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, Climate Model Variable Flaws, TDS Deprogramming, Lesley Stahl, Jamie Dimon, Trump Tariffs, Mel Gibson's 3 Friends, Ivermectin & Cancer, Elon Musk, Cybertruck WiFi LA, Los Angeles Fire Claims, Extinct Delta Smelt, Adam Schiff Designated Liar, Newsom Executive Orders, Restricted Carbs Health Claims, 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.
Well, I just saw a headline that Jennifer Rubin quit the Washington Post.
Or was she asked to leave?
I don't know the details, but she had criticized the boss, so maybe she wasn't going to stay there that long.
So, if you don't know...
The Dilbert cartoon that normally is only behind the paywall, either on Axe or at Locals.
Dilbert is a Californian.
I'm not sure if you all knew that.
But Dilbert's a Californian.
And for next, this week, he will be figuring out what to do as the fire approaches his house.
I'll give you a little bit of a spoiler.
He's going to stay.
So Dilbert will stay in his house and try to defend it, and you'll find out how that goes on Sunday.
But today is the beginning of that series, if anybody's interested.
According to science, Neuroscience News says that dopamine and serotonin drive emotional word processing.
In other words, the actual dopamine and serotonin levels can be altered by words.
So your words change your chemical structure.
I mean, the words that you hear.
And that, in turn, changes how you feel.
Now, you know what they could have done instead of doing this big old study on dopamine and serotonin and words?
They could have just asked me, because every hypnotist knows this.
And I think every writer knows it.
I thought everybody knew that certain words carry power and that you can feel the difference.
Now, if you can feel the difference in the words, I always assumed it was something like dopamine and serotonin that made you feel it.
One of the advantages that I have in my profession as a writer, and I don't really know how common this is.
Maybe it's common.
I don't know.
I have an unusual relationship with words that I can feel them.
Almost like they have texture and not physically.
But it's as if they are almost like a pharmaceutical pill.
If I say some words, I can feel.
In other words, I go.
So when I'm writing, I'm picking the words that make me feel instead of.
And that makes the sentences look better.
And when you read it, you won't know the technique.
You'll just read it and you'll say, oh, I enjoyed reading that.
You won't know that I was intentionally tweaking your dopamine and serotonin with my word choice.
Anyway, you could have asked any writer.
I think they all know that.
In another study, according to Comstrator, grape juice can cure your erectile dysfunction.
And I did eat a bunch of grapes for breakfast before I came on, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to make it all the way through the show, but I don't know.
I might have to end soon.
We'll see.
We'll see if those grapes work.
According to Open the Books, Ohio State University is spending tens of millions of dollars on DEI. How much do you think they're spending?
Well, they spent over $13 million on pay for 201 employees that are doing DEI-related stuff.
Really?
And some of them are making well over $100 million.
One of them's got $300 million.
They're really well-paid, and there are 201 of them doing nothing but making sure that the DEI stuff gets taken care of.
So I highly recommend you do not go to Ohio State University.
According to Brighter Side News, Joshua Chavit is writing that there's a major study revealing that plants now absorb 30% more CO2 worldwide than we thought.
So I guess when they put this big adjustment into the climate models, you'll see all the climate models.
But just because of the new variable, which is a key variable.
It's a very important one, right?
Or will this be the 25th time you've heard of something that's a key variable in climate change that was completely revised, and yet the climate models are the same?
Now, let me see if I understand this.
The climate models are driven by data and assumptions.
And they're very, very well done, so you're getting the right prediction.
If you change the data and the assumptions of the biggest items, it's exactly the same.
Does that sound like real science to you?
That no matter how many times you find out the data and the assumptions are completely wrong, that you get the same line?
Are you starting to suspect something's up?
Yeah, that's like the ultimate tell.
The ultimate tell is that the assumptions and the data change, but not the prediction.
Not the prediction.
It's just the same.
Okay.
Well, Sam Harris is getting a little more heat for his TDS. And he goes so far as to say he wouldn't care if Biden had corpses of children in his basement.
It couldn't be nearly as bad as having Trump as a president.
And he said that it was a conspiracy to lie and get him out of office.
And of course, he would normally be against lying.
But now he's totally in favor of it if you're stopping Hitler.
So, you know, the one time that it kind of makes sense.
According to Sam, is if you're lying to stop Trump.
And he noted that he thought Trump University alone was worse than anything the Biden crime family has done.
Let's see.
The Biden crime family is instrumental in getting us into Ukraine war.
Probably had some impact on policy.
But Trump University is the bad thing.
Now, I've never defended Trump University.
I think everybody gets to look at that and incorporate it in their thinking and decide if you care.
But I will add this context.
And the context is not one that I'm confirmed is true, but I suspect is true.
Very highly suspect.
I don't think Trump knew what was happening in Trump University.
Because to imagine that he knew, you would have to say, oh...
He's got 400 or so Trump-related businesses, mostly licensing.
They're not necessarily owned by him.
I don't know if Trump University was a license deal or a different kind of partnership, but do you really think he was personally editing the materials and he was proofing everything?
That seems highly unlikely.
Here's what I think.
I think somebody pitched to him the idea that they would take all of his wisdom, Put it in a class, and he could share some of the money when people went.
And he said, hmm, okay, I trust you.
Sounds like a good idea.
Go ahead and do that.
And then when it turned out that it wasn't exactly what people thought they were paying for, I'm sure it was a surprise to him too.
Now, as far as I know, there's no reporting that I'm aware of, but you should fact check me on this.
