Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1506 Scott Adams： Congress, Climate Change, Coronavirus： Everything Bad Starts With the Letter C

00:00:00.000 everybody. Wow, what a day it is. What a day it is. Not good, not bad. It's just a day.

00:00:09.080 But what a day. What a day. Wow. Now, I had this weird realization today. See if anybody

00:00:18.660 agrees with this. I realize that there are a lot of things that start with the letter C

00:00:26.580 that are bad. You got your coronavirus. You got your Congress. You got cancer. You got

00:00:36.440 China. You got climate change. If you've got a problem and it starts with a C, probably

00:00:42.720 got a pretty big problem. But the exception, the exception, coffee. Yeah, coffee is always

00:00:52.020 your friend. Coffee will never cheat on you. Coffee will never lie to you. Coffee will

00:00:57.700 never steal your wallet. Coffee is always your friend. It'll make you feel better when you're

00:01:05.460 feeling down. And in case you are a racist, it'll fix that too. Because coffee is brown

00:01:14.240 and you'll love it. It's indirect, but I think it works. So make sure you get your coffee

00:01:21.600 if you've got any problems at all. And we'll do the simultaneous sip in a little bit once

00:01:25.200 everybody gets past the commercial breaks here on YouTube. Well, here's a cool thing that's

00:01:31.740 happening that you don't see coming. You know that virtual reality exists. And you know that

00:01:40.020 AR exists, you know, basically extending reality. And MR technology, it's merging the real and

00:01:50.140 the virtual worlds. So they're all kind of in that same domain. But here's what you didn't

00:01:55.980 know. So you knew all those things exist. And you knew that they would get better. But

00:02:02.200 how many of you knew that the key to making them better is two technologies that now exist?

00:02:12.020 Augmented reality, yes. AR is augmented reality. I forgot the word augmented there for a moment.

00:02:17.460 Thank you. But the two technologies that you need to know about are 5G and what's called

00:02:23.460 edge computing. Those two things didn't exist really until sort of this year, right? At least

00:02:31.680 as scale. Now what 5G gives you is more than 4G, right? So how many knew that 4G would be awesome,

00:02:42.560 but 5G would be a little bit better? Wrong. 5G is not a little bit better than 4G. 5G is way better

00:02:51.580 than 4G. In fact, it's so better that it's one of the key things that would allow, you know,

00:02:58.760 broad adoption of these AR and VR and MR technologies, along with something called edge computing,

00:03:07.280 where basically your local computer is dealing with the cloud, and it's offloading some of the

00:03:14.800 processing to the cloud so that your local computer seems to be processing faster. Now those two

00:03:20.880 technologies, when put together, give you the computing power to do real, you know, real kind of

00:03:29.600 impressive virtual reality stuff and putting it everywhere. Now, one of the biggest things that

00:03:37.960 people are blind to is when gradual changes become not gradual anymore. And we've been watching the

00:03:46.760 speeds of your phone get sort of gradually better. It's like, oh, we got 3G. Well, 4G is, yeah, that's

00:03:54.320 better. It's quite a bit better. 5G is a whole different game. 5G changes everything. And 5G is

00:04:00.720 rolling out right now. So you don't have to, you know, it's not that far future. Your next phone,

00:04:06.220 I think, will have 5G capability. And if you're in a metropolitan area, you got 5G.

00:04:14.960 So this is a gigantic, gigantic deal that will change everything about your reality,

00:04:20.320 because virtual reality will be better than the real thing. It will change all of education.

00:04:25.600 it will change all of social interaction. Just think about that. Just think about the size of

00:04:33.320 the statement I just made, that 5G will change everything. Everything. Work, education, and your

00:04:43.000 social life will not even be recognizable in five years. In five years, the change will be bigger than,

00:04:53.280 say, the change of just the internet. That's how big it is. Well, I mean, it's hard to compare

00:04:59.100 things. But I would say the invention of the internet itself, that's the size of the change

00:05:05.240 that we're looking at with 5G. It just doesn't feel like it, because, well, it's just one more G.

00:05:10.440 I already had four Gs. I'm just adding one more G. How big a deal could that be? Not so big a deal.

00:05:15.440 But let's, let's have a simultaneous sip to the future, which looks kind of awesome in

00:05:21.260 many ways. But all you need for that is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or gel stein, a canteen

00:05:25.640 junk flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee. Even though it

00:05:31.440 starts with the letter C, I like it. I like it. There are other things that start with the letter C that

00:05:36.720 I'm rather fond of, but we won't go into that. For now, for now, join me for the unparalleled

00:05:44.680 pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better, including your phones

00:05:50.420 and speeds. It's called the simultaneous sip and have a stout go.

00:05:53.440 Okay, a little bit of heartbreak here. I just realized that I had set my coffee not on the

00:06:03.460 coffee warmer, but rather on the desk adjacent to the coffee warmer, thus making the temperature

00:06:10.260 of my coffee suboptimal. But I'm going to fix that later, let me tell you. I'm not going

00:06:17.100 to go through life with cold sips. I hope you did better. Did you all do better? I failed at the

00:06:24.000 simultaneous sip, but I think your day will do better. All right. I've got a tip here on how to hide

00:06:31.680 from law enforcement. Many of you will need that. Raise your hands if you have some reason to escape

00:06:37.240 the law. Just me? All right. Well, that's embarrassing. But if you'd like to escape law

00:06:44.920 enforcement, I would take the technique that the fiancé of, what's her name, Petito, who is missing,

00:07:01.420 apparently he told, so law enforcement's looking for him because he's at least a person of interest,

00:07:07.020 maybe. I don't think he's a suspect, but they certainly like to know where he is and to talk

00:07:12.720 to him. I guess person of interest is not fair because he hasn't been charged with anything.

