Episode 1541 Scott Adams： Find Out if You Have Cognitive Dissonance on One of the Biggest Stories In the World
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
140.53464
Summary
Alec Baldwin accidentally fires a gun in front of a church pew, and no one knows if it was a misfire. Does he have a trigger pull safety on? Or was he just practicing drawing the weapon? And why are there no safeties on revolvers?
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey, congratulations. You did it again. You did it again. Yeah, I might be a few seconds
00:00:14.300
late, but let's talk about the amazing accomplishment that you have this morning, which is that
00:00:20.100
you have arrived at the best place in the world at the best time. Nothing in any universe
00:00:26.220
is better than this. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and the Simultaneous Sip. And
00:00:32.000
I'm pretty sure it will be the most lasting legacy of our time. Yes, the biggest story
00:00:40.960
in the world is Alec Baldwin. That is correct. We'll talk about that. But first, if you'd
00:00:46.540
like to take this up a notch, and I know you do, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass
00:00:49.500
or a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind. Fill
00:00:53.380
it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure
00:00:59.780
of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better. What is it? Yeah,
00:01:05.420
yeah, it's a simultaneous sip. And it's going to really fire up your antibodies. Watch this.
00:01:15.580
Ah! Whoa! My antibodies just heated up so much there for a moment. It was almost like a flash
00:01:22.280
burn. I don't know if you felt it, but I think we're all getting healthier. We are. It's amazing.
00:01:30.800
All right, let's talk about all the things. So why is it we're only getting little dribs
00:01:37.160
and drabs of this Alec Baldwin accidental shooting story? It's kind of interesting to watch how the
00:01:44.900
information is going to be managed. For example, today we learned that Alec Baldwin had recently
00:01:53.480
been concerned about firing off a blank on the set in a different incident because there was a child
00:02:02.720
nearby. So we have now learned through this very interesting strategic new information that Alec Baldwin
00:02:13.080
is not only concerned about firearms safety. In a different incident, he made sure that a young
00:02:19.820
child was nowhere near the weapon. So that's the kind of guy he is. So we know that. Number two,
00:02:28.320
he was apparently practicing drawing the gun. I guess he was doing a cross draw where you reach across
00:02:34.300
yourself to the opposite side for the holster to bring it out. And he was apparently doing a
00:02:39.720
practice of that while in a church pew or something, allegedly. Now here's what's missing in the
00:02:46.740
story. The trigger part. If I did a story about an accidental firing in which somebody had drawn a gun
00:02:57.380
from a holster, even a gun that is not a real gun, one of my top questions would be, right at the top,
00:03:07.380
maybe the number one question, was your finger on the trigger? Yeah, the question about the, you know,
00:03:16.160
is the safety on, that's a good one too. But was his finger on the trigger when he was practicing?
00:03:23.580
Isn't that really, really important? Well, I don't know if checking the gun to see if it's empty makes
00:03:33.060
sense if you've got squibs in there. Because isn't the whole point of the squib to make it look like
00:03:39.380
the gun has real bullets? Because it's a revolver, right? So I think that they have to put the fake
00:03:44.120
bullets in there to make it look like a real gun. Single action revolver, yeah. Are there safeties on
00:03:53.020
revolvers? Somebody asks. Somebody who's a gun expert can tell us. Somebody says no, no safeties on
00:04:02.040
revolvers. Other people say revolvers generally have safeties. Now it could have been, you know,
00:04:09.420
a period piece gun. So who knows if that had a safety? I would think so. Do they make guns without
00:04:17.260
safeties? And how long have they not done that? They do not have safeties, somebody says. I think
00:04:26.340
the people saying do not are probably more right. If I had to guess, I've never, I don't think I've ever
00:04:33.920
owned a revolver. No safety on my revolver. Okay. So we have people who have revolvers who say they
00:04:41.080
don't have safeties. All right. That question is asked and answered. Here's the other question.
00:04:47.140
Number one is why don't we know if his finger was on the trigger? Which, by the way, I'm not sure
00:04:52.040
would, you know, tell us anything necessarily because he might not have pulled the trigger because
00:04:58.980
they talk about it as a misfire, don't they? Is it a misfire if you pulled the trigger?
00:05:03.480
Can somebody tell me how a gun misfires, a revolver? How does a revolver misfire?
00:05:18.160
You can't. It doesn't. Yeah. Okay. So work with me on this. I'm just trying to think it through.
00:05:25.340
So if this scene had involved somebody pulling back the hammer, you know, if that had been
00:05:32.740
the scene, then you could imagine a misfire, right? But he was drawing the gun. So the thing
00:05:39.220
he was practicing was a quick draw and then firing. If you're quickly drawing and firing,
00:05:45.000
there's no scenario in which you're touching anything but the trigger, right? Am I right?