I'm not sure there's any reporting that suggests he was aware.
Trump, aware of what anything was happening.
It's not like he was going into the Trump University office and holding meetings.
It was just one of the things that he put his name on, and there were hundreds.
So that context is important, but there might be a fact check that says he knew more than we know.
I don't know.
So more generally, I've been asked many times how to reprogram a TDS sufferer.
I'm going to give you kind of a quick take on the general way to do it.
Now, I'm not convinced this will work yet because I haven't done this exact thing with anybody yet, but I feel like it's the only path that could work.
It goes like this.
The first thing you need to do is change the frame, so you've got to reframe it.
The frame that most people are in, and it makes sense that they would be in it, is that they're trying to decide, is Trump good or is he evil?
Is Trump good or evil?
And then if you have TDS, you say Trump is evil.
And then if you try to argue against it, what happens?
Oh, but what about the other thing?
Then you debunk it, but what about the other thing?
You debunk it, what about the other thing?
And you debunk it.
That never works because they'll eventually run out of time and they'll be sure that there are three other things that you didn't debunk that are totally relevant.
You could have.
You just didn't have enough time to do all three.
Or they will say that you're lying or incorrect or CNN said something else.
So you can't really talk somebody into it directly if you're in the frame of, is Trump good?
Or is he evil?
And evil usually means a racist dictator.
But here's what you can do, I think.
Instead of the frame Trump is good or bad, get completely out of that and start working on the frame, is the news real or not real?
Now when I say is the news real, I don't mean the sports news or the finance news or the weather.
I think those are usually real, and if they're not real, at least they tried to make them real.
But when it comes to the important stuff, like geopolitical stuff and politics, I don't think any of it's real.
I don't think the science is real.
I don't think most of the finance is real.
So when you say that the news isn't real, and never has been...
You're really going to have to sell that.
If you can sell them on the fact that news is not real, then they can find the answer themselves.
But let me just go through this a little bit more.
So here's how I would approach it.
Blah, blah, blah.
Trump is evil.
Trump is evil.
And then you say, you know, it's really hard to have a conversation about whether Trump is evil or good if we have a different opinion of whether the news is real or not real.
See, that's the reframe.
So you try to keep them there.
They'll try to escape and try to keep them there.
Then here's your explanation.
You know, I heard somebody say, Adam's guy saying, that there's no way that any government, whether it's a dictatorship or any of the democracies, there's no way any of them can allow the news to be completely uncontrolled.
And the reason is...
Every single country has the same requirement.
They need to get the citizens on their side and not to be questioning too much what the government's saying about the important stuff.
If the government wants to start a war or increase taxes or do something, the government will require that the main brainwashing mechanism to get people on board, which is the news, they'll require control of it.
There probably is no exception, and maybe never will be, To the fact that intelligence groups will eventually come to control every government.
And that's because they have the tools to do it.
And if they don't do it on day one, eventually you'll get a leader in that role in the intelligence community who will say, you know, we should probably have some conversations with CNN. Maybe make some links.
And then you start making suggestions to CNN. You know, it would be much better if you said this instead of that.
And in a variety of ways, you can bribe or work with or persuade.
And eventually, the news is saying what you want, and they're even checking with you before they report stuff.
So I would say it's well demonstrated that our CIA, for many decades in the United States, was tasked with controlling the media.
And they did.
Now, this is well documented.
So if you can't sell that, you have to stop.
You have to sell them first.
That is universally true.
It's in every country, all the time, and that it's documented.
Now, they won't ask for any documentation that Russia and China have fake news, because they'll believe that.
You're going to have to convince them that in the United States it's always been fake.
Again, not the sports and the weather and the natural disasters.
But the geopolitical stuff, the stuff that the intelligence people would care about.
Because it's the difference between their ops working and not working.
And of course they want them to work.
So if you can sell that, then you can go to the next stuff.
And you could say, what about those every time there's 99 experts on the same side?
If somebody still believes that 99 experts on the same side means something, They probably didn't go through the pandemic, but if they did, just remind them that all those experts have a boss.
Bosses, let's say it's a hospital, if you're a doctor or some bigger entity, the larger entity is kind of forced to do the standard things.
So if you were to disagree with the standard things, probably there's an insurance risk problem, but there's definitely a boss problem.
So the boss will tell the expert, no.
Or the expert needs to get some funding.
Are they going to get some funding to prove that climate change doesn't exist?
No.
So if you follow the money, the money pretty much guarantees that the 99% or the 98% is, first of all, not even true.
But secondly, it wouldn't mean anything.
It has no predictive value.
I would also talk about Gelman.
The theory that if you're an expert in a field, you can tell that your field is fake, but you think the other stuff might be real because you don't know.
So if you can get somebody to understand that the CIA has always controlled the news and always should and always needs to, and it can never change, and you might not even want it to because I don't think a country can survive.
If the news is completely uncontrolled.
I hate to say it.
I prefer that it be uncontrolled, but I don't know that we could survive it.
And you also need to keep away from getting into the Trump detail as you're doing this and just say it really doesn't help to debate with somebody who doesn't have a background in understanding that the news is not just sometimes wrong.
It's necessarily, by design, it has to be wrong.
And it's easy to demonstrate because every expert in every domain will tell you that the stuff in their domain is wrong.
And anybody who is a public figure will tell you that the reporting on them is all wrong.
Spend five minutes with me on the internet and I'll show you that everything I'm criticized for wasn't true.
It's not that I have a reason for what I did.
It's that the criticisms are 100% not true.
