Episode 1487 Scott Adams： Talking About All the Brainwashing and Propaganda That We Call Today's News
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
151.27264
Summary
Scott Adams talks about nuclear fusion, the Afghanistan pullout, and why we need to ask Congress to investigate the pullout of troops from Afghanistan. Scott Adams is a comedian, writer, and podcaster. His work has appeared on Comedy Central, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He is the host of the podcast, "Coffee with Scott Adams," and he is a regular contributor to NPR and other media outlets.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning everybody. It's time for one of the best experiences that you will have over your
00:00:06.000
entire life. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I don't have to tell you it's the best thing
00:00:10.860
that's ever happened in the history of the universe because if you've ever been here you
00:00:14.860
already know it's true. But let's say hypothetically you wanted to take it up another notch. I don't
00:00:21.740
even know if it's possible but let's try it and all you need is a cup of our glass, a tank or
00:00:28.080
chalice or stein, a canteen juggernaut flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite
00:00:32.760
liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here of the
00:00:40.340
day, the thing that makes really everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and watch it happen
00:00:53.500
Yeah, it's the after ah that I think says it. It's very much like making noise when you have sex.
00:01:01.700
If you've ever tried having a silent orgasm, it's not as good. You're like,
00:01:08.260
don't want the kids to hear it. But if you've ever had the experience of nobody home, yeah,
00:01:20.280
it's the screaming that sells it. So it's just like the simultaneous sip.
00:01:27.940
A random internet user is thanking me for being more upbeat lately. And I have been trying to be
00:01:35.480
not only that, but listen to this. Talk about good news. You want to hear some good news? How about
00:01:42.300
some great news? Want to hear some great news? Here it comes. Lawrence Livermore Lab, which is
00:01:49.120
practically a walking distance from me, they have done a new experiment in which they have gotten closer
00:01:55.360
to full fusion technology. Now, if you don't know what that is, it's different than regular nuclear
00:02:02.820
fission, the normal way that we do things. Because fusion, should we ever be able to solve this
00:02:09.140
nearly unsolvable problem, would give us free unlimited energy everywhere forever. Free unlimited
00:02:16.980
energy. Well, not really free. But the cost would approach free over time as the cost of the electricity
00:02:23.360
would keep going down. Now, it's a complicated area, nuclear fusion. So let me try to explain it
00:02:32.120
to you in layman's terms. Because a lot of you, you're not scientists, like me. So this would be
00:02:40.200
all confusing to you. So let me break it down. It's fusion technology. And what you do is you shoot
00:02:46.180
a laser beam into a thing. And then the laser beam briefly creates a temperature that indirectly
00:02:55.560
creates the proton molecules of the atoms to wrap around the electrons in a way that frees the energy
00:03:04.660
E equals mc squared. And I don't know if I can explain it any clearer than that. But we're getting
00:03:12.280
closer to fusion, is what I'm saying. I think that made sense. Rasmussen is saying that they did a
00:03:22.340
survey that says 62% of likely voters think Congress should investigate how the Afghan pullout was
00:03:30.860
handled. Do you know why we need to ask Congress to investigate that? Because there's nobody else who
00:03:39.200
will investigate it. Do you remember when we used to have investigative journalists who would like
00:03:46.620
look into things and tell us what really happened behind the scenes? Apparently, we don't have that
00:03:52.700
anymore, do we? All we have is Congress. Congress can look into stuff. That's it. That's it. That's all we
00:04:00.860
got. We got Congress to look into stuff. That's how broken our news industry is. That the only way you
00:04:07.600
can find out what happened was to ask Congress. Now, if you're depending on Congress to tell you
00:04:15.360
what's true, instead of the news business, you've sort of gone from the least credible entity that
00:04:24.240
isn't in the public domain, meaning not elected officials, into the least credible people who have
00:04:30.960
been elected. So could we get any information from, let's say, some entity that doesn't totally suck?
00:04:40.260
Wouldn't that be cool? Well, let's talk about our national disgrace, the Afghan pullout.
00:04:48.640
I'm reading today in the Wall Street Journal that the U.S. says it left behind the majority
00:04:53.360
of Afghan interpreters and others who applied for visas to flee Afghanistan.
00:05:00.460
What? We left behind the majority? I thought it was a national disgrace to know we left anybody
00:05:09.680
behind. Anybody. Not just the Americans, but the, you know, the translators and such who are
00:05:15.840
helping us. But really? We left the majority of them behind. Have we ever had a national disgrace
00:05:26.160
of this size in the past 40 years? Well, I mean, if you go back further, you know, you got the
00:05:34.480
Tuskegee experiments and stuff, so you got plenty of disgusting things if you go far enough back.
00:05:40.640
But in the past 40 years, give me an example of something more shameful than this, more disgraceful
00:05:49.560
in the last 40 years. Can you think of one? Watergate was nothing compared to this. Wouldn't
00:05:57.780
you say? You know, we always joke about worse than Watergate. I don't know. Benghazi? All the people
00:06:04.380
who died in Benghazi will be just a drop in the bucket compared to what's going to happen in
00:06:09.400
Afghanistan, we think. WMDs? I don't know if that was a disgrace. That was just a huge
00:06:16.640
mistake. But the Afghan thing looks like some intention involved, and that looks like a
00:06:24.920
disgrace. Fast and Furious? No. I don't really see that as being as big. Vietnam? That's more
00:06:34.160
than 40 years ago. Iraq War. Again, the Iraq War was awful, but I don't know if disgrace
00:06:42.220
is the right word for it. It was like an awful mistake, which is different. I put a different
00:06:48.320
standard on people who make mistakes, because those are somewhat unavoidable. And, you know,
00:06:54.520
in the big picture, they're unavoidable. I don't know. I'm going to rank this the biggest national
00:07:00.700
disgrace in 40 years. And I don't see any pushback that I would consider, you know, valid against
00:07:08.380
that point. Let me ask you this. If Trump had been president and had left behind the majority
00:07:15.340
of Afghan interpreters, would we be labeling this racist in the comments? That's my question.
00:07:24.220
Would we be only talking about it's racist if we got all the mostly white people out of there,
00:07:31.540
the Americans, and left, well, I guess the Afghans would be technically white people,
00:07:37.620
although in America we would refer to them as brown because we're all fucking racists.
00:07:44.340
That's why, right? There's no other reason. But in the United States, we would refer to the
00:07:50.200
Afghan people as brown because we're racist. There's no other reason, right? It's not because
00:07:56.880
they're brown. This is one of those moments you just realize what a damn racist you are,
00:08:04.460
even if you're not trying. It's always been my belief that you can't not be a racist because
00:08:11.620
your brain is built to do pattern recognition, but not very well. If it was really good at pattern
00:08:18.480
recognition, maybe you'd be less of a racist. Well, it's not very good at it. So you end up,
00:08:23.920
you know, you have to try hard to overcome your natural brain bias. Here's an example of it. All
00:08:31.580
right. I'm hearing today, I don't know if this is a scoop or not, but apparently the State Department
00:08:40.820
won't let private aircraft take off with American allies and Americans on it in Afghanistan.
00:08:48.480
What? The State Department won't let private aircraft take off with Americans and Afghans that
00:08:57.040
we're trying to rescue? Like right now? And apparently Tom Cotton's office is working on this,
00:09:04.440
among others. I heard this from Jonah Shumate. And I don't know. You know, every time I hear Tom
00:09:14.480
Cotton's name, he's doing something useful, he's either, you know, fighting against China or against
00:09:22.040
something. But why is it that every time somebody is doing something useful, it's one of three or four
00:09:28.840
elected officials? Why is it always the same people? Should we even be looking at anybody else
00:09:37.040
as a potential president? Seriously? I mean, you're looking at DeSantis, he's doing real stuff. So
00:09:43.400
yeah, potential president. Tom Cotton, doing real stuff. Potential president. All right. So
00:09:52.640
anyway, I don't know the details behind this story. But the State Department has some explaining to do.
00:10:00.060
And I don't know if they're explaining it well enough to Senate for Senator Cotton to be happy. But I'd like
00:10:06.540
to hear a little bit more from Senator Cotton's office on what he needs from us. Might need a little
00:10:12.460
more public support. You know, I've told you before that our form of government is largely,
00:10:19.860
basically, it's a social media government. Because social media determines what you can and cannot get
00:10:26.440
away with. Right? If social media is against something, it's just not going to happen. And
00:10:31.880
if social media is for something strongly, it's probably going to happen. So maybe we can help.
00:10:37.700
We've got stranded people in Afghanistan that we'd like to get out. Senator Cotton, if you need any
00:10:44.220
help, can you tweet something? We'll help you retweet it, at least. Get some more attention to it.
00:10:49.720
Try to be helpful. I have a theory that, or a hypothesis, that the biggest medical
00:10:56.160
problem in this country is a well-deserved lack of trust in the media. The biggest medical
00:11:04.020
problem in the country is that we don't trust the media. Now, that wasn't always true because
00:11:09.420
we weren't in a pandemic. But during a pandemic, if you can't trust the messenger, you know, forget
00:11:17.300
about who's the source of the message. If you can't trust the messenger, that's a gigantic
00:11:24.280
health problem, isn't it? Because we don't trust CNN to give us health-related news because
00:11:31.740
we've seen them lie so many times on other news. So I feel as if it's the biggest medical
00:11:39.720
problem in the world, or at least the country. The biggest medical problem is the news. And
00:11:48.100
that's a sad thing, but I think it's true. All right, how about some potential good news? Anybody?
