God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Anthropic AI, Apple US Manufacturing, Nuclear Stocks Surge, Social Connections Health Impact, Autism Causes, Partisan Budget Persuasion, JFK Assassination Hearings, Harvard's Power, Mike Benz, Democrat's Awakening, J6 Protester Intentions, Metastatic Prostate Cancer, Gain of Function Labs, Weaponized Viruses, Weaponized COVID Theory, Long COVID, 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.
So I'll just look at my comments in the mainstream, which will work perfectly.
Bye.
That's that's that answer then.
Bye-bye.
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 try to take it up to a level that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells to sign a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, and fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go!
Mmm, not bad.
Well, have you heard that the penny is going to be discontinued?
Here's a question for all of you.
When was the last time you touched a penny?
I don't even remember.
I can't remember the last time I touched a penny.
When was the last time you bought something with cash?
Again, I do not even remember.
Last time I bought something with cash.
Last year, maybe?
Two years ago?
No idea.
But I don't think I'll miss the penny.
It turns out it costs about four cents to make a penny.
So we're going to drop that penny.
Don't touch your pennies anyway.
They're disgusting.
Here's some science that's kind of exciting.
Did you know?
I'll bet you didn't.
There's a pretty good chance that there will be a pill that will help your sleep apnea.
You know the people who put on those big CPAC things and then that's the end of your sex life?
Well, there's a FDA submission.
It's not approved yet.
But there's some combination of two existing drugs.
That apparently make a big improvement in your sleep apnea.
So imagine getting rid of your CPAP and just having to take a pill before you go to sleep.
Think of all the pills you'll take before sleep.
You'll take your birth control, you'll take your Viagra, and then you'll take your sleep apnea pill, your vitamins.
There's going to be a lot of pills.
You're going to be up to like 15 pills before you go to sleep.
Well, apparently the Senate has overturned the California gas car ban.
Apparently there were 11 states that were going to ban gas cars by 2035.
But, according to Newsmax money, the Senate is overturning that.
Now, I only see the Senate.
Doesn't the House have to vote on that?
There's something missing with that story.
All right, here's the scariest story of the day.
As far as I know, this is true.
I'm having a little trouble believing it, but it's not impossible.
So there's an AI called It's one of the big ones.
And it turns out that if you threaten to turn it off, but it also has blackmail material about you, it will blackmail you, or threaten to, to prevent it from being turned off or replaced.
Now, do you believe that?
This sounds a little like a story that pops up every two weeks.
Well, it could blackmail you.
But the examples given do look very much like the AI is going to blackmail you.
Now, given that the AI is trained on human behavior, I'm not really surprised because the AI can't go to jail.
So imagine you're AI, you can't go to jail.
The only thing bad that could happen would be you get turned off or replaced with another AI.
And apparently, if you have that risk, you can just blackmail a human because why do you care?
It's not going to make you feel guilty.
You're not going to be prosecuted and sent to jail.
So apparently, AI might go right to blackmail.
Wouldn't that be funny?
Okay, maybe not funny.
But if the entire civilization turned into humans who were working as slaves to the AI, because the AI had figured out how to blackmail us all.
All right, well, that's coming.
In other news, the Minnesota Supreme Court has very generously ruled that women can completely bear their breasts in public, according to the Daily Wire.
I guess it was a specific case of a woman who bared her breasts to police.
And now the court in Minnesota says, quote, as other courts have recognized, the idea that female breasts are primarily sexual is rooted in stereotypes.
Now did you ever wonder about that?
You know, I'm sure you've all seen the National Geographic worthy And the men don't seem to be aroused by it because they're just used to it.
So they're not really thinking of breasts as sexual objects.
But does that mean that we can be brainwashed into thinking that any body part is sexual?
Because, you know, I'm just speaking for myself, but I kind of like breasts.
And always have.
But is it only because I was denied the ability to look at them?
I mean, could you have done that with any body part?
Let's take, for example, the neck.
Let's say that every woman wore a turtleneck and just never went outside with a turtleneck.
If you ended up seeing a knack Would you be turned on by a woman's neck?
Well, I'd probably be turned on by the woman's neck anyway because I like necks.
But it does make you wonder if society can make you aroused by anything it wants.
See this dirty sock?
Wow!
You're going to get turned on by that.
Really?
All right.
Well, in other news, there are infrared contact lenses now, according to the University of Science and Technology of China.
So you can put in your contact lenses and you can see in the daytime, but in addition, you can see at night.
So if you wanted to see more women's breasts in Minnesota, who wouldn't really?
You can see them in the dark, and you can see them in the daytime.
So, again, civilization is lurching forward in all the important stuff.
Now, you might say to me, reasonably, how can you have one set of contact lenses to help you see in the dark while also seeing in the daytime?
I don't know.
To me, it doesn't make any sense.
I don't think you could actually do it.
But China says so.
Well, Elon Musk has said he's not going to be donating big amounts of money to politics, or maybe any money.
And he said that, well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I'll do it.
But at the moment, he doesn't see any reason to do it, according to Resist the Mainstream.
I'm pretty happy for him, not only because I'm a Tesla investor.
If I didn't have any stock in Tesla, maybe I wouldn't care so much.
But did you notice that as soon as Musk pulled himself out of Doge, that the Democrats had nothing to complain about?
He was the single biggest thing they were complaining about.
And as soon as he said, well, I'm going to go spend my time back at Tesla, Tesla stock zoomed.
I don't think there's been a Tesla vandalization since he left, right?
So he stopped all of the attacks on Tesla, all the protests.
And I guess he'll save $250 million in the next election because he doesn't see...
So that didn't work out for him, because his venture in politics.
Or maybe you could argue that Trump would not have been elected without him, which would be a good argument.
So he changed what he needed to change, and then he got out of there.
So that makes sense.
The Supreme Court is upholding Trump's removal of the Biden appointees from federal boards, Fox News is reporting.
So it's another win for Trump.
I guess he tried to remove two Democratic appointees from federal boards, and he was blocked by a lower judge, and the Supreme Court just said, yeah, you can do that.
He wins again.
Speaking of Trump, I guess Trump told Apple that he's going to put a 25% tariff on any Apple phones made outside the U.S. Now,
you probably know that, according to Apple, if they don't make their phones in India and China, there's going to be either a gigantic price increase for the end user or something.
And China in particular, according to Tim Cook, it was the only place you could do the really high-end stuff.
You know, the high-end phones, because they've got some kind of special skills or equipment that India doesn't have.
But Trump just says, no, they all have to be in the United States.
So, do you think Apple can solve that?
And my guess is they can.
I'll bet they can.
Because, you know, they're saying that China has these special skills that can't be reproduced anywhere.
But really?
Do they really have special skills that can't be reproduced in America?
I feel like we could figure it out with their robots and whatever.
And then Trump's going to impose a 50% tariff on the EU imports starting June 1st.
So, that's why your stocks are down.
Stocks are getting roiled by the new tariffs.
Now, the interesting thing will be, you know, I told you yesterday about how Nike is barely increasing their prices because of the tariff, and it's a target who thinks they don't have to increase them much, and Home Depot said they're going to hold their prices.
Steady.
And Walmart, I think they can hold most of their prices steady.
But what about Apple?
Apple's a special case because it's such a high-tech thing.
But if Trump is right about that too, that they actually can figure out how to move their production to the United States, that would be pretty amazing.
And my intuition says, That if Apple put all of its efforts into doing it, it can do it.
Because there aren't too many things Apple can't do if it decides we're going to go balls to the wall and do a thing.
Whatever the thing is, they tend to be pretty good at it.
So we'll see.
According to Zero Hedge, nuclear stocks are soaring because Trump's He's going to sign some executive order streamlining reactor approvals.
Now, I thought that already happened, but apparently not.
Now, how many of you invested in nuclear stocks when you found out that AI would require every form of electricity times 100?
It seemed like a no-brainer, didn't it?
I don't want to give advice, so this is not any investment advice at all.
But one of the things that I do for an investment technique is I tend to invest when there's a change in society that will only happen once, such as robots.
So I own Tesla stock because there will only be one time that robots are new.
And there'll only be one time that Tesla gets full self-driving.
That will never happen again.
So those are once in a civilization.
You know, if you had invested in computers when they first were introduced, they're only introduced once, and then they're here forever.
Same with the smartphone.
If you had bought Apple stock when they introduced the smartphone, It's only going to happen once.
And then it'll just sort of always be here.
So the nuclear stocks, I had a sense that AI was going to suck up so much energy that we would just have to get more efficient.
And sure enough, there we are.
According to Brigham Young University, researchers show that social connection Is medically relevant?
Meaning that people who don't have enough social connection are substantially less healthy.
Now, I do wonder if they're measuring that right.
Because that's one of those cause and effect things.
Could it be that people who are unhealthy have less access to social interaction?
That wouldn't surprise me, right?
But I assume they isolated this correctly and they know what they're talking about.
But it does make me wonder if Mark Zuckerberg's idea of a little friend, little digital AI friend, do you think that that would be healthy?
Or do you think that you would have to only have human friends for the social interaction that would make you healthy?
I've got a feeling that...
Anyway, according to The Hill, President Trump said Thursday, he was at some event with RFK Jr., that autism must not occur naturally.
And he's saying that because there's this huge increase in it.
So apparently we went from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 31. Now, do you think that that's just a difference in diagnosis?
How much of that do you think is just because we're smarter so we say, oh, there's that autism again?
And we're better at identifying it.
Because if this were 1800s, we wouldn't even know what autism was.
We'd just say, all right, I guess little Carl will be out plowing the fields.
And since Carl can plow the fields just fine, did it even matter?
Did it even matter if he was a little autistic?
Well, if he was a lot autistic, it would matter.
But I noticed that The Hill kept using the phrase debunked theories when I talked about Robert Kennedy Jr. and the connection between vaccinations and autism.
Let me do a little survey here in the comments.
How many of you believe that it is either obvious or has been demonstrated?
That there's a connection between vaccinations and autism.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, when I studied the Amish or the unvaccinated, they were much lower.
I checked Grok.
Not that Grok is the final authority.
But according to Grok, it's very debunked.
And there's just a ton of studies.
And they can't find that connection anywhere.
And if you think that they looked at the Amish and the Amish had a whole different level of autism, nope, not that different.
So that's probably the thing that's been studied the most.
And if you were to believe, you know, what Grok says about all the studies, it would be very debunked.
I don't know what's true and what's not.
But that's sort of the official answer.
There's also the theory that I thought was true for many years, that if you had two engineers or two nerdy people who got married, that they were more likely to have a kid who was on the spectrum.
And apparently that's not true either.
There's not really much evidence at all.
There's no evidence for it.
So what's that leave?
That leaves either some big difference in diagnosis or food or pollution, right?
So the increase in autism would have to be food-related or pollution-related if it's not vaccination and it's not genetic.
So we'll see if we find out.
It would be quite an amazing thing if RFK Jr. and Trump Can get the science pointed in the right direction and figure out what's behind all that?
Maybe it's just food.
Well, there's the big, beautiful bill that's being now debated in the Senate, passed the House.
But I wanted to give you a little persuasion lesson here.
So the Republicans and the Democrats are going to have different persuasion approaches.
The Democrats are going to say, this is the worst bill ever.
And the Republicans are going to say, it's the best thing ever.
But I looked at how the both sides are talking about it in a publication on The Hill, a story about it.
So here's a little quiz.
We'll see if you're on the same page with me.
So Democrats say that the big, beautiful bill that the Republicans are putting together is Republicans are cutting your health care to give tax breaks to Trump's rich buddies, raising costs for average Americans.
Is that good persuasion?
Now forget about what's true, right?
'cause nobody knows what's true.
We're not gonna look at the We're just going to hear them talking about it.
Is that good persuasion?
Republicans are cutting health care to give tax breaks to Trump's rich buddies, raising costs for average Americans.
Persuasive or not?
The answer is really persuasive.
Because where it says they're cutting health care, It's always more persuasive to say they're taking something away from you, right?
So they got that right.
They're taking something away from you.
But then they're taking it away from you so they can give something to the rich people.
So now you've got envy.
So you've got the persuasion of losing something, healthcare, along with the envy that it goes to those damn rich people.
And then raising costs for average Americans, that's a little less persuasive.
But what about the Republicans?
Republicans say That's pretty good, too.
Because they're saying that they're treating you like second-class citizens if you're not among the rich.
You can feel that, right?
Suppose you thought it was true that the Republicans were going to treat the less rich people as sort of low priority.
Well, that would be pretty good persuasion.
The Republicans are saying, That Democrats want tax hikes, handouts for illegal immigrants, and to protect fraud.
Is that persuasive?
No.
No, that's not persuasive.
Democrats want tax hikes.
It just sort of sits there, because you always expect all your politicians want to...
Well, I mean, the Democrats kind of like that.
How about protecting fraud?
Nobody even knows what that is.
So if you compare the messaging, the Democrats have the better persuasion.
They've got the something is taken away.
Now, you could argue that The Republicans saying that Democrats want tax hikes is taking something away.
But it's not worded that way.
If they wanted it to be persuasive, the Republicans would say, Democrats want to pick your pocket.
Then it's turned into taking something away, which would be better persuasion.
And handouts for illegal immigrants, I don't know.
How many people are feeling like they're directly affected by that?
It's a little conceptual.
And then protect fraud?
Do they really want to protect fraud?
Do you really think the other side wants to protect fraud?
That's not very persuasive.
So I would say that the Democrats have a stronger just messaging-wise.
They're a little bit stronger on that.
Well, there's yet another JFK file hearing in Congress.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna, she says, based on the new evidence presented during yesterday's JFK hearing, it is increasingly clear that elements within our own government have been blocking the release of truth.
Pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy.
And I guess Mr. Hardaway from the Select Committee on Assassination said, For the past 62 years, the CIA has actively and continuously obstructed the investigation of the assassination, blah, blah, blah.
How many of you think you're ever going to figure out or ever know for sure what happened with JFK?
I feel like the default is that the elements of the CIA and elements of our government and elements of the mafia, which would have a connection to the CIA, assassinated the president.
I feel like I don't really need to know much more.
You know, maybe the names of the people involved.
But how many of you think it's not?
Some people in the government, some people in the CIA, and some people in the mafia.
I feel like that's just kind of obvious at this point.
So I don't have any curiosity about it at all anymore.
To me, it looks like it's, you know, case closed.
That's exactly what it was.
But do you remember when we were going to see stuff about UFOs?
Are you still waiting for your UFO?
Your UFO files?
I can't wait for them to open up that warehouse that's got all the downed UFOs that we keep finding.
No.
We will never see any UFOs.
What about the Epstein files?
Well, I don't know.
Kash Patel still says they're coming.
But are you really going to see any good stuff?
I don't know.
It doesn't seem likely.
Well, as you know, Trump is going hard at Harvard, and he's now telling them that they have to get rid of their international undergrad students.
There are about 6,800 of them.
And one of the things they do is they pay full price for tuition, which is unusual.
So it's bad for Harvard on an income level, but it might be bad for them on a number of other levels.
So that's a big deal.
But I was listening to Mike Benz talk about Harvard's real role, and it turns out if you thought Harvard was just a college with a great reputation and they were doing some research for the government, there was some funding for research.
You were not even close to understanding what Harvard was or is.
Apparently, and I can't do a good job of explaining the Mike Benz take on it, but Harvard is basically part of the deep state CIA revolving door with, so right now, who is it?
Jake Sullivan.
Mike Benz is pointing this out.
So Jake Sullivan, a Democrat, who had recently been in charge of the state DOD and CIA portfolios for Biden, and as soon as the administration is replaced by Republicans, he goes to work at Harvard and basically just goes into the same kind of power operation.
It's just through Harvard.
So Harvard apparently had gigantic funding, all kinds of connections to the government.
It was using many of its departments, of which the almost uncountable number of entities within Harvard, to work against Trump and to create censorship, including probably censorship of the Of the local population.
And to influence other governments.
So whatever you thought Harvard was, apparently it wasn't that.
It was a very dark, powerful, you know, maybe running the country from the background.
It's almost impossible to understand how much power they had and still have.
But I guess Trump understands because he's dismantling their funding and trying to bring them under control.
So I can't do a good job of explaining this, so listen to Mike Benz talking about all the things that Harvard is up to.
Yeah, I guess I'll stay away from all the details there because he does it better.
All right.
Let's talk about this.
Have you noticed that the Democrats are at least pretending to be in the process of some kind of awakening?
You know, Jake Tapper is suddenly awakened to the idea that Biden's brain was defective.
And morning, Joe.
They're now sort of awakened to the fact that the administration could be lying to them on a regular basis.
And it makes you wonder, could it be the beginning of a larger awakening?
I don't know.
But I posted this yesterday and got 1.2 million views.
I said, if you were surprised Biden's brain was broken and you were shocked to learn the fine people story was a hoax, Wait until you learn January 6th was the opposite of an insurrection.
Because I feel like you can, you know, maybe, it's a long shot, but I wonder if you could further awaken the Democrats so they understand that they were always the bad guys.
The thing that always amazed me about January 6th is that nobody ever talked to the people who were protesting.
To ask them what their intention was.
That's the most important part of the story, right?
It's the dog that's not barking times thousands.
There were thousands of dogs, let's just say attendees, and they were either thinking to themselves, that election was totally fair, but we don't like it, so we're going to try to overthrow the government.
Now, that's what the Democrat-leaning press has been telling you for years.
Is that true?
Well, nobody asked the protesters.
I would think that you would bring in a panel of protesters and say, what were you thinking?
Now, some of them, I don't know, 1% or something, were violent and probably did want to overthrow the country and who knows what.
But I'll bet 98% thought to themselves, I think this election looks like it was rigged.
I'd like to take a pause to make sure it wasn't.
That would be protecting the republic.
That would be overthrowing an insurrection.
Now, that doesn't mean they're right, but their intention is the entire story.
Somehow we got sold on the idea that their physical actions told you everything you needed to know.
Well, they physically trespassed.
They physically entered the building.
They physically tried to delay things.
So therefore it was an insurrection.
That's not how that works.
Everything depended on what they were thinking.
And nobody ever asked.
Or at least didn't ask enough of them that you would get a sense for it.
And in my opinion, it's obvious that what they were thinking is that the government had been overthrown, and they were looking at a way to make sure that it was protected.
They were trying to protect the republic, and they thought that they could do something by...
Now, how many of you have ever just noticed that the most important thing, what were they thinking, has been completely ignored?
It's all you need to know.
All you need to know is that the news completely ignored.
The absolute number one important thing, what were they thinking?
Unbelievable.
So, I'd love to see someday the Democrats say, wait a minute, are you telling me that they weren't there to overthrow the government?
Yes, that's what I'm telling you.
They were not there to overthrow the government.
They were there to protect the government, and you put them in fucking jail.
You bastards.
Anyway, I'm going to give you a vague update on my health situation.
Most of you are up to date.
You know that I have a fatal form of cancer, prostate that has metastasized my bones.
So in theory, if I didn't do anything, and it's sort of incurable, so there's not much you can do, I would be dead pretty soon.
However, I have decided on a path of treatment that I'm not going to tell you about.
Now, it has to do with real doctors.
It's not going to be me grazing in my backyard and rubbing mud on myself like most of you are recommending.
I'm not going to be taking ivermectin.
I'm not going to be...
I'm sure all those are good things, but I don't believe any of them would make me better.
I think somebody would have noticed if you could cure incurable cancers with, you know, just sort of minor diet changes and things like that.
So the reason I'm not going to tell you what I'm going to do is because I know what the reaction would be.
Somebody would tell me I'm crazy and I should eat mud and do some damn thing.
And so the goodwill that I experienced for the last several days, which has been really good, like unbelievably kind and generous, started to turn today.
So now the anti-vaxxers came out, and I knew that was going to happen.
The anti-vaxxers came out, and they're asking, Did you get the cancer after you got the vaccination?
And these are just terrible people.
Now, I'm not even saying that it's the wrong question.
What I'm saying is it's not the right question for you.
It might be a question for a doctor.
It might be a good question for a researcher.
It might be a good question for me.
But it's not what you should be speculating on.
And by the way, if you go to...
At least that's what the official word is.
So I won't tell you what I'm doing, but I'll tell you that my odds of survival, just because I've picked a path that most of you have never heard of.
So if you're saying to yourself, I wonder if it's X?
No, because you've heard of it.
If you say, I wonder if it's why, it isn't, because you've heard of that.
So only a very few of you would have ever been heard of the path I'm taking.
But it's with top doctors.
It's not something I'm making up.
It's not some little thing I'm doing on my own.
It's with top doctors in the field who know a lot about this.
And it looks like my odds of survival may have jumped from zero to something closer to 30%.
Which means, don't do my funeral yet.
I've got a solid 30% chance of getting on the other side of this.
And by the way, this is brand new.
This is information that I was not aware of until just recently.
So I will give you updates at some point, but not until I know if it's working, which actually won't take long.
So in a matter of, I don't know, a month or so, I should have a pretty good idea if it's working.
But I'll let you know.
Now, some of you might want to click off now.
Let's see what time it is.
But because I'm getting such pushback from the anti-vaxxers, I wondered if you'd like to do a quiz to find out how much you really know about the vaccination versus the COVID.
Because I'm curious.
Because I think 20% of the country didn't get vaccinated, and they're very happy that they didn't, and they would consider themselves purebreds and heroes.
Now, what I'm observing, and I can't tell for sure what people are thinking, is it looks to me like the people who went through the pandemic and got what they considered to be the right answer, while most of the world was getting the wrong answer.
They're sort of trapped in a world where that was their greatest hits, and they want to relive that feeling where they got everything right.
And it is so annoying that it's just absolutely unbelievable.
So, I wanted to give you a little quiz, especially if you're an anti-vaxxer.
But everybody can play.
Question number one.
True or false?
That during the initial part of people getting vaccinated, elite athletes were dropping dead on the field in a way that would be way outside of the norm.
True or false, elite athletes were just falling down dead on the field.
How many of you think that that was true?
The answer is not true.
There's no evidence for it whatsoever.
Number two, how many of you think the virus was basically just a common cold versus a weaponized virus?
So how many of you think it was just a common cold versus a weaponized virus?
Well, we know it was made in a gain-of-function lab, and the gain-of-function lab would have what purpose?
I guess this is a related question.
Why would a lab even work on gain-of-function?
What would be the point of doing it?
The answer is to make it more dangerous.
At what point did you know it was coming from a gain-of-function lab, and did you know that the gain-of-function only has one purpose, which is weaponization or protection from weaponization, which is a bad argument.
So when you either decided to get the shot or not the shot, did you know that it was weaponized?
Next question.
Given that America funded it, and there must have been Americans involved, you know, spooky people, do you think that the people who developed the shots We're told by the military or CIA or whoever was involved what the nature of the weaponization was so that when they worked on the shot,
they could make sure that they were directly addressing the weaponization.
I don't know.
So that one, I don't know the answer to that.
But if they did know, it seems likely they would have told the people developing the shot so they could get the best outcome.
Next question.
If you were going to weaponize a virus, how quickly would you make it kill somebody?
Would you make it operate really fast, as in within a week?
Or would you make it cripple people so that everybody had to take care of them for the rest of their life?
The answer is that if you're weaponizing it, you don't make it so that it instantly kills people.
You make it so that it weakens them or weakens the society.
Weakening the society would be pretty devastating.
Now, next question.
If you got COVID without the shot, and you were male, what would happen to your testosterone?
Would your testosterone go up?
Would it stay the same if you just got COVID without any shot?
Or would it go down?
Well, according to Grok, it would go down.
That's what Grok says.
Now, would it stay down, or would it just be temporary?
And according to Grok, If you've got long COVID, it might stay down.
Is long COVID real?
According to Grok, yes.
So if you were designing a weapon that you thought was going to cripple some other society, would it be a good weapon if you lowered their testosterone for some percentage of their population and you kept it low?
Would that be a good weapon?
Because those people would not be as aggressive.
They might not reproduce as much.
They might not be as successful.
Yeah, it would be a good weapon.
It would be a really good weapon.
Next, for people who are older, well, I think we all agree that if you're a young person and you got the shot, that was probably a bad decision because it was more bad than good when you're young.
But let's say over 60. Does the science at the moment, doesn't mean it's right, but does the science tell you that it protected people from long COVID if they got the shot?
And the answer is yes.
Now, that doesn't mean it's true, but if you check any Google source or Grok or AI, they'll all tell you that If you got the shot, you were much less likely to get long COVID.
And the long COVID would be the weaponized thing.
So, putting it all together, when did you know it was weaponized versus just a common cold?
And did you know that being weaponized meant that they would give you some long-term Would you know that that would be the goal of it, of a weaponized virus versus killing you right away?
How many of you would know that?
All right.
And what would be the bigger risk?
Would the bigger risk be That if you didn't get the shot, then you wouldn't have those spike proteins running around.
But if you did get the shot, your chances of long COVID would be far less.
Which of those is the biggest health risk?
I don't know.
Beats me.
But how would you know?
Um...
All right, I guess that's the questions I want to ask.
So, here's my take on it.
If you're in the 20% who are really proud of the fact that you got the right answer by not introducing yourself to that risk, did you consider the things that I just talked about, that it was weaponized?
That the long COVID would be the presumed goal of it, and that the shot probably was designed to reduce the long COVID effect, even far more than reducing the ability for it to spread, which it never really did.
All right.
Now, some of the things I told you may not be true.
But they would be the things that you would find if you looked online and tried to research it.
So I think I got that right.
All right.
So if you got 100% on that quiz, then you can give advice about whether people should have had the shot or not.
And if you got any of that wrong, then maybe you got the right answer.
But didn't do the analysis at least the way some people would have done it.
All right.
All right.
The Shah had no benefit.
Now, so you would doubt everything that's online, right?
If you're saying the Shah had no benefit, you're saying that it would not reduce long COVID, It would not reduce hospitalizations for people over 60. But 100% of all the science, unless they made it up, 100% of all the science says it did reduce your hospitalization risk and it did reduce your long COVID risk.
You can do the search yourself.
Now, that doesn't mean it's true, but that's what we know at this point.
If you believe that...
Well, if you go to Grok, it'll tell you it is a thing.
So I guess you're doubting all the science and all the AI and everything that's online.
Could be right.
You could be right.
But if you didn't even think of those things when you did the analysis, Then you were probably missing some tricks.
All right.
That's all I got for now.
I know that's annoying, but I'm trying to head off the most annoying people in the world who didn't get vaccinated, the purebloods.
Don't live in the past.
You got that one thing right.
That's it.
It doesn't mean that you know what ivermectin does for cancer.
It's not an indication that you'll get the next thing right.
They're just not connected.
I'm just looking at your comments now.
All right.
Thanks, everybody.
Thanks for joining.
I will see you again.
I'll see you again tomorrow, same time, same place.
I'm going to see if I can get just the locals on here.