Everything that people accuse me of today...
Not true.
Didn't happen.
Right?
Now, every public figure will have that same story.
That most of the things about them are in a context.
There's something missing.
Not true.
So, if you can get people to believe that all celebrities know their news is not true, all experts know that their news is not true, and then here's the kill shot.
Everybody in the intelligence community knows the news isn't true.
So those are the three I'd ask.
Right?
Then, so you're working on sort of a common sense argument that there's no way the news could be real.
And if some of it was real, you wouldn't know the difference because it would be mixed in with so much that isn't, you couldn't tell.
And then, if you can establish that news...
And whether the news is real is the big question.
And if you can even get them to accept that that's the important question.
Because what I think is that Trump supporters, the TDS people, believe that the Trump people are evil and that they're fully aware of all the evil that Trump does according to them, right?
But if you can get them to just accept the frame...
That what you should be talking about is whether news in general is real.
And by the way, don't make the mistake.
Don't make the mistake of saying it's a good thing I get the real news on Fox News.
That's the end of the conversation.
Don't do that.
Do not say there's some real news and you watch it.
Don't say that.
You lose, lose, lose as soon as you say, well, the news I watch is real.
You should watch some real stuff.
Oh, you have no chance.
And by the way, if you say that even once, you'll never, ever persuade anybody on this topic.
That's the end of your credibility.
You have to be consistent and say that the news, all the news, on the important stuff is being influenced.
Then, if you can get them to believe that it's a world in which the news is maybe not real, They're sort of on the fence, but they're not going so far.
That's when you break out the hoax list.
And you say, if I'm right that the news is always fake, then I should be able to give you lots of examples of fake news that are clearly debunked.
Would you agree?
My theory, that it's always fake, should produce a whole bunch of examples.
And then people say, yeah.
I mean, unless you're making this up.
There must be a lot of examples of this so-called fake news.
And that's when you pull out the list of 50 fake stories.
You can find it on the internet.
Just look for a hoax list.
It'll pop up.
Some of them are 12. Some of them are 50. But any of them work.
And then once you have the list, you know what happens next, right?
Would the TDS suffer?
Well, nothing on that list is true.
Those are not hoaxes.
Those are all real.
That's when...
You go to the fine people hoax and say, let me just pick one.
And you see if you can make the fine people hoax debunked and stick.
Tell them that Snopes debunked it.
Tell them that Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, I think Bill Ackman, a number of the most famous people have turned toward Trump specifically because they found out that was fake.
And then here's the key.
If they still don't believe it, Or they think maybe this one's right, but all the other ones are true.
Then aim them at the website, americandebunk.com.
American, with an N at the end of American, americandebunk.com.
It's a very good list, very readable, with the examples of how the hoaxes were created.
Because it's not enough to say they're not true.
You have to show the mechanism by which they were created and spread.
Once you see the mechanism, then you can see that a lot of them are created the same way.
And then you say, but you know, when you hear that Trump's a racist, it's hard to explain why Michael Jackson lived in his building and they were good buddies.
Mike Tyson loves him to death for all the help he's given him.
Larry Elder says he's terrific.
Byron Donaldson wants to help him as much as he can.
Do you think that the people who knew him best...
Think he's a racist?
And the answer is nobody.
We have not produced anybody who knows him personally who thinks he's a racist.
That's got to mean something.
Because if you think that Michael Jackson didn't know what racism looked like, or that Mike Tyson couldn't identify racism in the wild, or that Larry Elder or Byron Donaldson would just not notice or somehow overlook it, no.
No, yeah, and also McGuire.
I think the fine people hoax flipped him as well.
Anyway, and then your final end of your persuasion is to note that if anything they'd said about Trump was true, why are they so happy about the peaceful transfer of power?
Why did they chat and laugh with him at Carter's funeral?
And then you walk away.
Don't wait for somebody to be convinced.
They don't.
That doesn't happen while you're talking to them.
It has to sink in.
They've got to do a little research on their own.
Sometimes they can get there.
But the key point, I can't stress enough, is you've got to take them out of the frame of Trump good versus bad and into the frame news is true versus news is not.
That's the only opening you have.
Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon was just on 60 Minutes and Leslie Stahl, one of the worst people in the world, I mean, I hate to say it, but she just seems like a terrible human being based on her performance in her profession.
So she has Jamie Dimon on there, and she wants to use him because he would be considered, I think, in the United States.
You'd call him the top banker in the United States because he's in charge of the biggest bank.
But you would also say that in finance and economics in general, If you're going to ask somebody their opinion, you'd be about the best you could do.
Right?
So now 60 Minutes has the most credible banker finance guy, and now they can really give it to Trump.
Because they're going to find out all the things that Trump's doing that nobody smart could ever, ever agree to.
And she goes in for the kill shot.
This is good.
She goes, all right, Jamie Diamond.
Thinking smartest finance guy in the world, knows everything about business, banking, the world.
I'm paraphrasing, but those Trump tariffs, what do you think of that?
The Trump tariffs.
Now, this is going to be really a kill shot.
Leslie Stahl has it so set up perfectly.
The most credible, wisest, smartest finance banking guy.
And now, he's going to answer the question.
Of how dumb that stupid Trump guy is.
How stupid, stupid he is with his tariffs, and tariffs never work, and nobody smart would ever do it, and don't you understand it's just a tax on Americans?
Except that's not what happened.
Jamie Dimon said, well, art of the deal.
Tariffs are used for negotiating.
Every country does it.
It's really important.
It's a good tool.