00:05:49.800
There are people who know a lot more about, you know, firearms than I do. You can cock it
00:05:57.320
back and drop it and it will fire, right? But if you're practicing drawing, would it ever
00:06:05.020
get accidentally cocked? Usually by dropping the revolver. Yeah, that's what I thought. But
00:06:13.300
even if you drop the revolver, you'd have to have it cocked, right? Yeah, it still has
00:06:21.900
to be cocked. You can't just drop it and it fires because there's nothing hitting the
00:06:25.200
bullet if you just drop it on the floor. In fact, it would be nothing safer. It's hard
00:06:31.920
to imagine anything safer than dropping a bullet that's in a gun that's not cocked, right? Because
00:06:38.340
the bullet will be protected by the gun, but it can't fire it because there's nothing touching
00:06:43.180
it. I don't know if that's true, but yeah, that's probably going too far there. All right.
00:06:49.680
So here's the other question. No video? No video. Are you seriously telling me that on a movie
00:06:59.440
set, there's nobody has a video camera running? There's no security camera? Nobody had a phone?
00:07:07.340
I could definitely believe that they wouldn't be allowed to have phones. Can somebody confirm?
00:07:14.180
Oh, I know somebody who works on sets. I'll ask that later. But would you be able to have
00:07:22.460
your phone on a movie set? Because I'm thinking maybe not. Am I wrong? Would they have to give
00:07:30.140
up their phones before they went on set just so it doesn't ring, they don't use it and stuff?
00:07:34.320
I don't know. I'll ask that question. I know somebody who knows the answer to that.
00:07:40.060
All right. Here's some fake news on CNN. Now, of course, CNN likes to dump on Fox News,
00:07:48.620
just as Fox News likes to dump on CNN. But I love the fake news technique they're using today.
00:07:53.920
They're saying something that isn't a story at all. And it's obviously not a story based on the facts
00:08:03.080
that they provide you. So they're going to tell you something that's nothing, but they're going to put
00:08:08.320
it in a frame as if it's something. All right. Watch for this. It's worded as if it's something,
00:08:15.500
but there's actually nothing. And here's what they say.
00:08:21.380
Talking about CNN's Jim Acosta and Brian Stelter. Now, this is just a headline for a video on CNN.
00:08:28.740
It's their own video. CNN's Jim Acosta and Brian Stelter discuss Fox News host Neil Cavuto
00:08:34.580
speaking out in support of COVID-19 vaccines, despite others on the network, others on Fox,
00:08:43.440
doubling down on their criticism of vaccine mandates. Gotcha. Gotcha. Oh, wow. Wow.
00:08:52.020
It looks like CNN really got Fox News on this one, because here you have Neil Cavuto
00:08:58.260
suggesting that people should get vaccinated. At the same time,
00:09:02.200
the other hosts are speaking out about the mandate. So I gotcha. Except those are different
00:09:11.360
topics. It's not the same topic at all. Secondly, have you seen anybody on Fox News, a host? Have
00:09:24.780
you seen any host of Fox News suggest you should not get vaccinated? As far as I know,
00:09:32.200
they're all vaccinated. Right? So the news, as far as I can tell, is that everybody on Fox News agrees with each
00:09:41.360
other. But they worded it like they didn't. To me, it looks like at least the evidence, I don't know if
00:09:51.020
they actually agree, but the evidence would suggest they all think that vaccinations are worthy of
00:09:57.360
consideration, because I think they're all vaccinated. They had to be. And probably every single one of
00:10:04.100
them, on Fox News at least, thinks that mandates are overdone. So everybody on Fox News agrees with
00:10:11.360
themselves, and somehow CNN found a way to, gotcha. I gotcha. See, you think this on this topic, but what about
00:10:19.960
this completely unrelated topic, how about that? Ha, ha, ha, gotcha. Gotcha. And the thing is that this
00:10:28.500
worked. This gotcha totally worked, because their audience will read this and say, oh my God, Fox News,
00:10:36.620
just so inconsistent and anti-science. Nothing like that's happening. Nothing even remotely like that's
00:10:43.900
happening. But they can write it accurately, because there's nothing that's a lie here. There's no lie
00:10:49.720
on this. It just makes you think something else because of the way they framed it. Well, everyone
00:10:56.620
hates Facebook, which is weird. So the left hates it, and the right hates it. The left, I think CNN anyway,
00:11:04.580
hates it because of competition, right? So when CNN writes about Facebook, they're really writing about
00:11:10.560
a competitor, just as if they were writing about, you know, Fox News, in a sense. But CNN has an article
00:11:18.860
today in which the theme of it, if I can pull out the essence, is that Facebook didn't do enough to
00:11:29.160
stop the January 6th thing. In other words, CNN is angry at Facebook for not censoring enough.
00:11:36.940
They under-censored, according to CNN. And if Facebook had done their job to destroy free
00:11:44.540
speech, you know, completely, free speech within the context of a private company, or a public
00:11:52.740
company, actually. But let me turn off my alerts here. So what do you think of that? Is that
00:12:05.320
chilling? It feels a little chilling. The CNN is mocking Facebook for not censoring enough.
00:12:14.060
Now, of course, their purpose for wanting it to be censored is that not censoring it would cause
00:12:20.800
unrest and violence. I don't want to live in a world where they can stop unrest and violence.
00:12:27.960
Do you? Do you want to live in a world where Facebook can decide when to stop the unrest and
00:12:36.500
the violence? Isn't unrest and violence the only thing that keeps this country together? Or the risk
00:12:42.620
of it, right? Because if the government screws with us too hard, there's going to be some unrest and
00:12:48.980
some violence. That's our promise to the government. Our promise to you, government, is if you go too
00:12:56.600
far, there's going to be some unrest, there's going to be some violence. And guess what? We'll probably
00:13:02.080
do some planning. Might even use an online platform to do it. So do you want to live in a world,
00:13:09.640
CNN's world, where Facebook can squash a protest? Because they don't like it? They don't agree with
00:13:17.580
it? Not me. So you've got the right hating Facebook for censoring too much, the left for hating them
00:13:26.000
for censoring too little. Maybe it's just right. You know, I have to admit, when I read the whistleblower,
00:13:35.940
you know, documents that came out about Facebook, and I hear their conversations, they don't sound
00:13:42.820
that crazy to me. Because it looked like they were definitely picking their shots. It didn't look
00:13:50.260
like they were just saying, right-wing stuff, get out of here. Left-wing stuff, you're okay. It didn't
00:13:55.120
look like that. It looked like they were trying to do a responsible job. But, you know, everybody's got
00:14:01.800
a different opinion of what a responsible job would look like. It didn't look to me like the
00:14:09.720
Facebook employees, at least all of them, it didn't look to me like they were some, you know, horrible
00:14:15.660
entity trying to just get their way or something. It looked like they actually had a respect for free
00:14:21.480
speech. I thought. I thought I saw that. Now, how you interpret, you know, what is going too far,
00:14:28.140
and what is yelling fire in a movie theater versus what is free speech? I mean, it's pretty
00:14:33.500
subjective. But I didn't see any lack of respect for free speech. But certainly, we have to be
00:14:41.120
pretty, pretty worried about what the big platforms do to free speech, as it were. Yes, I know it's
00:14:47.660
only the government, blah, blah, blah, who has free speech, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, pedantic.
00:14:52.120
You don't have to tell me that. The theater has to be crowded. I guess so. But on the positive
00:15:02.660
side, CNN had a pretty good story here that I think is true. Apparently, they did some
00:15:08.400
investigation. And CNN found that a lot of doctors are unaware that monoclonal antibodies
00:15:17.700
can be used for early cases of COVID. What? What? Can we can we share a moment? I'm just going to read
00:15:31.720
this again, so you can have the same, the same reaction I had. So at home, I'll read it again and
00:15:39.640
just sit and just say, what? What? Wait, am I hearing that right? What? Many doctors were not aware
00:15:50.540
that COVID has an early treatment that really, really works well, and it's available, and it's
00:15:57.980
approved. And it's the monoclonal antibodies, Regeneron, right? Now, I knew it.
00:16:06.140
And Ron DeSantis knows it, because he's putting up all these Regeneron places in Florida. How many of
00:16:17.340
you knew that monoclonal antibodies was a thing for people with early COVID? In the comments, tell me
00:16:24.280
how many of you knew it? Because I think it's all of you. Look at the comments. I haven't seen a no yet.
00:16:33.600
It's all yeses. Oh, I saw a no. Okay, a few no's. So I don't know what... But seriously, there are
00:16:44.780
doctors who didn't know this. And there's, you know, anecdotal story here of one doctor who said
00:16:50.380
there's nothing you can do, go home. But the patient thought, maybe there's something I can do and found
00:16:54.860
out monoclonal antibodies would help. Wow. So every time somebody tells you, well, talk to your doctor
00:17:05.120
or, hey, my doctor recommended this. How do you feel now? How do you feel now knowing that
00:17:13.440
that you and your doctor worked it out? Hey, this is between me and my doctor.
00:17:20.300
Was that your theory? It's between you and your doctor. But your doctor might be a dumbass.
00:17:27.200
Might be. You might have a dumbass doctor. So maybe it'd be better if the government just told your
00:17:34.380
doctor what to do. I'm not recommending that. I'm not recommending that. You don't want the
00:17:40.200
government to have too much control. But if you're sure that your doctor can do a better job than,
00:17:47.080
say, a standard that just requires them to act a certain way, I don't know. Sort of would depend
00:17:52.560
on the standard, wouldn't it? So with your permission, I'm going to cause some trouble. And some of you
00:18:06.820
aren't going to like it. Okay? So this will be a little difficult for some of you. And if you want
00:18:12.140
to leave, if you want to leave because you, this isn't comfortable to you, I would understand. So I
00:18:17.320
won't take it personally. All right? But I think, I think there's going to be something useful for you
00:18:22.120
in here. Now, I don't think there's a better skill you could learn than identifying cognitive dissonance
00:18:31.000
in the wild. And some of you think you're good at it, but you're getting a lot of big stuff wrong.