00:07:18.840 But they certainly want to talk to the fiancé when his fiancé disappears and is murdered,

00:07:27.560 presumably. So where is he? Well, he's hard to find because he left home with his backpack

00:07:33.320 and told his family he was going to the Carlton Reserve. Now, I'm not familiar with the Carlton

00:07:39.460 Reserve, but apparently it's a very big place. And if you take your backpack into the wilderness

00:07:45.440 of the Carlton Reserve, it turns out that it will be hard to find you with drones and helicopters.

00:07:51.180 I mean, you can hide for a long time. So there's my tip on how to hide from law enforcement.

00:08:00.080 No, not go to the Carlton Reserve, you idiots. Tell somebody you went to the Carlton Reserve 1.00

00:08:06.940 and walk out the door with your backpack. But the last thing you want to do is go to the

00:08:14.260 fucking Carlton Reserve, because that's the only place they know to look for you. 0.98

00:08:20.320 But if you wanted to go somewhere else, somewhere that's not the Carlton Reserve, 0.99

00:08:25.820 a really good way to do it is to walk out with a backpack and tell your parents that you went to

00:08:33.120 the Carlton Reserve. You do that, and they're going to be looking in the wrong place for you

00:08:38.220 for a long time. So that's my tip on avoiding law enforcement.

00:08:44.920 Well, apparently Apple has decided that they think its iPhone can diagnose depression and

00:08:50.080 cognitive decline. So it's not designed to do that, but they're looking at that. And they think

00:08:56.940 it can do everything from reading your facial expressions. Is that creepy? Your phone will

00:09:03.580 look at your face and say, smile, why are you so sad? Basically, your phone could turn into like

00:09:11.100 a creepy guy. Women, back me up on this. Ladies, you know that guy in the office who sees you in the 1.00

00:09:20.960 office and says, hey, smile, what's so bad today? Yeah, now that's going to be your phone. Your phone

00:09:28.460 is going to be a creepy guy. Hey, what's wrong? You look like you're sad. Yeah, Kim, back me up on

00:09:34.200 that. Exactly. So your phone is a creepy guy. What's wrong? What can I do for you? But it'll also,

00:09:44.840 apparently it'll track your speaking pace, the frequency of your walking, your sleep patterns,

00:09:53.880 your heart, your aspiration rates. Do you think that your phone can detect depression?

00:10:00.480 Yes. Yes. Do you think that your phone could detect a trend toward moving from, let's say,

00:10:08.400 a happier state to a more depressed state? Do you think your phone could pick up that trend?

00:10:13.360 Uh-huh. I could build that app tomorrow. It would be an app that does this. Are you using

00:10:24.360 your iPhone? Yes or no? And if you say yes, which it could actually detect because you're using the

00:10:31.780 phone, then it would determine that you're more depressed than you used to be. Why? Because you're

00:10:38.260 spending time on your phone. How much technology do I need to determine that people who have a phone

00:10:44.760 in their hand are less happy than if they didn't? Not a lot. Not a lot. Maybe just yes, no. Phone in

00:10:54.540 hand? Yes. Depressed? Yes. More depressed than you used to be? Yes. You're looking at your phone?

00:11:03.040 Are you more anxious than you used to be? Yes. Do you feel that you're more disconnected from

00:11:10.920 life? Yes. Do you feel worried about your body image? Yes. Do you like my algorithm? It's called

00:11:19.980 the yes algorithm. If phone, yes to all of those problems. So iPhone, so Apple has quite helpfully,

00:11:30.180 they're going to build an app to tell you how sad their phone makes you. I'm not making that up.

00:11:38.440 I mean, I'm wording it differently than they're wording it, but I'm not making that up. Apple is

00:11:43.240 making an app, I don't know if it'll be free or they're going to sell it to you, that'll tell you

00:11:50.140 just exactly how the phone is ruining your life. And then here's the fun part. Probably going to blame

00:11:57.380 it on something else. Do you think the phone is going to say, according to the data that we have

00:12:05.060 picked up from you, your phone is making you depressed. Throw it in the garbage immediately. 0.99

00:12:12.280 Probably not. Probably not. Probably say something like, maybe you should get more sleep. 0.92

00:12:19.020 Probably tell you to take a walk in the forest. But I don't think it's going to tell you that your

00:12:23.740 phone is what's causing you to be depressed. When in fact, it's your phone. I mean, with the services

00:12:30.440 that it connects to. Now, I don't know if you can get rid of phones, but I don't know.

00:12:40.340 Is there a problem with today's stream on locals? I'm not seeing other people complain about it. It might

00:12:47.160 be... Yeah, it looks like the stream is fine for other people. So it may be a local problem,

00:12:54.720 not a locals problem. All right. And how about cognitive decline? So your phone could actually

00:13:02.400 pick up your cognitive decline. It could definitely get that. But, you know, I think we'll just find

00:13:08.860 that if you're stoned. You know, you're not going to believe this. But I know this goes against

00:13:17.460 everything that you think is true. But this just blows me away. Apparently, the FBI did something

00:13:24.340 that is damaging their reputation. I know. I know. When was the last time the FBI did anything that

00:13:31.940 damaged the FBI's reputation? I can't think of anything. Can you? When has that ever happened?

00:13:38.500 Hmm. Well, I guess this is the one and only time lately that the FBI has embarrassed itself.

00:13:44.560 I guess they raided a bunch of safe deposit boxes in Beverly Hills without enough evidence of

00:13:49.540 wrongdoing and got millions of dollars. But now those people are probably going to be in trouble

00:13:55.420 with the IRS. But there was no crime, apparently, related to why they got into the boxes. But there

00:14:03.880 might be a crime now because they found all this money and the IRS is going to be asking some

00:14:08.060 questions. But it's kind of embarrassing because they took all this money and they didn't have

00:14:13.860 real good reasons for it, I guess. Now you're just talking crazy, Scott. All right. So that's the

00:14:24.920 whole story. But I'm wondering, what will the FBI do next? Hmm. What next to the FBI? Will they

00:14:34.520 burn down an orphanage? Will they murder some senior citizens? Will they just start shaking 0.99

00:14:43.900 people down for money on the streets? I don't know. I feel like it's moving in the wrong

00:14:50.900 direction. Seems like they used to solve crimes and stuff back in the old days. I don't know

00:14:58.420 what they're doing now. But they've got a little bit of a reputational problem. All right. So

00:15:08.020 and this next story, this is going to blow you away. You will never see this coming. You

00:15:14.980 might want to sit down because this will be the surprise of surprises. I know. I know.

00:15:20.700 This is going to be hard to break it to you. But believe it or not, the infrastructure

00:15:24.940 bill is stalled in Congress. I know. I know. Who saw that coming? But the best reason, the

00:15:36.260 best part of this story is why it's stalled. I mean, there's been, you know, reason after

00:15:40.980 reason after reason why it's stalled. But the new reason is just the best. This is the best

00:15:46.700 reason. Turns out that Congress has a parliamentarian who gets to decide if they're following the

00:15:54.480 rules. And the latest infrastructure bill didn't follow the rules sufficiently that the parliamentarian

00:16:03.660 would even let them vote on it. Now, apparently, and if I understand it right, the problem is

00:16:10.900 that they tried to use a budget bill to make substantial changes to, was it immigration?

00:16:20.360 And that's not allowed. So you can't use the budget to kind of be a backdoor way to make

00:16:28.600 major changes. You can make minor changes, but you can't make major changes to some existing

00:16:33.280 legislation or systems just by tweaking the budget. That's not allowed, parliamentarian-wise.

00:16:40.900 But here's the thing. They didn't know that. Who put the bill together? The people who put

00:16:49.600 the bill together didn't know that it's not even votable? I mean, dear God, they used to

00:16:57.580 at least make bills that they couldn't decide on. They've moved backwards. Now they don't

00:17:03.100 even know how to make a bill that you can even vote on. They literally couldn't craft

00:17:10.660 the bill to be votable. I think they're moving backwards. Because in the old days, it was

00:17:19.880 just, you know, we disagree on the bill, but we voted on it. And now they can't even figure

00:17:26.220 out how to make a votable bill. Let me take you back. Come back with me in the wayback machine.

00:17:34.560 We're going back to the early days in Egypt, several thousand years ago. And we watched the

00:17:41.720 Egyptians build pyramids. Sophisticated building. They're building pyramids. 0.99

00:17:48.000 I'm not sure that we've evolved in the right direction. Because now we can't even make a bill

00:17:55.560 we can vote on. Much less a pyramid. I don't know. Could you build a pyramid? I couldn't. I wouldn't

00:18:01.680 know how to make a pyramid. But I also wouldn't know how to make legislation. Oh no, I probably would.

00:18:06.920 I think I could have made legislation you could vote on. It might add some typos and spelling errors.

00:18:13.940 But I'll bet you could have voted on it. I'll bet I could have accomplished that little, that goal.

00:18:19.900 So yeah, Congress looking bad. So Joy, Joy Reid, Joy Ann Reid, was talking about this Gabby Petito

00:18:27.880 case, the missing white woman, and referred to it as missing white woman syndrome. Missing white 1.00

00:18:35.180 woman syndrome. Now she didn't make that up. She borrowed that from somebody else's commentary. 0.98

00:18:42.760 But in a break from tradition, I would like to completely agree with Joy Ann Reid. I know. I know.

00:18:54.820 She's right on this. Do you think we'd be having this story if she was not a white woman? 0.89

00:18:59.260 An attractive young white woman? Do you think? I don't think this would be 0.98

00:19:05.000 a national story. If she were just a black woman? Exact same story, but it's a black woman. 1.00

00:19:14.020 Are we talking about it? Somebody says yes. You think yes? I appreciate your optimism.

00:19:22.940 And I respect it. I would respect your disagreement in this case. Usually I respect any reasonable

00:19:31.120 disagreement. But I gotta go with Joy Reid on this. I feel like, you know, you can't prove

00:19:38.440 it, right? There's no data that backs my opinion. But it sure feels like it. Yeah, she was a YouTuber. 0.52

00:19:44.780 Yeah, okay. But I never heard of her. Did you? It's not like we've heard of her, right? And there

00:19:52.840 are plenty of YouTubers, people of color who are YouTubers. I don't know. I think Joy Ann Reid

00:19:58.280 is right on this one. But I'll respect your disagreement on that.

00:20:07.300 China has decided they're banning what they call, or at least the translation of what they're

00:20:13.120 calling it is, quote, sissy men. Sissy men. Men who are wearing makeup and, you know, let's 0.94

00:20:21.460 say, in their words, more effeminate, effeminate dress. And apparently this is some kind of

00:20:29.600 a risk to the Chinese system, because they don't want any nonconformity, or at least not

00:20:34.620 that much nonconformity. And they don't want these so-called sissy men. Now, they're not 0.96

00:20:42.480 stating the sexuality, which is interesting. So they're not saying it's bad to be gay. I imagine

00:20:50.100 they have those feelings as well. But that's not officially what they're saying. They're talking

00:20:54.300 about just the outward appearance of some number of men. And I'm thinking to myself,

00:21:03.860 I wonder if China's going down for this. Because, you know, humans are funny. You can do all kinds

00:21:10.440 of terrible things to human beings, and they'll be like, okay, I'll just get used to it. But then you

00:21:15.240 go after some things, and you don't think that's the biggest thing. And then people just go,

00:21:19.940 nuts. And maybe this is it. Now, I've told you that China's in for big problems. I don't know if 0.94

00:21:27.660 this is a big, big problem. But I can see the LGBTQ community, which is, I assume, in deep hiding in 1.00

00:21:42.480 China. I can see them maybe emerging. And how powerful is the LGBTQ community? I mean, you know,

00:21:53.700 maybe they don't have the option in China, because there would be too much pushback. But I feel like

00:22:00.820 they're going to find a way. I feel like they'll find a way. Like, there may be some amount of bravery

00:22:07.040 that will push through. I mean, you'd have to be super brave to, you know, be an LGBTQ activist in

00:22:15.420 China. But people are brave. There are brave people in the world. We could be surprised.

00:22:21.440 Here's the weirdest story. Facebook censored a post by Bjorn Lomborg. You might know him as one of the

00:22:35.520 people who talks about climate change and the economics of climate change, and points out that

00:22:40.200 if you were to objectively look at the economics of climate change, it doesn't look so bad.

00:22:46.020 If you were to be objective and to analyze it correctly. Now, the Lancet pointed out that global

00:22:57.140 warming saves more people than it kills. This is in the Lancet, right? This is not conspiracy

00:23:06.080 theory. This is not a climate denier. This is in the Lancet, right? And I'll talk about Project

00:23:15.200 Veritas. And in the Lancet, they said, basically, that more people are saved by it warming up, because

00:23:24.820 the most dangerous thing is the cold. I guess the cold kills more people than the heat. I didn't know

00:23:31.060 that. So, so far, it looks like global warming has saved a net 166,000 lives each year.

00:23:39.140 So, there are more deaths. There are more deaths from heat, for sure. But there are more, far more

00:23:47.880 people saved by it being a little warmer. Now, here's the funny part. Facebook censored that,

00:23:58.640 censored it. Facebook censored the Lancet. Not because that information was wrong. Just think

00:24:12.380 about that. It's a scientific, a respected scientific, you could argue how respected it is. But certainly

00:24:19.400 in the upper tier of scientific publications, even though they've had some major issues, right?

00:24:26.760 And Facebook decided to censor them. And not because they were wrong. I don't believe, I don't

00:24:35.300 believe Facebook said this is wrong. Because I don't think the data is wrong. Or at least, you know,

00:24:40.680 that's not the problem. It's just that the narrative didn't go their way. I think. Now, maybe I'm

00:24:48.460 missing something in the story. But I don't think so. I heard this from Bjorn himself. He messaged me

00:24:54.360 on Twitter. Because Twitter did not censor it. So, we'll give the thumbs up to Twitter.

00:25:01.340 Allowed this content. Because it's right. It's just, it's just actual data. And it's the Lancet.

00:25:06.220 So, Twitter says yes. Facebook censored it. I mean, my God. My God.

00:25:18.460 Now, do the deadly virus hoax. Somebody says. All right.

00:25:27.300 New York Times has some fear porn today. It says, scientists have detected early warning

00:25:32.640 signs that a critical ocean system is at risk, according to a new analysis. A slowdown in

00:25:38.360 the network, which influences weather far and wide, could spell trouble. So, the essence here

00:25:43.240 is that climate change will change the nature of the ocean systems. And that could be cataclysmic.

00:25:51.900 Cataclysmic. That sounds pretty bad. So, that's what the tweet says. Do you think the article

00:25:57.220 says that? Do you think the article says anything like what this tweet says? That a critical ocean

00:26:08.020 system is at risk? And blah, blah, blah, from climate change? Nope. Not exactly. What it

00:26:16.500 does say is that the people studying it don't see any signs that we're in trouble. It could

00:26:22.720 be. Because things are changing. So, it is true that it's a risk. But it's not sized. Is it

00:26:31.680 a 1% risk? 90% risk? Even the people studying it are saying, no, no, don't say it's a risk. I

00:26:39.240 mean, or don't say, don't say we know this is going to happen. We don't know. It might

00:26:43.500 be a problem. Might not be a problem. That's very different, isn't it? So, this is clearly

00:26:49.460 a case of turning a real story into fear porn. All right. A lot of hallucinating people.

00:26:56.020 Have any of you been following me on Twitter lately and watched the comments? And you see

00:26:59.920 how many people are literally hallucinating opinions for me? I'll tell you the funniest

00:27:04.860 ones. These are real people saying this in public. And cognitive dissonance is real easy

00:27:11.300 to spot when you're not in it. If it's somebody else's cognitive dissonance, it really stands

00:27:16.260 out. Let me give you some examples. Somebody said today, to me, said, you fail to recognize

00:27:23.700 that vaccine hesitancy is caused by the perceived risk of the shot. What? So I'm being criticized

00:27:31.140 for failing to recognize that vaccine hesitancy is caused by people thinking that the shot might

00:27:37.800 be risky. What? There isn't a single person in the world who has this misunderstanding. Literally,

00:27:46.120 every person in the world knows that vaccine hesitancy is because people are worried about

00:27:51.840 the shot. How can you possibly hallucinate that I'm on the other side of this opinion?

00:27:58.340 Now, a lot of my tweets today that my critics coming after me are like this one, where somebody

00:28:04.960 states an assumption that I have and then bitches about it, except the assumption that they give 0.97

00:28:10.940 me is ridiculous. And certainly nothing I've ever said or thought or suggested. So the typical 0.96

00:28:16.720 comment about me today is, Scott says, the moon is full of cheese. But the probes don't seem

00:28:24.580 to suggest that. And I think, well, no, I really didn't say the moon is full of cheese. But why

00:28:32.160 are you even thinking that? Now, there's a reason that so much of it is happening today. Do you

00:28:36.640 know? Why is so much of that happening to me today? It's because of my tweets lately, which

00:28:44.760 means that I've triggered cognitive dissonance in a number of people. And they're playing it

00:28:49.300 out by saying literally ridiculous things and imagining that somehow that's my opinion. 0.67

00:28:55.920 Because if they attacked my actual opinion, they'd have a problem. Because they can't. Or they 0.77

00:29:03.420 don't know how. All right. Project Veritas. There's a whistleblower video in which a doctor

00:29:11.660 in some hospital is saying that the vaccinations are shet. Those are her exact words. The vaccinations 0.99

00:29:17.660 are shet. And that there's somebody in the hospital who has probably myocarditis from getting the

00:29:25.680 vaccination. At least that's suspected the cause. Now, is that a whistleblower who is blowing the

00:29:33.960 whistle and actually also says that that person would not be tracked? So I guess that's even the

00:29:38.920 worst part. Is that if there's a person who had an adverse effect, and as far as this doctor

00:29:45.740 knows, there's no tracking. That nobody's going to pick this up. Is that true? Do you think that

00:29:54.280 nobody is studying adverse effects? Because I think that they're doing it by sample? What

00:30:01.400 do you think? I could be wrong. But my belief is that the, you know, there are some groups

00:30:08.540 of experts who have at least sampled, done surveys, and asked people, all right, you got

00:30:14.000 the vaccination. How did you feel the week after or whatever? Don't you think they did sampling?

00:30:19.240 Now, I do believe that they did not track, meaning count every person who got it. That

00:30:27.960 sounds real. I mean, she's the doctor. She would know they're not reporting it. If she

00:30:32.480 says they're not reporting it, I believe it. That seems credible. But don't you think they've

00:30:38.520 sampled it? The doctor is silent on that. So I would say, first of all, the doctor is

00:30:45.720 showing some ignorance, I think. But give me a fact check. It might be me showing the 0.68

00:30:52.020 ignorance. My belief, and this is not based on a specific source, but my belief is that

00:30:59.580 we do track it, but we do it by samples, not by trying to count every person. Can somebody

00:31:05.360 give me a fact check on that? Is there anybody here who would know the answer to that? Somebody

00:31:11.920 says sampling would only be during initial trials originally, but I think that we have

00:31:16.600 sampled after that. And we would also be sampling the people from the trials, right? Were there

00:31:22.400 not tens of thousands of people in the trials? And would that not be enough if you followed

00:31:27.320 up on them to know how many of them got a bad reaction? And wouldn't that tell you what

00:31:32.420 you needed to know? So if you have that data, would you absolutely need to count the

00:31:37.280 people? Or would you trust the samples? All right. So I would say that that doctor

00:31:45.300 doesn't know the answer to that question, probably. I don't think any of you do. I'm

00:31:49.320 looking at your answers. I don't think any of us know the answer to this. But I don't

00:31:56.300 think the doctor does either. So factor that in. Very few people in trials. No, I think

00:32:02.660 there were like 40,000 people in trials, weren't there, by now? Probably different vaccinations.

00:32:10.380 But my question is this, for people who... I just saw a comment I'm going to have to deal

00:32:20.480 with later. All right. Then this doctor said that, you know, the vaccination is causing

00:32:28.640 a problem. Now, was this anecdotal information or data that you should make decisions on?

00:32:35.040 All right. There's a whistleblower doctor with a video, Project Veritas, who says she has

00:32:40.920 specific knowledge of a patient or maybe two that had negative effects from the vaccination,

00:32:48.080 she thinks. Is that data? Or is that just an anecdotal situation and a doctor spouting

00:32:54.940 off who might not know how they track stuff? Why is this even in the news? Does anybody

00:33:05.660 know? Why is this even a headline? Somebody says, you know something is off here. No, I don't.

00:33:14.240 I don't know that. If you're saying, do these vaccinations have more side effects than other

00:33:20.040 vaccinations? I wouldn't be surprised at that. That wouldn't surprise me at all. But we're

00:33:25.600 comparing that to the alternative of no vaccination. The doctor was recorded without her knowledge.

00:33:33.460 Yes. Yeah, that doesn't make it a whistleblower, does it? But why is this even news? There's a doctor

00:33:41.200 who was worried about the vaccination side effects. Probably lots of doctors are worried about the

00:33:46.800 side effects. If you've ever seen the side effect, I would imagine if you're a doctor and you had a

00:33:50.920 patient who had a side effect, you'd be very worried about it, even if it was just one, right? So

00:33:57.940 you're welcome.

00:34:03.900 Yeah, I don't know. There might be something in the story I'm missing, but one doctor who sees some

00:34:09.020 bad side effects from the vaccination, we already knew that. We know that there are side effects,

00:34:16.140 we just don't know how many, and this story doesn't give us that, right? The only question is how many.

00:34:21.380 Do we all agree with that? There's nobody who's doubting there are bad side effects with

00:34:26.700 vaccinations, including this one. The only question is how many. And that whistleblower thing didn't

00:34:33.260 give us any information about how many. So I don't know what did we get from that.

00:34:38.180 So you know the mystery of why China seems to have no COVID deaths, or virtually none? I saw a hypothesis

00:34:53.500 on this on LinkedIn. So a gentleman who has some connection with China, seems to have a little,

00:35:01.660 seems to have a hand on things over there, said the following, and he sounded authoritative,

00:35:06.480 it sounded like he knew. I wasn't guessing. I'll just put this out here as a hypothesis, okay? Just

00:35:12.980 a hypothesis. Number one, doctors in China don't test for COVID. They just treat it.

00:35:21.960 If you have symptoms for COVID, they just assume you have it, and they treat you like you have it,

00:35:28.060 including quarantine, including whatever therapeutics. But they don't count it.

00:35:34.720 So one part of the, one part of it could be there might be plenty of COVID, but they're treating it

00:35:43.100 like the flu. They're just making sure that you quarantine. And nobody talks about it. It's like,

00:35:49.560 okay, you got this symptom, stay away from everybody for two weeks, and take these therapeutics,

00:35:55.260 and let me know if it gets worse. So it sounds like they just don't count it. They just treat it

00:36:01.640 like it's cold. Now, the other thing that this gentleman suggested is that in China, and I can't

00:36:09.040 confirm this, right? This is an unconfirmed report. He says, he seems to know, he says he knows this,

00:36:15.480 that the deaths are listed by the comorbidity, not by coronavirus. So if you've got,

00:36:20.220 if you've got some advanced cancer, and you also get the coronavirus, and you die, in China,

00:36:27.300 they say you die to cancer. Do you believe that? I don't know that it's true. This is, this is the,

00:36:33.600 this is the report from one person that I can't confirm. I'll bet they do. At least some of them,

00:36:41.640 maybe. And are they wrong? Would that be lying? Yeah, I'm seeing in the comments, somebody says,

00:36:47.380 yeah, that's logical. I would say that somebody who has advanced cancer, and dies at the same time

00:36:53.300 that they have COVID, it might have been the last straw. But they died from cancer. Right? Likewise,

00:37:00.480 somebody who's morbidly obese, gets COVID and dies, I feel like they died from obesity. Like in my brain,

00:37:08.900 that's how I process it. I get that the last straw, and the last, you know, causal,

00:37:15.920 proximate thing was the COVID. But it doesn't feel like that's what killed them. I mean, just in my

00:37:21.300 mind, it doesn't feel like that. So maybe in China, they do count it differently. Also, I'm told that

00:37:27.200 the average age is younger in China. The life expectancy is much less. Is that true? I don't know

00:37:34.300 that that's true. But if it is true, you would have fewer 80 pluses to die as a percentage. But

00:37:40.660 there's still be so many of them in China. Seems like that can't be part of the answer. And then 1.00

00:37:45.560 the, of course, the weight of the Chinese people, there are very few overweight people,

00:37:51.360 relatively speaking. If the only thing that was different in China was, they basically don't have

00:37:57.680 much in the way of fat people. And doctors aren't testing for it. So they're not recording it.

00:38:02.900 They're just treating it. And they list the death by the comorbidity. Have we explained

00:38:09.580 the whole thing? Did that explain everything? I'm not quite there. I don't think that would

00:38:16.540 explain everything. It doesn't feel like enough. But maybe part of it could be part of the answer.

00:38:21.840 I don't know. It feels true-ish. Let me say it's credible without necessarily knowing that

00:38:28.800 it's true. Sounds credible. I mean, it just has that feel to it, doesn't it? Somebody says vitamin

00:38:34.480 D levels. I don't think that's the big thing in China. All right. Maybe it's the green tea. Who

00:38:40.780 knows? I've heard that green tea has some properties. So far, there are 675,000 COVID deaths, at least

00:38:48.000 the way we count them here in the United States, as Jonah Goldberg was tweeting, caused some people

00:38:54.040 to respond. Punky Booster responded by showing the actual mortality rates by age group. So for example,

00:39:02.620 under the age of 19, your survival rate is 99.9973. It doesn't sound like much of a problem, does it?

00:39:11.160 You go up the range, you get all the way up to 50 to 59, and your survival rate, if you get it, is still

00:39:17.380 99.73. Again, it doesn't seem like that big of a problem, does it? But you get above 70, and

00:39:26.840 suddenly you're in the range of 5% of the people dying over 70. Now, that includes people who are

00:39:33.600 institutionalized, et cetera, in hospitals. Now, I like this standard, and I'm going to adopt it.

00:39:41.960 So I take this point, that these percentages say this is something we should not be worried about.

00:39:48.600 And so I'm going to stop worrying about other things, too.

00:39:53.060 For example, I'm going to stop worrying about gun violence, because as a percentage of people,

00:40:01.780 it's not really very high. Gun violence? What percentage of people die from guns? It's got 0.94

00:40:08.000 to be pretty low, right, as a percentage, at least, you know, in different, certainly in my age group.

00:40:13.780 How many people in my age group die from gun violence? People in their 60s? Like zero? So why do I care

00:40:22.000 about gun violence? Should I? How about drunk driving? Should we have any laws about drunk driving?

00:40:29.960 Because as a percentage, very few people die of drunk driving. Very few. So why worry about it?

00:40:40.040 How about overdose deaths? Eh, lost in the rounding. How many people 64 years old? That's my age.

00:40:50.740 How many people died from overdose deaths age 64? Vanishingly small. Vanishingly small. So I'm not

00:40:57.820 worried about it. Right. How about domestic terrorism? Domestic terrorism. Why don't we report

00:41:05.500 domestic terrorism the same way as a percentage of Americans who die from it? Why is domestic

00:41:12.060 terrorism our top priority when almost nobody dies from it? Percentage-wise, it's like nothing.

00:41:18.960 All I'm asking is, why don't we use the same standard for everything? They're not the same. I'm not suggesting all these

00:41:27.720 topics are the same. But there should be a reason, a reason we treat them differently. I just don't know what the

00:41:33.820 reason is. Yeah. Percentage dying from fentanyl. Tiny. As a percentage of all overdoses, it's a big percentage.

00:41:44.440 But as a percentage of people in my age group, nothing. Practically nothing. Yeah. So just think

00:41:55.020 about that. I would suggest that anything is a problem if it's a problem in its absolute number

00:42:01.480 or its percentage. It's a problem. If either one of those is a problem, it's a problem. You can't say

00:42:08.420 that the number is big, but I'm going to ignore it because the percentage is small. That's not really

00:42:14.460 the way we think about anything, really. Let's talk about that VAERS database. You know the VAERS

00:42:21.600 database that shows the negative, potentially negative reports of people who got vaccinations

00:42:27.800 and then had a bad outcome from the vaccination itself? Well, the VAERS database, as you know,

00:42:33.480 is not scientific. It's just supposedly to raise a flag in case there are big problems

00:42:39.100 that are so big that you don't even need a study to see them. Right? Looking for problems that are so

00:42:45.940 big, you don't need to do a controlled trial to look for them. They're like, oh my god, everybody's

00:42:51.060 reporting that their ears are falling off or something. So then you do the study if you saw a flag

00:42:57.040 raised. So it's not science, but it's useful. The VAERS database. Now, the thing that's

00:43:03.160 important about it is that if you looked at the numbers reported, you know, from vaccinations in

00:43:08.040 prior years, it's a tiny little graph. If you look at the past year, it's this gigantic number.

00:43:13.840 So we went from very few vaccination reports, relatively speaking, to a big number with these 0.92

00:43:20.700 new vaccinations. So what's that tell you? Go. What's that tell you? The VAERS database has a big,

00:43:28.480 big spike, really big, based on this latest vaccination for the COVID. What's that tell

00:43:34.760 you in the comments? Well, it does tell you it raises a flag, right? So exactly what the VAERS

00:43:44.520 database is supposed to do, it tells you, hey, you better look into this. So we'd all agree on that,

00:43:49.680 right? Point number one, the VAERS database does, I think we all agree, tell us that the coronavirus

00:43:57.240 vaccination is something we need to look at. Everybody on the same page? It definitely flags 0.86

00:44:03.460 that you should look at it. Now, once you look at it, suppose you find out that the reports are all

00:44:10.060 true. What if you find they're all true? Do you then ban the vaccination? No, no, that's not how it

00:44:19.780 works. You would still compare the benefits of the vaccination to the reported and actually confirmed

00:44:26.560 problems. So the fact that there might be, let's say, 20 times, I'll just pick a number, I don't know

00:44:33.240 if this is accurate. But let's say there are 20 times more VAERS report for the coronavirus

00:44:37.500 vaccination. Does that mean you should not take it? No, no, nothing like that. It just means there

00:44:45.180 might be 20 times more problems. Maybe, we don't know, but maybe. But that wouldn't get to the question

00:44:52.080 of whether you should take it, because you'd still have to compare it to the alternative. All right. Now,

00:44:56.720 here's a thought experiment. You ready? You ready to have your minds blown by a thought experiment?

00:45:01.420 Imagine this. Imagine a legislation comes out that every American needs to eat one banana.

00:45:11.420 Okay? Every American has to eat one banana. And then report to the VAERS database,

00:45:20.100 the following week after eating the one banana, any bad health outcomes. What would that year

00:45:26.900 on the VAERS database look like? Everybody got a banana? Everybody. Whole country, everybody got a

00:45:34.040 banana. At the same time, one banana. And then for the week or two after, they report to the VAERS

00:45:41.220 database all their health problems. Now remember, if you had a bad headache, that goes in. Now, you don't

00:45:48.580 know that that was caused by the vaccination, but that's not what the VAERS database does.

00:45:52.020 The VAERS database just says, I got vaccinated soon after I had this problem. It doesn't go to

00:46:00.400 causation. What would the spike in that data look like? Well, I think it would be through the moon,

00:46:07.280 wouldn't it? If you were to track the health outcomes from a banana, would it look exactly like

00:46:15.740 the health outcome from the VAERS, from the vaccination? Right? Now, in past vaccinations,

00:46:24.160 what percentage of the country got vaccinated in any one year? Right? In a typical year, let's say

00:46:31.080 2014, just pick a year, what percentage of all humans in the country got vaccinated? Five? Five percent?

00:46:40.540 I'm just guessing. Somebody says 30%. Really? Oh, yeah. Maybe. Maybe 30%. Yeah. If you count flu and

00:46:48.980 everything else? Could be. Yeah. But can you compare a year in which 30% get vaccinated to a year in

00:46:56.740 which 70% get vaccinated? I mean, that's one difference, right? So at the very least, you have

00:47:04.900 to adjust your numbers for how many people are getting any kind of vaccination at all. And then

00:47:10.980 look at the banana example. How many, if everybody ate a banana, 300 million people ate a banana,

00:47:18.020 how many people would have a bad outcome within a week? 10 million? You'd probably have 10 million

00:47:25.040 people with a banana-related bad outcome that had nothing to do with a banana. It just happened

00:47:30.640 to be that week. R.W. here. So I keep telling you about all the cognitive dissonance. R.W. says

00:47:41.520 this. Scott, let me help you out. Quote, I was wrong about everything for the last year and a half

00:47:46.340 about coronavirus. Speaking about me being wrong about everything about the coronavirus. I would

00:47:52.300 submit that I am the most right about the coronavirus of any public figure. Do your own research.

00:48:00.340 Find out for yourself. Look at everything I've said about the coronavirus from the start

00:48:04.260 and compare everything I've said about it to every other pundit. And I will bet you a large

00:48:13.900 amount, actually, that I have the most accurate predictions. Not 100%. Nobody got everything

00:48:20.100 right, right? Would you all agree that everybody got something wrong? I said the vaccine is a

00:48:25.940 therapeutic, right? I said from the start that therapeutics would be what gets us through

00:48:31.860 this, not vaccinations. And sure enough, the vaccination is just a therapeutic, right? I said

00:48:38.400 that masks, I said they were lying about mask effectiveness. And they were. Now, you're arguing

00:48:46.500 that maybe they're still wrong about masks? Separate question. What I predicted is that they

00:48:51.500 were lying about masks? And that was confirmed. Nobody else said that. Who was the first person

00:48:57.880 in the world to say we should close travel from China? Okay, probably Jack Posobiec. But who

00:49:04.760 was the second person? Me. Me. Way before Trump did it. If you go right down the list, I was

00:49:16.420 the most accurate about the pandemic. I think by far. I don't think anybody was even close.

00:49:21.580 If you look decision by decision. You advised Trump? I didn't advise him on the coronavirus.

00:49:33.180 You were not better than ZDog? Really? Challenge accepted. Somebody said I was not better than ZDog.

00:49:47.820 And ZDog's very good. If you're not following ZDog on locals and other places, you should.

00:49:52.600 ZDog would be, you know, at the highest level of credibility, I would say, for any of this stuff.

00:50:01.940 And I'll bet my record would be better than this. Because I remember, I didn't make a prediction

00:50:07.260 on everything. So if there were things that I didn't have a strong feeling about, I just

00:50:11.440 didn't make a prediction. But when I did, I'll bet I had the strongest accuracy record of anybody

00:50:17.900 in the public. Check it out yourself. But make sure you don't leave anything out, right? And

00:50:24.100 make sure you accurately get my opinion. All right. I'm going to need to go in a moment.

00:50:31.120 But I will tell you that my comment about the VAERS database and the banana example was liked

00:50:36.980 on Twitter by a Mayo Clinic professor, Vincent Rajkumar. I don't know if you're watching, Vincent,

00:50:44.120 but thank you for liking that. And I only point that out to say there was at least one person who

00:50:49.100 does know what they're talking about, who agreed with my point. Doesn't mean it's right. But at

00:50:55.200 least one smart person who knows what he's talking about agrees with it. Just in case you wondered if

00:51:00.820 anybody did. All right. Norm's autobiography. Yeah, I keep hearing that I should listen to Norm's

00:51:11.520 autobiography. I've listened to exactly zero books on tape, so I don't expect that to change.

00:51:22.000 Yeah, you can keep asking me, but I don't think it's going to happen.

00:51:28.800 You are correct. We had a massive increase in the number of vaccinations compared to pre-22. Yeah,

00:51:33.740 we should have. Your point is flawed. I love that people just say, your point is flawed. All right,

00:51:43.540 that's all I got now. And I will talk to you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - September 21, 2021

Episode 1506 Scott Adams： Congress, Climate Change, Coronavirus： Everything Bad Starts With the Letter C

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript