Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1607 Scott Adams： Most of the News is Good Today. Hello Golden Age

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody.

00:00:01.760 Welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.

00:00:04.260 Possibly the best thing that ever happened to anybody.

00:00:06.380 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:08.440 And today, mostly good news.

00:00:11.060 It's a weird day.

00:00:12.380 Now, it could be that I'm just in the mood

00:00:13.860 to hear some good news, so I'm filtering it differently.

00:00:16.160 But I'm going to put you in a good mood, too,

00:00:18.780 so that you can filter it the way I do.

00:00:21.300 Everything's looking good.

00:00:22.840 It really is.

00:00:23.820 And all you need to come to this higher level

00:00:26.620 of happiness and awareness is a copper mug

00:00:28.760 or a glass of pecker tails of stein,

00:00:30.520 a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:32.800 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:33.760 I like coffee.

00:00:35.440 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

00:00:39.500 It's the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:41.660 the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:43.380 And it's working.

00:00:44.760 It's called the Simultaneous Sipping Habits Now.

00:00:46.620 Go.

00:00:51.920 Ah, yes, coffee.

00:00:53.460 Well, I saw a tweet just before I got on

00:00:59.940 that rapper-actor Ice Cube

00:01:03.740 says that they offered Chris Tucker

00:01:07.080 $10 to $12 million

00:01:09.080 to be in their next movie, Friday-something, a sequel.

00:01:13.920 And Chris Tucker turned down $10 to $12 million

00:01:17.240 because of religious reasons.

00:01:19.360 And he apparently objected to being in another movie

00:01:23.140 in which he was smoking weed and cussing.

00:01:26.980 So Chris Tucker is out of the role.

00:01:30.540 $10 to $12 million

00:01:31.340 because he didn't want to be involved

00:01:33.880 with weed and cussing.

00:01:36.740 So I tweeted back to Ice Cube

00:01:38.380 and asked if auditions are still open

00:01:40.140 because if ever there was a role made for me,

00:01:45.280 I don't want to say born for the role.

00:01:49.240 That's going too far.

00:01:51.500 But lock, key, perfect fit, perfect fit.

00:01:58.540 Now, there was a day where a person who looked like me

00:02:01.080 would not be cast in an all-black movie,

00:02:03.220 but we don't live in backwards times anymore.

00:02:07.000 In the dark ages, no pun intended,

00:02:10.440 they would have been able to just cast their movie

00:02:12.780 and completely ignore other people saying,

00:02:15.120 hey, let me in that movie, but not now.

00:02:17.460 In our woke environment,

00:02:19.460 I believe I can pull off that role.

00:02:25.620 And a lot of it is acting.

00:02:28.960 You know, sometimes if you don't have

00:02:31.140 the perfect look for a role,

00:02:33.800 the audience won't matter if your acting is so good.

00:02:37.260 So I think I could get my acting up to a level

00:02:40.680 where I could take over this Chris Tucker role,

00:02:43.160 smoke some weed,

00:02:43.920 cuss on camera. 0.85

00:02:46.220 I might even practice a little of that today.

00:02:48.880 You don't know.

00:02:50.640 Because I don't like to go into an audition

00:02:52.240 unless I've got a lot of practice.

00:02:55.020 Well, did you see the picture of Romney's family?

00:02:57.980 I guess they took a holiday family picture.

00:03:01.460 And I've got to say,

00:03:03.320 it's jaw-dropping.

00:03:05.560 You know, I've never seen a family picture

00:03:07.460 that had that much impact on me

00:03:08.880 because it's the last thing that interests most of us.

00:03:12.380 Okay, that's your family.

00:03:13.720 I don't even know your family.

00:03:15.280 But you should see the size of Mitt Romney's family.

00:03:19.040 I think they're all, you know,

00:03:21.080 kids and grandkids and stuff.

00:03:23.120 It looks like it.

00:03:23.660 Now, they are shockingly white.

00:03:29.080 No big surprise, right?

00:03:30.720 It's the biggest group of white people 0.83

00:03:32.280 I've ever seen in one place.

00:03:33.720 Because in America,

00:03:34.820 you couldn't assemble that many white people 0.99

00:03:36.720 to take a picture.

00:03:38.420 I mean, we just don't live in a country

00:03:40.720 where that many white people are in the same place.

00:03:42.520 But in Utah, and in the Romney family...

00:03:47.260 Now, I'm not criticizing Romney's.

00:03:49.440 In fact, I would like to give them a holiday compliment,

00:03:53.460 which is, do you ever wonder what it is like

00:03:56.100 or what does it mean to win at life?

00:04:01.700 Like, what would that look like?

00:04:03.120 To be a winner at life.

00:04:04.940 Because we think of Romney as, you know,

00:04:06.740 a loser in the sense that he lost the presidency.

00:04:09.440 But, you know, he was very successful in his career

00:04:12.400 and all that.

00:04:14.020 But when you see a picture

00:04:14.820 of how he has spread his genes,

00:04:17.800 that looks like the winningest thing I've ever seen.

00:04:22.280 It's just, it's amazing.

00:04:24.060 He's got like a Genghis Khan light kind of mode there 0.88

00:04:28.360 where this mofo is spreading his genes

00:04:31.980 like nobody's business.

00:04:34.440 So I would think that from an evolutionary standpoint,

00:04:36.840 the more you spread your genes, the more winning you are.

00:04:40.800 So I've never seen anybody win that hard before.

00:04:45.220 He created a lot of clones.

00:04:48.760 Anyway, in more tragic news, John Madden died.

00:04:53.040 Most of you have heard that name, John Madden.

00:04:55.680 Famous football coach,

00:04:57.700 but also famous for living in my town.

00:05:01.660 So the entire time that John Madden has lived where I live,

00:05:07.020 and by the way, this is the second time

00:05:08.480 I've lived in his town.

00:05:10.800 I used to live in another town that he lived in,

00:05:14.100 and then he moved.

00:05:16.100 And then I moved when I got married

00:05:17.840 and, you know, moved to the town

00:05:19.540 where my wife lives with the kids.

00:05:23.000 And I ended up in his town twice.

00:05:26.860 Now, the weird thing about this

00:05:28.480 is it made me the second most famous person in town twice.

00:05:33.300 In both cases, it was because of him.

00:05:36.580 Now, there's nothing wrong

00:05:38.920 with being the second most famous person in your town,

00:05:41.380 but I've got to tell you

00:05:42.420 being the most famous person in your town

00:05:43.980 is a little bit better.

00:05:45.620 Now, of course, I don't want to detract

00:05:47.420 from the fact that it's a tragedy

00:05:49.260 that John Madden died,

00:05:51.020 but he did make it to 85,

00:05:53.440 and from what I know from him,

00:05:55.900 just from his public persona,

00:05:57.520 if you make it to 85 and you're going strong

00:06:00.860 and you go out on top,

00:06:03.480 I don't know.

00:06:04.940 I don't even think John Madden would be sad

00:06:06.580 about John Madden dying.

00:06:08.260 He did it so well.

00:06:09.700 So he lived his life well,

00:06:11.200 went out in style,

00:06:12.640 timing was good,

00:06:14.120 but like so many stories in the news,

00:06:16.160 they have a weird connection to me,

00:06:18.440 like personally.

00:06:19.480 Like this will have an effect on me personally.

00:06:21.880 It's weird.

00:06:22.560 All right.

00:06:26.020 There was an article in Medscape

00:06:28.980 suggesting that maybe the moderate alcohol benefits,

00:06:33.760 the health benefits of moderate alcohol,

00:06:37.300 look increasingly doubtful.

00:06:40.460 That's right.

00:06:41.960 So some in the medical scientific community

00:06:44.320 now believe that the common thing we used to believe,

00:06:47.940 that moderate drinking might actually be good for your health.

00:06:51.720 As if.

00:06:53.480 Yes, as if drinking just a little bit of poison

00:06:56.620 will be good for you.

00:07:00.200 But it looks like science is starting to bend the other way.

00:07:03.780 It's increasingly doubtful that it's good for you.

00:07:06.160 And how many of you remember me making the prediction

00:07:11.460 that someday we would learn

00:07:14.040 that the most common thing that we hear all the time,

00:07:17.260 moderate drinking is good for you,

00:07:19.060 that it was never true?

00:07:21.580 That's one of my predictions for years,

00:07:24.000 that eventually we would learn that was never true.

00:07:28.360 I'm not going to claim victory yet,

00:07:31.300 but so I'll keep my prediction alive

00:07:34.100 and just say it's unresolved at this point,

00:07:38.300 but it's going this way.

00:07:40.740 In the end, someday,

00:07:43.620 we are not going to say that moderate drinking was good for you.

00:07:47.900 There's nothing in my life experience

00:07:50.380 that suggests that could even happen.

00:07:52.800 I mean, anything could happen, I suppose.

00:07:54.980 But everything pushes the other direction about this.

00:07:58.760 If you're predicting it goes the other way,

00:08:01.380 I'd like to take that bet.

00:08:04.100 2022 is looking interesting,

00:08:08.660 but also will be a way to test our world theories,

00:08:12.700 which is very interesting to me.

00:08:14.660 Remember, I tell you that your worldview

00:08:16.240 is probably subjective just like everybody else's.

00:08:20.440 But the only thing you can tell about it

00:08:22.340 that is useful is whether it predicts.

00:08:25.420 So if your view of the world predicts accurately,

00:08:28.000 well, or better than other people's,

00:08:29.820 well, you have a pretty good worldview,

00:08:32.220 even if it's not true in some sense.

00:08:36.720 So we're going to get a test here.

00:08:38.720 It's coming up.

00:08:39.600 Here's what the test looks like.

00:08:41.380 In 2022, when we do the elections for Congress,

00:08:47.020 we know now that 23 Democrats are retiring

00:08:52.140 or bidding from another office.

00:08:54.600 So basically, 23 Democrats will be leaving the field

00:08:57.740 when the Republicans are only five down.

00:09:03.780 So Republicans only need to win five more seats

00:09:06.360 to take control,

00:09:07.460 and there are already 23 Democrats who are leaving the job.

00:09:11.740 Now, on top of that, you've got the polling

00:09:15.040 that would suggest that the Republicans are going to sweep.

00:09:17.980 You've got Biden not fixing the problems he promised to fix.

00:09:22.440 You've got a lot going on that would all...

00:09:25.040 Let's see if you agree with the starting assumption.

00:09:28.600 Is the starting assumption

00:09:29.820 that literally every expert is saying,

00:09:33.580 oh, the Republicans are just going to sweep?

00:09:37.520 Give me a fact check.

00:09:38.740 Is it true that every expert

00:09:41.240 says the Republicans are going to sweep?

00:09:44.940 Right?

00:09:45.580 Every one.

00:09:46.660 Even the Democrats say it.

00:09:48.640 Now, except for the politicians,

00:09:50.440 but the people who are, you know,

00:09:51.920 because they have to say it.

00:09:53.420 But the people and experts on both sides

00:09:55.780 just say, yeah, Republicans are going to sweep.

00:09:58.220 So here's how you get to test your worldview.

00:10:02.840 If your worldview is that

00:10:04.880 there is some shadowy group of Democrats,

00:10:07.820 that can change the elections

00:10:10.300 to anything they want,

00:10:12.780 the Democrats will hold Congress.

00:10:15.780 If you're right.

00:10:19.140 Would you agree?

00:10:20.720 That if the elections are, in fact, corrupt

00:10:24.100 in ways that we can't easily audit,

00:10:27.220 and if they robbed Trump

00:10:29.300 right in front of the public,

00:10:31.280 meaning that everyone who looked at it said,

00:10:34.340 you know, it really kind of looked like

00:10:36.060 Trump was going to win this,

00:10:37.540 and then surprisingly he didn't.

00:10:39.940 And then what happened?

00:10:41.540 Well, there was a little event at the Capitol,

00:10:44.500 which there is a strong argument

00:10:48.160 that suggests that it was not an organic event,

00:10:51.700 at least the most dangerous parts about it

00:10:54.380 when they breached the actual, you know,

00:10:57.460 trespassing territory and got violent.

00:10:59.340 And it would seem as if the country has been set up

00:11:04.960 to make it unlikely that there would be an insurrection

00:11:08.240 because the insurrectionists,

00:11:10.980 quote, insurrectionists who weren't really insurrectionists,

00:11:14.060 have been punished so severely,

00:11:16.320 or it looks like they will be.

00:11:18.340 Many of them still in jail.

00:11:20.480 And so we have a situation where

00:11:22.400 if the worst-case scenario is correct

00:11:24.880 and the elections are rigged,

00:11:27.000 I'm not saying this is true, by the way.

00:11:28.880 I'm saying we'll get to test that worldview

00:11:30.700 versus the worldview that everything was fine.

00:11:34.220 But if the worldview that things are rigged is true,

00:11:37.660 we do have a situation where they could steal

00:11:40.100 the election right in front of you

00:11:43.700 in a way that everybody would sort of think

00:11:47.120 maybe it happened

00:11:47.900 because it didn't go the way everybody thought,

00:11:51.480 and nothing would happen

00:11:52.720 because there wouldn't be a second insurrection.

00:11:57.340 They've already pre-stopped a revolution in the future

00:12:00.880 by making it seem like one already happened

00:12:03.680 and then stopping the one that was fake

00:12:05.940 to make it, like, really clear

00:12:08.300 you don't want to try marching on the Capitol.

00:12:12.160 So, there are no...

00:12:13.560 You know, obviously this would not be 100% proof,

00:12:16.660 but I'll make...

00:12:18.980 I'm not even sure which way I would predict.

00:12:24.920 You know, I think I have to do a split prediction

00:12:28.340 for this one, which was very unsatisfying.

00:12:31.100 I'd like to do something like this.

00:12:33.300 Republicans will sweep in 2022. 0.57

00:12:36.880 Right?

00:12:37.300 Nice, clean, consistent prediction.

00:12:41.300 But we can only depend on the votes.

00:12:43.680 We can't really depend on the vote count.

00:12:48.120 Now, let me say my view of the election integrity.

00:12:54.100 I am aware of no evidence of massive fraud in 2020.

00:12:59.780 I want to say that as clearly as possible.

00:13:02.080 I'm personally, just personally,

00:13:05.080 not aware of anything that would look like massive fraud

00:13:09.200 that has been determined.

00:13:10.140 It is also true that we can't fully audit our system.

00:13:15.240 So, if, in fact, massive fraud happened,

00:13:17.660 it's unclear that we could know that.

00:13:20.940 Number three,

00:13:22.180 if you have a system that can't be audited,

00:13:25.020 there will always be massive fraud.

00:13:27.380 You just don't know if it's happened yet.

00:13:30.100 Could be next time.

00:13:31.560 Could be the time after.

00:13:32.780 But there's no way it doesn't happen.

00:13:35.060 It would be like dropping a ball

00:13:36.720 and expecting that sometimes the gravity won't work.

00:13:41.680 No, the gravity will work every time.

00:13:44.160 If you create a system that's not transparent

00:13:46.980 and the advantage of being able to control

00:13:50.380 that non-transparent system

00:13:52.140 is essentially controlling the planet,

00:13:55.260 the greatest payoff you could ever have.

00:13:58.160 I think if I change this software,

00:14:00.720 I'm in charge of the planet.

00:14:02.080 Biggest stakes you could ever have

00:14:05.020 in a non-transparent system.

00:14:08.240 100% of the time you get massive fraud.

00:14:11.200 Not sometimes.

00:14:13.140 It's not one of like,

00:14:14.400 oh, we're surprised there was some massive fraud.

00:14:16.500 No, it's just like gravity.

00:14:18.440 If you make it that easy for massive fraud,

00:14:20.900 you'll get it every time.

00:14:22.080 You just have to wait.

00:14:23.860 That's all it is.

00:14:25.120 Just a matter of time.

00:14:26.220 So, I certainly would not be one

00:14:30.480 who can say to you,

00:14:31.900 because we don't have an auditable election system,

00:14:34.600 I can't say to you

00:14:35.520 that this won't be a rigged election in 2022.

00:14:39.060 I can't say that with any confidence.

00:14:42.340 It's like a coin flip.

00:14:44.320 50-50, maybe.

00:14:46.300 And only 50-50 because I don't have information.

00:14:49.340 If I had information,

00:14:50.520 maybe I'd change that a lot.

00:14:52.280 Yeah, the COVID elections

00:14:57.000 are always going to add some sketchiness to the outcome.

00:14:59.280 That's true.

00:15:00.500 But if your worldview is that

00:15:02.760 some shadowy figures aligned with Democrats

00:15:06.480 can steal everything and get away with it,

00:15:09.820 let's see if they do the midterms.

00:15:12.860 If they don't steal the midterms,

00:15:15.480 you're going to have to rethink

00:15:17.120 if they stole the Trump versus Biden election.

00:15:22.300 Alas, we found there was some loophole there

00:15:26.960 that got closed in the meantime.

00:15:29.280 I don't know what that would be.

00:15:31.800 All right, I know a lot of Republican-managed states

00:15:35.040 are trying to tighten things up, so we'll see.

00:15:37.500 Here's an interesting little positive thing.

00:15:41.200 Came out of Sandia National Laboratories.

00:15:43.180 One of the Sandia labs is bicycle distance from me,

00:15:47.400 just down the road, because everything is about me.

00:15:49.780 And one of the things that California gets right,

00:15:55.280 I'm going to defend my state slightly.

00:15:57.940 California gets a lot of grief,

00:15:59.920 and I give it a lot of grief, too.

00:16:02.500 But there is one thing that California does right,

00:16:04.740 is it puts a lot of smart people in the same place.

00:16:07.780 And a lot of good things happen

00:16:09.500 when you put your smartest people in the same place

00:16:12.240 and say, ah, this little piece of territory,

00:16:14.940 we're going to put all the smartest people.

00:16:16.200 You just start companies and do whatever you're doing.

00:16:19.600 Well, here's what some smart people

00:16:20.940 at Sandia National Labs do.

00:16:22.740 I don't know if this came out of the local one,

00:16:24.360 or there's an Albuquerque version of this.

00:16:27.260 But they found out how to turn coal ash

00:16:29.560 into rare-earth metals.

00:16:32.660 What?

00:16:34.020 So one of the biggest waste problems from coal

00:16:38.660 is the coal ash.

00:16:39.960 But apparently now they can take that coal ash

00:16:42.960 and change it into rare-earth minerals.

00:16:45.400 But you say to yourself, well, that sounds expensive.

00:16:48.800 Except here's how you do it.

00:16:51.320 They use a harmless food-grade solvent.

00:16:55.020 In other words, some of you basically buy it off the shelf,

00:16:58.500 I think, right?

00:17:00.900 And that's it.

00:17:02.840 You just mix it with some chemicals

00:17:04.940 that are sort of available, you know, everywhere.

00:17:08.220 And it turns it into rare-earth materials

00:17:11.500 if you wait a day.

00:17:15.520 And I don't know what kind of rare-earth materials

00:17:17.840 you get out of this,

00:17:18.840 but this seems like a pretty big deal

00:17:20.680 that we weren't expecting.

00:17:22.200 Now, the pushback on this is that apparently

00:17:23.940 there is already some technique

00:17:25.640 for recovering rare-earth minerals from coal ash.

00:17:30.420 And some think that the existing technique

00:17:32.660 gets a higher percentage of it

00:17:34.720 and might be more economical.

00:17:35.920 But it's hard for me to imagine

00:17:37.720 that anything would be more economical

00:17:39.460 than pouring some over-the-counter juice on it

00:17:42.440 and waiting a day.

00:17:44.100 You know, even if you get a lower percentage

00:17:46.300 of, you know, gain from that,

00:17:49.620 I feel as if it's so easy

00:17:52.320 that it's still going to be economical

00:17:53.680 relative to the alternatives.

00:17:55.480 So I don't know if every pile of coal ash

00:17:58.320 is going through the existing process,

00:18:00.540 but I doubt it, or else this would be a story.

00:18:02.480 So there must be some economical advantages to this.

00:18:07.100 However, we should always be aware

00:18:08.940 that every story of good news is fake

00:18:10.600 when it comes to science.

00:18:14.440 Right?

00:18:15.520 Now, I'm exaggerating a little bit.

00:18:18.160 A little bit.

00:18:19.440 But wouldn't you say,

00:18:20.380 based on your life experience,

00:18:23.040 99% of what you hear about great news

00:18:26.440 coming out of science,

00:18:27.320 and that's not true.

00:18:28.620 About 99% of the time.

00:18:29.980 So I'm not going to say this is an exception,

00:18:32.800 but it's fun to read about.

00:18:34.780 Michael Mina, who is famous for being,

00:18:37.760 at least on Twitter and elsewhere

00:18:39.580 and with the government,

00:18:41.140 the most notable and loudest,

00:18:45.520 most effective voice on rapid testing.

00:18:49.140 He, apparently he's been so successful,

00:18:52.560 or events have changed people's minds as well,

00:18:55.820 he tweeted this.

00:18:56.740 He says,

00:18:57.020 you know things have come full circle

00:18:58.920 when people are starting to tell me,

00:19:01.680 remember,

00:19:02.300 he's the king of promoting rapid testing.

00:19:06.840 He said,

00:19:07.400 when people are starting to tell me

00:19:08.920 that PCR tests take a long time

00:19:12.940 to turn negative,

00:19:14.220 and we should be using rapid antigen tests

00:19:16.260 to test out of isolation.

00:19:18.160 So in other words,

00:19:20.400 if what you're trying to do

00:19:21.860 is get out of isolation,

00:19:23.300 what matters most

00:19:24.380 is if you're still infected.

00:19:26.520 And the rapid tests

00:19:27.940 that are less sensitive

00:19:29.820 do a better job.

00:19:34.120 Now, I think I'm saying this right,

00:19:35.960 but let me explain that.

00:19:37.320 If the rapid test

00:19:38.600 is very effective

00:19:40.220 at finding out

00:19:41.080 if you have a lot of viral load,

00:19:43.400 and it can do it quickly and cheaply,

00:19:45.100 then you can get out of quarantine

00:19:47.400 a little faster,

00:19:48.820 not with perfect certainty,

00:19:50.780 but really, really good.

00:19:52.860 Whereas if you wait for the PCR test,

00:19:55.060 which might be longer

00:19:56.380 to get an appointment,

00:19:58.040 then you've got to wait a day

00:19:59.320 to get a result,

00:20:01.560 you probably have to leave home

00:20:03.080 to do it, right?

00:20:05.200 So that the right answer

00:20:06.880 always was the rapid tests.

00:20:09.480 That was always the right answer

00:20:10.880 for getting out of quarantine.

00:20:11.920 Not necessarily the right answer

00:20:14.220 for maybe testing

00:20:16.340 ahead of a trip, perhaps.

00:20:18.000 I don't know.

00:20:18.540 There might be some differences there.

00:20:20.560 But for getting out of quarantine,

00:20:22.440 where less than 100% effectiveness

00:20:25.380 is pretty much guaranteed,

00:20:28.720 I think Michael Mina's claims

00:20:30.600 have been validated at this point.

00:20:32.700 History has moved in his direction

00:20:34.420 just as he would like, I'm sure.

00:20:37.120 All right.

00:20:37.680 Here's your test of the press.

00:20:44.860 In the Jerusalem Post this week,

00:20:48.120 there's a story that Iran

00:20:49.620 is very close,

00:20:51.080 just months away

00:20:51.900 from a breakout ability

00:20:53.900 to create a nuclear weapon.

00:20:56.900 All right, so that's today.

00:20:58.680 Iran is two months away 0.86

00:21:00.320 from a nuclear weapon.

00:21:02.460 That's 2021.

00:21:03.500 Reuters reported the same thing

00:21:06.980 in 2012.

00:21:09.420 L.A. Times reported

00:21:10.880 the same thing in 2003.

00:21:14.540 And the New York Times

00:21:15.800 reported the same thing

00:21:17.080 in 1995.

00:21:20.880 And here's the fun part.

00:21:22.840 The public is now so well-trained

00:21:25.060 that when I saw the tweet

00:21:26.560 about, you know,

00:21:27.900 there was a story

00:21:28.580 that Iran was close

00:21:30.960 to a nuclear weapon,

00:21:31.780 you should see the comments.

00:21:33.740 The comments are just vicious.

00:21:35.900 Yep, just like every year

00:21:37.520 since I was born.

00:21:40.620 And the problem is

00:21:43.120 that with technology,

00:21:46.320 it's like the flying car.

00:21:48.080 Yes, it's true

00:21:48.860 we don't have a flying car.

00:21:50.880 But I'm not going to bet

00:21:51.940 against a flying car

00:21:52.860 100 years from now,

00:21:53.980 are you?

00:21:54.380 I mean, some things

00:21:56.540 are guaranteed to happen.

00:21:58.200 You just have to wait

00:21:59.020 a little bit longer.

00:21:59.700 So I would say

00:22:01.020 it's largely guaranteed

00:22:02.700 that Iran will get 1.00

00:22:03.900 nuclear bomb capabilities

00:22:05.560 because it'll be just easier

00:22:08.240 in the future

00:22:08.800 and, you know,

00:22:09.960 they have lots of time

00:22:10.940 and capability

00:22:12.120 and it's a high priority.

00:22:14.860 So it seems like

00:22:15.660 if you wait long enough,

00:22:17.260 one of these stories

00:22:18.040 will be true.

00:22:19.000 So you've got

00:22:19.680 the little boy

00:22:20.360 crying wolf problem

00:22:21.440 that the press

00:22:22.700 has been crying wolf

00:22:23.580 since 1995

00:22:24.660 and the public

00:22:26.260 is just sort of

00:22:27.520 tired of it.

00:22:28.880 It just doesn't feel

00:22:29.700 real anymore.

00:22:31.580 Even though it probably is.

00:22:33.160 It probably is real.

00:22:35.480 Israel? 0.53

00:22:37.240 Israel? 0.53

00:22:38.520 That's interesting.

00:22:41.180 This is the first time

00:22:42.460 I've ever thought

00:22:43.340 that the country of Israel

00:22:45.160 is spelled Israel.

00:22:47.340 How did I not notice

00:22:49.860 that before?

00:22:53.660 Am I like the last person

00:22:55.640 on earth

00:22:55.980 to make that connection?

00:22:57.800 That's weird.

00:23:00.380 Huh.

00:23:01.600 Simulation is

00:23:02.280 winking at us.

00:23:04.040 All right.

00:23:04.460 Now those of you

00:23:06.680 who think

00:23:07.240 that this is all

00:23:08.940 Israel influencing 0.73

00:23:10.260 the U.S. press

00:23:11.580 to get what they want,

00:23:13.500 well,

00:23:14.200 this story came

00:23:15.180 from the Jerusalem Post.

00:23:16.480 So, I mean,

00:23:17.860 this is Israel

00:23:18.680 influencing itself.

00:23:20.240 But of course,

00:23:21.240 these articles

00:23:22.640 do get picked up.

00:23:24.260 Now,

00:23:24.700 can Israel 0.50

00:23:26.060 influence the press

00:23:27.740 in the United States?

00:23:29.100 What do you think?

00:23:30.800 Can Israel,

00:23:31.660 the country,

00:23:33.300 influence stories

00:23:34.440 that appear

00:23:34.960 in the United States?

00:23:37.980 Oh,

00:23:38.600 you anti-Semitic

00:23:40.180 bastards.

00:23:42.720 They're so anti-Semitic.

00:23:44.940 Would you say that

00:23:45.700 about some other group

00:23:46.600 if they weren't Jewish?

00:23:48.080 Would you say

00:23:48.620 that they could

00:23:49.060 control the media?

00:23:51.280 Yeah, you would.

00:23:52.120 Because they can.

00:23:53.760 Almost everybody

00:23:54.620 can control the media.

00:23:56.280 It's actually

00:23:56.780 pretty easy.

00:23:58.740 So,

00:23:59.400 does Israel

00:24:00.500 control the media

00:24:01.500 or at least

00:24:02.200 plant stories

00:24:03.520 that are beneficial

00:24:04.380 to Israel?

00:24:05.160 Do they do that

00:24:05.860 in America Press?

00:24:07.500 I don't know.

00:24:08.520 But everybody else does.

00:24:09.800 Don't you assume

00:24:10.400 they do?

00:24:11.120 Why wouldn't they?

00:24:12.720 Literally everybody does.

00:24:14.700 How hard is it

00:24:15.380 to get a journalist

00:24:16.100 in a major publication

00:24:17.220 to write your story?

00:24:20.000 Really easily.

00:24:21.640 As we've seen.

00:24:23.000 Russia collusion hoax.

00:24:24.920 Really easy

00:24:25.520 to get people

00:24:25.960 to write that.

00:24:27.000 You can get people

00:24:27.900 to write things

00:24:28.540 that are obviously hoaxes.

00:24:30.500 Fine people hoax,

00:24:31.840 drinking bleach hoax.

00:24:32.840 There's no shortage

00:24:34.300 of journalists

00:24:35.680 who will write

00:24:36.180 anything you want

00:24:37.360 in major publications.

00:24:40.020 So,

00:24:40.320 it used to be

00:24:40.920 that I think

00:24:41.560 that if you said,

00:24:42.260 oh,

00:24:42.460 there's a Jewish

00:24:44.260 conspiracy theory

00:24:45.660 to control the news,

00:24:46.860 you'd sound like

00:24:47.440 a crazy person.

00:24:49.020 But now it's just

00:24:49.680 every group

00:24:50.200 can do that.

00:24:51.560 Israel just happens 1.00

00:24:52.320 to be on the list

00:24:53.120 of groups.

00:24:54.900 The only thing

00:24:55.660 about Israel

00:24:56.220 is that it's a group

00:24:57.420 because every group

00:24:58.780 can do it.

00:24:59.620 It's easy.

00:25:00.060 Rasmussen has a poll.

00:25:03.840 Asked this question

00:25:04.680 which might sound

00:25:05.420 familiar to you.

00:25:06.600 I wasn't,

00:25:07.280 I didn't have anything

00:25:08.080 to do with this,

00:25:08.760 but asked,

00:25:10.580 is Russia more like 0.99

00:25:11.620 an ally

00:25:12.160 or an enemy

00:25:12.880 of the U.S.?

00:25:14.060 How do you think

00:25:15.360 it came out?

00:25:16.980 Just guess

00:25:17.760 before I tell you

00:25:18.360 the answer.

00:25:19.020 What percentage

00:25:19.680 of people

00:25:20.360 of likely voters,

00:25:21.960 that's who

00:25:22.360 they usually poll,

00:25:23.760 of U.S.

00:25:24.460 likely voters,

00:25:25.600 what percentage

00:25:26.280 of them would say

00:25:27.220 that Russia 0.72

00:25:29.060 is an ally?

00:25:31.320 What percent?

00:25:33.980 I'm saying

00:25:34.960 25, 25.

00:25:37.280 Okay, you're being funny.

00:25:39.300 40, 50.

00:25:40.980 Yeah, the real answer,

00:25:42.540 according to the poll,

00:25:44.080 is that

00:25:44.880 43%

00:25:49.620 said that we're

00:25:51.540 somewhere in between

00:25:52.540 an ally and enemy.

00:25:53.980 And 5% said

00:25:54.980 an outright ally.

00:25:56.100 So if you add

00:25:57.460 the ones who said

00:25:58.260 we're sort of allies,

00:25:59.700 the 43%,

00:26:00.660 to the ones who

00:26:02.260 say we are allies,

00:26:03.840 you get up to

00:26:04.360 48%

00:26:05.460 say,

00:26:07.120 yeah,

00:26:07.260 we're sort of

00:26:07.940 ally-ish.

00:26:09.800 And then you've got

00:26:10.620 another 8%

00:26:11.540 that aren't sure.

00:26:13.240 But I feel like

00:26:14.140 you'd be sure

00:26:14.740 if they were an enemy.

00:26:16.300 So I feel like

00:26:17.180 I'd throw them in

00:26:17.980 with the,

00:26:18.860 you know,

00:26:19.140 must be somewhere

00:26:19.800 in between.

00:26:21.340 So

00:26:21.780 I've been telling you

00:26:23.620 forever that

00:26:24.180 the arc of history

00:26:25.680 is bending

00:26:26.360 undeniably

00:26:28.040 toward the U.S.

00:26:29.860 and Russia

00:26:30.300 being allies

00:26:30.960 in the future.

00:26:32.320 Maybe not this year,

00:26:33.700 maybe in 10 years,

00:26:34.760 but it's going to happen.

00:26:35.960 It's because of space.

00:26:37.640 We have to be allies

00:26:38.900 in space

00:26:39.520 because there's just

00:26:40.600 no way we want

00:26:41.300 to be fighting

00:26:41.740 Russia in space.

00:26:43.240 We've got China 0.99

00:26:44.100 to deal with

00:26:44.780 and so does Russia.

00:26:46.960 We're going to want

00:26:47.800 to have at least

00:26:48.620 the U.S.

00:26:49.260 and Russia

00:26:50.040 on the same side

00:26:50.940 because I doubt

00:26:52.160 we'll be on the same

00:26:52.940 side with China.

00:26:53.620 So

00:26:55.180 the public

00:26:56.960 is not terribly

00:26:58.540 disagreeable

00:27:01.500 with that idea.

00:27:02.520 45% do say

00:27:03.980 that Russia 0.72

00:27:04.420 is an enemy

00:27:04.960 but that's less

00:27:05.580 than half.

00:27:06.720 So less than half

00:27:07.800 of the country

00:27:08.380 considers Russia

00:27:10.640 an enemy.

00:27:12.440 Now if you

00:27:13.340 changed it to

00:27:14.200 something like

00:27:14.840 a competitor

00:27:16.900 or something

00:27:17.560 then I think

00:27:18.660 you'd get more

00:27:19.080 people agreeing.

00:27:20.780 If you use

00:27:21.360 the word enemy

00:27:21.860 it's, I don't know.

00:27:24.160 I'm not sure

00:27:24.820 that's justified

00:27:25.620 but what's happening

00:27:26.300 it looks like

00:27:26.760 just countries

00:27:27.460 pursuing their

00:27:28.260 own interests.

00:27:29.380 It's like

00:27:29.620 they're a competitor.

00:27:32.040 It doesn't feel

00:27:32.860 like it's personal.

00:27:34.380 Does it?

00:27:35.700 You know

00:27:35.980 there are things

00:27:36.520 that feel personal

00:27:37.320 like terrorism

00:27:38.780 you know

00:27:40.520 Osama bin Laden

00:27:42.580 that felt personal

00:27:43.620 but whatever

00:27:45.220 problems we have

00:27:45.820 with Russia

00:27:46.180 they don't really

00:27:46.720 feel personal.

00:27:47.920 It just feels like

00:27:48.540 government

00:27:48.920 versus government.

00:27:50.460 So there's a story

00:27:51.420 about monoclonal

00:27:52.460 antibodies being 0.70

00:27:53.440 Florida having

00:27:55.860 less access to them

00:27:57.120 and they're blaming

00:27:57.700 the federal government

00:27:58.540 for that

00:27:59.080 and apparently

00:27:59.820 there's a big shortage

00:28:00.680 of these

00:28:01.320 monoclonal antibodies.

00:28:04.560 But it seems

00:28:05.460 to be a real shortage.

00:28:07.380 It's not clear

00:28:08.100 if Florida

00:28:08.540 is being punished

00:28:09.340 by the federal government

00:28:10.480 for being

00:28:11.900 Republican led

00:28:12.980 versus Democrat led.

00:28:15.380 I don't know

00:28:16.160 about that.

00:28:16.680 but it's kind

00:28:19.600 of important

00:28:20.000 because at the same

00:28:20.780 time that the

00:28:21.380 federal government

00:28:21.960 said they're going

00:28:22.620 to restrict

00:28:23.800 these antibodies

00:28:24.680 the CDC revised

00:28:27.680 their Omicron

00:28:28.400 estimate

00:28:29.220 down from

00:28:30.320 73% of the

00:28:31.500 new cases

00:28:31.980 to 59.

00:28:34.300 So remember

00:28:34.940 when I was

00:28:35.800 telling you

00:28:36.120 Omicron was

00:28:36.880 almost three

00:28:37.720 quarters of our

00:28:38.420 cases in the

00:28:39.120 United States

00:28:39.720 it turns out

00:28:41.280 that CDC

00:28:42.380 says no

00:28:43.080 when they check

00:28:44.160 it again

00:28:44.600 or some

00:28:45.180 different way

00:28:45.720 it's 59%

00:28:47.660 of cases

00:28:48.160 now wait

00:28:48.860 hold on

00:28:49.680 wait

00:28:50.500 Omicron

00:28:52.040 is 59

00:28:52.780 wait

00:28:53.540 that's reduced

00:28:55.240 from 73

00:28:55.920 hold on

00:28:57.040 hold on

00:28:57.720 okay

00:28:58.380 it's up

00:28:58.720 to 73

00:28:59.260 again

00:28:59.600 because you

00:29:01.600 see the

00:29:01.940 Omicron

00:29:02.440 spreads fast

00:29:03.500 am I wrong

00:29:05.220 that in the

00:29:05.740 time it takes

00:29:06.300 them to do

00:29:06.860 this study

00:29:07.440 and tell

00:29:08.640 us about

00:29:09.100 it

00:29:09.300 there's no

00:29:10.080 way

00:29:10.400 that that

00:29:11.020 59

00:29:11.460 hasn't

00:29:11.960 already

00:29:12.240 gone

00:29:12.440 to 73

00:29:13.100 am I

00:29:14.720 right

00:29:14.960 because it

00:29:16.120 doesn't take

00:29:16.560 long to go

00:29:17.000 to 50

00:29:17.400 from 59

00:29:18.120 to 73

00:29:18.820 it takes

00:29:20.800 about the

00:29:21.220 time it

00:29:21.540 takes them

00:29:22.100 to do

00:29:22.340 a study

00:29:22.740 so they

00:29:24.420 should have

00:29:24.720 said we

00:29:25.140 studied it

00:29:25.680 at 59

00:29:26.240 so it

00:29:26.820 probably is

00:29:27.280 73 by

00:29:27.960 now

00:29:28.220 or something

00:29:30.060 like that

00:29:31.120 all right

00:29:32.780 interesting

00:29:34.420 story in the

00:29:35.300 Wall Street

00:29:35.800 Journal

00:29:36.220 hmm

00:29:37.800 now the

00:29:39.140 fact that

00:29:39.520 this is in

00:29:40.020 the Wall

00:29:40.360 Street

00:29:40.600 Journal

00:29:40.940 on top

00:29:42.840 of the

00:29:43.080 fact that

00:29:43.580 we saw

00:29:43.900 Jennifer

00:29:44.320 Rubin

00:29:44.800 seeming to

00:29:46.100 do a

00:29:46.380 turn on

00:29:46.900 the lockdowns

00:29:48.600 or the

00:29:48.940 mandates

00:29:49.480 so even

00:29:50.920 Jennifer

00:29:51.340 Rubin

00:29:51.780 who is

00:29:52.200 famously

00:29:54.260 associated

00:29:55.280 with the

00:29:55.660 Democrats

00:29:56.200 but even

00:29:57.560 more famously

00:29:58.440 associated

00:29:59.240 with being

00:29:59.860 sort of

00:30:01.160 the person

00:30:02.200 that the

00:30:02.800 people in

00:30:03.660 power go

00:30:04.220 to

00:30:04.540 to be

00:30:05.440 their

00:30:05.660 messenger

00:30:06.060 now

00:30:07.700 so I

00:30:09.180 don't get

00:30:09.520 sued

00:30:09.860 I'll say

00:30:10.340 I don't

00:30:10.700 know if

00:30:10.920 any of

00:30:11.140 that's

00:30:11.320 true

00:30:11.560 allegedly

00:30:13.180 but

00:30:15.120 people would

00:30:16.220 look to

00:30:16.800 to see

00:30:17.620 her change

00:30:18.240 of opinion

00:30:18.780 as being

00:30:19.720 not her

00:30:20.160 opinion

00:30:20.520 per se

00:30:21.040 but an

00:30:21.960 approved

00:30:22.380 opinion

00:30:22.820 so she

00:30:24.880 is signaling

00:30:25.440 whether or

00:30:26.240 not this

00:30:26.540 is true 0.89

00:30:26.920 this is

00:30:27.380 just

00:30:27.580 speculation

00:30:28.080 but the

00:30:29.280 change

00:30:29.660 in her

00:30:30.140 let's

00:30:30.520 say

00:30:30.820 mode of

00:30:32.760 attack

00:30:33.220 when talking

00:30:33.960 about the

00:30:34.620 pandemic

00:30:35.580 has

00:30:36.380 conspicuously

00:30:37.220 changed

00:30:37.760 closer to

00:30:39.880 the

00:30:40.220 let us

00:30:40.860 free

00:30:41.260 model

00:30:41.920 which

00:30:42.880 suggests

00:30:43.360 that the

00:30:44.020 powers

00:30:45.540 behind the

00:30:46.380 power

00:30:46.680 whoever they

00:30:47.320 may be

00:30:47.760 are also

00:30:48.820 in that

00:30:49.300 frame of

00:30:49.820 mind

00:30:50.100 meaning

00:30:51.220 that

00:30:51.640 both

00:30:52.260 sides

00:30:52.720 seem to

00:30:53.140 be moving

00:30:53.620 toward the

00:30:54.020 same place

00:30:54.640 but the

00:30:55.680 right is

00:30:56.400 already there

00:30:57.060 and the

00:30:57.920 left has

00:30:58.360 to have

00:30:58.960 a reason

00:30:59.680 to be

00:31:00.000 there

00:31:00.240 in other

00:31:01.020 words

00:31:01.180 they want

00:31:01.520 to be

00:31:01.700 there

00:31:01.900 too

00:31:02.180 but they

00:31:03.300 need a

00:31:03.660 because

00:31:04.400 could be

00:31:05.860 a fake

00:31:06.160 because

00:31:06.580 but you

00:31:06.960 need some

00:31:07.500 reason to

00:31:08.100 give why

00:31:08.440 you changed

00:31:08.920 so the

00:31:10.900 Jennifer Rubin

00:31:11.620 signal seems

00:31:12.580 to be a

00:31:13.420 signal that

00:31:14.160 the left

00:31:14.600 wants to

00:31:15.280 get there

00:31:15.760 and is

00:31:16.920 trying to

00:31:17.660 get there

00:31:18.080 but at the

00:31:19.540 same time

00:31:20.040 in the

00:31:20.460 Wall Street

00:31:20.840 Journal

00:31:21.220 an article

00:31:22.260 that I

00:31:22.660 found

00:31:23.020 surprising

00:31:24.260 and it's

00:31:26.000 surprising

00:31:26.420 because we

00:31:27.080 had the

00:31:27.700 hydroxychloroquine

00:31:28.800 experience

00:31:29.480 and we

00:31:30.260 had the

00:31:30.580 ivermectin

00:31:31.220 experience

00:31:31.820 meaning

00:31:32.500 things that

00:31:33.220 many smart

00:31:34.000 people thought

00:31:34.680 totally

00:31:35.220 definitely

00:31:35.600 work

00:31:36.060 but the

00:31:37.520 powers that

00:31:38.180 be said

00:31:38.880 totally

00:31:39.740 definitely

00:31:40.160 unproven

00:31:40.800 don't use

00:31:41.680 them

00:31:41.880 and now

00:31:43.820 we've got

00:31:44.080 a new

00:31:44.300 one

00:31:44.600 fluvoxamine

00:31:46.040 existing

00:31:47.020 medication

00:31:47.680 used for

00:31:48.920 things such

00:31:49.800 as OCD

00:31:51.240 which is

00:31:53.440 interesting

00:31:53.800 because as

00:31:54.300 it modulates

00:31:55.840 inflammation

00:31:56.320 I think

00:31:57.180 that's the

00:31:57.580 same as

00:31:57.920 reducing

00:31:58.340 inflammation

00:31:58.940 but maybe

00:31:59.900 modulate

00:32:00.400 has a

00:32:00.840 little more

00:32:01.120 nuance

00:32:01.460 to it

00:32:01.980 and so

00:32:03.460 this drug

00:32:04.200 which works

00:32:04.800 for OCD

00:32:05.300 modulates

00:32:05.980 inflammation

00:32:06.460 which makes

00:32:08.000 me wonder

00:32:08.520 is OCD

00:32:09.580 actually

00:32:11.020 inflammation

00:32:11.740 of the

00:32:12.040 brain

00:32:12.280 is that

00:32:13.280 what causes

00:32:13.760 it

00:32:14.020 and then

00:32:15.760 I googled

00:32:16.840 that

00:32:17.200 and sure

00:32:17.680 enough

00:32:17.960 there are

00:32:18.320 smart people

00:32:18.880 who think

00:32:19.300 that inflammation

00:32:19.920 in the brain

00:32:20.720 is what

00:32:21.160 causes

00:32:21.640 OCD

00:32:23.560 and then

00:32:24.960 I thought

00:32:25.260 to myself

00:32:25.760 is

00:32:26.740 inflammation

00:32:27.280 everything

00:32:27.840 like is

00:32:28.680 everything

00:32:29.040 inflammation

00:32:29.560 if we

00:32:30.460 could find

00:32:30.900 a way

00:32:31.200 to manage

00:32:31.780 our

00:32:31.960 inflammation

00:32:32.440 or even

00:32:32.920 find out

00:32:33.360 what's

00:32:33.620 causing

00:32:33.960 us

00:32:34.240 to be

00:32:35.000 so much

00:32:35.820 more easily

00:32:36.600 inflamed

00:32:37.200 I think

00:32:37.900 it's chemicals

00:32:38.500 and pollution

00:32:39.160 in the environment

00:32:39.920 or our diet

00:32:41.140 I feel

00:32:42.100 I feel like

00:32:42.260 there's something

00:32:42.880 environmental

00:32:43.660 that humans

00:32:44.900 have created

00:32:45.460 for themselves

00:32:46.120 that is

00:32:47.660 making us

00:32:48.540 be inflamed

00:32:49.180 all the time

00:32:49.840 because you

00:32:50.640 feel people

00:32:51.580 are being

00:32:52.000 just consistently

00:32:53.340 having problems

00:32:54.660 with inflammation

00:32:55.300 it doesn't matter

00:32:56.420 what your problem

00:32:57.160 is

00:32:57.420 you also have

00:32:58.640 inflammation

00:32:59.180 now I get

00:33:00.160 that inflammation

00:33:00.620 is a sign

00:33:01.360 of a problem

00:33:01.900 so that I might

00:33:03.380 just be thinking

00:33:04.080 backwards

00:33:04.580 oh if you have

00:33:05.500 a problem

00:33:06.020 that causes 0.52

00:33:07.860 inflammation

00:33:08.420 or associated

00:33:09.200 with it

00:33:09.460 it's not

00:33:09.780 that the

00:33:10.060 inflammation

00:33:10.600 causes

00:33:11.780 the condition

00:33:12.680 or does it

00:33:14.720 or does it

00:33:15.980 because it's

00:33:16.820 easy to imagine

00:33:17.620 that OCD

00:33:18.800 is a

00:33:19.640 brain that's

00:33:21.460 not functioning

00:33:22.520 as smoothly

00:33:23.480 as it should

00:33:24.220 and inflammation

00:33:25.740 one would imagine

00:33:26.940 would be a reason

00:33:27.840 that would cause that 0.60

00:33:28.600 somebody says

00:33:30.100 Jack Chellum

00:33:30.920 called it

00:33:31.480 decades ago

00:33:32.260 somebody says

00:33:33.560 sugar is everything

00:33:34.500 that could be

00:33:36.320 could sugar

00:33:37.580 be the thing

00:33:38.080 that's causing

00:33:38.560 us to

00:33:39.060 experience

00:33:39.800 more inflammation

00:33:40.520 yeah anyway

00:33:44.380 these are just

00:33:44.940 speculations

00:33:45.640 and questions

00:33:46.220 but this

00:33:47.340 drug that exists

00:33:48.680 doctors could

00:33:49.620 recommend this

00:33:50.500 off label

00:33:51.840 because

00:33:52.480 initial trials

00:33:54.560 with it

00:33:55.020 that are not

00:33:56.460 randomized

00:33:56.820 controlled trials

00:33:57.660 so they don't

00:33:58.140 have the gold

00:33:58.660 standard test

00:33:59.400 for this

00:33:59.780 surprise

00:34:00.460 but the

00:34:02.100 ones that they

00:34:03.060 do have

00:34:03.540 which are

00:34:03.860 lower quality

00:34:04.620 kind of

00:34:05.160 evidence

00:34:05.640 are really

00:34:07.040 strong

00:34:07.620 really strong

00:34:10.140 but

00:34:11.640 so was

00:34:13.020 ivermectin

00:34:13.800 so was

00:34:16.200 hydroxychloroquine

00:34:17.560 but

00:34:19.780 apparently

00:34:20.980 the Wall Street

00:34:21.680 Journal

00:34:22.020 and they

00:34:23.100 call that out

00:34:24.520 as a problem

00:34:25.120 so listen to this

00:34:25.940 so although

00:34:27.320 it's generally

00:34:27.920 legal to do

00:34:28.800 off label

00:34:29.640 prescriptions

00:34:30.420 so doctors

00:34:31.740 could

00:34:32.300 legally

00:34:33.920 prescribe it

00:34:36.100 for anything

00:34:36.720 they wanted

00:34:37.200 as long as

00:34:37.640 it made sense

00:34:38.300 as long as

00:34:39.620 their medical

00:34:40.060 judgment

00:34:40.540 they had a

00:34:41.680 reason for it

00:34:42.520 totally legal

00:34:43.740 even if it's

00:34:44.820 not approved

00:34:45.280 for that use

00:34:45.940 but

00:34:47.640 what happened

00:34:49.220 to the doctors

00:34:49.960 who prescribed

00:34:50.980 ivermectin

00:34:52.160 was that good

00:34:54.000 for their

00:34:54.340 careers

00:34:54.740 forget about

00:34:56.340 whether ivermectin

00:34:57.260 worked or

00:34:57.760 didn't work

00:34:58.300 separate question

00:34:59.120 was it good

00:35:00.340 for the careers

00:35:01.040 of the doctors

00:35:01.780 to recommend it

00:35:02.780 and then get

00:35:03.680 demonized

00:35:04.360 not so much

00:35:06.280 not so much

00:35:07.320 and here we have

00:35:08.520 a problem where

00:35:09.080 the national

00:35:10.380 what is it

00:35:11.160 the NIH

00:35:11.760 doesn't

00:35:15.460 doesn't recommend

00:35:16.320 it

00:35:16.620 so you've put

00:35:18.120 doctors in a

00:35:18.860 position where

00:35:19.500 they would be

00:35:19.980 giving something

00:35:20.660 that is

00:35:21.540 specifically

00:35:22.380 not forbidden

00:35:24.580 but unrecommended

00:35:25.860 I don't know

00:35:29.140 if there's a

00:35:29.480 better way to

00:35:29.840 say that

00:35:30.240 it would be

00:35:31.160 one thing to

00:35:31.720 use something

00:35:32.220 for off label

00:35:33.060 use

00:35:33.520 if everyone

00:35:34.680 else in the

00:35:35.200 world had been

00:35:35.720 silent about it

00:35:36.860 that's just

00:35:38.040 you and your

00:35:38.480 doctor making

00:35:39.200 a good

00:35:39.600 judgment

00:35:40.460 you hope

00:35:42.140 but

00:35:43.200 if the

00:35:44.620 national

00:35:45.300 institute of

00:35:45.960 health

00:35:46.280 is saying

00:35:47.080 don't do

00:35:47.580 this

00:35:48.020 because it's

00:35:48.880 unproven

00:35:49.420 then the

00:35:50.800 doctors

00:35:51.180 are a little

00:35:51.680 bit more

00:35:52.400 than the

00:35:56.120 doctors

00:35:56.440 yeah I know

00:35:57.780 you've been

00:35:58.080 telling me

00:35:58.440 about fluvoxamine

00:35:59.420 but the

00:36:00.720 there's a lot

00:36:01.320 there's a lot

00:36:01.940 of these

00:36:02.300 drugs that

00:36:03.440 I guess I

00:36:04.200 could have

00:36:04.420 talked about

00:36:04.800 more

00:36:05.040 but the

00:36:06.020 fact that

00:36:06.400 the

00:36:06.660 Wall Street

00:36:07.300 Journal

00:36:07.600 is certainly

00:36:08.480 presenting this

00:36:09.200 as a

00:36:09.620 solution

00:36:10.040 and here's

00:36:11.880 the

00:36:12.080 here's the

00:36:12.780 payoff

00:36:13.240 it would

00:36:14.400 cost you

00:36:15.400 like four

00:36:17.600 dollars for

00:36:18.500 your entire

00:36:19.160 ten day

00:36:19.760 course of

00:36:20.440 fluvoxamine

00:36:21.120 four dollars

00:36:23.600 so there is

00:36:25.820 now a

00:36:26.320 basically a

00:36:27.140 four dollar

00:36:27.960 pill

00:36:28.440 you know you

00:36:29.640 get a number

00:36:30.120 of them but

00:36:30.700 four dollars

00:36:31.600 that smashes

00:36:33.880 covid if you

00:36:35.080 take it early

00:36:35.760 compare that

00:36:37.540 to the new

00:36:38.480 pills that are

00:36:39.180 being approved

00:36:39.840 that will be

00:36:40.380 thousands of

00:36:41.220 dollars

00:36:41.700 compared to

00:36:44.480 monoclonal

00:36:45.120 antibodies which

00:36:45.760 apparently

00:36:46.640 monoclonal

00:36:47.360 antibodies are

00:36:48.000 becoming less

00:36:48.840 useful because

00:36:50.460 the new

00:36:51.260 variants aren't

00:36:51.960 responding as

00:36:52.640 well so I

00:36:53.300 think Omicron

00:36:53.940 doesn't care so

00:36:55.440 much about your

00:36:56.000 monoclonal

00:36:56.600 antibodies that's

00:36:58.100 one of the

00:36:58.420 reasons the

00:36:58.880 government was

00:36:59.460 using for

00:37:00.020 reducing their

00:37:01.300 use which

00:37:03.000 may have been

00:37:03.400 a lie you

00:37:03.900 don't know

00:37:04.240 so do you

00:37:07.680 think that

00:37:08.360 fluvoxamine could

00:37:09.340 ever break

00:37:09.920 through assuming

00:37:11.600 it works in

00:37:13.060 the face of

00:37:13.700 the pharma

00:37:14.120 companies would

00:37:15.540 lose let's

00:37:17.200 say if

00:37:17.440 fluvoxamine works

00:37:19.080 the way these

00:37:20.780 unreliable tests

00:37:22.260 say it would

00:37:22.820 the big pharma

00:37:25.240 would lose

00:37:26.120 give me a

00:37:27.560 number how

00:37:28.600 much money

00:37:29.020 would big

00:37:29.460 pharma lose

00:37:30.280 in vaccinations

00:37:31.060 and covid

00:37:31.880 pills if this

00:37:33.300 existing little

00:37:34.140 I imagine it's

00:37:35.920 I don't know

00:37:36.500 is it generic

00:37:37.540 by now fluvoxamine

00:37:39.140 it's so cheap

00:37:40.100 it looks like

00:37:40.540 it must be

00:37:40.920 generic but I

00:37:41.640 could be wrong

00:37:42.200 about that

00:37:43.020 three trillion

00:37:45.660 I don't think

00:37:47.680 it's billions

00:37:48.180 I think we're

00:37:49.300 into trillions

00:37:49.860 aren't we

00:37:50.280 I think we're

00:37:51.620 talking about

00:37:52.220 the pharma

00:37:53.320 companies having

00:37:54.680 three trillion

00:37:55.600 dollars of

00:37:56.420 you know over

00:37:57.180 years of

00:37:58.220 potential loss

00:37:58.960 do you think

00:38:00.240 the pharma

00:38:00.680 companies would

00:38:01.380 allow a

00:38:02.320 four dollar

00:38:03.040 drug to wipe

00:38:04.680 them out of

00:38:05.320 their trillions

00:38:05.880 of dollars

00:38:06.380 and what would

00:38:07.480 they do to

00:38:07.960 stop that from

00:38:08.560 happening how

00:38:09.860 much would

00:38:10.280 they spend

00:38:10.900 to protect

00:38:11.800 a revenue

00:38:12.880 stream of

00:38:13.600 three trillion

00:38:14.160 dollars or

00:38:14.860 something like

00:38:15.460 that billions

00:38:17.800 billions you

00:38:20.180 would just

00:38:20.640 open the

00:38:21.060 wallet and

00:38:21.500 it would just

00:38:21.820 scream out

00:38:22.640 so I don't

00:38:25.300 know if you

00:38:25.720 can you can

00:38:27.020 trust any of

00:38:28.100 this apparently

00:38:29.060 there was a

00:38:29.600 study of a

00:38:31.440 whole bunch of

00:38:31.880 people who got

00:38:32.600 it at a one

00:38:33.600 of the local

00:38:34.120 racetracks here

00:38:34.980 near me because

00:38:36.580 everything's about

00:38:37.260 me and the

00:38:39.160 people who took

00:38:39.720 the fluvoxamine

00:38:40.640 had zero

00:38:41.340 problems in

00:38:42.460 terms of death

00:38:42.980 and major

00:38:43.580 hospitalization and

00:38:45.020 the control

00:38:45.520 group although

00:38:46.760 it's not a

00:38:47.220 randomized control

00:38:47.880 group the

00:38:48.680 control group had

00:38:49.500 a number of

00:38:50.180 problems so

00:38:51.640 every time it's

00:38:52.420 tested they get

00:38:53.040 the same result

00:38:53.800 which is the

00:38:54.780 fluvoxamine is

00:38:55.620 nearly 100%

00:38:56.460 effective and the

00:38:58.200 control group has

00:38:59.280 trouble but

00:39:01.140 again I'm sorry

00:39:05.600 Shaki reminds me 1.00

00:39:06.740 it's not about

00:39:07.320 me it's about

00:39:07.800 Shaki and I

00:39:08.860 think you're

00:39:09.160 right Shaki 0.97

00:39:09.560 Scott said

00:39:12.460 last week that

00:39:13.160 big pharma is

00:39:13.820 not trying to

00:39:14.440 stop ivermectin

00:39:15.400 nope never

00:39:16.140 said that

00:39:16.620 Dr. Johnson

00:39:17.420 will hide you

00:39:18.780 again he comes

00:39:20.140 back every day

00:39:20.840 I don't know if

00:39:21.940 it's a new

00:39:22.300 account or what

00:39:23.000 never said

00:39:24.480 that

00:39:24.820 here's my

00:39:29.800 thing that's

00:39:30.520 bothering me

00:39:31.120 lately at the

00:39:32.540 beginning of the

00:39:33.020 pandemic a lot of

00:39:33.840 people made

00:39:34.340 predictions and

00:39:35.560 said hey let's

00:39:36.580 just ignore this

00:39:37.320 pandemic and it'll

00:39:38.120 go away and it's 0.98

00:39:39.020 just a cold and

00:39:39.940 other people said

00:39:40.940 it's the worst

00:39:41.420 thing in the world

00:39:42.000 and millions are

00:39:43.780 dying they can't

00:39:44.700 both be right but

00:39:46.760 we're at this point

00:39:47.920 now where we're

00:39:49.260 we're saying that

00:39:50.460 our experts were

00:39:51.560 lying to us about

00:39:52.840 vaccines who was

00:39:55.880 lying I want to see

00:39:58.340 your opinions because

00:39:58.940 I know a lot of you

00:39:59.580 have this opinion who

00:40:01.180 exactly was lying about

00:40:02.860 vaccines pharma

00:40:06.360 Fauci I'm saying

00:40:07.460 Fauci Trump

00:40:08.960 and media I

00:40:19.860 know do you

00:40:21.520 think do you

00:40:22.820 think that the

00:40:23.720 data that came

00:40:24.840 out of the big

00:40:26.760 vaccine trials

00:40:28.160 showed that the

00:40:30.140 vaccine wears off

00:40:31.940 do we have a

00:40:34.420 smoking gun because

00:40:35.720 I haven't seen it

00:40:36.300 yet so I'm going

00:40:38.400 to push the

00:40:39.140 innocent until

00:40:39.980 proven guilty

00:40:40.760 standard because I

00:40:42.220 think somebody

00:40:43.120 needs to for the

00:40:45.720 pharma companies as

00:40:46.740 well now I'm not

00:40:48.040 I'm not pro pharma

00:40:49.300 in the sense that

00:40:50.860 it's unambiguously

00:40:52.500 clear that the

00:40:53.960 industry is criminal

00:40:55.980 lots of the time

00:40:57.140 I think we'd all

00:40:58.660 agree with that

00:40:59.300 but it doesn't

00:41:00.080 mean it's all

00:41:00.520 criminal all the

00:41:01.240 time right there's

00:41:02.700 got to be like real

00:41:04.140 scientists doing real

00:41:05.200 work somewhere there

00:41:06.060 I think I don't

00:41:07.920 think it's a complete

00:41:08.600 criminal organization

00:41:09.580 making mock

00:41:11.280 treatments that

00:41:12.220 they're trying to

00:41:12.740 convince you worked

00:41:13.620 some of the time

00:41:14.980 but not most of the

00:41:16.300 time and so my

00:41:17.640 question is this

00:41:18.460 where's the smoking

00:41:20.160 gun where's the

00:41:22.340 data that says they

00:41:23.900 knew that these

00:41:25.100 would wear off or

00:41:26.500 that their

00:41:27.020 effectiveness would

00:41:29.000 wane because I

00:41:31.020 feel like it

00:41:31.560 probably exists

00:41:32.420 don't you do you

00:41:34.540 remember at the

00:41:35.060 beginning of the

00:41:35.580 pandemic the

00:41:36.480 experts who worked

00:41:37.460 in this field said

00:41:38.920 we've been trying to

00:41:39.700 get a vaccine for

00:41:40.560 coronavirus for

00:41:41.540 decades and we're

00:41:43.140 not even close

00:41:43.920 because there's

00:41:45.520 something about it

00:41:46.340 that we haven't

00:41:46.800 figured out how to

00:41:47.980 do it and then

00:41:49.780 suddenly we had

00:41:50.600 vaccines after

00:41:52.440 decades of the

00:41:53.340 experts working

00:41:54.080 there saying yeah

00:41:54.780 we don't we're

00:41:55.840 not even close

00:41:56.440 so were the

00:41:59.380 experts who said

00:42:00.520 we don't know how

00:42:01.800 to make a vaccine

00:42:02.740 and we're not even

00:42:03.620 close did they

00:42:05.900 know that if you

00:42:07.760 tried the

00:42:09.000 effectiveness would

00:42:09.900 wear off or did

00:42:11.740 they not even know

00:42:12.500 how to make the

00:42:13.020 vaccines that we

00:42:13.820 ended up making in

00:42:14.740 less than a year

00:42:15.540 were those experts

00:42:17.580 aware of the

00:42:19.860 let's say mRNA

00:42:20.800 technique and

00:42:22.100 whatever J&J

00:42:23.300 used were they

00:42:24.680 aware of those

00:42:25.340 techniques and

00:42:26.160 did they know

00:42:26.640 from their own

00:42:27.320 experiences that

00:42:28.980 if somebody made

00:42:29.920 a vaccine its

00:42:31.280 efficacy would

00:42:32.260 trail off too

00:42:33.180 quickly show me

00:42:35.420 that document or

00:42:37.560 show me any

00:42:38.700 investigative

00:42:39.360 journalist who's

00:42:40.140 looking for it

00:42:40.880 here's where I'd

00:42:42.440 start find the

00:42:44.420 people who said in

00:42:45.440 the beginning it

00:42:46.720 should be just a

00:42:47.360 Google search

00:42:48.000 because I saw it

00:42:48.920 publicly just do a

00:42:50.160 Google search find

00:42:51.580 the experts who

00:42:52.340 said in the

00:42:52.900 beginning there's

00:42:53.500 no way to do

00:42:54.100 it it can't be

00:42:55.180 done this this

00:42:56.040 quickly find those

00:42:57.840 experts and ask

00:42:59.420 them this one

00:42:59.980 question were you

00:43:01.760 aware from all of

00:43:02.920 your experience that

00:43:04.760 you could make

00:43:05.580 something that would

00:43:06.260 make a difference

00:43:07.060 like our current

00:43:08.300 vaccines do but

00:43:09.700 that it wouldn't

00:43:10.400 necessarily stop

00:43:11.380 transmission and

00:43:13.040 that it wouldn't

00:43:13.760 necessarily have the

00:43:14.880 efficacy that makes

00:43:16.380 it a good vaccine

00:43:17.240 were the experts

00:43:19.620 aware of that at

00:43:20.860 the very beginning

00:43:21.700 then you'd have to

00:43:24.140 find one at say

00:43:25.900 Pfizer or what is

00:43:30.120 it the other

00:43:32.420 company that you'd

00:43:34.160 have to find some

00:43:34.740 document that says

00:43:35.660 yeah we can't do

00:43:36.700 this but we're going

00:43:37.380 to put on a vaccine

00:43:38.440 anyway because the

00:43:39.740 vaccine will do

00:43:40.400 something it just

00:43:42.020 won't do what people

00:43:43.980 expect it to do do

00:43:45.560 do you think such a

00:43:46.880 data trail exists

00:43:47.920 because here's the

00:43:49.920 problem and Dr. Drew

00:43:51.480 was reminding me of

00:43:52.740 this in a different

00:43:53.560 context the other

00:43:54.440 day that people are

00:43:57.380 true believers of

00:43:58.520 things that aren't

00:43:59.180 true and you can

00:44:01.620 easily become a true

00:44:02.620 believer because all

00:44:04.160 of the incentive is

00:44:05.060 for you to believe

00:44:05.600 something imagine you

00:44:07.100 work for a big pharma

00:44:07.900 company and the

00:44:11.260 experts said you can't

00:44:12.200 make this vaccine but

00:44:13.840 you try anyway it's

00:44:15.180 sort of a patriotic as

00:44:16.880 well as commercial

00:44:17.980 thing that makes

00:44:18.840 sense you try anyway

00:44:20.320 how easy would it be

00:44:22.400 to convince yourself

00:44:23.420 that you had succeeded

00:44:24.380 when you hadn't in

00:44:27.160 other words even if

00:44:28.240 you're looking at your

00:44:28.900 own data would you be

00:44:31.620 lying necessarily or

00:44:33.200 would you actually see

00:44:34.220 it as working even if

00:44:36.100 the data didn't quite

00:44:37.180 say that as clearly as

00:44:39.160 you are saying you

00:44:41.220 know there's this weird

00:44:41.900 gray area where people

00:44:43.460 actually talk themselves

00:44:44.760 into the lie and then

00:44:47.380 you have to ask

00:44:47.900 yourself oh wait is it

00:44:48.960 a lie if they believe

00:44:49.760 it because if they

00:44:51.240 believe it it's just

00:44:51.980 being wrong or you

00:44:54.000 know being brainwashed

00:44:54.780 themselves so it's a

00:44:57.360 weird gray area and I

00:44:58.880 think it's unproductive

00:45:00.200 to imagine that all of

00:45:01.480 it is an intentional lie

00:45:03.040 because I suspect the

00:45:05.300 people who knew it

00:45:06.180 wouldn't work that

00:45:07.980 knowledge may have died

00:45:09.360 between the people who

00:45:11.260 have been trying for

00:45:12.080 years and the people

00:45:13.200 who actually developed

00:45:14.100 these vaccines that

00:45:15.640 there may have been a

00:45:16.860 like a communication

00:45:18.920 gap or far more likely

00:45:22.040 because I imagine the

00:45:22.900 industry talks to each

00:45:23.940 other a lot far more

00:45:25.680 likely there was a

00:45:26.840 cognitive thing that

00:45:28.040 happens with the

00:45:28.700 scientists to think that

00:45:30.560 they had you know done

00:45:32.320 the thing you even see

00:45:33.940 it on you see it on

00:45:34.840 Twitter people will say I

00:45:36.700 have the answer this

00:45:37.700 that saves the world here

00:45:39.480 it is it's vitamin D

00:45:40.820 even I've done that so

00:45:43.120 the the the draw to be

00:45:46.100 the savior you know the

00:45:47.680 one who came up with the

00:45:48.720 thing that saved the

00:45:49.500 world is so strong it

00:45:51.700 just bends your brain

00:45:52.780 and maybe not everybody

00:45:54.800 you have to have a

00:45:55.380 certain personality type

00:45:56.500 which I have so I'm

00:45:59.020 especially susceptible to

00:46:02.340 illusions of my own

00:46:04.520 success

00:46:05.100 everybody I want you to

00:46:08.860 hear that clearly that

00:46:10.740 my personality type is

00:46:12.800 extra sensitive to this

00:46:14.620 mistake which is to

00:46:16.720 think that I figured out

00:46:17.780 the solution to the

00:46:18.760 world because I want to

00:46:20.400 believe that my

00:46:21.660 personality is so wired

00:46:23.440 toward I want to be

00:46:24.980 useful and make a

00:46:25.880 difference and you know

00:46:26.760 especially a big

00:46:27.420 difference that if I

00:46:29.120 thought I were close to

00:46:30.300 it my brain would say I

00:46:32.180 got it

00:46:32.660 right I know that I

00:46:36.100 know that about myself

00:46:37.000 because I've like I've

00:46:38.420 experienced it I know my

00:46:40.000 brain will push me from

00:46:41.160 hey this looks like a

00:46:42.520 good thing to work into

00:46:44.000 oh yeah this is going to

00:46:45.580 save the world I think it

00:46:46.920 happened to lots of

00:46:47.940 people with hydroxychloroquine

00:46:49.400 they wanted it to work but

00:46:52.540 they also wanted to be the

00:46:53.600 one who said it works

00:46:54.720 right it happened with

00:46:57.200 ivermectin people definitely

00:46:59.360 wanted it to work but they

00:47:01.240 also wanted to be the one

00:47:02.840 who said it would work and

00:47:05.540 and I'm I'm more

00:47:06.920 susceptible than any of

00:47:08.660 you I think to that

00:47:11.120 cognitive error so if

00:47:13.640 you're keeping me honest

00:47:14.720 that's where you should

00:47:16.480 look especially hard because

00:47:18.900 if if I'm deluded this is

00:47:22.200 an area I know in advance I

00:47:23.640 could easily be deluded in so

00:47:26.080 just you know keep me honest

00:47:28.220 that's that's your job keep

00:47:30.540 me honest on that all right

00:47:32.020 so I'm not so sure people

00:47:36.220 lied to us I think there's

00:47:37.180 something else deeper than

00:47:38.100 going on

00:47:38.820 here's some basic things

00:47:43.120 about the pandemic that are

00:47:44.600 going to be so frustrating

00:47:45.740 when it's over

00:47:46.600 that we have these two movies

00:47:50.300 right one one movie that

00:47:53.020 there wasn't much of anything

00:47:54.440 that happened if we'd ignored

00:47:55.920 it we would have been fine

00:47:56.960 and then the other movie is

00:47:59.120 that we we save millions of

00:48:01.080 lives they can't both be true

00:48:03.620 we either save millions of

00:48:06.340 lives or we didn't and

00:48:09.040 here's a question that also is

00:48:11.000 in this category did

00:48:13.020 flattening the curve work now

00:48:15.480 let me give you some context

00:48:16.640 before you answer just hold

00:48:18.100 the question but don't answer

00:48:19.180 it yet right because I know you

00:48:20.820 have an answer but wait till I

00:48:22.280 give you new information because

00:48:24.380 the new information might modify

00:48:26.200 what you think okay as Ian

00:48:30.920 Bremmer is tweeting yesterday

00:48:32.500 we have nearly 450,000 known

00:48:35.460 COVID cases in the US it's a new

00:48:37.200 record by a long margin so the

00:48:39.620 number of new COVID cases just new

00:48:42.380 record that is in the context of

00:48:45.960 having no availability of tests so

00:48:49.420 we reach a record number of

00:48:50.900 infections but the real record is I

00:48:55.700 don't know some multiple that

00:48:57.340 because how many people have it and

00:48:59.200 they couldn't test so it's not

00:49:00.580 confirmed or how many people

00:49:02.500 tested at home do have it but

00:49:05.160 didn't report it to anybody now I

00:49:06.960 guess they can do this from some

00:49:08.640 kind of statistical way but I

00:49:11.440 can't imagine that we're capturing

00:49:12.740 all the infected people it doesn't

00:49:15.220 seem possible to me but as Ian

00:49:19.040 Bremmer points out if Omicron had hit

00:49:21.220 a year ago because a lot of this

00:49:22.540 spike is Omicron it would be

00:49:25.020 apocalyptic how many of you would

00:49:27.580 agree that if we had this rate of

00:49:30.280 infection like through the roof

00:49:31.640 infections but it had been at the

00:49:33.620 beginning of the pandemic with the

00:49:35.120 the worse or variant the things

00:49:38.500 would have been much worse that

00:49:39.600 seems fair right now here's the

00:49:41.780 question did we delay long enough to

00:49:46.600 get us to Omicron while keeping the

00:49:49.420 number of deaths lower than it would

00:49:50.900 have been because if we did I would

00:49:53.160 say flattening the curve not in two

00:49:55.160 weeks of course but that the idea of

00:49:57.740 flattening the curve actually worked

00:49:59.240 but I don't know if you can really

00:50:02.600 conclude that can you because you

00:50:04.100 don't know what the other situation

00:50:05.680 would look like exactly there's no

00:50:07.240 control but my feeling is that

00:50:11.980 flattening the curve worked because it

00:50:15.120 bought us time to get to the better

00:50:17.840 understanding of therapeutics I'll call

00:50:21.100 the vaccines a therapeutic so you

00:50:22.880 don't argue with me and it got us to

00:50:25.520 the point where we had another variant

00:50:27.200 but the counter argument would be the

00:50:29.940 variant would have come sooner if we

00:50:33.200 just let it spread through the

00:50:34.420 population so if we'd taken our million

00:50:36.520 deaths early you know maybe we'd be

00:50:39.820 done instead of spreading out our

00:50:41.920 million deaths but if what we did was

00:50:45.160 spread out the deaths that were going

00:50:46.680 to happen anyway and kept our

00:50:49.240 hospitals somewhat functioning I feel

00:50:52.620 like flattening the curve sort of

00:50:53.900 worked how many of you would push back

00:50:57.260 against that now I'm not talking about

00:50:58.620 the two weeks to flatten the curve I'm

00:51:00.920 talking about the idea of flattening it

00:51:03.880 until you you you had new tools didn't

00:51:06.740 didn't we succeed flattening it until

00:51:08.780 we had better tools it looks like that

00:51:11.440 but I don't think I don't think you can

00:51:12.940 conclude it yeah the people say no I

00:51:15.440 respect that opinion because I don't

00:51:18.360 think there's any way to prove it this

00:51:19.760 is sort of like you have to take your

00:51:21.540 life experience and put that filter on

00:51:23.980 it and say well I don't know I feel

00:51:26.320 like it worked now you have to to be fair

00:51:29.420 you have to throw in all of the deaths

00:51:31.000 that happen because of the restrictions

00:51:33.160 and all the mental health problems and

00:51:35.820 that's not nothing that's a lot so if

00:51:38.560 you're doing a real cost-benefit analysis

00:51:40.320 I don't know if you could ever

00:51:41.600 untangle this but I'll let me go this

00:51:45.220 far I would say you can't tell if the

00:51:48.080 flattening the curve thing worked

00:51:49.940 entirely it looks like it did to me but

00:51:53.520 I'm open to the possibility that just

00:51:55.400 looking at shit doesn't really tell you

00:51:57.340 a lot you know that's why you have

00:51:59.040 randomized controlled trials you can

00:52:01.000 easily be fooled but I do think that

00:52:04.500 it's ambiguous enough that I would give

00:52:07.940 the leaders at least a little bit of

00:52:09.800 credit for having tried because we don't

00:52:14.860 know if it worked but it looks like it

00:52:18.520 was a good try you know even though it

00:52:20.680 was deeply expensive that's that's what

00:52:23.680 leadership is doing stuff that you

00:52:25.300 wouldn't have done on your own and

00:52:27.020 talking you into it so I point out I

00:52:31.040 like to point out that leaders talk

00:52:33.800 uncertainty whereas experts can have the

00:52:36.540 comfort of talking in probability so

00:52:39.180 your scientists could say well we're 90%

00:52:41.260 sure that this is a good path but if

00:52:44.040 your leader said 90% then people would

00:52:48.000 say 10% is a lot I'm not going to go

00:52:49.760 that direction you want your leaders to

00:52:51.800 say this is the way to go well shouldn't

00:52:54.540 we consider nope this is the way to go

00:52:56.560 but you know there's still some risk

00:52:58.680 nope this is the way to go but you know

00:53:00.700 the scientists are saying maybe nope

00:53:02.580 this is the way to go now is that lying

00:53:05.800 would the leaders be lying by giving you

00:53:09.540 certainty where there is no certainty

00:53:12.520 and the answer is yes that would be

00:53:15.440 definitely lie it also is the the the

00:53:20.120 foundation of all leadership the

00:53:22.860 foundation of leadership is acting

00:53:24.660 confident more than you are because if

00:53:27.540 you don't act confident people aren't

00:53:28.940 going to follow you and the fact is that

00:53:32.000 the leaders are guessing and you know

00:53:34.020 estimating and predicting and stuff so

00:53:36.140 they're not going to be right all the

00:53:37.120 time but they need to convince you that

00:53:38.920 they are right all the time you're not

00:53:40.360 you're not going to you're not going to

00:53:41.980 follow them into battle with a 50% chance

00:53:44.220 of winning you want them to lie to you

00:53:46.340 yeah we're winning this thing we got

00:53:47.960 this so if you can't get comfortable

00:53:52.000 with the fact that leaders have to talk

00:53:57.500 uncertainty and it's a lie it's a lie

00:54:01.340 anytime they talk uncertainty but they

00:54:03.940 have to if you can't handle that you

00:54:07.520 know if you can't handle those two

00:54:08.860 things simultaneously then nothing makes

00:54:10.900 sense you'll be confused by the world

00:54:12.960 Machiavelli's underbelly one of my

00:54:16.020 favorite follows on Twitter points out a

00:54:19.040 story in the new scientists so they took

00:54:21.640 some human brain cells and put them in a

00:54:23.380 petri dish and taught those human brain

00:54:26.380 cells how to play pong what what they took

00:54:33.500 human brain cells that didn't know

00:54:34.960 anything and trained it to play pong and

00:54:39.660 then they put it in a competition against AI and

00:54:43.720 they found out that although AI can pong

00:54:46.900 faster the human brain cells were quicker to 0.61

00:54:51.200 learn on their own so the human brain cells

00:54:54.500 organized and learned how to play pong better

00:54:57.720 than artificial intelligence but once

00:55:00.880 artificial intelligence got there it could

00:55:02.420 operate faster

00:55:03.260 now here's a Machiavelli's underbelly's comment on

00:55:10.060 this and I want you to like just let this settle in

00:55:14.000 for a minute all right I'm going to tell you

00:55:16.440 something that won't maybe instantly make sense

00:55:19.720 just let us settle in all right it goes like this

00:55:23.040 based on this experiment this is what the tweet

00:55:27.680 was we now know with 100% certainty that at least

00:55:31.740 one brain he's talking about the brain essentially

00:55:34.920 the brain cells in the petri dish he's calling that

00:55:37.980 one brain we now know with 100% certainty that at

00:55:41.220 least one brain is trapped in a simulation

00:55:43.720 all but guaranteeing that we too are living in a

00:55:48.640 simulation

00:55:49.140 I let that sink in the the brain cells in the

00:55:56.420 petri dish effectively since they're operating in a

00:55:59.220 coordinated manner are a form of human brain that 0.99

00:56:03.820 believes it lives in the universe in which the only

00:56:06.220 thing that exists is pong and this brain cell does not

00:56:13.200 know that there's a universe that created this situation

00:56:17.200 and and taught it to play pong the brain cell thinks pong

00:56:23.480 is reality and knows nothing else and it's a human

00:56:26.460 brain now and then do you like the second part of

00:56:32.920 this all but guaranteeing that we too are living in a

00:56:35.720 simulation now the way it guarantees that is simply if

00:56:39.420 you can prove that it's true in one case then you've

00:56:44.400 removed the biggest obstacle to understanding that there's a

00:56:48.120 trillion to one chance that we are a simulation because

00:56:52.240 because you first have to believe it's possible it's possible

00:56:56.600 that a brain could be in a simulation and not know it we have

00:57:01.320 one we actually have a brain in a simulation that doesn't know

00:57:04.700 it so once it's possible then you're just looking at the odds

00:57:09.360 okay well it's possible but what are the odds that's where

00:57:12.280 elon musk comes in to help you with the odds i don't know if you

00:57:15.500 know this but he's good at calculating the odds of things

00:57:18.780 and he's especially good when he gets them wrong because he

00:57:23.940 calculated the odds of succeeding at tesla is very low and then

00:57:27.500 he did it anyway and the odds of spacex succeeding he thought

00:57:31.540 were very low and then he did it anyway so he's really good at

00:57:35.620 calculating odds and then ignoring them

00:57:37.960 and succeeding anyway so i don't know what that means but his

00:57:42.860 argument is that if any simulation could be created people would create

00:57:47.960 them and here we did it could be done and there we did it so those are the

00:57:53.500 two biggest conditions they get you to a vastly greater likelihood that

00:57:58.480 we're a simulation it's possible and if possible humans will do it proven it

00:58:04.940 was possible humans did it well do you think we'll do more of these do you

00:58:12.000 think that ever again anybody will do an experiment in which there is brain cells

00:58:16.920 trying to do something in a petri dish of course and then once you have the

00:58:21.220 second experiment you would have two humanish brains living in a let's say just 0.54

00:58:29.780 for simplicity a pong reality compared to one original species so if we're the

00:58:39.320 original species and we created two simulations if you were to transport into

00:58:44.380 the center of any of the simulations that exist there's a two to one chance

00:58:49.020 you're in a fake one by the time you create the second one there's a two to one

00:58:54.780 chance that if you are randomly assigned to a simulation a two to one chance you're in a

00:59:01.300 simulation and that's just with the second experiment after the millionth

00:59:07.200 experiment you can be pretty sure your simulation that's where we're having kind

00:59:15.160 of a mind bender there well Anderson Cooper was getting some internet hate because he did

00:59:21.840 an interview with Bill Gates and in the context of asking about what kind of

00:59:26.940 let's say penalties could be put on the public to make them get vaccinated

00:59:31.780 Anderson floated the suggestion which I doubt was his own suggestion I think it was

00:59:37.080 on you know the list of things that maybe people are talking about he asked Bill

00:59:42.100 Gates about withholding people's social security should they refuse vaccinations now

00:59:47.840 part of the story is that Gates laughed nervously at that and then people people

00:59:53.040 interpreted his nervous evil looking laugh as you know being in favor of something I would

01:00:00.420 like to defend Bill Gates first as I often do by saying I'm I'm sort of the king of the

01:00:07.320 inappropriate laugh when something is awful or just non-standard I laugh at it and I

01:00:16.800 shouldn't but I always do and so if I had been in this interview and Anderson Cooper had asked me

01:00:24.300 if it was feasible or I thought it was a good idea to take away people's social security in other

01:00:30.600 words their own money you know ish and that's not quite true but been paying into social security

01:00:37.160 all your life and then they take it away from you because you don't get a vaccination if somebody

01:00:41.960 suggested that to me on national TV I don't know if I could not smile at that could you I think I would

01:00:51.060 giggle at that because it's so outrageous and and what I saw in Gates reaction was sort of a reaction to the the

01:01:01.460 maybe the extremism of it like it's just kind of funny it's so extreme I don't I didn't recognize that as Bill Gates saying oh yeah let's do some of that

01:01:11.460 I mean I could be wrong maybe later he will say that but I didn't interpret it that way and only because you know

01:01:18.060 everybody everybody generalizes from themselves so if you said to yourself if I were in that situation I wouldn't have laughed

01:01:26.020 probably true you know yourself right and if you know you wouldn't have giggled or smiled in that situation you're probably right

01:01:34.920 but I'm telling you that if I were in that situation I would have giggled and smiled and it wouldn't have meant to anything

01:01:41.320 it just would have meant as an awkward concept it just would trigger me

01:01:45.720 so just be careful about uh generalizing from yourself I won't assume that I can read Bill Gates mind

01:01:52.760 but I'll only ask you to do the same all you know is that he had a reaction you didn't understand

01:01:57.860 that's all you know I wouldn't assume anything beyond that but let's get to Anderson Cooper it

01:02:03.840 was suggested by people that Anderson Cooper might be in favor of this idea of withholding

01:02:08.900 social security if you don't get vaccinated but indeed there is no evidence of that and so the AP

01:02:14.200 did a fact check and said no he was just saying you know what do you think of the idea he wasn't saying

01:02:20.120 he thought it was a good idea and I accept that fact check however as I was about to tweet it

01:02:25.280 and defend Anderson Cooper because I like to defend everybody from fake news right it doesn't matter

01:02:32.080 what team you're on if you're a victim of fake news I think it's useful to point it out only so you can

01:02:37.440 learn it you know see the examples and you know build a bigger build a bigger library in your head of

01:02:42.980 where all this fake news comes from and how they do it and so I was about to jump in and defend

01:02:48.080 Anderson Cooper's against this fake attack against him when I realized he's the one who spreads the

01:02:57.240 fine people hoax the drinking bleak chokes the Russia collusion hoax and you could name a few others

01:03:01.760 and I thought to myself you know sometimes when the universe demands justice you have to get out of

01:03:09.420 the way and I felt like I don't want to be fighting the universe if the universe has decided that he's

01:03:16.500 spread so many dangerous hoaxes that the universe is going to take him out with a hoax I thought well

01:03:23.000 who am I to fight the universe and so I decided and so I decided that I would remove myself from that

01:03:33.500 fight at least on Twitter but I I'm explaining it to you here most people I would have defended

01:03:41.120 I think I would have defended Jake Tapper I know I would have defended Smirkanish I know I would have

01:03:49.400 offended Sanjay Gupta and the same situation and a few others you know I'm leaving out a few but I

01:03:57.200 wouldn't have defended Don Lemon and I wouldn't defend Anderson Cooper because they're hoax spreaders

01:04:04.400 so if they get taken out by hoax well maybe the universe has some kind of a compensating quality

01:04:12.080 we don't know about you could call it karma if you wish speaking of karma have I ever told you that

01:04:21.480 being free of the sense of embarrassment and shame is a superpower I tell you that all the time and it's a

01:04:30.260 superpower which I have who would be texting me at this time of the day

01:04:35.540 let's see if something's blowing up nope but Jim Cramer I think has this superpower the ability to be

01:04:45.240 wrong in public and not let it crush you how many times have you seen me being wrong in public a lot

01:04:53.180 right but I keep coming back in order to do this kind of job you know one of the talents in your

01:04:59.920 talent stack has to be a thick skin which seems ironic I know because I am always fighting on

01:05:06.440 Twitter but that has more to do with you know managing the the brand and some of it's just for fun

01:05:12.420 but I probably handle embarrassment and shame better than you know 99 percent of the public because I

01:05:20.380 practice it's one of those skills that you could practice believe it or not it's a weird skill but

01:05:25.900 if you get shamed and embarrassed enough yeah you just get over it because none of it kills you the

01:05:32.160 the shame and embarrassment is largely an illusion and the illusion is that the thoughts you have of shame

01:05:38.220 and embarrassment are going to translate into the real world and actually affect something they

01:05:43.480 hardly ever do and once you've been shamed and embarrassed enough and you wake up in the morning and

01:05:49.140 your your bagel tastes the same you're like well that's weird I got all shamed and embarrassed

01:05:54.980 yesterday and today I woke up and nothing's different if you do that enough then you can learn to bring

01:06:01.840 that feeling into the present so you get shamed and embarrassed it just seems funny

01:06:06.220 uh Chrisfield says yes our simulation could have started millions of years ago and we're just

01:06:15.100 catching up that is true so anyway back to Jim Cramer he uh tweeted a photo of empty shelves

01:06:20.940 shelves at a store uh and the implication was and he said he just said suboptimal meaning that it looks

01:06:28.760 like a supply chain problem but internet sleuths were quick to notice that every one of the shelves

01:06:35.960 that was empty was labeled for valentine's uh product meaning that it was the shelves where they took off

01:06:42.100 the christmas stuff after christmas and they had not yet put the valentine's stuff on in other words

01:06:47.360 there was no supply chain problem whatsoever least in evidence it was just they were changing out the

01:06:52.980 shelves so Jim Cramer imagining that those empty shelves were telling him something about supply chain

01:06:59.000 i guess tweeted that and then he just got shat upon yeah the the entire internet opened up and started just

01:07:07.760 peeing on him now here's my question did that ruin Jim Cramer's day we don't know what do you think

01:07:18.040 i'm gonna say nah nope nope would it have ruined my day if i had done that because when i saw it i said

01:07:28.780 oh god that's exactly the sort of thing i would have done in fact i did something like this the other day

01:07:33.800 by tweeting something that was actually an old story so you know tweeting old stories or uh you know

01:07:41.240 taking a picture of a empty shelf and thinking it was meaningful when it wasn't that's exactly what i do

01:07:46.540 i do that all the time right uh and you know i get over it and every day my bagel tastes the same

01:07:54.560 so my only lesson on this is be Jim Cramer right you know when i see all these people dumping on Jim

01:08:03.280 Cramer and then i know he's just going to go to work the next day and still be Jim Cramer be Jim

01:08:08.320 Cramer let let the whole world piss on your head and then just get up and go to work you'll be amazed

01:08:15.620 how much it doesn't matter other people's opinions are just things that happen inside their heads it's

01:08:23.760 just electrical signals in the heads of strangers that's what you're worried about think about it

01:08:31.020 just just think about it right now let's do a little experiment here's a there's a public hypnosis

01:08:35.440 experiment but don't worry there's nothing nothing bad or strange going on it'll all be transparent

01:08:40.640 just go through this imaginary situation every one of you probably right now is thinking about

01:08:48.640 somebody else's opinion of you directly or indirectly other people's opinion of whether

01:08:54.480 you're good or bad or right or wrong or awesome or not awesome is always in our heads

01:08:59.460 but imagine those heads just think of all the people who are thinking something about you

01:09:06.540 that you don't like that's bad those are electrical currents firing inside a piece of organic matter

01:09:15.620 in the skull of somebody that you don't see and you know they're at some distance from you

01:09:21.000 none of that matters to you the electrical impulses firing in the stranger's head just don't matter

01:09:28.920 and if you think that like like their thoughts are like right on you that their thoughts are getting

01:09:36.860 in you and it's it's like an infection like oh the shame the embarrassment it's it's like in my body

01:09:43.680 like I can feel it just remember the only place it's happening is in the electrical signals

01:09:51.120 somewhere else you you could just ignore it and it's not easy to do but if you think of it in

01:09:59.500 those terms as just something happening in another person's head it's easier so that's a reframe so

01:10:06.040 reframe it from something that's like attacking your body there's just something that's happening at a

01:10:11.180 distance it's not even touching you there's no physical connection

01:10:14.400 so um you'll find that that's a useful reframe that ladies and gentlemen is all I had to talk

01:10:24.300 about another terrific show one of the best ever no no the best ever best ever and uh I'd like to

01:10:32.440 think that I made all your worlds a little bit better today uh I'm gonna get serious about writing

01:10:37.160 a book about how to reframe things because I there just are so many examples where this is good

01:10:41.460 um one example with the simulators a comment one example with the simulation it's the stupidest thing 0.85

01:10:49.700 I've ever heard yeah

01:10:52.440 Scott how many electrical signals go off in your pants when you hear anything about Bill Gates

01:10:59.960 well here's the uh here's my take on Bill Gates um from from the moment he started getting rich

01:11:08.860 he said someday I'm gonna use all of my money for philanthropic purposes and that he did

01:11:15.400 like there's no doubt about it he's putting his vast uh wealth as well as his time and energies into

01:11:22.840 making the world a better place now does he have evil intentions I've never seen any evidence of it

01:11:28.980 now I've seen lots of rumors that are out of context and and all that but I've never seen anything

01:11:35.280 that look credible now should there be someday something credible do you think I wouldn't tell

01:11:42.540 you if there were a credible report that was just really bad about Bill Gates do you think I wouldn't

01:11:50.920 tell you of course I would why wouldn't I because I'm I'm defending innocent until proven guilty

01:11:58.720 I'm not defending Bill Gates you know if you think I'm defending Bill Gates you're missing the larger

01:12:05.080 point I told you I almost defended Anderson Cooper yeah but he was a special case because he's a hoax person

01:12:12.220 but I will defend uh Joe Biden even though I think he's a poor president but if something is a fake attack

01:12:20.420 or he does something well and I think he did something well with court packing for example

01:12:25.100 I'm going to say it remember my entire context is is saying both sides of every argument so if you

01:12:33.720 if you've imagined that I have a pure love for Bill Gates that cannot be shaken by data or any kind of new

01:12:41.560 information well that's completely wrong I'm just talking about what we know right now and I'm leaving

01:12:48.020 out what we don't know that's not fair that does that mean I want to kiss him you need to take

01:12:55.080 your take your analysis out of grade school if I say something nice about a public figure it doesn't

01:13:02.060 mean I want to marry them it really doesn't all right um bromancing

01:13:09.100 anyway uh that's all for today and I'll talk to you tomorrow

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 29, 2021

Episode 1607 Scott Adams： Most of the News is Good Today. Hello Golden Age

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript