.
And they're doing a trial which suggests that they've tested enough probably on animals that they know it works.
That would be amazing.
It's like one of the biggest problems for older men.
If that worked, the steam thing, that would be such a game changer for so many lives.
It doesn't help for the people who have metastatic version.
That would be different.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
I really, really didn't want to swear today, but I'm doing it in the service of attracting attention.
Not for my hits.
I don't know.
Do you really think I do things for clicks?
Does anybody think I do that?
I mean, if you're in the game of monetizing your content, I guess you're always doing things for clicks.
But I'm certainly not thinking of it that way when I hit a topic hard.
I'm thinking this is useful.
All right?
Are you guys...
Give me some feedback.
Are you okay with me pushing harder on this ivermectin thing?
Because the goal is to find out what's true, especially if it works.
I'd really like to know that.
All right.
So I'll keep pushing on that because I think it's useful.
It's going to be a lot of heat.
I'm going to get a lot of heat.
Thank you, Paul.
I always like it when I see the people whose opinions I... Appreciate the most or agreeing.
All right, good.
I guess I explained it well enough that I made the sale.
I see one no, no, no, no.
So the worry would be, the concern would be, that some people would not use it and maybe it would work.
That would be the concern, right?
I have the same concern, but here's the math you should do.
The few people, and this is a real risk, the few people who Hear me poo-poo it.
Maybe it's within the realm of possibility that I'll kill them.
Let me say it again.
If there's a treatment and somebody hears from me, they shouldn't try it or that it's not proven.
I'm not saying they should.
Actually, I'm saying they should try it.
Let me be clear.
Somebody asked me, you know, if you were in stage four and you didn't have any alternative, would you try it?
Yes.
Yes, I would.
So I want to be clear.
If you've got a friend, I should have said that, actually.
If you've got a friend that you think might get talked out of it, I would try it.
Well, the downside is a little bit.
I mean, you could have some side effects.
A little bit.
But yeah, I would try it.
Because the downside is low.
The reason I'm pushing is that if it works, maybe I talked a few people out of it that could have helped.
But we're going to be much, much faster in getting to does it help, yes or no?
Much, much faster.
So I'm going to take the hit.
And I'm going to borrow a page from Elon Musk.
One of the most impressive things I think that Elon Musk does is he says stuff like, well, if I build this car, probably some number of people are going to die in the car because, you know, it happens with every car.
If I build this rocket ship, well, Probably some people are going to die going to space, but we kind of need to do it.
So, instead of just doing what isn't really good for the world, which is saying, well, if one spider could die, I won't do it, he just says, somebody's got to make the hard choices.
This is a hard choice.
I am fully aware that if this works and if I talk somebody out of it, they could die.
I'm doing this knowingly, completely knowingly.
Because this is how you get to more people saved or more people not distracted by the wrong solution, I suppose.
All right, so that's the purpose.
Anyway, I'm going to talk to the good folks on Locals privately in 30 seconds.
