Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1531 Scott Adams： Now!

00:00:00.000 Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm running a little bit late this morning, so you've seen

00:00:06.400 the unprepared version of me.

00:00:09.980 Watch me print my notes and close my blackout shutters and pull up my comments without even

00:00:18.540 missing a beat, because that's what I do.

00:00:22.180 All right.

00:00:23.980 Oh, damn it.

00:00:26.280 Damn it, damn it.

00:00:27.220 I'm not going to be able to do what I want to do.

00:00:34.320 All right.

00:00:35.080 Hold on, locals people.

00:00:36.660 I'm going to make a quick adjustment here, and then everything will be cool.

00:00:51.120 Well, people on YouTube, you're seeing the show before the show.

00:00:55.180 It's the one that usually only the local subscribers see.

00:01:00.520 Whoa, I can't reach my notes.

00:01:03.160 I have to unplug.

00:01:04.120 Hold on.

00:01:14.140 You know what I say about quality?

00:01:15.980 Totally overrated.

00:01:21.760 Yeah, I could try to make this a quality program, but who would want to watch that, really?

00:01:28.580 I think you'd rather watch me struggle and fail.

00:01:31.920 Well, let's see.

00:01:40.340 Let's see.

00:01:41.640 In one moment, I'm going to be up and running here.

00:01:45.260 How many of you found empty shelves today?

00:01:47.680 Oh, God damn it.

00:02:00.220 Okay.

00:02:01.260 For some reason, that didn't work.

00:02:03.380 Hold on again.

00:02:04.980 I'm having a technical difficulty.

00:02:07.540 Tweet, fail to send.

00:02:15.680 Hmm.

00:02:16.200 For some reason, I can't tweet.

00:02:18.180 I wonder what that would be.

00:02:19.540 Is Twitter down?

00:02:22.760 Weirdly, if I can't tweet, I can't see your comments.

00:02:26.000 Oh, and now I'm all fucked up here.

00:02:29.600 All right.

00:02:30.100 Well, I'm going to have to keep this on, this perspective.

00:02:34.340 Wow.

00:02:36.960 Your local store had no spaghetti?

00:02:39.100 Are you kidding me?

00:02:40.680 How the hell do you run out of spaghetti?

00:02:45.580 That's pretty bad.

00:02:47.420 All right.

00:02:49.960 So, I know why you're here.

00:02:52.780 And something that has to do with the simultaneous sip,

00:02:54.640 and all you need is a cup or a mug, a glass of tank, a chalice, a canteen, a jug, a flash, a vessel of any kind,

00:02:58.500 fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:02:59.960 I like coffee.

00:03:01.840 Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day,

00:03:05.740 the thing that makes everything better except my punctuality.

00:03:09.440 It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it improve your antibodies.

00:03:14.460 Now, go.

00:03:18.940 Mmm.

00:03:19.960 Mmm.

00:03:24.780 My favorite story of the day was in the Huffington Post.

00:03:29.400 The Huffington Post.

00:03:31.860 Ah, antibodies.

00:03:33.600 Yeah.

00:03:34.800 And the Huffington Post reports that, uh, this is the headline.

00:03:39.380 Daniel Craig, you know him, he plays James Bond,

00:03:42.800 prefers going to gay bars, and you probably can't guess why. 0.96

00:03:48.440 That's right.

00:03:50.160 Daniel Craig, he prefers going to gay bars, and you probably can't guess why.

00:03:54.120 I think I can.

00:03:59.220 I'm going to take that challenge, and I think I'm going to guess why he goes to gay bars. 1.00

00:04:07.520 Mmm.

00:04:07.960 Well, I think I'll keep my guess to myself.

00:04:12.920 But I've got a, I've got a hypothesis why a good-looking actor would go to a gay bar time and time again with his gay friend often.

00:04:23.560 Um, the article was written by, in Huffington Post, by Ron Dicker.

00:04:31.580 D-I-C-K-E-R. 1.00

00:04:33.380 Ron Dicker.

00:04:34.080 So, I don't know, maybe you could meet this challenge, too.

00:04:40.180 Why would a actor go to a gay bar? 0.53

00:04:46.480 I don't know, I'm stumped.

00:04:48.360 I assume it's because the drinks were low-cost?

00:04:52.340 Maybe better parking?

00:04:55.400 I don't know.

00:04:56.140 Could be a lot of reasons.

00:04:56.920 Have I told you that following the money always predicts?

00:05:05.000 Now, here's, everybody knows that if you follow the money, people tend to do whatever is in their financial interest, right?

00:05:11.300 No, no surprise there.

00:05:13.000 But it also works, and I don't know why, where it shouldn't work.

00:05:18.960 Let me give you an example.

00:05:19.800 Uh, remember the story about the elk that had a tire that somehow had got a tire around its neck, but then its antlers grew, so it couldn't get the tire off?

00:05:31.400 So, after years of people sighting this elk, they, I guess they tranquilized it, and they removed the tire.

00:05:38.700 But the way they removed the tire is by removing the elk's antlers.

00:05:44.140 Now, that's not a big deal, because antlers regrow every season. 0.81

00:05:47.440 But, people asked, well, wouldn't it make more sense to cut the tire?

00:05:53.640 You know, why wouldn't you cut the tire?

00:05:56.140 Just leave the antlers. 1.00

00:05:58.180 And, I got the best, the best answer to that from, uh, Grover Norquist.

00:06:04.740 You all, you might recognize that name.

00:06:06.920 All of the news junkies know that name.

00:06:08.660 Grover Norquist.

00:06:10.000 So, he's, uh, he's most famous for, uh, being against extra taxes.

00:06:16.060 Yeah, he's the low-tax guy.

00:06:19.420 So, we follow each other on Twitter, and, uh, Grover saw that story.

00:06:24.700 And, in answer to the question why the tire was removed instead of the, no, why the antlers were removed instead of the tires, Grover tweets,

00:06:34.600 they could not sell the tire for as much as antlers.

00:06:37.200 They could not sell the tire for as much as antlers.

00:06:42.840 And, I thought to myself, well, that's probably true.

00:06:46.760 They probably didn't throw away the antlers, did they?

00:06:49.820 Because, it seems like, do people buy them?

00:06:53.260 For, I don't know.

00:06:54.920 I guess they do, right?

00:06:56.100 People buy antlers?

00:06:57.660 Is that a thing?

00:06:58.260 Now, here's, here's the funny part.

00:07:02.660 I don't personally believe that that had anything to do with why they removed it the way they did.

00:07:09.280 But, watch how often it predicts.

00:07:13.320 You'll see a situation in which there's no way the money makes any difference.

00:07:17.520 It's like a big psychological decision, or it's political, or it's health-related.

00:07:24.340 But, it's definitely not about the money.

00:07:25.900 But, coincidentally, the decisions will always be in the same direction as the money.

00:07:33.420 Even if it's not much, and even if the other decisions or other variables are way bigger.

00:07:39.820 It's just something to watch for, let's say, for fun.

00:07:43.580 I will not assert that it works in some statistically meaningful way.

00:07:48.920 I just know that my observation is it always works.

00:07:52.380 I assume that's confirmation bias.

00:07:54.260 It couldn't always work, right?

00:07:57.380 That can't be true.

00:07:59.140 It can't always work.

00:08:01.580 But, it looks like it.

00:08:03.940 I mean, it's hard to find any, maybe you just don't notice the exceptions.

00:08:07.220 That could be the case.

00:08:08.460 Maybe the exceptions are just boring, and they don't make you even notice.

00:08:12.380 Last night, I'm told, Tucker Carlson had a segment about the Auckland, I think he was a professor,

00:08:27.560 who did a study and determined that the Havana Syndrome, the so-called secret microwave-slash-sonic weapon

00:08:34.960 that was injuring diplomats in our embassies, probably was nothing but mass hysteria.

00:08:42.560 Now, how many of you saw that?

00:08:46.360 How many of you watched Tucker's episode about the Havana Syndrome possibly not being real?

00:08:52.600 A lot of you saw it.

00:08:55.600 Here's the funny thing.

00:08:57.520 I record Tucker every night.

00:08:59.880 You know, I just, I have an app that works with my Comcast slash Xfinity.

00:09:05.300 And I record that show every night, as well as, you know, Gutfeld and The Five.

00:09:10.260 So, so those are the three shows that I record every day.

00:09:14.680 The only show that doesn't have audio on my recordings is this one.

00:09:20.060 The ones I recorded yesterday are all fine.

00:09:23.020 And in fact, the show before Tucker's was fine.

00:09:26.120 Like, it has a little lead-in, it records like a minute before the show starts, and that has audio.

00:09:31.840 As soon as Tucker starts, the audio goes off.

00:09:34.780 And I thought to myself, oh, darn, it's my device.

00:09:37.520 So I went to a different device.

00:09:39.060 Same thing.

00:09:41.460 The app is called Stream, and it's part of the Xfinity, the cable company where I live.

00:09:47.680 So it's the cable company's app.

00:09:51.020 So here's the weird part.

00:09:55.000 There is nothing I've wanted to see more than that episode.

00:09:59.280 Because it agreed with me, right?

00:10:02.320 So yesterday, you know, I heard that Tucker had something that doubted that there was a weapon.

00:10:10.500 Now, most of you know, I think I'm the only public figure who said on day one of that whole embassy Havana syndrome thing,

00:10:18.420 that it's mass hysteria and there's no weapon.

00:10:20.560 So the fact that there would be a major segment on a major news channel, even an opinion show, was really, really interesting to me because I have skin in the game.

00:10:31.620 Why is it that the only thing I can't play?

00:10:36.240 No, I looked for it on YouTube, and I looked for the clips, and it doesn't exist.

00:10:41.040 Now, here's the interesting thing.

00:10:43.580 Part of the story, and I don't know if Tucker talked about this, but part of the story, whether Tucker talked about it or not,

00:10:50.500 is that the media has been reporting this as true, that there's some kind of weapon, maybe, probably, allegedly.

00:10:58.880 And NBC and CNN, as NBC has been part of that reporting,

00:11:06.320 and as you know, if you follow Glenn Greenwald especially, NBC is often accused of being the CIA's captured network,

00:11:16.020 meaning that NBC News basically reports what the CIA wants them to report.

00:11:22.800 Now, I'm not saying that's true.

00:11:25.100 I'm saying that's the allegation.

00:11:29.980 And you see people like Glenn Greenwald back up the allegation quite well.

00:11:35.540 So I'm saying it's an allegation with a lot of evidence.

00:11:39.720 That's all I know.

00:11:40.420 So you've got NBC still trying to sell this thing as maybe some kind of a Russian weapon,

00:11:49.160 which sounds exactly like something the CIA would want you to believe if they want to put pressure on Russia

00:11:54.640 and they need the public to back them.

00:11:57.300 And I'm asking you this.

00:12:00.500 What are the odds that that one thing that the CIA doesn't want you to see, allegedly, right?

00:12:05.120 We can't confirm that.

00:12:06.500 But what are the odds that the one thing that the CIA doesn't want you to see

00:12:10.680 also is the one thing that can't be seen?

00:12:14.520 It's not anywhere else.

00:12:16.260 Can somebody find a clip of that,

00:12:18.540 just that segment of the Auckland professor talking about the Havana syndrome,

00:12:23.780 and tweet it at me?

00:12:26.020 Because I wonder if it exists.

00:12:28.780 I wonder if it's already been scrubbed from the Internet.

00:12:33.620 Is that a coincidence?

00:12:34.720 Because you have to ask yourself,

00:12:36.940 is the one thing that you know the CIA doesn't want you to see,

00:12:40.480 when I say you know it,

00:12:42.320 let's say you're highly confident.

00:12:45.060 We can't know anything in today's world.

00:12:47.340 So certainly any absolute confidence of anything is ridiculous in 2021.

00:12:52.700 But it feels like it.

00:12:54.500 Just a coincidence?

00:12:55.640 That that's the one thing I can't watch?

00:12:57.380 I don't know.

00:12:58.680 Probably a coincidence.

00:13:00.080 Let me say it clearly.

00:13:02.300 Probably a coincidence.

00:13:03.340 But the fact that I have to even ask the question is very disturbing, isn't it?

00:13:09.260 Like, why do I even have to doubt that that happened naturally?

00:13:13.220 Just a technical problem.

00:13:15.900 I don't know.

00:13:16.520 I hate that I have to ask the question.

00:13:19.000 How many of you think Taiwan is at real risk of China attacking militarily?

00:13:24.500 In the comments, in the comments, how many of you think there's a real risk of a military attack?

00:13:32.040 And let's say in the next two years.

00:13:36.140 Next two years, risk of a military attack.

00:13:38.900 I'm seeing some yeses and some low percentages, like 5%.

00:13:44.820 Okay, yeah.

00:13:49.960 Somebody here pedantically is saying, yes, there's a risk.