00:18:37.320
And I'll, and I'm going to give you some examples because it happened today. And I want to show you
00:18:42.560
exactly how to identify it because it's such a, thank you, Cassandra. We're going to do this
00:18:50.940
because I think it's really useful for you to see how it works. Here's the topic. The topic was
00:18:57.980
Ivermectin. And on Twitter, Adam, Adam Baldwin, actor, not Alec Baldwin, but Adam Baldwin,
00:19:10.280
challenged me by saying, you know, what about the India experience with Ivermectin?
00:19:17.600
So I was asked to explain why it is that I think Ivermectin maybe is not proven to work,
00:19:25.220
proven to work. I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm not saying it works. I'm saying,
00:19:30.440
as far as I know, it's not proven to work yet, maybe later, but as far as I know, not proven to
00:19:36.360
work. And so I've been challenged by many people to explain India. Okay, well, sure. If you say it
00:19:44.480
doesn't work, can you explain why it's working great in one region in India? It's working great.
00:19:50.900
How do you explain that? Here's how I explained it. I went to Google, and I googled it. And one of the
00:19:59.980
top search results was from India Today. And they reported that in September of this year, so just
00:20:08.000
weeks ago, the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Task Force on COVID-19, so presumably
00:20:15.740
these are the top entities in India for COVID decisions, have dropped the use of Ivermectin
00:20:21.940
and hydroxychloroquine from their treatment guidelines after the experts found the drugs have little to no
00:20:29.620
effect on mortality or clinical recovery of patients. Now, stop. Stop right now. How many of you just made
00:20:39.560
this mistake? How many of you thought that the topic is does Ivermectin work? It's not, right? Because
00:20:49.520
I don't know. Does Ivermectin work? Why would you ask me? Why would anybody ask me if Ivermectin
00:20:55.860
works? How the hell would I know? I know there are studies that indicate it does. I know that the
00:21:02.700
metadata indicates it does. I know that the metadata looks like garbage, because it's influenced by some
00:21:11.900
studies that are large that we know are bad. So if you take the large studies we know are bad out,
00:21:18.440
the meta analysis kind of falls apart, is my understanding. But I could be wrong about that.
00:21:23.660
But that's not the topic today. The topic is, did it work in India? Not does it work, but did it
00:21:33.100
obviously work in India in an Indian miracle? So again, it's not a question of whether Ivermectin
00:21:40.760
worked. We're not talking about that today. We're only talking about is there an obvious success
00:21:48.260
story in India? No. No, there's not. There's no success story in India, because India, all of the
00:21:58.080
experts just decided to not use it. Do you think that India has a region in which it's wildly successful,
00:22:06.640
but the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Task Force on COVID, the top entities in
00:22:14.840
India, were unaware that the pandemic has been solved in India? Because if it's been solved in one
00:22:23.640
region, the other Pradesh is what it was, if it's been solved in one region, and everybody in the
00:22:30.880
United States knows it, but why don't the top people in India know it? Now, is this a setup for
00:22:40.040
cognitive dissonance? It is, right? This is a perfect setup to trigger cognitive dissonance.
00:22:48.100
Not in everybody. But if you were positive, and you'd been making the argument, hey, it definitely
00:22:54.000
worked in India, so we're done here. So right land bandit has started to yell at me in all caps.
00:23:02.840
So here's your first tip on cognitive dissonance. Tip number one for spotting it. Somebody will yell
00:23:09.160
at you with caps. Okay? All caps, so we're seeing that. But also, they'll go after the messenger
00:23:15.860
and not the point. So here's a pushback from right lane bandit, all in caps. Scott quote,
00:23:25.880
never trust experts, but also Scott quote, you are debunked. The experts agree with me.
00:23:31.720
Is that really a response to this question? No. It's a comment about me, in general. And have
00:23:40.580
I agreed with the experts? No. Do you see me agreeing with any experts here? No, I'm reporting
00:23:47.920
what the experts said. I'm telling you, I don't know if it works or not. I'm just telling you
00:23:54.540
what they said. And you have to explain, if you believe that India has this giant success
00:24:01.240
with ivermectin, you have to explain why all of the experts in India don't know it, but
00:24:11.040
So, let me give you a gel man amnesia when it comes to experts. Now, how many of you are
00:24:20.680
hallucinating right now that I'm siding with the experts? Anybody? Who's having that hallucination
00:24:28.140
right now? Because I'm not. I'm not siding with them, and I'm not disagreeing with them.
00:24:33.380
How many think I'm siding with them, even though I just said I'm not siding with them or disagreeing
00:24:38.240
them? Right? So, that's another way to determine that you're in cognitive dissonance. If you
00:24:45.700
can't keep on the topic, the moving of the goalposts is sometimes just somebody being a
00:24:51.880
weasel and, you know, they lost their argument, so they're trying to win. But lots of times
00:24:56.100
it's cognitive dissonance, and people don't know they moved the goalposts. So, if you get
00:25:01.620
proven wrong, one thing you'll do is imagine you're in a different conversation. So, you'll
00:25:06.360
actually get to watch that in real time. You're going to see people who are arguing a different
00:25:11.600
point than I am, and that's probably cognitive dissonance, but it could be just bad, you know,
00:25:17.380
listening. All right. Now, some of you are saying, but Scott, look at my graph. I'll forward it to you.
00:25:26.560
Look at all these studies on ivermectin. I'm not on that topic. I'm not on that topic, right?
00:25:33.660
That's this topic. Does it work? We could talk about that separately, but we're not on that topic.
00:25:40.680
We're only on the topic, did India have a big success that is just obvious?
00:25:48.420
Can we agree? Let me see if I can get you a degree and watch the cognitive dissonance.
00:25:53.700
So, some of you are going to get triggered right now. Here we go. Here's another all caps.
00:25:58.480
James Jensen says, this is to me, he says, in all caps, me thinks you speaking with forked tongues,
00:26:07.000
right? So, this is cognitive dissonance. It's all caps, and it's about me. It has nothing to do
00:26:13.760
with the point that the Indian, all the experts in India are unaware that they've solved the pandemic,
00:26:20.220
right? Big pharma got to the council. So, one of the examples of cognitive dissonance,
00:26:32.640
but I'm not saying that you're having it. So, let's talk about the speculation that somebody says,
00:26:37.860
okay, it all makes sense. It makes sense that India completely solved their pandemic in one region,
00:26:46.600
and yet, because the bribes were so successful, 100% of Indian doctors have been bribed,
00:26:55.340
the ones who are close enough to know what they're talking about in this topic.
00:26:59.300
So, 100% of them have been bribed. Do you know why it's 100% of them? How do you know that 100%
00:27:06.060
of them have been bribed? And we're talking about a lot of people, right? Hundreds? Hundreds, maybe?
00:27:11.320
How do you know that 100% of them have been bribed? Because any Indian doctor who knew that
00:27:19.880
they were going in the wrong direction could open an anonymous account on Twitter and tell you.
00:27:28.060
And tell you. You don't think there would be one expert who didn't get a bribe,
00:27:33.720
or maybe wasn't influenced by a bribe. Not one expert who could go on Twitter and say,
00:27:40.680
hey, something's going on over here. They're all getting bribed. They're ignoring the data.
00:27:46.260
Nobody? Ask yourself that. Because I don't think there's any explanation other than cognitive dissonance
00:27:52.800
that you would imagine that Pfizer could get to every doctor in India.
00:27:56.900
I mean, really? Not every doctor in India, but every doctor who's involved in the decision.
00:28:07.640
Now, remember, remember, the doctors, any doctor who wanted to be a whistleblower could have it both
00:28:15.960
ways. They could say in public, oh, I totally agree with my government, even if they didn't. Let's say
00:28:22.980
they wanted to keep their job. Oh, yeah, I totally agree with my government. Absolutely. Whatever
00:28:27.600
the government says, and I'm going to keep my job. They could still go on Twitter, open up an anonymous
00:28:34.100
account, as a number of doctors who follow me have done, right? There are a number of American doctors
00:28:40.360
who follow me with anonymous accounts. I'm pretty sure they're really doctors, the way they talk.
00:28:46.040
But, well, if you don't have even one, I would say there's not really much chance in the real world
00:28:55.680
that India thinks it worked. Right? Here we go. Here's another cognitive dissonance. Some of these
00:29:04.940
are really interesting. So this is from Angry Maul Babies. Trust cartoonists. Now, assuming that's
00:29:11.260
sarcastic, that's a comment about my credentials. Are my credentials in any way relevant to the fact
00:29:20.500
that India just said don't use ivermectin? How are my credentials relevant to that? I'm just telling
00:29:28.340
you what the news says. I haven't added anything. I've added nothing. It wouldn't matter what my job
00:29:35.820
was. I just read the story. That's all I did. Now, here's some, we're getting some pushback. All
00:29:44.940
right. There are studies showing ivermectin is effective if, okay, you're in cognitive dissonance
00:29:51.100
or you've consciously decided that you're in a different topic. All right. So everybody talking
00:29:58.160
about the question of whether ivermectin works or doesn't work, you're either in cognitive dissonance
00:30:04.560
or you have willingly decided to talk about a different topic. We're not on that topic. We're
00:30:11.080
only on the topic of whether India is aware that one region has this amazing success. And
00:30:16.600
obviously, they're not. They're not aware. Why? Why not? All right.
00:30:22.900
So here's another one. Oh, here's Michael on Twitter says to me about this topic. He says,
00:30:40.840
Scott, I'm curious why on certain topics, you openly convey distrust in government. But when
00:30:47.500
it comes to COVID, you implicitly trust every word they say. Is that comment, cognitive dissonance?
00:30:56.280
Let me read it again. Scott, I'm curious why on certain topics, you openly convey distrust in
00:31:02.160
government. But when it comes to COVID, you implicitly trust every word they say.
00:31:07.080
Okay. Now, does he know who he's talking to? Suppose somebody gave you a quiz and they said,
00:31:19.320
all right, you have to pick one person on the planet Earth, on the whole planet, any country
00:31:24.020
on the planet Earth, who is the least trusting of large organizations. Name one person on Earth
00:31:31.960
who's famous, famous for being the least trusting of organizations over the past 30 years. Now,
00:31:41.880
somebody said Alex Jones, very, very good, good. Alex Jones, I think he's kind of new on this beat.
00:31:49.840
I don't know what he was doing 30 years ago. But I was questioning all but large organizations 30 years
00:31:56.620
ago. And I might be one of the most famous skeptics of anything that comes out of a large organization.
00:32:05.080
Almost everything I talk about is how you can't trust the government. Now, sometimes you have to
00:32:10.480
choose. I mean, you've got to make decisions. So you're going to guess one way or the other.
00:32:14.920
So I guessed on vaccinations. Do you think I trusted the government? Hell no. Who trusts the government?
00:32:23.340
Really? Who trusts the government? So anybody who imagines that, of all people, the most, I'd say,
00:32:33.360
top 10, one of the most famous skeptics of all large organization decisions, this fellow imagined that
00:32:41.780
I trust the government sometimes. About never. I would never trust the government. I might make a
00:32:49.760
decision to go along with it because maybe I don't have that many options and I just got to guess.
00:32:59.800
All right. So that's obvious cognitive dissonance.
00:33:08.080
So let's do another one. So I saw on Google that
00:33:11.900
somebody saying again that vaccinations don't reduce the spread of COVID. So let me ask the
00:33:20.820
question. And then I'll Google it right in front of you. See what happens. Here's the question. I
00:33:28.140
want to see what your responses are. Now, keep in mind, the question I'm going to ask you is really
00:33:33.780
widely reported. Right. So if you missed this fact, you missed like one of the biggest things in the
00:33:42.560
world. I don't know how you missed it. But here's the question. If you're vaccinated, do you have the
00:33:50.060
same statistical odds of spreading the virus as if you're not vaccinated? Go in the comments. Do
00:33:57.660
vaccinated people spread the virus the same, just the same as people unvaccinated? I'm seeing a mixture
00:34:06.600
of yeses and nos. I think the nos are starting to beat down the yeses. I see yeses. I see nos.
00:34:16.040
No way. No, no. Don't know. No. Not sure. No. I see yeses. All right. So just the yeses.
00:34:29.980
So just for a moment. So I suspect there are more nos. Now, my understanding, which could be wrong,
00:34:39.060
that's why I'm going to Google it right in front of you. My understanding is that all of the experts
00:34:44.500
agree. At least the organizations of experts agree. They might be rogue doctors. But my
00:34:50.780
understanding is that science is pretty well certain that vaccinated people don't spread it
00:34:57.980
anywhere near, like nowhere near, not even close to unvaccinated people. How many want to find
00:35:06.060
their worldview shattered? All right. So just the yeses. All right. Stop commenting for a while.
00:35:12.300
Just hold off your comments for a moment. I only want to see the comments from the people who say
00:35:18.200
yes. So just give me, give me the yeses that people, you believe that they spread the same,
00:35:24.300
vaccinated or not. Just the yeses. All right. Now let's Google it. Maybe some of you are doing this
00:35:32.620
at home. All right. We'll go to actual Google itself so that we won't go to DuckDuckGo. Now you might
00:35:44.300
want to check my work on another search engine. All right. Do vaccinated people spread virus as much
00:36:04.980
Now, the reason that I picked this question is because it's like one of the most important questions,
00:36:10.140
right? All right. So Google has pasted an official answer to the top. So that means that in Google's
00:36:19.340
opinion, it's a settled question. And they're just telling you the answer. So you don't even have to
00:36:23.800
look for a source. They're just going to tell you right at the top. I haven't seen this before.
00:36:27.940
You see this? They just paste it right at the top. It says common question. What are the chances of
00:36:34.720
getting COVID after being fully? Well, that's different. Boop, boop, boop. Hold on. Okay. Does
00:36:41.140
the COVID-19 vaccine prevent transmission? Of course, we know it doesn't prevent it. But let's see what it
00:36:47.080
says. Evidence suggests the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program has substantially reduced the burden of
00:36:55.440
disease. So Google says yes. Let's see what the CDC says. For some reason, that's not coming up.
00:37:10.320
Oh, that was just the source. That was just the CDC. So it wasn't Google. It was saying,
00:37:14.420
according to the CDC, there's much less chance of spread. Okay. So now I looked it up. How many of
00:37:23.840
you who thought it was the same would change your opinion if you knew that it's unanimously believed
00:37:31.320
by the people in charge of this stuff? I'm saying nopes. What is the nope about?
00:37:37.520
People are just saying, nope. Nope. Suggests. Oh, let me... Okay. I thought that would be enough
00:37:48.920
to convince you. But let's say, do vaccinated people shed same viral load? All right. So the answer
00:38:05.640
that I gave you was like a little off point, and I take your point on that. So here's the CDC.
00:38:17.440
Oh, here... This is interesting. This might be the opposite of what you think. This is from the CDC.
00:38:26.200
Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it's right. Right? So we're not trusting the government
00:38:34.400
automatically. Right? I'm just telling you what they're saying. It says the vaccines can
00:38:40.460
help prevent new variants. Do you believe that? Do you believe that a vaccine can prevent
00:38:46.400
new variants? It's the first time I've actually seen it from the CDC. But I assumed that was
00:38:52.740
true. Because... So you're not believing the CDC that vaccines can help prevent new variants?
00:39:04.140
Here's why I think it's probably true. I won't give this a guarantee. But here's why I think
00:39:09.740
it's probably true. The more virus there is in the world, the more variants. Period. Period.
00:39:18.180
There's no other analysis you need. The more virus in the world, the more variants. No expert
00:39:25.680
disagrees with that. Do you believe me? The more virus, the more variants. And there's no exception.
00:39:34.060
Nothing about the vaccines would change the fact that more virus means more infections. Now,
00:39:39.580
do vaccines cause more or less virus? Far less. All right. So I know you're not convinced
00:39:49.640
on that, because I don't have an argument good enough. But because I think the only argument
00:39:54.040
is that if variants are a statistical anomaly, then the more virus, the more variants. That's
00:40:03.600
it. There's nothing else to say, is there? Stop talking to us like we're morons. Dan, I have
00:40:11.860
to talk to the public across all intellectual planes. So sometimes I'll talk to you like you're
00:40:22.420
smarter than average, because actually, I think this audience is smarter than average. Probably
00:40:26.180
a lot smarter than average. But there are still many of you who have opinions, which just
00:40:33.120
don't, let's say they don't track. I don't know what to do with that. Yeah. So by the way,
00:40:42.380
cognitive dissonance doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. Let's see if they've
00:40:49.040
got the answer on the spreading. Similar virus in communities. Let's see, that's, I want to
00:41:03.720
find a good source here. Viral loads, similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So viral
00:41:14.540
loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So did I debunk myself? Anybody? So
00:41:22.880
here's a source, UC Davis, and some other sources as well. The viral loads are similar, whether
00:41:31.360
you're vaccinated or unvaccinated. In the case that you, so have I debunked myself? So that
00:41:39.180
would, so does that prove that you can spread as much virus, vaccinated or unvaccinated? Because
00:41:45.760
you would have similar virus loads? No, it doesn't mean that. It doesn't mean that.
00:41:55.860
Let's say you're vaccinated, and I'm not. We have the same viral load. So what is the risk
00:42:03.340
of vaccinated people spreading it versus unvaccinated? Well, in that case, it looks about
00:42:09.680
similar, right? If you're vaccinated and I'm not vaccinated, and we walk into the same room,
00:42:15.820
and we've got the same viral load, which one of us will spread it more? It's unknown. It probably
00:42:23.560
has to do with our lung capacity, et cetera. But if we had the same viral load, on average,
00:42:30.980
we would spread it about the same if we were, let's say, the same lung capacity, et cetera.
00:42:37.640
Stayed there the same amount of time. Does everybody agree with that? If you're vaccinated
00:42:41.680
or unvaccinated, if you have the same viral load, and then you go do the same things, probably,
00:42:48.360
probably, you spread it about the same. Everybody okay with that so far? Right? Now, here's the
00:42:55.200
second fact. I'm about seven times more likely to have it in the first place if I'm unvaccinated.
00:43:04.960
Is everybody on board with that fact? That to get it in the first place, it's about seven times more
00:43:12.020
likely you'll get it if you're unvaccinated. Yes? Yes or no? Fact check me on that?
00:43:18.140
All right. You can Google it while I'm talking. So it's like seven or 11 times. I think it might
00:43:24.500
be 11, maybe. But it's many times more likely. So we don't need a specific number. Does everybody
00:43:31.220
agree that it's many times more likely you would get infected in the first place if you're unvaccinated?
00:43:38.420
Anybody? All right. So now I'll do the same test. Remember, the first one was we both have the
00:43:45.880
same viral load, vaccinated and unvaccinated, and we walk into the same room. Now, here's your second
00:43:50.580
setup. There's one person who's unvaccinated who walks into a room, and they've got a viral load.
00:43:59.320
And there's nobody else in the room because the vaccinated person didn't get it. All right? Are
00:44:06.140
you following the example? The first one was you're both infected, and you both walk into the room with
00:44:11.000
the same viral load. You probably spread it about the same. But since there are seven times as many
00:44:17.880
people who get it unvaccinated, you have a lot of rooms where only an unvaccinated person walks in
00:44:23.920
in the first place because there aren't enough vaccinated people to pair them with. If you tried
00:44:29.560
to pair every vaccinated person with an unvaccinated person with the same viral load, you could do a few,
00:44:35.080
but you would really quickly run out of vaccinated people who have that kind of viral load. And you
00:44:42.020
would have plenty of unvaccinated people, seven or 11 times more. So those people are walking into
00:44:48.760
rooms all the time. The unvaccinated people don't exist in numbers enough to match all the unvaccinated
00:44:59.960
people. So if you thought that because vaccinated and unvaccinated people can carry the same viral
00:45:07.300
load, that vaccinations don't make any difference to spreading, you're ignoring the biggest fact of
00:45:13.840
vaccinations, that it reduces the chance that you get it at all by, I don't know, seven or 11 times,
00:45:20.180
but a gigantic number, right? Gigantic number. Okay? Somebody, I'm seeing false.
00:45:29.960
Anybody who's yelling false, that's cognitive dissonance. Sorry. Sorry. Because you have room
00:45:40.500
to say why. You could say your data's wrong, that fact is wrong, anything. The analysis is wrong,
00:45:46.460
you compared the wrong thing, anything. Just say anything. But if you're just saying I'm wrong to
00:45:50.820
the facts I produce, you can Google these all. Everything I said will come up, you know, in the top
00:45:57.840
Google searches. Now, are the experts right about that? Are the experts right? I don't know. Can we
00:46:07.620
trust all the experts? I don't know. I'm not saying you can trust them all the time. I'm saying that the
00:46:12.600
argument that you can spread it just as much, vaccinated or not, is probably based on a
00:46:20.140
misunderstanding. Probably. It's probably based on the misunderstanding that if you could have similar
00:46:26.960
viral loads, that you would spread it the same. And while that's true, if there are just two people
00:46:33.560
in the room, you have to look at the country, and you couldn't find enough people to go in the room
00:46:39.140
with the unvaccinated person. Because the vaccinated people just don't exist. Most of them don't have it.
00:46:44.620
All right. How many of you, how could we have nearly enough time to study all of this? Well, that's always
00:46:59.760
a problem. Google is a biased source, perhaps. I mean, I'm not arguing that Google is biased, but they show
00:47:08.860
lots of sources. If you can find, let me, let me say this, find a credible source that disagrees with me
00:47:16.080
and then send it to me. Okay. Find, find a credible source. And I would accept a major publication on
00:47:23.620
the right or the left. All right. A major publication. So a major publication would be anything on the right
00:47:30.400
from Fox News to Breitbart, major publications on the left, whatever, whatever, CNN, anything else.
00:47:38.860
But just find any major publication that disagrees with what I just said. I don't think you'll find
00:47:45.560
one. Now, that doesn't mean they're right, right? Can, can everybody be wrong? Sure. Sure. It's
00:47:51.380
happened. I'm just telling you what the evidence is. I can't tell you that it's accurate, right? That's,
00:47:57.380
that's not my job. And here's the other thing that people are blaming me for. A lot of people are
00:48:03.780
saying that my views on all of this stuff are completely, that my views on all this are
00:48:11.580
completely biased by the fact that I got the vaccination and I want to be right. Meaning I
00:48:17.980
want my, I want to be publicly right that my vaccination choice was correct.
00:48:22.900
No, I don't. I want to be healthy. That's all I want. I want to be healthy. I don't need to be
00:48:32.080
right. This program isn't even about being right. I mean, there are other, there are other programs
00:48:38.000
that are, you know, the, the host is just trying to be right all the time, but not this one. If I,
00:48:44.580
if I could be like spectacularly wrong about something really important that I, I really thought was
00:48:51.500
right. And even especially if I've been talking about it, that excites me. That would be scary
00:48:56.780
because it means I might be at risk of dying. That's a separate question, but no, I don't need to be
00:49:03.140
right. And let me, let me say as, um, as powerfully as I can, that, um, I don't know if I made the right
00:49:15.240
decision. Do you, let me ask how many of you are positive. You made the, not that you made the right
00:49:23.520
risk calculation. Cause I think that's easier, but that you're actually beyond just making the
00:49:29.560
right risk management decision that you're also right. How many of you are positive? You're right.
00:49:37.840
Whichever way you went vaccinated or unvaccinated, how many are positive? You're right.
00:49:45.120
I am. I'm seeing some people positive. They're right. Um, I am not. Um,
00:49:56.360
look, yeah, I'm not going to talk about animal cruelty stuff. I just can't do that.
00:50:00.700
Um, all right. So here we, uh, I, I respect everybody who says they're not sure. So if you
00:50:10.680
said I'm not going to get vaccinated and here's my reasons, but I'm not sure it's, it's just my
00:50:16.040
best judgment. I have full respect for that. Full respect. It might be right, might be wrong,
00:50:22.340
but I totally respect it. And likewise, if you say, you know, I've decided to get vaccinated,
00:50:28.160
it might be a bad decision. It might be a good one, but I had to make a decision.
00:50:32.360
I completely respect that decision. The only people I don't respect are the people who are certain
00:50:37.380
because you, you got some explaining to do if you're certain. If you're positive,
00:50:44.180
you've got a lot of explaining to do. Um, being not sure and getting the jab is the wrong decision.
00:50:52.100
No, it isn't. No, it isn't. There, there's no logical reason to support what you just said.
00:51:00.080
We're all uncertain. One way is better than the other. And we don't know. We really don't know.
00:51:09.380
Um, all right. Just looking at some of your comments. Um, the reason I, I, I dwelled on this a
00:51:20.780
little bit is that the news is boring today. Is there any actual interesting news happening today
00:51:24.620
that I missed? I was a little bit, uh, late. Oh, I gotta run. I gotta run. I gotta leave early