Episode 1506 Scott Adams： Congress, Climate Change, Coronavirus： Everything Bad Starts With the Letter C
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
145.75282
Summary
In this episode of the podcast, I talk about a new technology that's happening that you don't see coming, and how it's going to change the world in the next 5 years. It's called 5G, and it's a big deal.
Transcript
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
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.
00:08:20.320
But if you wanted to go somewhere else, somewhere that's not the Carlton Reserve,
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
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.
00:12:12.280
Probably not. Probably not. Probably say something like, maybe you should get more sleep.
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
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.
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
00:18:35.180
woman syndrome. Now she didn't make that up. She borrowed that from somebody else's commentary.
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?
00:18:59.260
An attractive young white woman? Do you think? I don't think this would be
00:19:05.000
a national story. If she were just a black woman? Exact same story, but it's a black woman.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
00:28:10.940
me is ridiculous. And certainly nothing I've ever said or thought or suggested. So the typical
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.
00:28:55.920
Because if they attacked my actual opinion, they'd have a problem. Because they can't. Or they
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
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
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
00:34:03.900
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
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
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
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
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,