00:13:53.760 Okay, technically, technically there's a risk, right?

00:13:56.820 So I would say that's a given, that there's a risk.

00:14:00.460 It's just so small.

00:14:02.700 So CNN had an opinion piece on this.

00:14:05.580 I thought it was pretty good.

00:14:06.380 I forget who wrote it.

00:14:07.680 But the point of it is that there's not really any indication that China is too serious about a military attack.

00:14:16.140 And I saw a map of the incursions, which was very interesting, because I'd never seen it before.

00:14:26.040 It was some context about all these military planes that China is putting into Taiwan's airspace.

00:14:33.320 Now, when you heard that, what did your mind give you as a picture?

00:14:38.280 When you heard that Chinese warplanes, lots of them, were suddenly penetrating Taiwan airspace,

00:14:47.100 what did your brain give you as a picture for that?

00:14:52.080 Like, what was the little, the visual that you got?

00:14:55.040 You gave it to yourself, because you didn't see a visual.

00:14:57.520 But what did it look like?

00:14:59.080 Did it look like planes flying directly over Taiwan?

00:15:02.920 Probably not, because you're sophisticated viewers of the news.

00:15:06.220 And you said to yourself, no, no, not over the land.

00:15:09.920 They were over the airspace, meaning that over the ocean around Taiwan that China claims as their own.

00:15:18.900 Right?

00:15:20.200 I saw a picture of that incursion.

00:15:23.300 Let me show you what it looked like.

00:15:25.000 Now, my picture is not to scale, and it's not the same dimensions, but I'll give you the idea.

00:15:29.560 Imagine, if you will, that this napkin is the space that Taiwan claims for their airspace.

00:15:41.380 And let's say Taiwan is right in the middle and occupies maybe, I don't know, 20% of the space,

00:15:48.280 but it's in the middle here, maybe even 10%.

00:15:50.840 Where do you think all the Chinese incursions were?

00:15:55.540 They're all on this corner right here.

00:16:01.160 That's it.

00:16:01.800 Well, maybe a little bit more.

00:16:04.680 That's it.

00:16:05.960 It was in this weird little corner, which Taiwan, when it draws its airspace around itself,

00:16:12.260 it declares its own airspace.

00:16:14.520 So I don't think it's an international standard.

00:16:17.400 It's just Taiwan saying, hey, this is our space.

00:16:19.680 And China just flies directly out, and they cross this little corner of the ocean that Taiwan claims as their airspace.

00:16:29.280 How many of the flights were in all of this other area?

00:16:34.180 None.

00:16:35.480 None.

00:16:36.540 They were all just in this little corner.

00:16:39.240 All China did was clip this corner, but they did a lot. 1.00

00:16:42.580 You know, hundreds of times.

00:16:44.480 But just this little corner.

00:16:46.900 That's it.

00:16:47.600 If they had flown here, like just outside this little corner, we wouldn't be talking about it.

00:16:55.460 But because they clipped the corner, we're talking about it.

00:17:00.040 Now, what gives Taiwan the right to this little piece right here? 0.92

00:17:05.840 The only piece that was violated.

00:17:07.640 What gives Taiwan that right?

00:17:10.840 Nothing.

00:17:11.900 Nothing.

00:17:13.300 Taiwan just claimed the right. 0.63

00:17:15.540 They just said, hey, this is ours.

00:17:17.100 And I looked at, you know, my example is bad because it's symmetrical.

00:17:23.340 But the actual airspace is more, I don't know, it's more like weird shaped.

00:17:30.140 Something like this.

00:17:32.440 So the corner that China is clipping off is sort of the extended corner.

00:17:36.820 It's the one that looks a little furthest from the island itself.

00:17:44.500 Am I wrong that if you had seen that picture from the start and known that the violation is the most trivial violation that they could get away with?

00:17:52.860 China is violating their airspace, of course, but in the most trivial way, according to the picture.

00:18:03.080 And I had never seen the picture until today.

00:18:05.420 Yeah, it's still provocative, etc.

00:18:06.780 But the people who seem to be smart on this topic don't think there's any real risk.

00:18:11.520 It looks like it may be for internal politics because there's some big Chinese meeting coming up.

00:18:17.900 So it's probably just for internal reasons.

00:18:20.360 So I think you can stop worrying about that one right away.

00:18:22.500 Well, finally, the country is coming together because the people who are against vaccination mandates are gloriously, gloriously all over the map.

00:18:39.880 So you've got your Black Lives Matter, you've got your Christian conservatives, you've got your police officers, you've got your teachers.

00:18:48.180 So you've got your Democrats, you've got your Republicans.

00:18:54.280 I can't think of another issue that unified the country this much.

00:18:58.260 Can you?

00:18:59.440 Airline pilots, thank you.

00:19:01.620 Yeah.

00:19:02.440 It's weirdly...

00:19:06.500 I want to feel...

00:19:08.740 I want to join the rest of you and feel anxious and bad about the division in the country because we're all talking about it.

00:19:15.640 But I'm not feeling it.

00:19:19.100 Like, I know it's there.

00:19:20.160 I'm not denying the division in the country.

00:19:22.340 I'm just saying that a lot of this stuff looks like the normal and maybe even preferred evolution of thought.

00:19:31.040 Meaning the fact that the government took control during the emergency.

00:19:36.400 Wouldn't you want that?

00:19:38.740 Don't you want the government to take a firm control, even if they make mistakes, it's your best bet, during an emergency?

00:19:45.740 I can see somebody says no.

00:19:47.520 Well, I like that you're consistent.

00:19:49.820 So I appreciate the people saying no.

00:19:51.440 I don't want the government to ever take control in any situation.

00:19:55.520 I feel that's a legitimate opinion and I won't criticize it because it's consistent.

00:20:01.700 I imagine that those saying that just always say that.

00:20:05.280 So if you're consistent, I support you.

00:20:09.900 So let me just put it in my opinion.

00:20:11.800 In my opinion, because obviously a lot of you disagree, in my opinion, the government needs to take control in military matters and maybe a big crisis like this.

00:20:22.120 Did they do it well?

00:20:22.920 Well, that's a separate question.

00:20:24.420 But I think it's your best bet.

00:20:26.340 Now, I'll accept that you disagree with me on that.

00:20:29.240 But it's only good if the people can take it back.

00:20:34.840 The people need to regain, you know, grab it back. 0.60

00:20:37.860 And of course, the government, when it takes power, it doesn't like to give it up at all.

00:20:41.180 We know that, right?

00:20:41.940 But we have plenty of examples of, let's say, hurricanes where the government took power during the hurricane as an emergency.

00:20:50.620 And as soon as they were done, they got out of there as soon as they could because they didn't want to be there grabbing any power.

00:20:57.020 They just wanted to do the job and leave.

00:20:58.620 And what I see as this anti-vax coalition, which isn't organized in any sense, but sort of an informally natural coalition without organization, I feel good about it.

00:21:14.400 I feel good that there's a balance of power.

00:21:17.700 The government took control.

00:21:20.320 Most of you disagree.

00:21:21.500 But I thought, well, it was our best bet, even if it's not ideal.

00:21:26.000 But it might have been our best bet.

00:21:27.420 That's how you get the vaccines, et cetera.

00:21:31.900 But I love the fact that the country is starting to push back.

00:21:36.360 And I'm not even, you know, it doesn't even matter that I'm on the side of the pushback people or not.

00:21:41.160 I like that they exist.

00:21:43.100 It's a good reminder to the government who's in charge.

00:21:47.760 So the more people who resist and the more actively they resist, I'm not saying I'm on their side or not on their side.

00:21:55.380 They can make their own decisions.

00:21:56.820 What I say is I like living in a country where it's happening.

00:22:00.780 I like living in a country where the government can take control and then the people can say, you know, just about now is when you need to be giving it back.

00:22:10.840 And they won't take no for an answer.

00:22:15.700 That's not all bad, right?

00:22:17.640 It's an uncomfortable place to be.

00:22:19.320 We're not happy where we are.

00:22:20.640 We'd like to be in a better place.

00:22:22.300 I get all that.

00:22:23.080 But I like that our system allows this constructive tension between government and the people.

00:22:32.080 And so far, I still see the people having the power.

00:22:35.260 It might take a while.

00:22:36.660 It's not going to be instant.

00:22:38.080 But I think the people will get what they want.

00:22:39.880 I believe the mandates will not stand.

00:22:42.820 What do you think?

00:22:44.220 Do you think the mandates will stand?

00:22:47.040 I think they'll stand in some places.

00:22:49.680 But I don't imagine that the people will let them stand for long.

00:22:54.160 And certainly not everywhere.

00:22:55.440 Yeah, I think there'll be too much pushback eventually.

00:23:02.220 So I've got this question whether we have a supply chain problem or the simulation has been proven.

00:23:09.720 When I go to the local grocery store where I live, the shelves are basically full, right?

00:23:18.100 If you look down the row of shelves, it looks full with one exception.

00:23:22.520 You'll see this long row of products, and then there'll be this little hole in the shelf.

00:23:28.440 No more than this big.

00:23:30.100 In a gigantic line, everything's full, but just this little big.

00:23:33.580 That little hole represents the product I came for.

00:23:39.600 And I'm like, wow, crap.

00:23:40.900 The one thing I want is the only thing missing.

00:23:44.940 So I go to the next aisle to look for the other thing I'm looking for.

00:23:48.760 And there's only one thing missing.

00:23:52.520 And it's the damn thing I want.

00:23:55.560 Now, I noticed this first during the pandemic.

00:23:58.320 Christina asked me for some very specific things.

00:24:01.480 A specific brand of soda, which literally disappeared during the pandemic.

00:24:06.360 It doesn't exist anymore.

00:24:08.040 As soon as she started saying, this is the only soda I want, it just disappeared.

00:24:12.860 It was Dr. Pepper, no caffeine, and also diet.

00:24:22.140 Just disappeared.

00:24:23.700 I think that's what it was.

00:24:26.080 And likewise, she had a food product that was on a shelf with all the food products were there,

00:24:33.460 except that one.

00:24:34.560 That one food just disappeared and never came back.

00:24:36.940 Now, am I supposed to believe that the one thing I look for is the thing that's missing?

00:24:45.640 Here's the other possibility.

00:24:48.020 So one is that it's just a coincidence, and it's confirmation bias,

00:24:51.540 and I don't notice the other things that are missing.

00:24:53.780 You know, just normal psychological phenomenon.

00:24:56.740 But it's also very consistent with us being in a simulation.

00:25:02.540 Here's why.

00:25:04.920 Because there's nobody else buying food.

00:25:09.640 If this is a simulation, I'm the only one buying food.

00:25:14.620 And everything else is an illusion.

00:25:17.140 Right?

00:25:18.340 So the NPCs don't buy food.

00:25:20.980 They just look like it when you're shopping.

00:25:23.480 They look like they're buying food.

00:25:24.840 But as soon as you leave, they empty the carts and put it all back on the shelves.

00:25:31.140 So here's my point.

00:25:33.100 If the simulation has a bug, the only thing that's going to be missing is the food that you buy.

00:25:39.400 Because it's your simulation.

00:25:41.500 The generic food that's the background food that you'll never buy is just there to create scenery.

00:25:47.640 It never changed, and there was no bug in it.

00:25:50.200 So the only thing changed was your specific food.

00:25:52.980 Now, I'm not too serious.

00:25:58.740 Jen says, oh my God, Scott, where is your brain going?

00:26:01.980 Simulation theory is such an illusion.

00:26:05.100 Now, Jen, do you know that Elon Musk has the same opinion I do about the simulation?

00:26:12.980 And the actual scientists and philosophers who know what they're talking about do?

00:26:21.260 It's accepted science in the sense that it's accepted as a serious alternative understanding of reality.

00:26:30.260 It doesn't mean it's true, but it is completely accepted by smart people as, well, maybe.

00:26:37.600 All right.

00:26:38.020 By the way, I just did that one for fun.

00:26:40.780 I'm not too serious about the supply chain thing.

00:26:43.900 Trump has said some new provocative things about Arizona, which I will not tell you are true.

00:26:52.180 Okay?

00:26:52.940 So I'm going to tell you a bunch of things that Trump says, but don't imagine that I say any of this is true.

00:26:59.600 Is that clear?

00:27:00.120 I don't know that it's untrue.

00:27:02.740 I don't have an opinion on it, true or untrue, but we'll talk about it in a moment.

00:27:06.480 So these are Trump's claims.

00:27:09.760 Talking about a couple of precincts in Pima, Arizona.

00:27:16.600 And apparently there are great irregularities there, Trump and others have claimed.

00:27:21.020 And Trump says they overplayed their hand and got caught.

00:27:23.440 Two precincts in Pima had over 100% turnout for mail-in ballots, which is impossible.

00:27:29.960 And 40 precincts had over 97% returned, which is basically impossible.

00:27:37.400 And that if you add these things together, the irregularities is more than enough margin to win.

00:27:44.200 Turnout rates of 99% and 100% is what you get in a third world country. 1.00

00:27:51.000 Blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:27:51.960 Blah, blah, blah, blah.

00:27:52.960 So, and he shows a graph in his statement.

00:27:57.720 Now, the graph that he showed to demonstrate that there was a certain time of night when all the ballots turned in a different direction,

00:28:06.100 I think it was Dr. Shiva's, his analysis.

00:28:12.200 So, here's my question.

00:28:14.420 Why is Trump complaining about Arizona irregularities and not using information that came from the Arizona audit?

00:28:24.700 Wasn't the Arizona audit on his side?

00:28:31.420 What am I missing in the story?

00:28:33.520 Can somebody connect the dots for me?

00:28:35.040 How could it be that Dr. Shiva has this solid, incontrovertible evidence that Trump is putting forward now?

00:28:45.320 How could Dr. Shiva have that, but the people who were certainly looking for that, the Arizona audit, they didn't have that?

00:28:53.400 They didn't have that.

00:28:56.880 Or they didn't believe it enough to put that forward as a claim.

00:29:02.240 A different county.

00:29:04.420 Is that why?

00:29:05.340 Was it?

00:29:05.660 So, Pima wasn't part of the Maricopa audit.

00:29:09.840 Okay, that's the answer.

00:29:11.180 Thank you.

00:29:12.180 Remember I was telling you yesterday that this model that we have, where I talk out loud and you correct me in real time?

00:29:18.740 It is effectively like a different form of intelligence.

00:29:22.900 Because in real time, you just basically fixed my brain, because I couldn't connect why there was a disconnect there.

00:29:30.520 It was just a different county.

00:29:32.280 So, that's the answer.

00:29:33.160 Now, if you didn't know anything except what I just told you, and that describes most of us.

00:29:42.740 If you didn't know anything but what I just told you, Trump makes these claims.

00:29:46.840 Dr. Shiva seems to be the source of some part of it.

00:29:52.120 And it claims more than, you know, something close to 100% turnout, which would be impossible.

00:29:57.140 How credible are these claims?

00:29:59.860 Go.

00:30:00.040 Don't tell me whether they're true or false, because you don't know.

00:30:04.100 We don't know if they're true or false.

00:30:06.100 We don't know if true or false had changed the election.

00:30:08.740 Only is it credible.

00:30:10.740 Meaning, is it the kind of thing you would be inclined to believe because of its nature and maybe the source and everything you know about life?

00:30:19.740 Credible or not credible?

00:30:21.260 I'm just looking at your answers, and I see not, interestingly.

00:30:28.620 I thought most of you were going to say yes.

00:30:32.260 I really thought you were going to say yes.

00:30:35.660 Interesting.

00:30:37.860 I'm kind of shocked.

00:30:41.160 I'm blown away.

00:30:42.060 So I think most of you are good with the difference between what is credible versus what is true.

00:30:52.740 Often you can't know what's true, but you can tell if the claim is credible.

00:30:57.900 All right.

00:30:58.260 So some of you think it's credible.

00:30:59.680 Some of you think it's not.

00:31:00.720 I told you at the beginning of the process of the election and the audits that 95% of everything you see about a claim of irregularity,

00:31:12.100 without even knowing what the claims would be, before they even happened, I told you 95% would be bunk.

00:31:20.020 Was I right?

00:31:21.960 How was my prediction that 95% of the specific claims, not the general idea that there was a fraud,

00:31:28.900 I'm not talking about the general idea.

00:31:31.400 I'm talking about specific claims.

00:31:33.480 I said 95% of them would be false, maybe 100, but at least 95% of them would be false.

00:31:40.740 How close was I?

00:31:43.520 One of my best predictions.

00:31:46.180 Because no matter what you think about whether the election was fair or not overall,

00:31:50.560 would you agree with me at this point that the specific claims have 95%, well, you could say 100% been debunked?

00:32:01.060 True?

00:32:01.720 True or not?

00:32:03.100 I think that's one of my best predictions of all time.

00:32:06.940 Because again, I'm the only person saying it that I know of.

00:32:10.700 I can't think of anybody else who said, no, 95% of everything you hear is going to be wrong.

00:32:14.960 Well, he only provided data, not claims.

00:32:25.740 How are you measuring this?

00:32:27.140 I'm not measuring it with any science.

00:32:30.120 I'm just saying that I haven't seen any claims that have been confirmed yet.

00:32:34.840 So predicting that 95% of them or more would not be confirmed seems to be pretty close to the mark.

00:32:41.500 No?

00:32:42.260 All right.

00:32:43.400 So let's keep an eye on that.

00:32:44.680 That's kind of fun.

00:32:50.720 There's something happening here that's really interesting.

00:32:54.400 Now, I might, I think some of you are going to imagine I've changed my opinion when you hear this next part.

00:33:01.540 Because on Twitter today, I think I saw at least three people hallucinating my opinion

00:33:08.200 and telling me that, you know, it's about time I came to the right opinion.

00:33:12.560 Because I was so wrong before, to which I say, I never had that opinion you thought I had.

00:33:19.640 I never had that opinion.

00:33:20.520 So some of you are going to have that experience in a moment.

00:33:24.560 You're going to have an experience that you think I changed an opinion.

00:33:27.620 That isn't going to happen.

00:33:30.020 But see if you feel like it.

00:33:31.580 Tell me in the comments if it feels like I changed my opinion.

00:33:34.780 It just feels like that to you.

00:33:36.300 I've told you before that one way I judge the truth of things in the news

00:33:44.360 is I look for a correspondence between what the science says

00:33:47.920 and what direct observation tells me.

00:33:51.160 Now, if my direct observation conflicts with what the science says,

00:33:56.180 it doesn't mean the observation is right.

00:33:59.060 It means I've got questions.

00:34:01.620 For example, science says that smoking cigarettes can give you cancer.

00:34:07.720 My observation is that people who have lung cancer almost always smoke cigarettes.

00:34:13.200 Very good.

00:34:14.560 Compatible.

00:34:15.500 Totally compatible.

00:34:16.180 Science says if you take this antibiotic,

00:34:19.820 your bacterial infection will probably go away.

00:34:23.820 I take the drugs, my infection goes away.

00:34:28.660 Good.

00:34:29.200 Science and observation, pretty good.

00:34:32.000 They conform.

00:34:34.260 But science is also telling us that very few people are being injured by vaccinations.

00:34:41.640 Science is very clear about that.

00:34:43.400 Yes, people can be injured by any kind of vaccination,

00:34:47.600 really any kind of medicine.

00:34:49.620 But there are not many.

00:34:51.740 Not many.

00:34:52.680 At least compared to the number of people who are having COVID problems.

00:34:56.960 But I asked on Twitter, because people keep telling me anecdotally

00:35:00.160 that they know people who are injured by vaccinations.

00:35:03.740 Now, first question.

00:35:05.540 Does anybody know that somebody in their circle was injured by the vaccination?

00:35:11.460 Do they know it?

00:35:12.340 Or is it just that they got the vaccination and then a very unusual health problem

00:35:17.920 happens soon after?

00:35:20.260 You agree they don't know it, right?

00:35:23.060 They just have a strong, strong suspicion.

00:35:26.800 So strong that they speak of it as if it's obvious.

00:35:30.040 Now, could be, and you also know that in a big country, there would be coincidences like that

00:35:38.580 that would look exactly like people were being injured, even if they weren't.

00:35:45.100 Don't give me the VAERS database, because that's a different story.

00:35:49.160 All right.

00:35:49.400 So here's my opinion that you're going to think is a change of opinion, but it isn't.

00:35:56.300 You ready?

00:35:58.540 So I asked on Twitter how many people personally know people who are injured by the vaccination.

00:36:03.580 That doesn't mean they know it.

00:36:05.000 It means they strongly suspect it.

00:36:06.840 And it's a lot.

00:36:08.940 It's a lot.

00:36:09.820 The people who say, I personally know people or multiple people that they believe were injured

00:36:18.260 by the vaccine, it's a lot.

00:36:20.340 So, what do I have now?

00:36:25.520 I've got the science telling me one thing, that the side effects are rare, and then I've

00:36:31.820 got personal observation, but it's really a third-hand personal observation.

00:36:38.220 Really, all I can observe is people telling me they observed something.

00:36:42.320 Pretty sketchy, right?

00:36:43.500 But if I had observed it myself, I would likewise be subject to confirmation bias.

00:36:51.140 So the fact that other people are telling me, and maybe they have confirmation bias, probably

00:36:56.200 doesn't change much.

00:36:57.500 Because if I had directly seen it myself, I'd probably have the same confirmation bias.

00:37:01.960 So, let me say this as clearly as possible, and tell me if you think this is a change of

00:37:07.420 my opinion.

00:37:07.940 There is clearly a disconnect between observation and science.

00:37:16.480 Are you happy?

00:37:19.040 Everybody happy?

00:37:20.460 How many of you have been beating me up saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's so many people,

00:37:25.580 you know, I hear all these reports, it's in the VAERS database, which is not confirmed

00:37:29.120 stuff.

00:37:30.580 Are you happy?

00:37:32.800 I, too, I, too, see what you see.

00:37:35.360 Meaning that it is clear to me there is a disconnect between the science and the observation.

00:37:43.600 That does not mean the science is wrong.

00:37:46.060 You all get that, right?

00:37:47.020 Doesn't mean the science is wrong.

00:37:49.020 But it is a big honking red flag.

00:37:52.600 So all of you who keep telling me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why are you missing the big red flag?

00:37:59.140 I'm not.

00:38:00.200 I'm not.

00:38:00.800 It's a big red flag.

00:38:02.260 Exactly like you say.

00:38:03.380 But just be aware that confirmation bias is still the most likely explanation.

00:38:10.960 I don't know that that's the explanation.

00:38:13.340 Again, I can't be sure of that.

00:38:15.680 Just like I can't be sure that the reports are real.

00:38:18.840 I can't be sure of anything at this point.

00:38:21.560 But yes, I am completely on the side that says, there's something going on here, and I

00:38:26.740 don't feel like we're fully informed.

00:38:28.420 That's different from saying you shouldn't take a vaccination, right?

00:38:33.780 I'm not saying you shouldn't get vaccinated, and I'm not saying you should.

00:38:37.500 I'm saying that this is one of those perfectly crafted situations, accidentally crafted, in

00:38:45.160 which your science and your observation, they've got some disconnect.

00:38:49.700 I would say that's true.

00:38:51.780 I still think it's probably confirmation bias, plus probably these vaccinations have more

00:38:58.900 side effects than others.

00:39:01.320 Probably.

00:39:02.400 That's as far as I can go.

00:39:05.040 All right.

00:39:05.340 But Chris Vickers, a Blue Check Mark fellow on Twitter, you've probably never heard of 0.98

00:39:13.300 him, but he's a Blue Check, he tweeted this today.

00:39:16.020 He goes, set a date now.

00:39:18.000 After that date, no hospital services for the willingly unvaccinated. 0.99

00:39:23.420 So it's a Blue Check Twitter person calling for unvaccinated people to not have medical care

00:39:30.260 after a certain date, because, you know, they've been warned.

00:39:34.540 You've been warned.

00:39:37.500 To which I tweeted back, if we didn't need to treat citizens who injured themselves by

00:39:42.560 their own choices, one way or another, we could close 90% of our hospitals and still have

00:39:49.280 extra capacity.

00:39:52.400 So Chris, have you not noticed that most of the reasons people are in the hospital are

00:39:58.320 bad choices?

00:40:00.260 Now, you think this one's a bad choice.

00:40:03.020 Other people don't.

00:40:04.220 So I'll recognize that people disagree whether vaccination is a good or bad choice.

00:40:09.500 But that's mostly what the medical community does.

00:40:15.080 The entire medical community is correcting for your dumbass mistakes.

00:40:20.940 I mean, of course people are dying from natural causes.

00:40:23.820 But when was the last time you saw somebody in the hospital waiting room or the emergency room

00:40:30.040 who looked perfectly fit?

00:40:31.220 And if they do, it's a broken leg because they did something dumb.

00:40:36.180 Right?

00:40:38.320 It seems to me that a tremendous amount of our entire health care budget is correcting

00:40:42.860 people's dumbass choices in life.

00:40:44.880 So why would you call this one out to be special?

00:40:49.120 It's not special at all.

00:40:51.240 We're making a bad choice every time we wake up.

00:40:54.400 Exercise today?

00:40:55.720 Nah, I'm busy.

00:40:58.040 Eat less?

00:40:59.600 Eh, not today.

00:41:02.140 Right?

00:41:02.440 Smoke less?

00:41:03.140 Meh.

00:41:04.760 Okay.