Trump's doing everything right with tariffs.
And go to hell, Leslie Stahl.
Go to hell.
Go straight to hell.
Don't stop.
Don't pack a bag.
Don't bring a snack.
Just go right to hell.
Because did you actually think you were going to get a different answer?
Just think how badly confused the press is.
I don't think...
I don't think...
She understood tariffs and she thought she was going to get what all the stupid pundits say, which is, oh, can't do tariffs.
Tariffs never work.
It's a tax.
Instead of what all the smart people say.
100% of the smart people are on the same side, by the way.
I want to be clear about this.
There is no disagreement on tariffs among smart people.
None.
At least smart people who understand the world.
Business and economics and negotiating.
So that specific kind of smart people.
The Jamie Dimon smart people.
The Elon Musk smart people.
They all know that you use this for negotiating and that it's necessary.
So that was just wonderful.
So Jamie Dimon had nothing bad to say about Trump and even said that he tried calling Trump.
I guess he got to the staff because Trump wasn't available and offered his help.
Imagine having Jamie Dimon on for the express purpose of trashing on Trump, and it goes away with the best recommendation you've ever heard.
Because he's really credible.
I mean, he's not even a Republican.
So if you can get your Democrat banker to unambiguously say, yeah, these are good things.
This is exactly what Trump should be doing and why.
Wow.
So good.
All right, I have to talk about this again because it's too darn important.
You all heard that Mel Gibson was on Joe Rogan, and one of the things he said is he had three friends cured a cancer with ivermectin and fentanyl, which makes all of you say, my God, the big pharma is hiding the cure, and Mel Gibson knows the answer, and his friends have told him.
All right, here's my prediction.
I have told you many times that in this world, we often can't tell what's true.
Because our brains maybe aren't even made for that.
I don't know if our brains are even made for what's true.
But one thing that I promote as the closest you can get to truth is prediction.
So I'm going to make a specific prediction about this Mel Gibson claim.
And then you can see if I have the closest take on reality, because that would mean my prediction is true.
And we'll see if the other people's...
The opposite prediction would be that if Mel Gibson personally knows three people cured a cancer by these two things, that lots of other people are going to try it.
I'm not recommending it.
I'm just saying it's obvious lots of people are going to try it.
We're going to know pretty soon, aren't we?
Like, pretty soon, there will be no doubt whatsoever whether it works or not.
The oncologist would see it.
There would be lots...
You know, you would know.
Everybody would have a...
Everybody would know somebody who got cured, right?
So here's my prediction.
You'll never see, never, not once, you'll never see an interview that includes the alleged cancer-cured people with their test results, with their doctor, being questioned by a skeptical doctor, just to make sure that the right questions get asked you know if Joe Rogan is talking to the doctor and the patient he's not going to know the right question to ask
It's actually kind of hard.
You really have to know a lot of the arcane stuff about different cancers, etc.
But a doctor could do it.
So just imagine how important it is that if these things work, these two easily prescribed, not very minor side effects, At least at low dosages.
And wouldn't it be the greatest thing in the world if this were true?
So part of the reason, which you know, is I'm being a dick because somebody has to.
So the reason I'm being a complete dick on this topic is I'm trying to get somebody to come forward and do what they should do.
Cure cancer.
Cure cancer.
All you need, simple model.
You don't need, I'm not going to ask you for A controlled clinical trial, you know, with actual humans.
Just show me three people who couldn't have been cured.
Incurable is a better example than a curable version.
Show me an incurable cancer, a real patient, real test results before and after, real doctor sitting next to him, and another real doctor saying, okay, let me understand to make sure that I know your claim.
All right?
Just three.
You would only need to see that three times, and you would have me convinced, and I would be telling everybody to take those damn drugs.
Is that fair?
But until you see that, you're just seeing crap.
Now, why is it that so many people are sure it's real, and they're sure they know somebody, even Mel Gibson?
He doesn't know one person.
He knows three people.
Doesn't your common sense tell you it's probably true?
Because I don't think Mel Gibson's lying.
I have zero, zero belief that he's lying.
None.
Does Mel Gibson look like he would go on Joe Rogan and just lie about some weird drug?
No.
No, he's not lying.
He actually has three friends who actually told him it worked.
I'm sure.
I'm sure it's true.
I'm sure it's true that he was told.
Now, there are other people too.
So today on X, other people were saying, yeah, my cousin, here's a story.
Look at this YouTube.
Talk to this doctor who has 15 different cases.
They're all the same.
And here's why none of that is valid.
It goes like this.
The patient says X. The friend who heard it hears Y. And the doctor knows Z. The doctor, the friend, and the patient.
We're not even talking about the same stuff.
So by the time it gets to you, it's coming through a friend, and the friend doesn't know.
The friend doesn't know what questions to ask to make sure it's the real deal.
For example, if you were the friend and your friend said, I got chemo and some hormonal treatment, and then I took these two drugs and I got better.
Would the friend know to ask, well, does anybody ever get better with those treatments and that cancer without taking those drugs?
And the answer would be, yeah, they do.
So you can't tell if the drug made any difference.
Because sometimes those are enough.
Then you would ask, what about prostate cancer?
And then you'd find out, oh, it looks like as long as it's combined with other treatments, it seems it worked.
Would the friend be smart enough to know that regular prostate cancer, if it hasn't metastasized, is 100% curable without those drugs?
So if somebody is getting cured of that specific cancer, the one that's localized just to the prostate, that doesn't really tell you anything, because they were going to get cured anyway.
Do people know the difference between metastasized prostate cancer, which can't be cured, as far as we know?
We're the one that can be cured 100% of the time, which is the local one.
No, the friend doesn't know that.
They don't know what to ask.
So everything you're hearing is the third party or somebody who's in the business and you say, hmm, you're sort of in the business of promoting this cure.
So follow the money.
Says don't believe the ones who are doing it for money.
But you probably could believe the patients who just said, all right, I'm going to take a risk.
This is too private, but I'm going to do it to cure cancer in the world.
Anyway, so if you see that, you'll know what's happening.
So some of it is wishful hearing.
People think they heard something they didn't hear, didn't ask the right questions.
Some of it is conspiracy reflex, because if you saw the pharmaceutical business, Apparently lying about ivermectin, if that's what you think, lying about ivermectin in the pandemic, then you say to yourself, wait a minute, if everybody was lying before, which one of those pharmaceuticals is paying Adams to say this doesn't work?
Nobody's paying me.
I'm trying to cure cancer.
I want it to work.
And it might work, by the way.
Let me say it unambiguously.
The lack of...
The fact that I haven't seen evidence that convinces me doesn't mean it doesn't work.
And it doesn't mean it doesn't work in some context, maybe not all.
But if it worked in any context at all, it'd be pretty darn important to a lot of people.
So we're going to push it.
Now, I want to be as obnoxious and dick-like on this as I possibly can, because I want the people who want to embarrass me and put me in my place and show that I'm a big freaking idiot.
To really get mad.
Come on.
Come on.
Embarrass me.
Prove that you can cure cancer just with a little message about how it worked for you, with your test results, with your doctor.
And the only test results I want to see are the cancer-specific ones.
I don't need to see the rest of your health care.
Don't care.
All right?
All right.
Let's read some comments from the stupid people.
Here's the stupid people.
Scott says he's a narcologist today.
All right, so that's one of the comments.
That's stupid.
All right, so a number of people said to me, Scott, do some research.
Look at this site.
It's full of evidence, and it'd be some NIH government site.
And those people don't know the difference between the laboratory clinical trials.
And the real world.
There are a bunch of laboratory-only tests that show that ivermectin can kill cancer.
So can a lot of things that don't work in humans.
There's almost no predictive power from all of those tons of evidence that it works in the lab.
It doesn't mean anything.
But we think it does, because we don't know that that which works in the lab may or may not work in an animal.
And if it works in an animal, there's only a 5% chance it works in a human.
You also don't want to listen to anybody who says there was an animal trial, because as far as I know, that's just something that people think happened but didn't.
And you definitely don't want to listen to a doctor who says they have a patient that was cured.
That means nothing, because you don't know the doctor, and they haven't given you the name of the patient to confirm it, and you don't know what else they were doing.
That is nothing.
So the things that are nothing are lots of published clinical trials of just in the lab.
Also, nothing is the animal test because they didn't happen as far as I can tell.
And also, nothing is there's a doctor on the internet who says it works, but you don't have any access to ask the patient.
None of those are evidence, not even a little bit.
Now, remember, I'm not asking for a giant trial.
I don't need it at all.
I don't need a giant trial.
Just show me anybody, any real person that has test results that would suggest that the ivermectin and the fenbendazole or either one were actually effective.
Anybody.
Now, this always makes people mad, and I'm trying to make you as mad as possible.
You should work as hard as you can to prove me wrong.
Deal?
All right.
All right.
Smirconish had a little survey.
73% of his audience thinks that climate change was responsible for the L.A. fires, and 27% think it was government mismanagement.
How would you like to be a CNN viewer and be so confused that you think climate change caused the L.A. fires?
You'd be such a bubble.
I feel sorry for them.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk is bringing cyber trucks to LA that will be equipped with Starlink so that people in the areas can get Wi-Fi just by being near the cyber truck.
I don't know how many cyber trucks it takes to cover it, but he's telling people they'll have to wait a week for their delivery because he's going to use them for this.
And they got snacks and security in them.
So why is it that Elon Musk is the one who can help in every emergency.
That is so unique to him, right?
It seems like he's put together the tools that are just always the right tool for whatever the emergency is.
That's pretty amazing.
All right, let's talk about the fire.
I know I beat this too much, and you don't care if you don't live in California, but I think there are a few things to learn from it.
First of all, there's a claim that three of the major fires started at the same time.
If they started at the same time, you can eliminate homeless people as the cause.
If it started in three places completely not near each other, I feel like you can eliminate most of the natural, accidental, coincidental things.
I would say if it's true, and I don't have a confirmation of this, just something on the internet, if it's true that three of the major fires in LA started at the same time in different places, I would say that's at least an 80% chance it's terrorism.
And I'll go further.
If it's not terrorism, I don't understand why it wouldn't be.
Like, why aren't they doing that?
Now that they know it works.
If it wasn't terrorism, it will be, right?
So, it looks like it was.
In my opinion, it looks like it was, but that's not confirmed.
People said to me, Scott...
What we should do is the Japanese water defense system, and there's a video going around of these sort of powerful hose-like sprinklers, sprayers, being used in a Japanese context where the roofs of the building were wood.
Now, if you have a wooden, burnable roof, you really need to replace that.
If you can, because you don't want a burnable roof.
These Japanese structures were traditional, older structures that you're trying to keep.
They would never build that today, I don't think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt they would build something with highly flammable roof even in Japan today.
So that Japanese water defense system is not applicable to most situations.
And certainly not applicable if you have a tile roof or something less burnable.
The case of the Delta smelt fish.
So you know the story.
And again, we're still in sort of the fog of war, so I don't know what to believe yet.
But I'll tell you what's being reported.
Just put a pin in it and tell yourself, check back later.
Probably some of it will be debunked, but I don't know.
But Jim Hoft at the Gateway Pundit is talking about that smelt fish that allegedly was part of the reason that California doesn't have reservoirs and enough water to do what it wants, is that they wanted to save the smelt fish, and that meant getting rid of some of our state resource places because it was bad for the fish.
But here's the punchline.
Nobody's seen a Delta smelt fish.
In over a decade.
So they saved a fish, which as far as I can tell doesn't exist.
They saved the fish that doesn't exist.
And the only cost of that was the entire economy of California for the fish that doesn't exist.
Now it might exist in some other places in small numbers, but it doesn't seem to exist where they changed the entire water.
Reservoir system to save it.
So I'm having trouble believing that this is real, that they saved a fish that doesn't exist and it cost them the entire state of California.
It's a little too on the nose.
You know what I mean?
It's like, oh, you environmentalists saved an extinct fish, to use Trump's word that's a little bit hyperbolic.
It's a little too clean.
I'm going to say, if I had to bet on something that we think is a fact today, that later you'll find out there's something about it that you didn't know, I think there's something about this one we don't know.
But it's also possible that they destroyed the entire state to save a fish that doesn't exist.
Because we do see that level of stupidity in every element of the government.
So to imagine it couldn't happen in this case would be more than I can claim.
All right, there's also the empty reservoir story.
I think it's been empty since 2009, but somehow the fire department was not aware it was empty.
That's one of the claims.
And that knowing that the winds were coming, there was probably time to refill it because it was intentionally drained, which means that turning it back on...
It must have been possible.
But I think there may be more to that story as to why it was drained and how practical it was or was not to refill.
There's probably more to it.
Don't know, but we'll find out.
Meanwhile, Adam Schiff and even the Governor Newsom either lied or were wrong when they said the reservoirs were full at the initiation of these fires.
That's what Schiff said.
Now, the thing you need to know about Schiff, And I tell you this often.
If you know what happened, you don't know anything.
If you know who was involved, well, then you might know it.
Schiff is one of what I call the designated liars.
So when the Democrats need to tell a really big lie, like the really big ones, and everybody's going to find out it's a lie later, they send out Schiff.
He's like their designated liar.
Because he'll say anything, and apparently it doesn't hurt him because he got promoted to senator.
Right?
He went from the House to the Senate this year.
So clearly Schiff can say any wild lie and will have no impact on his career.
Maybe even help him.
So if you see, you know, Eric Swalwell or Schiff or Brennan, John Brennan or Clapper, they are the designated liars.
The people who go out and shamelessly say whatever they want to say but isn't true.
All right.
So there's that.
So Governor Newsom announced a bunch of executive orders that, roughly speaking, what they do is they relax some of the environmental regulations so that people can get going and rebuild their homes.
Now, as far as that goes, without knowing the details of the things that he's altering with the order, Seems like the right thing at about the right time.
Would you agree?
So it's not my job to say every single thing that the government does is wrong.
So yes, even if it was too early, it's not too early.
Because people need to understand that the government is going to get rid of regulations.
Otherwise, there's no hope of rebuilding.
There's just no hope.
So at least this gives them hope.
I don't know that this will be enough, and I don't know.
That the executive order will stop all the environmental groups from, for example, suing.
What happens if Newsom says, executive order, we're going to relax this regulation, but then some activist just sues you because they're trying to save another extinct fish.
Can they do that?
Can they do that even if there's an executive order?
Probably.
And then you've got a legal problem.
Who knows where this is going to go?
But I would say, in general, it's a good thing that the government said we're going to relax whatever things that make sense to relax.
We're going to do it.
Now, I had to delete one of my posts on X because there were too many NPCs commenting and it was exhausting me.
So you know what the NPCs say, right?
So I'll tell you what I said, and then you'll know exactly what they said.
I said what we need is some pre-approved home models.
In other words, something that you could stick together.
You could add a bedroom, but the bedrooms would be pre-approved.
You could add another bathroom already pre-approved.
So in other words, as long as you stayed within the pad that you were building on, Or not much difference.
You could kind of put this new building.
All pre-approved parts.
And it would be designed.
Here's the key.
It would be designed to be better than what you had.
Right?
Now here's the part the NPCs don't hear.
It's better than what you had.
It looks better.
It works better.
It's easier to maintain.
It will last longer.
It's way better than what you had.
Now if you don't hear the part about it's way better than what you had.
You're going to say, well, why do I want to build a tiny home?
And I'll say, who said tiny home?
I said build it on exactly the same pad.
Same size as you were living in.
I don't want a tiny home.
And then the NPC said, great, a communist hellhole where every building looks the same.
Thank you very much, but I like my custom house.
I like my custom house.
To which I say, That's not an option.
If you try to build a custom house, you're going to wait 10 years for approval, even with these executive orders, I think.
That's my personal view.
So under the assumption that it's not really practical to do a custom house and it would be way more expensive, that's not really an option.
If it becomes an option...
To build a custom house to rebuild the fireplaces, if it becomes an option, and it's affordable, or you're rich enough to do it anyway, where in my suggestion did it say that you couldn't do that?
At what point did I say, you can't build your own house?
No.
I just said, wouldn't it be nice that people who want to do it quickly and have a much, much better place than they had before could just pick the off-the-shelf-approved stuff?
Slap it together.
They would all look a little different, because let's say you could put different facings on it.
You could add different sizes.
You could add a bonus room, but I don't have the bonus room.
You have four bedrooms.
I have three.
You have maybe even two stories, and I have one.
So would they all look alike?
They don't have to.
They don't have to.
But there would be a similarity to them that might bother you.
That's a trade-off.
But no, you don't get to have everything and have your custom home and it's cheap and you can do it right away.
That wasn't the alternative.
You have to understand.
This is the, what if there's no other alternative?
So if there is another alternative, do that.
And then the funniest one is people said, Scott, you've revealed yourself as the World Economic Forum globalist you are.
I can tell that the way you're approaching this is that you want to turn this into a 15-minute city, like the globalists want to turn everything into a 15-minute city.
And let me tell you, son, nobody's going to want to live in a 15-minute city where everything's close by and you don't need to drive.
Nobody's going to like it.
It's not going to be anything that any human wants to experience.
And then I say, did you know that...
It was already a 15-minute city.
It wasn't designed to be that, but that is exactly one of the top reasons that the residents gave for why it was better than any place in the world to live, because everything was convenient in L.A. So you got the L.A. weather moderated by the beach, so you had the best weather ever, because it was next to the coast.
On top of that, You could walk to incredible places, and your neighbors knew each other.
It was a 15-minute city.
So all of you people in your 15-minute World Economic Forum, nobody's going to like it.
It was the best place in California to live, according to everybody.
According to everybody, it was the best place in California.
And it was a 15-minute city.
Now, it did have cars.
And I don't think there's any reason that you would ban cars.
But you didn't need one because you never had to leave if you didn't want to.
And you could get an Uber if you wanted to.
So you don't have to wonder if the 15-minute city is a good idea.
It was already the number one best place in the whole best state.
So there's that.
Meanwhile, Billy Bush was on Tucker.
I mentioned this before, but as Molly Hemingway was pointing out, There was a connection that maybe some of us missed.
I guess it was reported, but neither Molly nor I saw it when it was.
So here's the story.
You remember the Access Hollywood?
Grab them by the tape that was released in 2016. And Billy Bush got fired because he was involved in the conversation.
That's all it took.
And it was in the Washington Post.
So the story was broken in the Washington Post.
But did you know?
That it originated from NBC. So NBC was the source of the tape.
They had it from, I guess, The Apprentice.
And did you know that the co-editor of the Harvard Crimson at one point, the head of NBC was a guy named Noah Oppenheim, and his co-editor on the Harvard Crimson was the person who received the leak.
At the Washington Post.
Or at least it got to the Washington Post.
But the person who got the leak was a known, close companion to the person who had the tape.
And here's the next part.
That both the NBC head and the person he leaked the tape to were, here it comes, both of them were actual groomsmen in the Chelsea Clinton wedding.
Not attendees.
Not invited.
Groomsmen.
They were actually groomsmen at the daughter of the other candidate.
Okay.
And then, as Molly points out, shortly after running the information operation against Trump, the one who received the information was giving a contributing gig at MSNBC, which I... I assume it's because of all that good work with their op.
So that doesn't really change anything.
I think we all assumed it was some kind of an insider anti-Trump deal.
It was pretty much what it looked like.
Hamas says that it's willing to trade 33 of the 98 remaining hostages, if I have that number correct.
And I guess Israel is offering a one-week ceasefire.
And some prisoner swap, so Israel would be asked to give far more prisoners than every one person that they're getting back.
You know what I'm going to say about this.
33 out of 98?
You get a zero for effort.
Zero.
So remember Trump said, if every one of them is not released by Inauguration Day, there's going to be hell to pay.
33 out of 98?
I'm very happy for the families and the people who would be released if this happens.
It's not guaranteed yet.
But if it happens, I'd be very happy for the 33 people and their families.
However, still hell to pay.
That buys you nothing.
Trump cannot allow hostages to be part of a negotiation.
Hostages, all returning, are the ticket to have a conversation about a ceasefire.
The ceasefire is not based on you releasing some of them.
That could never be the cause for ending cessation.
Now, Netanyahu is offering a week, and I don't think a week makes any difference at this point, so he's kind of offering them nothing in terms of the ceasefire.
So it may happen, it may not, but whether it happens, and I hope it does, shouldn't have any impact on the fact that Trump's going to go full Trump on him.
According to Nina Techholz at the Heritage Foundation, she said if you implement a diet that drastically reduces carbs, you can reverse type 2 diabetes.
You can reverse hypertension, most cardiovascular risk.
You can reverse schizophrenia and bipolar disorder or reduce them and reduce impression anxiety by 79%.
And she says, I know that sounds crazy.
I'm going to say yes, I don't believe any of that's true.
I believe it might be true that if you stopped eating refined sugars and added sugars and stuff like that.
That's interesting.
There's some kind of drone report?
I've got to click on that.
All schools...
Ooh, Steve Lookner is reporting that all schools in the Montclair, New Jersey district are closed because of a security concern.
They were made aware of a potential threat to the district.
Huh.
So we don't know if that's drone-related or coincidental that it's in New Jersey.
But if it's a system-wide risk and not just one school, what would that be about?
I don't know.
Anyway, I'm not sure I believe this, that all you have to do is restrict your carbs and all these problems go away at that rate and it happens kind of quickly in a few weeks.
I'd love it to be true, but I don't believe it to be true.
Now, I'm more likely to be wrong on that one than the other topic, but you should definitely cut down on your sugar and I think that part everybody agrees on.
But I'm not sure that people evolved to not be able to eat a potato.
I don't know.
MSNBC ticker came through.
Okay.
Well, you know, diabetes would be the one thing that seems to make sense if you don't eat sugar.
If you tell me, all right, your problem is regulating sugar.
So what you should do is have way less sugar in the form of carbs or anything else.
Now, that would make sense.
So if the only claim was that your diabetes could be improved by not eating any sugar, I think I could say that that's in the realm.
But the other things are way less obvious, and I think I'd be a skeptic on that.
But I'd love to be wrong.
I would love to be wrong.
Yeah, I know how the autophagy works.
If you starve these cells, they start eating the cancer cells for food if they don't have enough food on their own.
I'm a little bit skeptical on all the diet stuff.
But I wouldn't be surprised if some people can just eat meat all day and don't eat any carbs and everything's fine.
I don't know about curing all the major disease.
There are lots of books on the carnivore topic.
Read them.
That's the most obnoxious thing that anybody ever says to me, that I haven't done the homework, I've got to read this book.
There's nothing more obnoxious than that.
If you've been with me for a while, you've watched me debunk countless things accurately.
Without reading the book about it.
If it ever helped, I'd read the book about it.
It won't help.
Because if you read a book, it's like the documentary effect, which I teach you.
If you watch a documentary that has one point of view, you will be convinced when it's done.
Five minutes later, if you watch another documentary that had the opposite point of view, you'll be sure that the first one was fake and the second one was real.
Then if you go back to the first one, And watch it a second time.
You'll say, you know, I don't know why I thought this wasn't real.
This looks very convincing.
If you read a book that makes any claim, it's the documentary effect.
Because there's nobody in the book who's got a different opinion.
So nobody's saying, okay, but the other side is this.
So a book will be very convincing.
And so you're saying, well, if you read this book, you'll be convinced.
I'm sure I would.
That's why I'm not reading the book.
Because the book will be convincing.
That's why you don't read it.
Does that make sense?
So I see the world through a persuasion filter.
So I don't want to submit myself to persuasion that I know will convince me, but will be lower than the standard that should convince me.
I know it will work.
That's why I'm not doing it.
You can do better by simply Googling what are in books.
You know, because that stuff ends up being on the internet.
So if you take perplexity, which is a great, great app for searching, and you just say something like, there's a claim that eating a carnivore diet is good for this or that disease.
Can you give me both sides?
So perplexity will bullet point and then give you links if you want to see them to both sides.
Now, if I get a bullet pointed in both sides, that's not the documentary effect.
So I would say to you who recommended I read the book, which is really dickish, honestly.
It just always comes off as arrogant.
I would suggest that you use perplexity or a good search engine to show both sides so that the first time you're exposed to the content, You see both sides.
Now, I know what you're going to say, but Scott, the big pharma is suppressing the internet and it's all fake.
Sometimes that's a problem, maybe more than we want.
But you know books are written that are completely fake, right?
It's the most common thing in the world.
So reading a book is not telling you anything.
You know, that you could guarantee.
And neither is, you know, the search engine thing.
But at least you'll be aware of the arguments on both sides, and maybe you can take it somewhere that way.
All right.
Now, this would be the point where the NPCs pretend I said something I didn't say and then criticize me.
Would anybody like to do that?
Best shape of your life?
Thank you.
You do look like you're in good shape.
Nicely done.
Now, you can tell people to read my books That's different.
different.
What if you read one book?
You just need...
Go in.
Go in.
Yeah, pasta and wheat were my downfall.
So you should not tell people to read my books for my scientific claims.
So that part's true.
So my books are general...
The type of advice that you can just look at and try.
You don't have to do a scientific study.
Reframe your brain is probably the best one, yes, of my books.
Reframe your brain.
You'll love it.
but change your life.
Hmm.
All right.
Yes, spaghetti sauce is loaded with sugar.
Portion size is an issue.
Use your simulation approach hypothesis with a physicist and a biologist in place of your doctors.
My observation is that that won't work.
But you're saying books are bad?
No, books that make a one scientific claim are not reliable.
I didn't say bad.
Not reliable would be the way to go.
You make your own spaghetti sauce with no sugar?
You mean no added sugar?
What's that taste like?
I don't know.
That'd be interesting.
All right.
Big news.
All right, let's see what Jennifer Rubin says.
I left the post.
Corporate and billionaire media are failing to meet the moment.
Oh, she's going to work with Norm Eisen, the other TDS person.
They're launching contrarian news, which is funny because they always agree with the mainstream.
Glenn Greenwald said that.
Politics, cooking, humor, film, and pets.
Nobody's going to watch that.
And she's going to leave X because she refuses to enable the Elon Trump presidency.
All right.
If she has as many viewers or followers as I think and she's trying to launch a new website, the dumbest thing you could do is get off of X. There's probably nothing that she does that has more followers because of the type of work she does.
And she's going to leave X while she doesn't have a way to advertise her new thing.
That might be the dumbest thing anybody's ever done.
She's going to get rid of the primary mechanism for free publicity, the only kind that's really good, right before she needs it.
So she's going to have it for years, and then right before she needs it, she's going to get rid of it.
Good plan there, Jen.
Anyway.
Chase Hughes.
Tews.
Thank you.
He talks about hypnosis.
Yeah, I saw a little teaser on that.
All right, that's all I got for now.
I'm going to say a few words to the locals people privately, but the rest of you I will see tomorrow.