00:11:55.240
Anybody? Would you like some potential good news? Here's something that, I don't know, I've got a
00:12:01.800
feeling about this one. Let's call this a hunch that this is a really big deal. Now, it's a really
00:12:11.040
small deal now, but here's my hunch that what I'm going to tell you next could be a really big deal.
00:12:19.680
Apparently, there was a test on mouthwashes to see if mouthwashes would cancel out the virus in
00:12:26.600
your mouth. Turns out that some of them do, so not all of them. Don't assume the one in your medicine
00:12:32.420
cabinet is going to help you at all. But two that they did find is that Listerine and a prescription
00:12:38.380
mouthwash that has chlorhexidine in it can disrupt the virus within seconds.
00:12:47.040
And that's a big deal, because we know, especially with the Delta variant, that your mouth and nose
00:12:53.580
are just full of virus compared to, I guess, the original. So you've got a lot more in your mouth
00:12:58.840
and nose. How much less would you be affected, and how much less could you spread it if you could
00:13:06.660
kill all of it in your mouth? Let's say you didn't even know. Let's say you didn't even know
00:13:12.480
you had it, but you just did mouthwash every day. And then I added to this story my own little twist,
00:13:20.260
because the mouthwash would take care of the mouth, but not the nose. Could you put some kind
00:13:25.660
of chemical like that, you know, a normal over-the-counter chemical? Could you? Please don't do this.
00:13:32.240
I don't even know if I could say this. I just realized I was going to say something that might
00:13:39.840
get me banned forever from social media. So I'm going to try to figure out a way to say it that
00:13:45.120
it doesn't sound like a recommendation. Are you all adult enough that you can handle a speculation
00:13:51.140
without going out and taking dangerous drugs? Can I trust you to do that? Can I trust you that if I say,
00:14:00.080
hey, I wonder if this would work? Don't go out and do it. Please, dear God, don't go out and do what
00:14:08.640
I'm going to say right now. Please? Do you hear this as clearly as possible? Don't do this.
00:14:17.740
But is there any way that we could put this stuff in a neti pot? Do you know what a neti pot is?
00:14:23.060
It's a, you fill it with a salt, usually just salt and water and warm water and you shoot it up one
00:14:30.140
nostril and it goes into your nasal cavity and comes out the other nostril. It's for, it's for
00:14:35.240
preventative stuff for, you know, allergies and whatever. Now, if a mouthwash can clear out your
00:14:43.800
mouth, could the neti pot clear out your nose with some kind of a formula? And again, don't do this.
00:14:53.940
Don't do this. Don't put anything in your neti pot. Please don't. I'm just speculating. So here's
00:15:01.620
what I think might happen. Suppose we found out two over-the-counter drugs that would easily take
00:15:09.140
care of the mouth and then something you could easily put into your neti pot that would also
00:15:14.240
take care of the nose. Do you think we could find an over-the-counter thing that would do that?
00:15:18.260
Probably. Probably. I mean, if this, if this research bears out, probably. Then, UV light, wise ass,
00:15:28.340
James. Then, suppose you said, for one month, I would like all the citizens of the United States,
00:15:37.140
maybe just the adults, because the kids wouldn't do it. I'd like all the citizens of the United States
00:15:42.240
to use mouthwash and a neti pot for one month. What would happen? Right? If everybody did it for
00:15:51.820
a month, even if they had some COVID and they didn't know it, they'd be knocking it back pretty
00:15:56.480
hard, and it'd probably make a difference. I mean, it's not going to cure the pandemic, but I feel like
00:16:02.060
it would make a difference. So anyway, if this mouthwash study has any validity, and we don't
00:16:07.920
know that yet, it couldn't be a big deal. Christopher Hill tweets on Twitter, which is exactly where you
00:16:16.460
go to tweet. We've been talking a lot about the, and I'll tell you why in a minute, but the,
00:16:22.440
remember the Schumer quote about how our intelligence people have, quote, six ways from Sunday to get back
00:16:28.020
at you? They were talking about Trump. Now, here's my question. Somebody asked if I think that our
00:16:37.600
intelligence services have corrupted the election. If Chuck Schumer can say in public that our own
00:16:47.260
intelligence agencies have six ways from Sunday to get back at you if you're president, he was talking
00:16:53.360
about Trump. The intelligence agencies have a way to get revenge on you if you're the president of the
00:16:59.140
United States. So forget about you. It's dangerous enough. All right. But was Chuck Schumer warning us
00:17:09.660
that our own intelligence agencies could rig an election in this country? Was he? Because is six
00:17:18.020
ways from Sunday, these are all the ways that an intelligence agency can get back at a president.
00:17:23.360
Six ways from Sunday is the category six ways from Sunday, which is a pretty big category
00:17:29.460
because Sunday is a big category, but six ways from Sunday, you know, that's the whole week. It's
00:17:35.740
the whole week. So they got lots of ways they can get back to you. Are you telling me that we're going
00:17:41.780
to rule out that one of the ways is to rig an election? Really? Why do we rule that out? Do we rule
00:17:50.800
it out because there's no proof of it? Right? I've seen no proof of it. But you know my take. My take is
00:18:00.680
that all elections that have, certainly if they have electronic voting machines, they're either already
00:18:07.240
corrupted or they will be. Because there's no scenario in which they won't be in the long run.
00:18:12.900
Do you know why you can guarantee that elections will be corrupted? Because it's possible. That's the
00:18:20.940
one and only thing you need to know. Now, does anybody disagree that it's possible? Let me tell
00:18:27.780
you how. You get an insider in one of the technology companies that's counting votes. You corrupt the
00:18:34.320
insider. You turn them. You own them. You either blackmail them or bribe them or whatever it takes.
00:18:40.360
And then the insiders do the rest. Standard intelligence operation. You get the insiders
00:18:46.280
to do the work for you. Okay? So are you telling me that that's not possible? Are you telling
00:18:52.520
me that an intelligence agency working for 100 years couldn't penetrate an election? Now,
00:19:00.760
most of the time they couldn't, probably. You know, I'm guessing it would fail more often
00:19:04.780
that it would succeed. But because it's possible and because the history will just keep going
00:19:10.940
on and presumably people will try until they get it right, it's pretty much guaranteed. The
00:19:17.820
only thing you need to know is that it's possible. And then you can guarantee it. You just don't
00:19:24.340
know when. That's the only thing you don't know is if it happened already or if it's in our
00:19:28.480
future. But it's guaranteed. That we know. All right. And Chuck Schumer has confirmed that.
00:19:37.860
CNN is trying to equate the Taliban with white supremacists in this country. Of course they
00:19:44.620
are. Here's how they equate them. They're equating the white supremacists in the Taliban because
00:19:51.160
the Taliban is, or at least the white supremacists on social media are saying some things like,
00:19:57.420
you know, they're praising the Taliban for being anti-gay and anti-Jew because they are too. Okay.
00:20:06.220
There's a comparison. And they quickly took over the country and applied their religious rule.
00:20:13.540
So I don't think white supremacists are exactly praising the Taliban. I think they're praising
00:20:20.360
them by analogy, which is very, very different, right? They're not saying we support the Taliban.
00:20:28.360
They're saying, hey, by analogy, you know, they did some bad things to people that we'd like to do
00:20:35.180
some bad things to or like to avoid or whatever. And so it's just sort of like an analogy. But it's
00:20:40.560
just an analogy. It's literally an analogy. It has nothing to do with white supremacists,
00:20:47.200
you know, teaming up with the Taliban or anything like that. Just crazy news. Well, Texas is
00:20:54.160
continuing to morph into becoming its own country. Not only do they have, you know, they're a little
00:20:59.940
different in terms of dropping their COVID restrictions, not so different than Florida,
00:21:05.700
but different than most of the rest of the country. But now they've got a Texas has its own social media
00:21:10.600
bill that would stop social media giants with more than 50 million users from banning any Texans for
00:21:18.500
political statements. So in Texas, you just got freedom of speech, assuming it stands up. So Texas
00:21:27.320
has instituted a freedom of speech rule. We'll see if that stands. But it's not happening elsewhere
00:21:34.440
yet. Or is it? Give me a fact check on that if it is. Also in Texas, they have their own unique
00:21:42.280
abortion ban. In fact, it's an abortion ban because it limits you to the first six weeks or before the
00:21:49.660
heartbeat or something along those lines. And the Supreme Court has denied a request to overturn it.
00:21:56.880
So Justice Roberts sided with the three liberal justices in dissent, but they did not win.
00:22:04.440
And that means that getting an abortion in Texas will be really hard. Really hard. Now,
00:22:13.960
my prediction is that this is bad for the Texas economy. Maybe not in a way they'll notice,
00:22:19.700
because they won't notice what could have happened. They'll just notice what did happen.
00:22:23.960
So I would think that a lot of young people will avoid Texas for this reason alone. Actually,
00:22:30.520
let me put that as stronger. A lot of talented people will either move out of Texas or not move
00:22:36.560
there if they were planning to because of this law. So whether or not you think the abortion
00:22:42.140
change in Texas is good or bad, and I'm not going to debate that today. That's up to you.
00:22:46.600
It's bad for the economy, I would think, because nobody's going to move there to ban their own
00:22:53.760
abortion, right? There's nobody who's going to say, oh, good, I can go there and have fewer
00:22:59.440
possibilities of abortion, because people will just not get an abortion if they care about it
00:23:04.360
for themselves. So it can only hurt their economy. There doesn't seem to be any feasible way it can help.
00:23:11.140
And we'll see if that makes a difference. Texas also has a pro-gun law that lets you
00:23:17.560
openly carry your firearm in public without a permit, even if you don't have any firearms training.
00:23:26.820
Now, here's what I love about this. I love the fact that Texas is testing this out. Because
00:23:34.060
Scott is misunderstanding the law in all caps. I'm not misunderstanding the law that it will
00:23:43.500
prevent 85% of the abortions. So, I mean, that's the only part that mattered here. But the Texas
00:23:50.560
pro-gun law, I think that's really worth testing. I like the fact that our states are like little
00:23:59.820
laboratories where one state can say, we want to try something different.
00:24:04.060
See what happens. Now, if I had to make a prediction, I feel like the pro-gun law and the
00:24:10.480
open carry is going to reduce crime and death. I think. I wouldn't say I'm 100% confident about
00:24:20.520
that or anything else. But I feel like, I don't know, if I had to put odds on it, 65% chance
00:24:29.480
it's going to reduce crime. What do you think? I'm going to say 65% chance it will reduce
00:24:35.480
crime. But you can imagine there would be individual cases where something happens that
00:24:41.280
wouldn't have happened otherwise. You know, if you have access to a gun, you're more likely
00:24:45.360
to use it than if you don't. Yeah. I mean, you could be skeptical of that. We're just guessing.
00:24:52.780
But I'm glad it's being tested. That's all. All right. Joe Rogan has COVID. And we're, of
00:25:02.200
course, hoping for a speedy recovery. Joe Rogan, one of the one of our national treasures. I think he's
00:25:08.700
can we say that yet? Is he too young for that? He may be too young to refer to him that way. But
00:25:15.940
he's certainly well on his way to being national treasure. We value him a great deal. But even if
00:25:23.080
you don't agree with him, you have to value what he's doing. And how much of our medical advice are
00:25:31.420
we going to get from Joe Rogan's experience? I feel like a lot. I feel as if, and this isn't
00:25:39.460
Joe Rogan's fault, but he's just a public figure. And he has a lot of credibility with a lot of
00:25:44.480
people. So whatever his experience is, and whatever he says about it, is probably going to be pretty
00:25:50.320
darn influential. More so than the rogue doctor viral video that, you know, is disagreeing with
00:25:57.940
everybody. And what makes this interesting is he's taken a little, I guess he was not vaccinated.
00:26:02.940
That's part of the story. I'm assuming that because I didn't see it in the story. But he took some
00:26:08.400
monoclonal antibodies and some ivermectin, controversially, and some prednisone and I don't
00:26:13.880
know, something else, and says he's feeling better. Now, this raises, of course, the question about
00:26:19.900
ivermectin. Is ivermectin the real deal? Is Joe Rogan being smart by taking it? Well, let's talk
00:26:31.360
about it. Number one, here's something that if you lean politically right, and I think that describes
00:26:39.700
nearly all of my audience, even though I don't lean right, most of my audience does.
00:26:44.320
Most of you have never seen a CNN-cited paper in which the studies on ivermectin, the good
00:26:56.020
ones, the randomized, controlled-type studies, have been evaluated, and when they take out
00:27:02.420
the ones that have obvious bias, there's no evidence of ivermectin working. How many of
00:27:09.980
you know that there's a July study, a study of studies, looking at all the other ivermectin
00:27:16.880
studies, and they throw out the ones that are obviously biased, and they use the ones that
00:27:22.080
are the most unbiased, and when you do that, it shows there's no evidence that ivermectin
00:27:28.460
works. No clear evidence. There's ambiguity, but there's no clear evidence that it works based
00:27:35.880
on this. Now, I linked to this study on Twitter just before I got on, and what happened? The
00:27:43.280
link went to a dead page. Now, the page is not dead, but I must have sent so much traffic
00:27:50.280
there, I killed the server. So wait for the server to go up, because a lot of you think
00:27:55.440
I was doing a prank. It looked like it was a prank, because it sent you to a blank page,
00:28:00.340
but it's a real page. I checked the link myself again to make sure I had the right link, and
00:28:05.240
I did. And we'll talk about the risk in a second. So, but I'm just going to ask you how many
00:28:14.380
of you were aware. If you lean right, so that's most of you, how many of you were aware that
00:28:22.560
there's a study of these studies, and it shows that the studies don't show it works? How many
00:28:27.380
of you even knew it existed? Because I didn't, until today. Today is the day that I learned
00:28:34.280
there was a study of studies, a brand new one, I mean, it's July of this year, that
00:28:39.160
shows ivermectin doesn't have any obvious benefit. Now, I'm not saying that study is
00:28:44.820
accurate, right? I make no claim of the accuracy of that or any other study. But I didn't know
00:28:52.420
it existed. Did you? I've been listening to the Weinsteins, you know, Brett Weinstein.
00:28:59.820
I've been listening to him talking about the meta-studies, and I didn't know there was another
00:29:06.940
side to it. So I had an enormous blind spot, and I read CNN literally every day. Every day
00:29:15.800
I look at news on the left, and I study it pretty completely. And I didn't know it. Now,
00:29:23.300
how does that make you feel? I mean, most of you are news junkies, or you wouldn't be here. But
00:29:29.040
I read all of the news, and I didn't know that. It's such a big deal, and I didn't know it until
00:29:36.200
today. It's so easy to miss something of that size. All right. So most of you probably missed
00:29:42.480
it too. Now, I'm not claiming that that study is the good one. I'm just saying I didn't know it
00:29:47.280
existed. All right. Here is how the propagandists and brainwashers are treating the ivermectin
00:29:54.540
story. And I think the Joe Rogan situation is causing them to be a little more active.
00:29:59.740
The FDA is warning us today that taking too much ivermectin can be dangerous. That helps
00:30:04.880
you, doesn't it? That's some good medical advice. Taking too much ivermectin can be dangerous.
00:30:11.880
Whew. It's a good thing that the FDA warned me that taking too much of a drug could be
00:30:19.200
dangerous. Did you know that? Did you know that overdosing on a drug could be dangerous?
00:30:25.940
Huh. Do you know what else could be dangerous if you took too much? Water. Water. Yeah, if
00:30:33.820
you drink too much water, you'll fucking die. Sun. If you go out in the sun too long, you'll
00:30:40.040
get sun cancer. You'll die. Is there any drug that won't kill you if you take too much of
00:30:46.080
it? I don't know. How about too much candy? Can you die from eating too much candy? Yeah.
00:30:55.240
Pretty much everything. Pretty much everything will kill you if you get too much of it. So
00:31:00.140
you can tell that that's propaganda because they're not telling you about too much of anything
00:31:04.420
else. Just too much of this. They also say that you shouldn't take a horse dewormer. Don't
00:31:15.860
take any horse dewormer. Except that's not what we're talking about. Yes, there are idiots
00:31:22.600
taking horse dewormer. Don't take a horse. Don't take horse medicine. But if you see the
00:31:28.800
FDA or anybody else, CNN for example, referring to ivermectin as horse dewormer, that's just
00:31:37.080
propaganda because there are two versions of it. There's the human version and then there
00:31:41.680
is the horse version. But if you're calling the human version horse dewormer, you're not
00:31:47.440
reporting the news. You're not trying to help. You're trying to be a brainwasher. So that's
00:31:54.140
how you know the brainwashing is happening. It's real obvious in this case. They speak
00:31:58.780
of it as horse dewormer and tell you not to take an overdose of it, like everything. All
00:32:05.340
right. Glenn Greenwald is calling out the deep state because somebody leaked a call with Biden
00:32:13.520
and the ex-president of Afghanistan, Ghani. And I guess this is what Biden said to Ghani on
00:32:22.040
this phone call that was leaked. I need not tell you the perception around the world and
00:32:27.340
in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight
00:32:31.940
against the Taliban. So this was, you know, prior to the Taliban taking over. And there
00:32:37.000
is need whether it is true or not. This is the controversial part. And there is need whether
00:32:44.460
it is true or not. There is need to project a different picture. So Biden literally asked
00:32:53.040
Ghani to lie. And that got leaked. Now, who leaked that? Was it the intelligence people? Did
00:33:09.460
the intelligence people leak this? And if they did, and this, I think Greenwald is suggesting
00:33:15.400
that's a likely, likely place that happened. And if it is true, what would make you think
00:33:20.520
they wouldn't rig an election? I'll just put these two questions together. If you think
00:33:26.820
it's true, and I don't know what that is, but if you think the most likely place that this
00:33:31.640
leak came from is our own intelligence services, what would make you think they wouldn't rig an
00:33:37.680
election? Because they're rigging an election right now. They're trying to get Biden out of
00:33:44.300
office. This is exactly the kind of leak that is intended to rig an election by giving you
00:33:52.240
news you wouldn't have had otherwise that changes your opinion of what happened. This is rigging
00:33:58.660
the election. Don't tell me the intelligence agencies are not trying to rig the election if
00:34:04.840
they did this. And that I don't know, right? Because we don't have proof that they did it. Could
00:34:09.340
have been somebody else. But if they did it, don't tell me they don't rig elections. That's just stupid
00:34:16.420
because we would be watching it right in front of us. This is rigging an election if it's true. We don't
00:34:22.560
know if it is. Um, but I would also defend Biden. And, uh, let me say this again. If Trump had said
00:34:32.400
this, I would defend it. Okay. Hear this clearly. If Trump had made this phone call, I would defend
00:34:40.200
it. I would defend what he said. And I'm going to do the same for Biden because I like to be at least a
00:34:45.880
little bit objective, right? At least try. You know, I can't do it every time. Everybody's biased,
00:34:52.580
but I'm going to try. And here's how I defend it. If, because reality is a reality and impression
00:34:59.660
are very connected. If the Afghan president had done a better job of telling everybody everything
00:35:06.060
was fine, what would have been the outcome? Suppose Biden had gotten what he wanted and the Afghan
00:35:12.400
president had done what Biden asked and told everybody that things were better than they
00:35:16.780
looked. What would be the outcome of that? Well, I think the outcome Biden wanted was that it would
00:35:23.680
give the Afghan army confidence to fight. It looks like that's the obvious thing he wanted. And if they
00:35:30.880
had gotten confidence to fight, could they have lasted longer against the Taliban? Maybe. I mean, we don't
00:35:37.720
know, but it's a reasonable assumption. If, if our leaders of our country are convincing a leader of
00:35:44.700
another country to lead, to actually tell them something that's not entirely exactly accurate,
00:35:52.000
but it might get them to a better place. I'm not sure that's wrong. Now it might've been wrong for
00:35:59.380
Afghanistan, but it wasn't wrong for America. And that's who Biden works for. Biden works for
00:36:07.140
America. And if it was good for America for our president to ask this guy to lie to his people,
00:36:14.120
I think there's a pretty good argument that it would have been good for America. It would have
00:36:17.580
bought us some time, right? That was the whole point. Now, would it be ethical? No. No. It's not
00:36:24.900
even close to ethical. Would it be impeachable? I don't know. Because it would be in America's best
00:36:30.780
interest. And I think that's got to matter. So let me say it clearly. If Trump had said this to
00:36:36.780
Ghani, I would defend him. Biden said it to Ghani, and I'd defend him. You don't have to like it.
00:36:46.420
But he clearly did ask him to lie. And it would suggest that Biden was aware that the Afghan
00:36:55.100
government was going to fall. So that's a separate question, that Biden was more aware of how quickly
00:37:00.700
things would devolve. But there again, suppose Biden was aware of it. Should he have told us?
00:37:08.840
No. No, he shouldn't have. If Biden was aware that things were going worse than they looked,
00:37:14.820
he should not have told us. Because that would have accelerated how badly they went.
00:37:26.780
So Glenn Greenwald is using this as evidence that definitely the deep state exists.
00:37:33.040
All right, let's talk about long COVID. There's a new study that says this is the world's biggest
00:37:38.560
study on the issue for kids, whether kids are getting long COVID. So they studied 11 to 17
00:37:44.660
year olds who had tested positive for coronavirus, and they saw how long their symptoms lasted.
00:37:51.880
The research suggests that somewhere between 2 and 14 percent still had symptoms from COVID 15 weeks
00:38:00.340
later. Now, they did have to get rid of all that. I guess there were a lot of people who had symptoms,
00:38:07.880
but people just naturally do have symptoms for other reasons. So somehow they could get rid of that
00:38:12.320
effect and narrowed it down to between 2 and 14. Where did they get the 14 percent? And where did
00:38:18.640
they get the 2 percent? Because that's a pretty big range. The 14 percent is what the survey produced.
00:38:25.620
So their own data said 14 percent. So why don't they report 14 percent? Because that's what the data said.
00:38:35.320
Why did they say between 2 and 14 percent? Because wouldn't you make a different decision if you
00:38:40.700
thought it was 2 percent than if you thought it was 14? Wouldn't you? I mean, that would make a
00:38:47.540
difference for your calculation. And here's how they got it to 2 percent. They looked at their own data and
00:38:56.180
said, we think our own data is bad. It's probably closer to 2 percent. What? That's like the opposite of
00:39:04.780
science. They looked at their own data and said, you know, I'm not sure people would answer the
00:39:10.440
question right. Or no, they said they think their data was biased by the people who answered the
00:39:17.140
questions. Meaning that if you had symptoms, you're more likely to answer the question. So in other
00:39:23.560
words, they did a survey and then they threw away all their data and said, well, we think it would
00:39:30.280
account differently if we had different data. So I'm going to put the credibility of this as zero.
00:39:42.280
I saw it being used as evidence that we should not worry about kids and long COVID because it, you know,
00:39:47.440
might be 2 or 3 percent. But I don't think that's what the data said. The data said it's 14 percent.
00:39:54.160
Now, if the people who did it are questioning their own data, I don't think you could just
00:40:00.040
make up what you think it should have been. Is that science? Are you supposed to look at the
00:40:06.140
science and say, you know, if we'd done this better, I think we would have gotten a different
00:40:10.760
result. So let's just go with that different result. Like, I don't know how much different
00:40:14.920
from science you could be from that. But anyway, there you have it.
00:40:20.540
I think the Joe Rogan situation is going to be especially interesting because whatever happens
00:40:29.340
to him, people are going to be more influenced by it because they know him and they'll watch the
00:40:35.300
whole thing play out and everything. So I have a feeling that whatever he says about his experience
00:40:42.260
is just going to have a huge medical impact on this country. And you've watched me try as hard
00:40:50.460
as I can not to persuade anybody about vaccinations because I've got a problem with the ethics
00:40:57.000
of it. Because people like me can be influential, even if we don't try to be, right? It's just
00:41:03.420
part of having a public platform. And Joe Rogan's influence is, I don't know, I mean, it's almost
00:41:09.420
unparalleled, isn't it? In terms of reach and credibility. So whatever he does, he's in a tough
00:41:16.220
spot. Because if he wants to be true and honest with his experience, it's going to have a side
00:41:23.960
effect of influencing people to do whatever he did or thinks worked. And that's sort of
00:41:29.240
an ethical conundrum, isn't it? And I'll be very interested to see how he handles it, because
00:41:36.700
I would trust him to know how to handle this right, actually. So let's watch him, see how
00:41:46.860
And that is just about everything I wanted to talk about. So I would call this one of the
00:41:54.500
best live streams you've ever seen in your whole life. There's one thing I would like
00:41:59.360
to add. I'm going to make a claim, and this will teach you some persuasion at the same
00:42:05.480
time, okay? So I'll make a claim, but it's really a lesson. It's two things. Here's the
00:42:12.000
claim. The most influential book on success is my book, how to fail at almost everything
00:42:20.620
and still win big. And I'm going to claim that it's the most influential book in the last
00:42:26.260
10 years for success. Now, influential is different than best book. I don't know what
00:42:34.560
is the best book. If I knew what the best book is, I probably would have written that
00:42:39.840
book, I guess. So nobody knows what the best book is. That's a different question. But the
00:42:45.020
most influential. Now, influential is more objective, because you can just say, oh, all
00:42:50.880
right, did this person get influenced by it or not? And you can see that they say they
00:42:55.340
did. And you will see, for example, that when people do their top five best business books
00:43:03.220
or success books, it's almost always in the top five. And here's the other part. There
00:43:10.060
will be at least one book on that other list of the top five that was influenced by my book.
00:43:15.660
So when you see top five lists, 40% of it is my book. I don't think anything's ever been
00:43:23.640
close. Maybe seven habits of highly effective people back in its day. But if you look at the
00:43:30.940
last 10 years, I think that book is the most influential book on success. Oh, Pippen Burt just
00:43:41.500
finished it last night. Thank you. So I'm going to put that out there. All right, here's the lesson
00:43:47.120
on persuasion. What lesson, what persuasion trick did I just use? In the comments, what persuasion
00:43:56.180
did I just use? Social proof, correct. Keep going. Social proof. Visual, not so much. Think past the
00:44:08.320
sale, correct. Think past the sale. Yeah. I'm trying to get you to think about whether it's the number one
00:44:16.520
best book in the entire world. But in order for you to think about that question, you have to uncritically
00:44:24.240
accept that it's in the top five, right? So if you're going to buy a book, knowing it's in the top
00:44:30.400
five probably is pretty good. But I do think, quite legitimately, this is not a lie, and it's not
00:44:36.960
hyperbole. I do think it's actually the most influential book on success for the past 10 years.
00:44:44.480
I think that's actually literally measurably true. Best book? I don't know. But most influential,
00:44:51.040
pretty sure. All right, that's all we got for today. I need to go run and do something else.