00:41:09.040 Provocatively, I ask this question.

00:41:13.280 Is it just a coincidence that everything I try to influence goes my way?

00:41:19.280 Is that just a coincidence?

00:41:20.640 Probably not 100%.

00:41:21.900 But have you ever noticed that coincidence?

00:41:25.200 That whenever I'm persuading on a particular topic, it seems to go my way?

00:41:30.860 Well, today we learned that Great Britain has decided that nuclear energy will be the cornerstone

00:41:39.080 of their plan to get to zero carbon emissions.

00:41:43.300 Great Britain is all in on nuclear power.

00:41:48.080 Now, Adam Townsend had a podcast, I think it was yesterday, in which he had an expert from

00:41:55.860 Oklo, I think, O-K-L-O, a new generation nuclear startup, and asked this question on my behalf.

00:42:04.680 So Adam had solicited questions to ask these experts, and one of my questions got asked.

00:42:10.920 And it was, if America can't get nuclear, if we can't get nuclear in America, how can we get it in space?

00:42:18.000 Now, the expert explained that because it's space, the type of energy you can use up there is not every kind of energy.

00:42:27.100 You couldn't burn oil, or you can't use coal in space.

00:42:31.280 You know, you can't run an extension cord for electricity.

00:42:34.340 So there's lots of things you can't do to get energy in space, but the one thing you can do is nuclear.

00:42:39.600 And in fact, we already do it.

00:42:41.800 I think some satellites are nuclear, right?

00:42:44.640 Fact check me on that.

00:42:45.660 And Adam asks, on my behalf, can there be a space force without that?

00:42:54.360 And the expert said, basically, you need nuclear for space.

00:42:59.340 Now, once you know that you need a domestic nuclear program, a good one, a robust nuclear program,

00:43:06.000 because otherwise you give up space, it's over, isn't it?

00:43:10.320 The question of whether America needs to go hard into nuclear energy for domestic use is completely answered by just that one fact.

00:43:21.380 If we give up space, that's the end.

00:43:25.340 That's basically putting a timer on the United States to no longer be an important power.

00:43:30.840 You know, it might be 50 years in the future, but it definitely puts the timer on.

00:43:35.180 And it says, okay, if you're not going nuclear, you're not in space.

00:43:38.100 If you're not in space, you're not going to rule anything on Earth either.

00:43:41.300 You're done.

00:43:42.040 It's the end of your republic.

00:43:43.040 So I think this only could go one way, and also climate change, et cetera, was screaming for an answer.

00:43:50.840 The answer was already there.

00:43:52.400 It was nuclear.

00:43:53.320 Just people were not well informed.

00:43:55.600 So when people like Michael Schellenberger testified to the American Congress

00:44:01.040 and gave them information for the first time, a lot of them were under-informed.

00:44:06.780 But once they were informed, you saw that the United States Congress, both parties, are like, yeah, nuclear.

00:44:14.140 Boom.

00:44:15.200 So just being informed and brought up to date on what the real risks are with the newer technologies, et cetera, was enough, probably.

00:44:24.880 So Schellenberger for the win.

00:44:27.220 But did you know that Michael Schellenberger also did the same thing in Great Britain?

00:44:33.580 And also brought his expertise to Great Britain in 2019, and was asked, you know, what to do about climate change, et cetera,

00:44:42.180 and told them the same thing.

00:44:43.940 There is one solution.

00:44:45.620 It works.

00:44:47.560 There's one solution.

00:44:48.640 Nuclear.

00:44:49.540 There's not a second solution.

00:44:51.900 And now Great Britain also, now informed.

00:44:56.240 Yeah, Apocalypse Nefer was Michael Schellenberger's book that talked about that.

00:45:01.220 And now informed, Great Britain's not just on board with nuclear, but aggressively, aggressively on board.

00:45:10.120 So I asked this question provocatively.

00:45:12.420 I said, you know, is it a coincidence that everything I persuade on goes my way?

00:45:18.320 It's not because I caused it.

00:45:20.940 It's because I could tell which way things are going to go.

00:45:25.200 Right?

00:45:25.760 Now, I did, of course, try to influence as much as possible.

00:45:30.700 Mark Schneider was a big part of informing me so that I could inform others.

00:45:35.920 And I don't know if you know, but a number of people in Congress followed me on Twitter.

00:45:40.280 Did you know that?

00:45:41.760 There are quite a few people in the news business and in Congress who followed me on Twitter.

00:45:46.480 And so I've been, you know, informing, basically, using what I knew from Mark Schneider, from Michael Schellenberger, to communicate the safety and the necessity of nuclear.

00:45:58.640 And here we are.

00:45:59.700 But I don't think it was my power of persuasion that made the difference.

00:46:05.680 Obviously, it was, you know, Schellenberger made a big difference.

00:46:08.900 Mark Schneider, I think, made a big difference.

00:46:10.340 But I think it was inevitable.

00:46:14.420 I basically predicted something that couldn't go any other way.

00:46:18.260 There was only one way this could go.

00:46:20.300 It was a matter of how much time.

00:46:22.820 But as soon as people were brought up to speed, information-wise, there was only one way it was going to go.

00:46:29.600 So when I cheekily say, is it a coincidence that everything I try to influence goes my way?

00:46:36.640 It's not because I influenced it necessarily.

00:46:39.020 Maybe I did, but not necessarily.

00:46:41.840 It's because I'm good at picking things that are going to go that way anyway.

00:46:44.680 Let me give you another example.

00:46:46.280 One of my earliest efforts for influence was getting smoking out of public places and out of offices and stuff.

00:46:55.520 So I put a lot of work into that.

00:46:57.660 But wasn't that going to go my way anyway?

00:47:00.000 I mean, really?

00:47:01.440 You know, do you think that smoking was always going to be allowed indoors?

00:47:06.080 No, no.

00:47:06.900 I just knew it was obvious which way it was going to go.

00:47:10.780 I threw in on that direction.

00:47:13.080 Maybe I made some difference.

00:47:14.360 Maybe not.

00:47:15.800 But it was more like a prediction.

00:47:18.400 And it's easy to predict the inevitable.

00:47:21.060 Likewise, other persuasion that I've been very involved in was the right to die, to have a doctor-assisted death.

00:47:29.820 So in California, that passed.

00:47:32.180 So that was the law.

00:47:33.500 And I persuaded very hard on that topic.

00:47:36.580 But again, wasn't it going to go that way anyway?

00:47:40.420 Really?

00:47:40.940 I feel like I just picked the topic that was going in the right direction.

00:47:43.840 So just keep that in mind.

00:47:49.300 But I like putting that out there because it's provocative.

00:47:55.060 Here's a question.

00:47:57.340 All right.

00:47:57.660 I'm going to quiz you to see your general knowledge of a very important fact about COVID.

00:48:04.320 You ready?

00:48:04.840 If you get this fact right, if you get the right answer, then I would say that your opinion about vaccinations might be credible because it means that you know more than other people.

00:48:19.500 All right.

00:48:19.680 So here's the test.

00:48:20.840 We're going to see if you know enough to have a good opinion about vaccinations.

00:48:26.940 Here's the question.

00:48:27.860 Do vaccinations cause more variants like the Delta?

00:48:35.360 Now, the Delta came before the vaccinations.

00:48:38.040 But do the vaccinations cause more or could they cause more variants?

00:48:46.340 Look at the answers that are streaming by on each of your platforms.

00:48:50.480 We're seeing a mixture of no's and yes's.

00:48:54.280 Do you see that the mixture is pretty mixed?

00:48:58.680 Pretty mixed.

00:49:01.040 Seeing a lot of yes's, but seeing a lot of no's.

00:49:04.960 Now, how could you have an opinion on vaccinations unless you know this?

00:49:10.720 Pretty important, isn't it?

00:49:13.760 All right.

00:49:14.340 How many of you have heard of the chicken vaccinations, which there is a study that shows that the vaccinations for the chickens, for some chicken disease,

00:49:25.400 actually did, according to a study, did increase the variants?

00:49:31.080 How many of you are aware of that study?

00:49:34.240 Are you aware of the study about the chickens and how their vaccinations increased the number of variants?

00:49:41.260 Because that's what is always tweeted to me when I bring up the topic.

00:49:45.840 OK, so if you're not on Twitter, maybe you've never seen it.

00:49:49.700 But let's just say there is a study.

00:49:52.620 And the study says that where they vaccinated the chickens, it increased the variants.

00:49:57.000 So, let's say that was true.

00:50:01.280 Now, it's just a study.

00:50:02.820 You'd want to see some more studies and et cetera.

00:50:05.680 But let's say it's true.

00:50:07.340 Let's say you believe it.

00:50:09.000 Does that, if it's true, does it tell you something about the coronavirus vaccine?

00:50:13.620 If it's true for chickens, oh, and I'll add something.

00:50:17.580 I'm going to add something.

00:50:18.820 The chicken vaccination is also leaky, just like the coronavirus one.

00:50:25.040 Leaky meaning that even when you're vaccinated, you can still get it.

00:50:31.120 You just won't die.

00:50:32.980 So, they're both leaky.

00:50:35.340 Does the fact that you know the chicken vaccination, let's say you do know that,

00:50:39.660 cause more variants, does that mean that you have the same risk with the coronavirus?

00:50:46.520 Go.

00:50:47.480 Let's see in the comments.

00:50:50.860 This vaccine is novel, so you can't compare.

00:50:53.640 That is a correct answer.

00:50:55.680 I'm looking for something else, but that is a good comment.

00:50:58.360 Yeah, you can't compare.

00:51:00.760 They're just different technologies, et cetera.

00:51:05.140 We're not comparing to natural immunity now.

00:51:07.840 Drop that topic for now.

00:51:10.580 Chickens are not humans, of course.

00:51:12.360 But remember, we're talking about the logic of it.

00:51:15.460 We're only talking about the logic of it.

00:51:17.660 Is the logic that if your vaccine stops most of the virus,

00:51:23.220 that the only ones that can get out are the bad ones,

00:51:26.960 the variants that escape the vaccination's coverage?

00:51:29.760 This paid comment says, selecting for a specific protein to target,

00:51:37.480 which is what we do with coronavirus,

00:51:39.320 increases the probability it could cause mutations.

00:51:42.700 I haven't heard that before.

00:51:46.160 But I don't know if that's true, but add that to your questions.

00:51:50.920 All right.

00:51:51.320 Here's what I believed was true.

00:51:54.720 What I believed is that the more virus, the more variants.

00:51:59.460 Anybody?

00:52:02.080 Does anybody agree with me?

00:52:03.760 Not the more filters, but the more virus.

00:52:07.880 To me, if you had a billion times more viruses,

00:52:11.780 they'd be just naturally mutating all over the place,

00:52:14.700 and some of them would be stronger, like the Delta,

00:52:16.960 and they would take over.

00:52:18.880 But suppose only one person in the world was ever infected.

00:52:22.880 We'll just take the extreme.

00:52:24.640 Only one person in the world has ever been infected.

00:52:27.720 Would that one person create just as many variants

00:52:32.120 as if a billion people were infected?

00:52:35.080 The answer is no.

00:52:37.080 No, a billion people infected create more variants

00:52:39.520 because there's more virus, right?

00:52:41.920 So if your vaccine was not leaky,

00:52:45.160 would you have a problem?

00:52:46.960 Nope.

00:52:47.920 If your vaccine is not leaky,

00:52:49.720 give somebody the vaccination,

00:52:51.080 and they're just out of the game.

00:52:52.560 They're taken completely out of the game

00:52:54.200 because they won't get it,

00:52:55.760 and they won't transmit it,

00:52:57.300 if it's not leaky.

00:52:58.980 But our vaccines are leaky.

00:53:01.380 So in that case,

00:53:03.280 do they cause more variants or fewer?

00:53:06.060 Well, let me tell you about the chicken vaccination.

00:53:09.740 The case of the chicken vaccination

00:53:11.680 does tell you something, I think,

00:53:14.860 about the coronavirus vaccination.

00:53:16.960 It does tell you something,

00:53:18.480 and it's important.

00:53:20.640 Except that it tells you the opposite of what you think.

00:53:24.480 Here's the problem with the chicken virus.

00:53:26.640 It was completely different,

00:53:28.240 opposite, really, from coronavirus.

00:53:30.620 What is the thing everybody says about coronavirus?

00:53:33.720 Damn it.

00:53:34.800 It only kills less than 1% of the people who get it,

00:53:37.880 and most of them are old.

00:53:39.240 Right?

00:53:39.680 So coronavirus is a virus that kills almost nobody percentage-wise.

00:53:46.040 There's still a lot of people number-wise.

00:53:48.760 The chicken virus would have killed all the chickens fairly quickly.

00:53:52.860 So without a vaccine,

00:53:55.960 the chicken virus basically just takes out the chicken.

00:53:59.220 So they give the chicken a vaccine,

00:54:01.380 but then it can still get the virus.

00:54:04.240 And now the chicken that would have been dead

00:54:06.300 and couldn't spread

00:54:08.060 is a chicken that's very much alive

00:54:10.320 and spreading like a motherfucker. 0.91

00:54:12.240 The study about the chickens

00:54:16.240 proves the opposite point

00:54:19.520 than the people who are sending it to me think.

00:54:22.840 What they think is that it shows

00:54:24.060 that vaccinations cause more variants.

00:54:28.140 What it really shows

00:54:29.180 is that if you have more virus everywhere,

00:54:31.620 you get more variants

00:54:32.520 because these vaccinated chickens are just full of virus,

00:54:37.320 almost as if they had not been vaccinated

00:54:39.300 in the classic way.

00:54:40.640 So keeping chickens alive

00:54:43.100 so they can spread virus like crazy

00:54:45.200 causes more variants

00:54:46.400 because there's more virus.

00:54:49.820 Because there's more virus.

00:54:52.180 So the more virus, the more variants.

00:54:56.100 It probably isn't because of the vaccination.

00:54:59.740 Now go to coronavirus. 0.56

00:55:01.400 You get a vaccination for coronavirus.

00:55:03.880 Is it the vaccination that causes you to live longer?

00:55:07.780 No.

00:55:08.540 The thing that causes you to live longer

00:55:10.680 is that the coronavirus doesn't kill you

00:55:12.220 in the first place.

00:55:13.860 Except less than 1%.

00:55:15.780 So where the chicken virus kept chickens alive

00:55:20.180 that would have otherwise not spread

00:55:21.900 because they would have been dead,

00:55:23.620 the coronavirus doesn't keep anybody alive

00:55:25.680 as a percentage.

00:55:28.100 Okay, I shouldn't put that in an absolute.

00:55:30.760 As a percentage of people with coronavirus,

00:55:33.680 it's trivial

00:55:34.380 because the people who die are less than 1%.

00:55:37.220 Does that make sense?

00:55:40.680 That the coronavirus doesn't change

00:55:43.160 the number of people

00:55:44.200 who have virus accept and reduce it

00:55:48.720 because we do know

00:55:51.000 that if you get the vaccination,

00:55:53.180 you'll be spreading it for fewer days.

00:55:57.620 So probably the vaccination creates,

00:56:01.860 the coronavirus creates less infected people,

00:56:05.060 whereas the chicken virus created more infected chickens.

00:56:10.120 Literally the opposite, right?

00:56:12.260 So the chicken virus is opposite

00:56:14.400 of what you should learn from coronavirus.

00:56:18.080 Just remember this.

00:56:19.720 More virus means more variants.

00:56:22.780 Keeping chickens alive creates more virus.

00:56:24.860 Because keeping people alive

00:56:27.200 doesn't change anything

00:56:28.500 because they were going to be alive anyway,

00:56:30.580 except for the less than 1%.

00:56:32.300 How's my argument?

00:56:36.620 Now, remember I'm not a virologist.

00:56:39.980 Most of you knew that.

00:56:41.720 Most of you knew I'm not a virologist.

00:56:44.100 But the person who first said this

00:56:46.540 is a virologist, right?

00:56:48.840 So the opinion I'm giving you

00:56:50.600 has no credibility

00:56:53.480 because it's coming from me,

00:56:54.760 but now I'm going to drop the bomb on you.

00:56:57.100 It came from somebody

00:56:57.800 who actually knows the field.

00:56:59.460 I'm just repeating it.

00:57:00.940 Now, I don't know

00:57:01.700 what the general consensus is,

00:57:03.460 but I know that one expert

00:57:04.700 said exactly what I just said.

00:57:06.800 In a sense,

00:57:07.820 more virus means more variants,

00:57:09.240 and that's the end of it.

00:57:10.320 More virus is more variants.

00:57:12.380 Period.

00:57:13.820 So just look for wherever

00:57:14.920 there's more virus,

00:57:16.360 more variants.

00:57:16.920 So the Brett Weinstein,

00:57:21.260 I'm seeing this in the comments,

00:57:22.780 is that the virus forces evolution.

00:57:28.280 No, it doesn't.

00:57:30.180 It doesn't force evolution.

00:57:32.660 The virus is creating variants

00:57:34.780 at exactly the same rate,

00:57:36.420 no matter what.

00:57:38.260 It doesn't force any evolution.

00:57:40.820 What it does is let things escape.

00:57:44.620 It does let things escape.

00:57:46.920 But some things are going to escape anyway.

00:57:50.840 So I think,

00:57:54.680 so let me just say this.

00:57:56.620 Brett is also highly educated,

00:58:00.800 and I think even in the correct fields,

00:58:03.380 largely speaking.

00:58:07.260 Luke says,

00:58:08.260 now Scott knows more about biology

00:58:09.920 than the Brett Weinstein,

00:58:11.860 who's a biology expert.

00:58:13.660 No,

00:58:14.660 I'm just telling you that

00:58:16.800 somebody who does have

00:58:17.960 the right expertise

00:58:18.800 disagrees with him,

00:58:20.140 and I'm repeating that argument.

00:58:22.120 Now,

00:58:22.880 what credibility should you put on

00:58:25.040 my discussion

00:58:27.060 of the variants?

00:58:29.740 Low.

00:58:30.940 Low.

00:58:31.380 You shouldn't put too much credibility

00:58:32.620 in what I said.

00:58:33.520 But,

00:58:34.060 I am trying to present the argument

00:58:36.060 in a way that

00:58:36.860 at least you can figure out

00:58:37.860 what's wrong with it.

00:58:39.360 Right?

00:58:39.780 So all I've added to it

00:58:41.460 is the notion

00:58:42.560 that more virus

00:58:43.580 equals more variants

00:58:44.580 with no exception.

00:58:46.400 And that's something

00:58:47.540 you can fact check.

00:58:48.760 So now,

00:58:49.200 ask your experts,

00:58:50.820 is that right?

00:58:52.140 More virus

00:58:53.000 just always means

00:58:53.760 more,

00:58:54.020 in fact,

00:58:54.320 more variants.

00:58:55.620 So just boil it down to that.

00:58:58.440 And let's get a fact check.

00:58:59.940 Because could

00:59:00.560 Brett Weinstein

00:59:01.900 be right

00:59:02.420 that the vaccinations

00:59:04.060 are somehow

00:59:05.320 promoting

00:59:06.060 or causing variants?

00:59:07.300 He could be.

00:59:08.040 Definitely could be.

00:59:11.320 I wouldn't know.

00:59:12.420 But now you have a question.

00:59:14.060 Does more variants,

00:59:15.200 more virus

00:59:16.040 cause more variants?

00:59:17.540 Or does more,

00:59:18.160 or does more blocking

00:59:19.540 cause more variants?

00:59:22.920 Good question.

00:59:24.540 All right.

00:59:26.360 Marusha says,

00:59:28.140 Vax framing and resistance.

00:59:33.220 Okay.

00:59:34.480 I read your comment,

00:59:35.600 but I don't want to

00:59:37.300 mention that one out loud.

00:59:39.920 All right.

00:59:43.140 That

00:59:43.580 is pretty much

00:59:47.480 what I wanted

00:59:48.920 to tell you today.

00:59:54.880 Letter to God.

00:59:56.080 Please give Scott

00:59:56.940 a Jordan Peterson

00:59:57.880 intervention

00:59:58.520 and save Boo. 1.00

01:00:01.360 Why does Jordan Peterson

01:00:02.600 need an intervention?

01:00:03.480 What's the difference

01:00:09.040 between observation

01:00:10.160 and empirical evidence?

01:00:13.000 Well,

01:00:13.640 I think

01:00:14.080 level of rigor.

01:00:16.600 You know,

01:00:16.800 empirical evidence

01:00:17.740 suggests that you

01:00:19.100 tried to collect it

01:00:20.560 in an organized fashion,

01:00:23.000 whereas anecdotal

01:00:24.340 just means you

01:00:24.880 sort of ran into it.

01:00:29.140 Well,

01:00:29.700 I don't know

01:00:30.060 that Jordan Peterson

01:00:30.740 needs any interventions.

01:00:31.880 he seems to be,

01:00:35.420 you know,

01:00:35.920 I mean,

01:00:36.960 he has some medical

01:00:37.620 problems,

01:00:38.100 but I can't help

01:00:38.580 on that.

01:00:42.580 Oh,

01:00:43.020 itty bitty.

01:00:43.800 Thank you for that.

01:00:46.620 Oh,

01:00:46.780 you liked my

01:00:47.240 assistant story

01:00:48.080 yesterday?

01:00:49.340 That's strange.

01:00:50.080 What's this?

01:01:00.900 Patrick,

01:01:01.540 Kerry says,

01:01:02.300 Brett agrees

01:01:03.060 with your statement.

01:01:06.040 You mean the statement

01:01:07.080 that more virus

01:01:07.860 means more variants.

01:01:09.420 Is that right?

01:01:10.700 So,

01:01:11.100 yeah,

01:01:11.380 I guess

01:01:12.080 I should have been

01:01:13.360 more careful

01:01:13.960 with my

01:01:14.740 response to that.

01:01:16.520 I don't know

01:01:17.600 exactly what

01:01:18.520 Brett's

01:01:20.020 opinion is

01:01:21.100 on this,

01:01:21.860 so I shouldn't

01:01:22.520 try to characterize

01:01:23.280 it and then

01:01:24.020 talk about it

01:01:24.940 if I haven't

01:01:26.200 seen the details.

01:01:27.700 So,

01:01:28.060 just assume

01:01:28.500 that everything

01:01:28.800 I said about that

01:01:29.640 is low credibility.

01:01:31.960 Why are we

01:01:32.600 vertical today?

01:01:33.900 Because,

01:01:34.820 so there's

01:01:36.140 a weird

01:01:36.600 locals,

01:01:39.240 I guess

01:01:40.020 a bug

01:01:40.720 or maybe

01:01:41.060 a design flaw.

01:01:42.980 It would be

01:01:43.660 hard to explain

01:01:44.600 why,

01:01:47.140 but it has

01:01:47.580 to do with

01:01:47.940 the fact

01:01:48.260 that the only

01:01:48.700 way I can

01:01:49.100 see the

01:01:49.420 comments

01:01:49.980 and also

01:01:50.800 have you

01:01:51.140 in the

01:01:51.420 right

01:01:51.700 orientation

01:01:52.620 is to

01:01:53.060 have two

01:01:53.400 screens.

01:01:54.400 The only

01:01:54.940 way I can

01:01:55.400 see the

01:01:55.720 comments

01:01:56.060 is if I

01:01:56.620 tweet

01:01:57.040 and then

01:01:58.140 I go to

01:01:58.620 Twitter

01:01:58.880 and open

01:01:59.460 it and

01:01:59.880 then it

01:02:00.080 takes me

01:02:00.400 to the

01:02:00.680 right place.

01:02:02.200 Otherwise,

01:02:02.780 I can't

01:02:03.100 find it.

01:02:04.280 I mean,

01:02:04.520 I could,

01:02:05.240 but I don't

01:02:05.640 want to do

01:02:05.980 it live

01:02:06.460 while you're

01:02:06.860 waiting.

01:02:07.920 And so

01:02:09.240 it's just

01:02:09.580 an interface

01:02:10.400 oddity

01:02:10.980 that makes

01:02:11.420 it difficult

01:02:11.920 if you're

01:02:12.460 pressed for

01:02:13.020 time.

01:02:14.600 Yeah,

01:02:17.100 the number

01:02:17.440 of variants

01:02:18.180 doesn't

01:02:18.500 matter.

01:02:18.880 It just

01:02:19.100 matters if

01:02:19.540 you get

01:02:19.800 a bad

01:02:20.080 one,

01:02:20.320 right?

01:02:22.480 Please

01:02:22.920 read Steve

01:02:23.780 Kirsch's

01:02:24.380 analysis on

01:02:25.140 the vaccines

01:02:25.800 for balanced

01:02:26.580 analysis.

01:02:28.960 Mine's

01:02:29.400 pretty balanced.

01:02:31.400 Do you

01:02:31.960 think that

01:02:32.320 my take

01:02:33.660 on the

01:02:34.200 vaccines

01:02:34.740 is not

01:02:35.140 balanced?

01:02:36.440 The reason

01:02:37.120 you hate

01:02:37.520 me,

01:02:38.260 well,

01:02:38.620 those who

01:02:39.020 do,

01:02:39.280 is because

01:02:39.540 it's

01:02:39.720 balanced.

01:02:40.900 I don't

01:02:41.420 think anybody

01:02:41.820 has a more

01:02:42.200 balanced opinion

01:02:42.860 than I do,

01:02:43.600 do they?

01:02:45.180 Somebody

01:02:45.620 says I'm

01:02:46.080 not

01:02:46.280 balanced.

01:02:47.580 What would

01:02:48.140 be an

01:02:48.360 example of

01:02:48.820 that?

01:02:50.080 Not being

01:02:50.700 balanced on

01:02:51.340 the vaccination.

01:02:52.780 Be more

01:02:53.320 specific.

01:02:54.200 I'm open to

01:02:54.720 that being

01:02:55.080 true, by

01:02:55.520 the way.

01:02:56.180 I'm not

01:02:56.540 denying it.

01:02:57.700 I'm asking

01:02:58.280 for a

01:02:58.760 specific so

01:02:59.400 I can see

01:02:59.940 if I can

01:03:00.280 agree with

01:03:00.700 you.

01:03:04.620 Because I'm

01:03:05.660 trying to

01:03:06.160 be balanced.

01:03:09.360 It seems

01:03:10.080 to lean

01:03:10.520 toward pro-vax

01:03:11.440 for sure.

01:03:11.880 Let me

01:03:13.000 push back

01:03:13.440 on that.

01:03:14.340 So I

01:03:15.180 think that's

01:03:15.620 where this

01:03:16.040 is coming

01:03:16.340 from.

01:03:16.760 People

01:03:16.980 think that

01:03:17.540 I speak

01:03:19.200 more about

01:03:19.820 things that

01:03:20.300 are pro-vax.

01:03:21.540 How many

01:03:21.880 of you would

01:03:22.340 agree with

01:03:22.980 that?

01:03:23.200 I think I

01:03:23.680 would agree

01:03:23.980 with it,

01:03:24.300 too.

01:03:24.940 Do most

01:03:25.340 of you see

01:03:25.660 that?

01:03:25.900 That I say

01:03:27.300 more things

01:03:27.860 that are

01:03:28.120 pro-vax

01:03:28.880 by their

01:03:30.220 nature

01:03:30.640 than

01:03:31.660 anti-vax?

01:03:33.800 Right?

01:03:35.520 I agree

01:03:36.220 with that,

01:03:36.620 too.

01:03:37.500 So that

01:03:37.960 would be

01:03:38.200 an observation

01:03:38.840 that I

01:03:39.900 think is

01:03:40.260 just

01:03:40.460 objectively

01:03:41.000 true.

01:03:41.840 Does that

01:03:42.260 mean that

01:03:42.720 I'm

01:03:42.940 unbalanced?

01:03:45.240 Does it

01:03:45.860 mean that

01:03:46.680 I'm

01:03:46.840 unbalanced

01:03:47.380 if I

01:03:48.540 talk more

01:03:49.180 about one

01:03:49.680 side?

01:03:50.960 Is that

01:03:51.240 how that

01:03:51.540 works?

01:03:52.460 Is it

01:03:52.800 by how

01:03:53.120 much time

01:03:53.540 you spend?

01:03:54.640 Because that

01:03:54.980 does matter.

01:03:55.720 If you

01:03:56.020 spend more

01:03:56.460 time on

01:03:56.840 something,

01:03:57.200 people do

01:03:57.560 get the

01:03:57.880 feeling that

01:03:59.080 that means

01:03:59.840 more to

01:04:00.260 you.

01:04:01.320 What if

01:04:01.900 the information

01:04:03.060 is biased

01:04:03.680 in one

01:04:04.060 direction?

01:04:06.720 At least

01:04:08.400 the official

01:04:08.920 information

01:04:09.400 is biased

01:04:09.900 in one

01:04:10.200 direction.

01:04:11.040 If I

01:04:11.700 talked about

01:04:12.220 every claim

01:04:13.420 on the

01:04:14.720 internet

01:04:14.960 that is

01:04:15.440 not accepted

01:04:16.140 by general

01:04:16.900 science,

01:04:17.760 then there

01:04:18.220 would be

01:04:18.620 maybe even

01:04:19.620 more content

01:04:20.500 anti-vax.

01:04:21.820 Would you

01:04:22.060 agree with

01:04:22.400 that?

01:04:23.100 If I

01:04:23.820 addressed

01:04:24.120 every claim

01:04:25.120 that's

01:04:27.040 anti-vax,

01:04:28.440 I would

01:04:29.920 be talking

01:04:30.400 more about

01:04:31.100 anti-vax

01:04:31.760 stuff than

01:04:32.420 pro-vax

01:04:33.000 stuff.

01:04:33.800 Do you

01:04:34.020 think?

01:04:34.600 Because there

01:04:34.980 are a lot

01:04:35.300 of claims.

01:04:36.720 On Twitter

01:04:37.180 that are

01:04:37.860 anti-vax.

01:04:39.400 Now, what

01:04:40.040 is the

01:04:40.320 reason that

01:04:40.720 I don't

01:04:41.000 talk about

01:04:41.440 them?

01:04:42.360 What is

01:04:43.320 it about

01:04:44.760 my approach

01:04:45.540 that causes 0.52

01:04:46.660 me to

01:04:47.080 talk less

01:04:47.820 about the

01:04:49.000 many, many

01:04:49.560 claims of

01:04:51.080 vaccination?

01:04:53.060 Somebody

01:04:53.360 says lack

01:04:53.920 of knowledge.

01:04:55.240 I would

01:04:55.920 argue that

01:04:56.440 I see all

01:04:56.980 of that,

01:04:57.720 because people

01:04:58.160 want to

01:04:58.640 send it to

01:04:59.040 me.

01:04:59.480 People are

01:04:59.840 trying to

01:05:00.160 change my

01:05:00.580 mind, or

01:05:01.200 at least

01:05:01.400 my approach,

01:05:02.400 and people

01:05:03.440 are sending

01:05:03.800 me the

01:05:04.180 anti-vax

01:05:04.740 stuff just

01:05:05.220 all day

01:05:05.780 long.

01:05:06.720 I've

01:05:07.080 seen a

01:05:07.780 lot of

01:05:08.120 it.

01:05:09.600 So I

01:05:10.060 think I'm

01:05:10.940 well informed

01:05:11.760 about what

01:05:13.000 the anti-vax

01:05:13.660 people are

01:05:14.040 saying.

01:05:15.300 Why do

01:05:15.640 you think

01:05:15.960 that I

01:05:16.280 don't talk

01:05:16.680 about it

01:05:16.920 as much?

01:05:18.440 How deep

01:05:19.020 do you

01:05:19.240 read it?

01:05:20.220 Fairly

01:05:20.620 deep.

01:05:21.820 I mean,

01:05:22.220 as deep

01:05:22.540 as I

01:05:22.780 read other

01:05:23.140 stuff.

01:05:23.600 I don't

01:05:24.020 think I

01:05:24.380 skim it

01:05:24.940 more than

01:05:25.380 I skim

01:05:25.880 anything

01:05:26.120 else.

01:05:29.320 Yeah,

01:05:29.780 don't bring

01:05:30.160 an allergy

01:05:30.740 in yet,

01:05:31.420 because that

01:05:31.780 just gets

01:05:32.140 us off

01:05:32.460 track.

01:05:38.220 Explain the

01:05:38.920 agreement for

01:05:40.200 ADE,

01:05:40.980 why don't

01:05:41.340 you?

01:05:41.820 ADE is

01:05:42.720 what?

01:05:44.420 Define

01:05:44.900 ADE.

01:05:47.860 Can somebody

01:05:48.560 define ADE

01:05:49.600 for me?

01:05:50.040 What is

01:05:50.280 that?

01:05:52.220 The

01:05:52.680 intervention

01:05:53.080 is for

01:05:53.480 you.

01:05:53.880 Scott,

01:05:59.660 people hear

01:06:00.100 you say

01:06:00.440 you don't

01:06:00.740 want to

01:06:01.020 persuade

01:06:01.340 them to

01:06:01.720 take the

01:06:02.020 shot,

01:06:02.420 but still

01:06:03.560 you word

01:06:03.980 things in

01:06:04.380 a way that

01:06:04.680 feels to

01:06:05.320 them you

01:06:05.640 actually are.

01:06:06.580 How could

01:06:07.000 I avoid

01:06:07.460 that?

01:06:09.160 How could

01:06:09.780 I avoid

01:06:10.680 wording it

01:06:12.160 in a way

01:06:12.500 that you

01:06:12.900 think I'm

01:06:13.380 talking you

01:06:13.900 into it

01:06:14.380 if the

01:06:15.980 data leans

01:06:16.620 that way?

01:06:18.600 Should I

01:06:19.080 not lean

01:06:20.480 the same

01:06:20.860 direction as

01:06:21.580 the official

01:06:22.960 data?

01:06:23.880 Would it

01:06:25.080 be

01:06:25.700 anti-dependent

01:06:26.900 enhancement?

01:06:29.200 Anti-body

01:06:29.980 dependent

01:06:30.560 enhancement?

01:06:32.800 Meaning

01:06:33.440 what?

01:06:35.460 I mean,

01:06:36.500 I know

01:06:36.820 what the

01:06:37.000 words mean,

01:06:38.060 but why

01:06:38.700 should I

01:06:39.700 be talking

01:06:40.040 about that?

01:06:42.440 So,

01:06:42.940 yeah.

01:06:44.620 So the

01:06:44.860 thing that

01:06:45.260 I lean,

01:06:45.880 thank you,

01:06:47.040 exactly.

01:06:49.780 I try to

01:06:50.680 lean toward

01:06:51.300 credibility,

01:06:52.960 meaning that

01:06:53.740 the

01:06:55.520 official

01:06:56.180 responses,

01:06:59.060 as wrong

01:06:59.660 as they've

01:07:00.040 been,

01:07:00.540 the official

01:07:01.440 science about

01:07:02.140 COVID,

01:07:02.600 as wrong

01:07:03.080 as it's

01:07:03.440 been,

01:07:03.780 it tends

01:07:05.980 to have

01:07:06.220 higher

01:07:06.440 credibility,

01:07:08.120 you know,

01:07:08.380 until they

01:07:08.800 change the

01:07:09.260 minds,

01:07:10.120 than things

01:07:10.800 that you

01:07:11.080 hear about

01:07:11.740 in a,

01:07:12.640 in some

01:07:14.920 Twitter

01:07:15.560 link to

01:07:17.140 an article

01:07:17.580 that never

01:07:18.100 gets any

01:07:18.500 traction.

01:07:18.840 So I

01:07:19.840 wait for

01:07:20.380 the

01:07:20.680 scientists

01:07:21.220 to tell

01:07:22.020 me which

01:07:22.620 of the

01:07:22.920 other

01:07:23.160 things I

01:07:23.720 should pay

01:07:24.040 attention

01:07:24.360 to.

01:07:25.680 And

01:07:26.040 you give

01:07:28.560 too little

01:07:28.980 weight to

01:07:29.380 VAERS.

01:07:29.740 I do

01:07:29.960 give,

01:07:30.560 I give,

01:07:32.620 wait,

01:07:33.360 were you

01:07:33.600 here?

01:07:35.500 So somebody

01:07:36.240 said I

01:07:36.580 give too

01:07:36.960 little weight

01:07:37.420 to VAERS.

01:07:38.120 If you

01:07:41.360 watch this

01:07:42.100 entire live

01:07:42.680 stream,

01:07:43.160 do you

01:07:43.500 say that's

01:07:43.860 true or

01:07:44.220 false?

01:07:44.860 I give

01:07:45.580 too little

01:07:46.180 weight to

01:07:47.460 VAERS.

01:07:47.800 Now VAERS

01:07:48.180 is where

01:07:48.800 reports of

01:07:50.800 bad outcomes

01:07:52.040 are.

01:07:53.420 I just

01:07:54.080 had a

01:07:54.380 whole discussion

01:07:55.000 where I

01:07:55.420 said I

01:07:56.420 agree with

01:07:57.040 you that

01:07:57.840 the number

01:07:58.260 of reports

01:07:59.140 of bad

01:07:59.660 outcomes is

01:08:00.920 alarming and

01:08:01.920 conflicts

01:08:02.500 with and

01:08:05.000 actually hurts

01:08:05.740 the credibility

01:08:06.360 of the

01:08:06.800 scientific

01:08:07.120 opinion.

01:08:08.120 I said

01:08:09.200 that as

01:08:09.520 clearly and

01:08:10.160 directly as

01:08:10.800 you could

01:08:11.060 possibly say

01:08:11.740 it.

01:08:12.300 And the

01:08:12.560 VAERS

01:08:12.760 database is

01:08:13.440 just the

01:08:13.980 obvious

01:08:15.460 example of

01:08:16.360 those reports.

01:08:18.060 But it

01:08:18.640 doesn't have

01:08:19.020 to be in

01:08:19.300 VAERS because

01:08:20.120 I asked on

01:08:21.060 Twitter and

01:08:21.540 tons of

01:08:21.940 people said

01:08:22.280 yeah I

01:08:22.640 got a

01:08:22.840 friend,

01:08:23.180 I got a

01:08:23.420 friend,

01:08:23.680 I got a

01:08:23.860 friend.

01:08:25.980 Scott,

01:08:26.520 would you

01:08:26.720 call Joe

01:08:27.120 Rogan for

01:08:27.640 a chat?

01:08:28.200 I don't

01:08:28.600 think he

01:08:29.300 and I

01:08:29.820 are the

01:08:31.280 right ones

01:08:31.820 for that

01:08:32.260 chat.

01:08:33.580 Oh but

01:08:33.860 let me

01:08:34.460 say this.

01:08:35.840 I don't

01:08:36.080 know how

01:08:36.420 often Joe

01:08:38.120 Rogan has

01:08:38.720 multiple

01:08:39.160 guests for

01:08:40.340 like a

01:08:40.760 panel

01:08:41.120 discussion.

01:08:41.680 I don't

01:08:41.820 think he

01:08:42.060 does that

01:08:42.440 model.

01:08:43.160 But if

01:08:43.380 he did,

01:08:45.580 there are

01:08:46.760 better people

01:08:47.200 than me to

01:08:47.800 put on it.

01:08:50.520 I don't

01:08:51.040 think I'm the

01:08:51.420 right person

01:08:51.840 for that.

01:08:53.660 It would be

01:08:54.260 entertaining but

01:08:54.860 it wouldn't be

01:08:55.840 as useful as

01:08:57.100 you want it

01:08:57.480 to be.

01:09:00.400 Somebody says

01:09:01.000 I got

01:09:01.300 vaccine because

01:09:02.080 of Scott's

01:09:02.660 discussion and

01:09:03.640 by doctor's

01:09:04.360 advice.

01:09:04.760 Well I

01:09:05.560 hope your

01:09:05.900 doctor's

01:09:06.400 advice was

01:09:06.940 a little

01:09:07.420 bit weighted

01:09:09.840 more than

01:09:10.340 mine.

01:09:12.960 Well I've

01:09:13.480 been on

01:09:13.820 Joe Rogan's

01:09:14.840 program so

01:09:15.660 if you

01:09:16.100 Google it

01:09:16.680 you can

01:09:16.920 find it.

01:09:18.820 He does

01:09:19.360 have

01:09:19.560 multiples on

01:09:20.160 but not

01:09:20.560 multiples who

01:09:21.280 are on

01:09:21.500 different

01:09:21.960 sides,

01:09:22.780 right?

01:09:24.240 Has

01:09:24.500 Joe ever

01:09:24.900 had people

01:09:26.520 who are on

01:09:26.920 different sides

01:09:27.700 of a debate

01:09:28.320 at the same

01:09:29.180 time?

01:09:30.880 I'm saying

01:09:31.320 a yes.

01:09:31.780 I don't

01:09:33.900 think I've

01:09:34.200 ever seen

01:09:34.520 one.

01:09:34.940 Oh he has

01:09:35.320 a few

01:09:35.540 times.

01:09:36.340 That would

01:09:36.780 be the

01:09:37.100 perfect

01:09:37.660 situation.

01:09:40.020 Although he's

01:09:40.620 on Spotify

01:09:41.240 so he's

01:09:42.760 up behind

01:09:43.120 a paywall.

01:09:43.840 It would

01:09:44.000 be better

01:09:44.280 not to be

01:09:44.760 behind a

01:09:45.160 paywall.

01:09:47.440 Yeah a

01:09:48.340 Tim Pool

01:09:48.880 would be

01:09:50.560 sort of a

01:09:51.160 good choice

01:09:51.940 for that.

01:09:52.300 I think

01:09:52.520 I'd be a

01:09:52.920 good choice

01:09:53.280 but I

01:09:53.620 don't have

01:09:53.980 the

01:09:54.180 wherewithal

01:09:55.060 to set

01:09:55.460 it up.

01:09:56.500 I mean

01:09:56.720 I do

01:09:58.040 have the

01:09:58.320 wherewithal

01:09:58.740 but I

01:09:59.560 don't have

01:09:59.860 the time

01:10:00.300 and interest

01:10:00.700 right now.

01:10:01.780 Spotify

01:10:05.920 is free.

01:10:08.240 Why are

01:10:08.780 you saying

01:10:09.080 Spotify is

01:10:09.740 free?

01:10:10.060 Are you

01:10:10.240 saying that

01:10:10.680 his program

01:10:11.400 on Spotify

01:10:12.100 is free?

01:10:12.920 That's not

01:10:13.500 true is it?

01:10:15.060 Wait am I

01:10:15.620 missing something

01:10:16.140 important?

01:10:17.240 It's not a

01:10:17.720 paywall?

01:10:20.720 Oh it's

01:10:21.320 just ads.

01:10:22.580 Really?

01:10:24.600 I didn't

01:10:25.180 know that.

01:10:25.920 I don't

01:10:26.140 use Spotify.

01:10:27.100 So Spotify

01:10:27.580 is not a

01:10:28.180 subscription

01:10:28.620 service.

01:10:29.160 It's just

01:10:29.380 got ads.

01:10:31.780 Oh.

01:10:33.060 That's the

01:10:33.580 reason I

01:10:33.900 didn't have

01:10:34.220 Spotify.

01:10:35.340 Maybe I

01:10:35.900 should get

01:10:36.240 it.

01:10:37.000 All right.

01:10:37.440 Well thank

01:10:37.820 you.

01:10:38.380 See this

01:10:38.900 is that

01:10:39.240 example again

01:10:40.560 of a new

01:10:41.180 kind of

01:10:41.520 intelligence.

01:10:42.880 In real

01:10:43.400 time you

01:10:44.760 watched my

01:10:45.320 mind be

01:10:45.820 changed.

01:10:47.060 And you

01:10:47.400 saw it a

01:10:47.720 few times.

01:10:48.920 It's kind

01:10:49.300 of cool

01:10:49.620 isn't it?

01:10:50.040 that we

01:10:52.140 are collectively

01:10:53.340 like a

01:10:54.760 single

01:10:55.300 rational

01:10:57.720 entity.

01:10:58.800 It just

01:10:59.160 takes all

01:10:59.600 of you to

01:11:00.160 correct me

01:11:00.940 on a

01:11:01.180 regular

01:11:01.420 basis to

01:11:02.140 get there.

01:11:08.240 Body

01:11:08.760 autonomy.

01:11:10.360 What about

01:11:10.840 it?

01:11:12.860 I don't

01:11:13.460 know.

01:11:15.140 So didn't

01:11:15.740 watch the

01:11:16.080 episode with

01:11:16.720 Dr.

01:11:17.360 Gupta

01:11:17.640 complete.

01:11:18.260 I did

01:11:18.480 not.

01:11:18.760 All right.

01:11:26.340 So there's

01:11:26.860 no ads if

01:11:27.500 you have a

01:11:27.860 subscription on

01:11:28.560 Spotify.

01:11:29.220 Okay that

01:11:29.500 makes sense.

01:11:35.000 Alex says

01:11:35.800 God can you

01:11:37.080 imagine being

01:11:37.580 married to

01:11:38.040 this guy?

01:11:38.940 I assume

01:11:39.280 you're talking

01:11:39.620 about me

01:11:40.060 right?

01:11:41.780 Well.

01:11:42.760 I'm not

01:11:43.060 sure I

01:11:43.400 understand.

01:11:47.100 That was

01:11:47.660 my phone.

01:11:48.760 My phone

01:11:49.800 just said

01:11:50.260 I'm not

01:11:50.660 sure I

01:11:50.980 understand.

01:11:53.340 Well I

01:11:53.980 do understand.

01:11:54.840 So he

01:11:55.100 said imagine

01:11:55.640 being married

01:11:56.100 to that

01:11:56.420 guy.

01:11:57.080 You're not

01:11:57.500 wrong.

01:11:59.040 Imagine

01:11:59.500 being married

01:12:00.060 to me.

01:12:00.800 It's no

01:12:01.240 picnic.

01:12:02.020 Believe me.

01:12:04.100 So you're

01:12:04.720 right about

01:12:05.040 that.

01:12:06.860 Would I

01:12:07.240 host Brett

01:12:08.100 Weinstein

01:12:08.620 versus Andres

01:12:10.620 back

01:12:11.320 house?

01:12:13.420 No.

01:12:14.480 I would

01:12:14.800 not host

01:12:15.260 them.

01:12:15.940 If just

01:12:16.500 the two

01:12:16.760 of them

01:12:17.020 no.

01:12:17.340 Because

01:12:17.500 that's

01:12:17.660 not the

01:12:18.020 right

01:12:18.220 two.

01:12:19.620 The ones

01:12:20.560 you want

01:12:21.080 are

01:12:21.600 because both

01:12:24.240 of them are

01:12:24.580 skeptics I

01:12:26.840 would say.

01:12:27.900 Skeptic of

01:12:28.640 different things.

01:12:30.200 But I want

01:12:30.560 somebody who's a

01:12:31.260 believer and

01:12:32.180 at least one

01:12:32.960 skeptic.

01:12:33.820 And then

01:12:34.040 somebody who

01:12:34.460 can do some

01:12:34.920 fact checking.

01:12:35.440 So you

01:12:37.020 want three 0.98

01:12:37.960 people.

01:12:39.800 One of

01:12:40.360 them just a

01:12:40.880 fact checker.

01:12:41.860 And the

01:12:42.420 other two

01:12:42.980 being on

01:12:43.980 other sides

01:12:44.780 of the

01:12:45.020 issue.

01:12:46.140 So that

01:12:46.740 would be the

01:12:47.120 ideal model.

01:12:47.840 And then

01:12:48.100 maybe one

01:12:49.640 moderator.

01:12:50.240 So you

01:12:50.420 need four

01:12:50.720 people.

01:12:51.200 Moderator

01:12:51.620 plus

01:12:51.900 three.

01:12:53.760 Three

01:12:54.200 plus

01:12:54.460 those.

01:12:54.880 Good.

01:12:55.040 Yeah.

01:12:55.820 Actually

01:12:56.260 let's make

01:12:56.680 that a

01:12:56.960 thing.

01:12:58.460 You want

01:12:58.940 to make

01:12:59.140 that a

01:12:59.420 thing?

01:13:00.180 You want

01:13:00.540 to do

01:13:00.720 a little

01:13:01.100 let's do

01:13:02.280 a little

01:13:02.740 persuasion

01:13:04.260 experiment.

01:13:08.060 Whoever

01:13:08.540 just said

01:13:09.080 let me

01:13:09.320 call you

01:13:09.600 out

01:13:09.860 Twixbar.

01:13:11.640 So user

01:13:12.200 Twixbar over

01:13:13.060 in the

01:13:13.340 locals

01:13:13.660 platform

01:13:14.280 just has

01:13:16.800 a comment

01:13:17.220 that says

01:13:17.640 three plus

01:13:18.260 host.

01:13:19.620 And I

01:13:20.240 like that

01:13:20.560 branding.

01:13:22.020 So let's

01:13:22.440 see if we

01:13:22.800 can make

01:13:23.300 three plus

01:13:24.740 host a

01:13:25.940 model that

01:13:27.040 people understand

01:13:27.840 as the

01:13:28.220 best model.

01:13:29.400 Now of

01:13:30.280 course the

01:13:30.580 news will

01:13:31.040 often violate

01:13:31.780 that model.

01:13:32.540 But let's

01:13:32.760 see if we

01:13:33.040 can get

01:13:33.560 somebody to

01:13:34.000 do it.

01:13:35.700 Three plus

01:13:36.360 one.

01:13:37.160 The plus

01:13:37.680 one is the

01:13:38.140 host.

01:13:39.240 And the

01:13:39.580 three are

01:13:40.120 people on

01:13:40.880 two sides

01:13:41.520 of an

01:13:41.740 issue and

01:13:42.680 then a

01:13:43.000 fact checker

01:13:43.720 who doesn't

01:13:44.360 seem to be

01:13:45.000 associated with

01:13:46.040 either of

01:13:46.400 them.

01:13:47.560 And then a

01:13:48.240 host who

01:13:49.480 can keep it

01:13:50.000 all straight.

01:13:51.480 And oh

01:13:51.700 and then

01:13:51.920 here's the

01:13:52.420 last part.

01:13:53.580 Last part

01:13:54.160 is not a

01:13:55.040 timed event.

01:13:56.640 Or if it's

01:13:57.200 timed it's a

01:13:57.840 lot of time.

01:13:58.800 It could be

01:13:59.180 three hours.

01:14:00.080 But you

01:14:00.340 don't want

01:14:00.620 a five

01:14:01.180 minute hit.

01:14:02.460 It can't

01:14:02.860 just be

01:14:03.720 something that

01:14:05.420 it's an

01:14:05.940 episode on

01:14:06.660 Hannity or

01:14:07.620 something.

01:14:09.060 It's got to

01:14:09.700 be its own

01:14:10.120 show.

01:14:10.720 It can't be

01:14:11.180 an episode on

01:14:11.840 somebody else's

01:14:12.440 show.

01:14:12.940 We wouldn't

01:14:13.180 have enough

01:14:13.480 time.

01:14:14.460 So let's

01:14:14.840 see if we

01:14:15.120 can make

01:14:15.340 that happen.

01:14:17.280 Three plus

01:14:17.980 one is the

01:14:19.200 model.

01:14:19.560 Three plus

01:14:19.960 host.

01:14:20.800 And it will

01:14:21.220 be one

01:14:21.580 fact checker,

01:14:22.700 two people on

01:14:23.360 opposite sides,

01:14:24.540 and the host

01:14:25.320 does a good

01:14:27.000 job of

01:14:27.420 moderating and

01:14:28.020 making sure the

01:14:28.520 fact checker gets

01:14:29.260 in there.

01:14:29.540 What do

01:14:31.040 you say?

01:14:31.520 Let's make

01:14:31.900 it a thing.

01:14:32.780 Let's see if

01:14:33.200 somebody can do

01:14:34.140 one of them,

01:14:35.220 and then no

01:14:36.340 matter how it

01:14:36.920 works, then we

01:14:37.820 refine the

01:14:38.420 model.

01:14:39.000 Maybe the

01:14:39.380 first one isn't

01:14:39.940 so good, but

01:14:41.020 you just refine

01:14:41.660 the model based

01:14:42.280 on what you

01:14:42.640 learned.

01:14:44.180 Oh, Ben

01:14:45.360 Shapiro would 0.97

01:14:46.060 be, yeah,

01:14:47.400 there's lots of

01:14:47.860 people you can

01:14:48.340 think of who

01:14:48.820 have the

01:14:49.120 platform.

01:14:50.220 So here's the

01:14:50.740 first thing we

01:14:51.240 need.

01:14:51.460 We need the

01:14:51.880 platform and

01:14:52.620 the host.

01:14:54.120 Right?

01:14:54.620 Getting the

01:14:55.140 guests, I think,

01:14:55.900 would be the

01:14:56.220 easy part.

01:14:57.500 Ooh, Dave

01:14:58.380 Rubin.

01:14:59.540 Dave Rubin.

01:15:01.500 I think he

01:15:02.180 has all the

01:15:02.800 technical

01:15:03.720 wherewithal, which

01:15:04.980 is what you

01:15:05.380 need, because

01:15:05.920 you need the

01:15:06.320 three screens and

01:15:08.040 the organization

01:15:09.280 of it all.

01:15:10.120 That's the stuff

01:15:10.560 I don't have the

01:15:11.540 time to do.

01:15:13.160 But Dave

01:15:13.620 Rubin.

01:15:14.980 Wouldn't you

01:15:15.440 watch Dave

01:15:16.960 Rubin?

01:15:17.660 Now, I

01:15:18.860 would make,

01:15:20.180 with all

01:15:20.660 respect to

01:15:22.600 Dave Rubin,

01:15:23.740 by the way,

01:15:25.020 Dave Rubin is

01:15:25.660 one of my

01:15:26.140 examples of

01:15:26.900 the talent

01:15:27.520 stack guy.

01:15:28.080 he's got

01:15:29.360 like a

01:15:29.800 whole bunch

01:15:30.260 of talents

01:15:30.780 that just

01:15:31.220 work together

01:15:31.860 perfectly.

01:15:33.160 His career

01:15:33.740 is a role

01:15:37.100 model in

01:15:37.700 terms of how

01:15:38.080 to make

01:15:38.320 something work.

01:15:39.640 I mean,

01:15:39.920 he really

01:15:40.480 does a great

01:15:40.980 job of

01:15:41.500 combining

01:15:42.400 talents to

01:15:43.280 make something

01:15:43.840 special.

01:15:44.900 But part

01:15:46.820 of his talent

01:15:47.340 stack is

01:15:48.500 that he's

01:15:49.840 agreeable and

01:15:50.560 people like

01:15:51.080 him.

01:15:52.200 I don't know,

01:15:53.160 I think you

01:15:53.520 need somebody

01:15:53.960 who's a little

01:15:54.380 bit more of a

01:15:55.000 bastard for

01:15:55.660 the pushback.

01:15:57.900 A little

01:15:58.660 bit more of

01:15:59.100 a bastard. 0.98

01:16:00.260 I don't

01:16:00.540 know if he

01:16:00.880 could go

01:16:01.160 full bastard. 0.93

01:16:02.080 Because you're

01:16:02.500 going to need

01:16:02.740 to shut down

01:16:03.300 both of the

01:16:03.800 experts, but

01:16:04.400 at different

01:16:04.720 times.

01:16:05.740 And maybe

01:16:06.120 even the

01:16:06.480 fact checker.

01:16:07.380 So you're

01:16:08.020 going to have

01:16:08.260 to have a

01:16:08.840 strong, like

01:16:10.400 a dictator's

01:16:11.160 hand, to

01:16:12.400 say, whoa,

01:16:12.760 whoa, whoa,

01:16:12.980 that didn't

01:16:13.320 make any

01:16:13.680 sense.

01:16:15.740 Now, I

01:16:17.580 worry that

01:16:18.060 Dave is

01:16:18.600 too nice.

01:16:21.500 Because he

01:16:22.060 usually does

01:16:22.540 interviews in

01:16:23.100 which there's

01:16:23.400 not a lot of

01:16:23.880 conflict, but

01:16:25.300 maybe, maybe.

01:16:26.420 I mean, if

01:16:27.000 he wanted to

01:16:27.640 do it, he'd

01:16:28.200 be a great

01:16:28.620 platform for

01:16:29.260 it, because

01:16:29.500 he's got a

01:16:29.860 big platform.

01:16:33.620 So Dave, if

01:16:34.460 you're listening

01:16:34.840 to this, and

01:16:35.340 somebody will

01:16:35.700 probably tell

01:16:36.120 you if you're

01:16:36.540 not listening,

01:16:38.160 that's a

01:16:39.060 challenge to

01:16:39.620 you.

01:16:40.820 If you

01:16:41.340 could put

01:16:41.660 this together

01:16:42.260 and be

01:16:44.620 tough on

01:16:45.660 them, or

01:16:46.820 alternately,

01:16:48.340 guess somebody

01:16:48.820 who would

01:16:49.100 be.

01:16:49.900 So just

01:16:51.260 because you're

01:16:51.740 the host

01:16:52.520 doesn't mean

01:16:53.480 you have to

01:16:53.860 be the

01:16:54.120 moderator.

01:16:55.320 So the

01:16:55.820 three plus

01:16:56.280 one doesn't

01:16:56.880 have to be

01:16:57.180 the host.

01:16:58.360 The host

01:16:58.820 could just

01:16:59.180 introduce it

01:16:59.880 and say,

01:17:00.380 here you

01:17:00.600 go.

01:17:01.560 It's my

01:17:02.040 program, but

01:17:03.160 take it

01:17:04.940 away.

01:17:06.460 So that

01:17:06.960 could work.

01:17:08.440 That could 0.68

01:17:08.940 work.

01:17:09.280 But I think

01:17:09.680 Dave could

01:17:10.080 do it.

01:17:10.780 I just

01:17:11.160 don't know

01:17:11.600 if he wants

01:17:12.260 to be the

01:17:12.620 one to be

01:17:13.900 that much

01:17:14.300 of a

01:17:14.540 bastard.

01:17:14.960 You need

01:17:15.180 a bastard. 0.98

01:17:16.500 Like, I'd

01:17:16.900 be good at

01:17:17.340 it, because

01:17:17.700 I'm a

01:17:17.980 bastard.

01:17:19.640 Michael

01:17:19.960 Malice.

01:17:20.400 Cernovich

01:17:22.400 would be

01:17:22.720 good.

01:17:24.080 Cernovich

01:17:24.440 could do

01:17:24.840 it.

01:17:26.780 Maybe

01:17:27.220 Corolla.

01:17:27.900 See, the

01:17:28.180 problem is

01:17:28.560 you've got to

01:17:28.920 find somebody

01:17:29.460 who's also

01:17:29.960 well-informed.

01:17:30.760 So being a

01:17:32.660 bastard isn't 0.52

01:17:33.340 enough.

01:17:34.740 You need to

01:17:35.500 also be well-informed.

01:17:40.460 Dvorak.

01:17:41.920 Crowder.

01:17:43.340 Goffeld.

01:17:45.280 Mark, oh,

01:17:46.040 there you go.

01:17:47.020 Mark Levin.

01:17:47.540 Mark Levin.

01:17:48.640 Okay.

01:17:49.860 There's one.

01:17:51.000 So let's just

01:17:51.760 take that as

01:17:52.280 our example.

01:17:53.080 Mark Levin.

01:17:54.120 Is he well-informed?

01:17:55.800 Yeah.

01:17:56.780 Yeah.

01:17:57.300 Is he a good

01:17:57.960 communicator?

01:17:58.540 Yes.

01:17:58.880 Big platform?

01:17:59.720 Yes.

01:18:00.480 Could he be a

01:18:01.240 bastard?

01:18:02.620 Yes.

01:18:04.100 I mean that in a

01:18:05.160 complimentary way.

01:18:06.400 Yeah, he could

01:18:06.780 totally be a

01:18:07.620 bastard about it.

01:18:08.900 Somebody said

01:18:09.440 Bill Maher.

01:18:11.020 I accept that.

01:18:12.980 Bill Maher

01:18:13.440 could be a

01:18:13.840 bastard.

01:18:15.360 Again, in the

01:18:16.280 best way.

01:18:16.700 You just have

01:18:17.980 to be a

01:18:18.300 bastard sometimes

01:18:19.120 and shut 0.99

01:18:20.120 people down

01:18:20.620 and challenge

01:18:21.100 them.

01:18:23.520 Too polarizing?

01:18:24.760 Somebody says.

01:18:25.380 Maybe.

01:18:27.020 I'm probably

01:18:27.700 too polarizing

01:18:28.460 too.

01:18:32.340 You do it

01:18:33.120 from Ruben's

01:18:33.820 studio?

01:18:34.280 I would do

01:18:34.780 that.

01:18:35.860 I would do

01:18:36.740 that if you

01:18:37.220 wanted to.

01:18:39.820 I don't know

01:18:40.540 what needs to

01:18:40.920 be in the

01:18:41.200 studio, but

01:18:41.840 you'd need

01:18:42.820 the resources.

01:18:45.880 All right.

01:18:46.900 Sam Harris.

01:18:49.200 Good suggestion.

01:18:50.600 Sam Harris.

01:18:51.380 Actually, that's

01:18:51.900 my dream team

01:18:52.540 right there.

01:18:53.860 My dream team

01:18:54.600 would be not

01:18:56.140 even me doing

01:18:56.800 it.

01:18:57.220 My dream team

01:18:57.860 would be Sam

01:19:00.060 Harris doing

01:19:00.540 it.

01:19:02.560 That'd be

01:19:03.080 pretty good.

01:19:04.400 Because I think

01:19:04.920 Sam Harris has

01:19:05.640 the intellectual

01:19:06.500 weight as well

01:19:08.120 as the ability

01:19:08.920 to change his

01:19:10.980 mind, which is

01:19:12.440 rare.

01:19:13.480 So I think he

01:19:14.200 could do it.

01:19:14.620 He'd be good at

01:19:15.120 that.

01:19:15.540 I don't know

01:19:15.880 if he could

01:19:16.160 be enough

01:19:16.520 of a bastard. 0.99

01:19:18.100 Probably.

01:19:19.300 I don't know.

01:19:20.000 What do you

01:19:20.300 think?

01:19:20.840 Could Sam

01:19:21.300 Harris be

01:19:21.680 enough of a

01:19:22.220 bastard to

01:19:23.460 make that

01:19:23.800 work?

01:19:26.900 You probably

01:19:27.640 need somebody

01:19:28.280 who...

01:19:28.920 Well, let me

01:19:29.700 revise that.

01:19:30.400 I think Sam,

01:19:31.780 for all of his

01:19:33.000 strengths, his

01:19:34.360 sort of intellectual

01:19:35.820 approach to

01:19:36.520 things might not

01:19:38.120 fit the

01:19:38.920 bastard host

01:19:39.940 model as

01:19:40.700 closely as

01:19:41.480 possible.

01:19:41.840 You need a

01:19:42.960 bastard host. 0.93

01:19:44.040 All right, I've

01:19:44.340 talked too long.

01:19:45.140 I've got to go.

01:19:46.360 And I will talk

01:19:46.920 to you all

01:19:47.460 later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 16, 2021

Episode 1531 Scott Adams： Now!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript