Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1616 Scott Adams： The Dr. Malone Interview, How to Know You Are in a Simulation, Ted Cruz and More

00:00:00.000 Morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.

00:00:03.900 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and sometimes, well, it might be hyperbole when I say it's

00:00:09.220 the best thing that ever happened, but today, I think it's a fact.

00:00:13.460 Today, the news has served us up some goodness, some actual entertaining stuff, and we're

00:00:20.440 going to dig into that.

00:00:21.700 But before we do, how would you like to enjoy something that's famous around the world?

00:00:26.920 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:00:28.880 Of course you would.

00:00:30.740 Of course you would.

00:00:31.980 And all you'd need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea, a canteen, a jug of flask,

00:00:36.180 a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:39.480 I like coffee.

00:00:41.480 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that

00:00:44.820 makes everything better.

00:00:46.540 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:00:49.160 Go.

00:00:53.860 Ah, yeah.

00:00:55.060 I feel the fake news is starting to dissipate.

00:01:00.820 Wait.

00:01:01.320 No, it's back.

00:01:02.360 It's back.

00:01:03.080 I guess the coffee can't fix everything.

00:01:06.260 Well, let's talk about some things.

00:01:08.660 First, the economy disappointed a little bit, to say the experts, they were expecting more

00:01:18.400 jobs to be added.

00:01:19.640 But here's the good news.

00:01:21.340 The unemployment rate in the United States is down to 3.9%.

00:01:25.100 What?

00:01:28.980 3.9%?

00:01:30.540 Let me give you an economics lesson in about 10 seconds.

00:01:38.580 All right.

00:01:38.820 In about 10 seconds, I'm going to tell you 80% of what you need to know about economics.

00:01:43.820 You ready?

00:01:45.080 And this is true.

00:01:46.140 This is 80% of everything you need to know about the economy.

00:01:48.920 If employment looks good, that will be fine.

00:01:55.100 That's it.

00:01:56.600 If the unemployment rate is low, everything works out.

00:02:01.320 Yeah, we got inflation, and the inflation is quite a bear.

00:02:05.940 I mean, it's big.

00:02:07.820 But can we work through inflation?

00:02:10.340 Yeah.

00:02:10.900 Yeah, we can do that.

00:02:12.200 It's just a tax.

00:02:13.760 We pay the tax.

00:02:15.520 Now, the other thing that's going on, by the way, and I haven't seen anybody talk about

00:02:20.240 this, but let me toss this out there.

00:02:22.340 One of the things that lowers inflation is competition.

00:02:27.840 So let's say you've got a situation where prices go up because of delivery costs.

00:02:33.720 So let's say it's just way more expensive for energy, so all of your delivery costs go up,

00:02:39.840 and you pass that along to the consumer.

00:02:41.380 Well, what's the natural thing that happens?

00:02:45.240 The natural thing that happens is you've created an economic problem with delivery costs.

00:02:51.300 And so then somebody creates an app that can put different people's stuff on the same truck

00:02:56.340 or uses Uber as part of the delivery system, which is already happening.

00:03:02.420 Basically, the economy can find a way to get you your stuff without using as many trucks.

00:03:10.440 And then suddenly the gas price matters less.

00:03:14.380 So that doesn't happen right away.

00:03:16.600 But I think that in the modern world, our ability to build an entire new business to address

00:03:24.240 a price imperfection, we can do that kind of quickly.

00:03:27.860 So I'm not sure that we're looking at 10 years of inflation.

00:03:32.500 We might be looking at three because the entire economy will start to adjust to the price imbalances.

00:03:41.780 So that's just some of what will affect inflation.

00:03:46.780 But as long as the unemployment rate is below 4%, economists call that full employment.

00:03:58.660 Have you ever heard of that?

00:04:05.140 So if you have 4% people unemployed, this is just roughly speaking,

00:04:09.580 if you're an economist, you call that full employment.

00:04:12.020 Because you need some unemployed people, that just means people are between jobs

00:04:17.780 and there's a fluidity that you can leave a job, wait a few months, go get a new job.

00:04:24.180 That's like the best situation in the world.

00:04:26.440 So you don't want zero unemployment because then there's nobody to hire.

00:04:31.620 You're just stealing from each other.

00:04:33.640 You want about 4%.

00:04:34.920 The economy, ladies and gentlemen, just went through the toughest challenge I've ever seen

00:04:41.820 an economy have, at least in my lifetime, the pandemic.

00:04:46.980 Not only did we go through it, I feel like we're going to come out ahead.

00:04:53.000 Meaning that so many things changed in society, everything from health care to commuting

00:05:01.140 to just the basic way we do everything.

00:05:04.480 It just got thrown up in the air and now all the startups will go in and find their little

00:05:10.020 spots.

00:05:11.800 I've got a feeling that the pandemic is going to end up being like World War II in the sense

00:05:18.940 that while it's horrible, while it's happening, there's all this economic activity that it

00:05:24.320 creates that ripples on forever.

00:05:26.720 So economy-wise, I'm really happy, even with the inflation.

00:05:31.620 We'll get through it.

00:05:32.900 All right.

00:05:33.560 You all were following the three-act movie about me, which I've been telling you about.

00:05:40.300 And I've told you how often life fits into a three-act movie.

00:05:45.580 The first act is something happens that changes everything.

00:05:49.520 In this case, the something that happened was we were getting near the end of the pandemic,

00:05:54.940 we hope, and people were talking about who was a good predictor and who got everything

00:06:00.600 wrong.

00:06:01.440 And I found that the world exploded on my head, telling me that I'd gotten everything

00:06:06.880 wrong and that I was afraid and I should take the L and all these things.

00:06:12.740 And if you watched it, it was quite a show.

00:06:15.180 There were a lot of people.

00:06:17.060 There were high-profile people, podcasters, saying all the things I'd gotten wrong.

00:06:22.240 Now, the problem is that to defend myself was sort of impractical, because my predictions

00:06:29.820 were mostly spread across all live streams that are not really indexed.

00:06:34.220 So for me to prove that I did anything right, I didn't really have a way to collect that without

00:06:41.800 massive effort, which I wasn't going to do.

00:06:44.480 But I came up with a hack.

00:06:47.240 And by the way, the second act of the movie is where all the trolls came after me, and

00:06:55.100 then I started playing whack-a-mole.

00:06:57.500 So the trolls would say, you said the sky is green.

00:07:02.120 And then I would say, nope, I've always said the sky is blue unless it's nighttime or cloudy. 0.93

00:07:08.960 And then, you know, I'd whack that mole. 0.90

00:07:11.380 And then another one would pop up with another ridiculous hallucination.

00:07:15.160 So that's like the second act of a movie, where there's lots of stuff happening, but the, let's

00:07:21.380 say the hero of the movie, which would be me in this case, is doing okay.

00:07:26.140 Like, I'm whacking the moles, but I'm not in deep trouble. 0.99

00:07:29.420 I'm just whacking all the moles. 1.00

00:07:31.100 And then you realize that you're just not going to be able to whack them all. 0.62

00:07:36.160 And then the big media starts doing stories about how wrong you were, about this or that.

00:07:40.460 And suddenly, I had become the poster child of bad predictions.

00:07:46.380 Would you agree with that characterization, that in the past two weeks, at least for people

00:07:52.120 on the right, I had become the poster child of being wrong?

00:07:58.180 But all of that was based on imagining what I had done.

00:08:01.000 Now, how do you get out of a situation where thousands of people are imagining something

00:08:09.200 you did?

00:08:10.520 Now, I'm seeing a lot of people say no, but that's how it felt to me.

00:08:14.360 Within my own movie, it felt like my reputation.

00:08:18.360 In fact, one of the most common comments was that I had destroyed my reputation by all these

00:08:25.740 bad things.

00:08:27.180 So what do you do?

00:08:27.800 Now, the third act, the third act of a movie is when it's impossible to get out.

00:08:36.160 So I was in this impossible situation because I couldn't whack all the moles. 1.00

00:08:40.660 There were more moles than I could whack. 1.00

00:08:42.640 I couldn't just go and get all my sources and show them to you because it'd be too unwieldy.

00:08:49.380 So what do I do?

00:08:50.380 Go to my deathbed as the person who got everything wrong while I actually was probably the best

00:08:56.940 predictor in the world.

00:08:59.240 So here's what I did.

00:09:01.160 I went to the subscription platform Locals, where I have a community of people who follow

00:09:06.160 me closely.

00:09:06.680 I compiled my best memory of what my predictions had been and are, and I ran them past the Locals 1.00

00:09:15.680 platform.

00:09:17.560 And that's pinned on Locals right now.

00:09:20.620 And then I had the Locals people check them just to see if they remembered these predictions.

00:09:26.300 And they confirmed all of them, I think with a few tweaks.

00:09:30.500 So I added some of the tweaks.

00:09:32.920 And I said, okay, now I have 6,000 witnesses that this is true.

00:09:38.020 And then I posted it on Locals so it'd be permanent there.

00:09:41.060 And then I dropped the paywall for that post and then posted it on Twitter and then put

00:09:47.360 it on my thing.

00:09:48.560 Now, I went from being eaten live by trolls every day for two weeks to posting what my

00:09:55.600 actual confirmed by thousands of witnesses predictions are.

00:10:02.260 What do you think happened to the troll traffic after I printed my actual predictions confirmed

00:10:07.800 by witnesses?

00:10:08.940 What do you think happened?

00:10:11.880 It went to zero.

00:10:14.480 It went to zero.

00:10:17.880 But here's the persuasion part of it.

00:10:21.660 I wrote up my predictions, but I stated at the front that is my claim that I'm the best

00:10:29.400 predictor of the pandemic.

00:10:32.060 That's the persuasion part.

00:10:33.920 If I had said, I think I did pretty good, that's bad persuasion.

00:10:38.940 People would just look at it and say, ah, you didn't.

00:10:42.020 But if you say, I did the best in the world, how much do you think that's going to make

00:10:47.140 people want to prove me wrong?

00:10:49.060 A lot.

00:10:50.260 So they're going to have to dig into it.

00:10:52.100 So the people who hate me the most are going to have to get a really big dose of my rightness

00:10:56.880 in the effort to find out why I'm wrong.

00:10:59.780 And so the movie is now complete.

00:11:05.900 I have made my claim that I am the best predictor.

00:11:09.000 I showed my work.

00:11:10.880 I have 6,000 witnesses that that's an accurate description of my predictions.

00:11:16.200 And it does, I think, stand up to anybody's predictions.

00:11:20.300 I do believe that I can now take the throne of the best predictions of the pandemic.

00:11:26.320 And you can see for yourself.

00:11:28.520 Now, how many people are pushing against that after reading the predictions?

00:11:34.540 None.

00:11:36.400 Not a single person who has read the predictions

00:11:38.780 has denied the statement that I'm the best predictor in the whole country.

00:11:46.700 Now, will somebody do that?

00:11:48.140 Probably.

00:11:49.060 But when it comes to the point where somebody's going to have to do a roundup of all the predictions,

00:11:54.820 because you know that's coming, right?

00:11:56.940 Somebody's going to have to do a roundup.

00:11:58.900 Here were all the predictions.

00:12:01.020 Here are the people who got it right.

00:12:02.920 Here are the ones who got it wrong.

00:12:03.880 That's coming, right?

00:12:04.700 Now, I've already created all of the document for mine.

00:12:10.120 I do have the best case for the best predictor in the whole pandemic.

00:12:15.820 Two weeks ago, I was in an impossible situation,

00:12:19.840 and my reputation had been destroyed.

00:12:23.120 Today, I'm the best predictor of the pandemic.

00:12:27.880 And it's documented.

00:12:29.140 You can see for yourself.

00:12:30.780 Now, that is a three-act play.

00:12:36.820 Set up, something changes.

00:12:39.260 Act two, whack-a-mole.

00:12:41.300 You know, all act twos are whack-a-mole.

00:12:43.560 Just the hero doing the thing the hero does.

00:12:46.880 Then the third act is the impossible problem.

00:12:49.880 This impression that I got everything wrong.

00:12:52.880 And then the resolution is the impossible solution.

00:12:56.480 That worked. 1.00

00:12:56.800 All right, let's get rid of a few assholes here, 1.00

00:13:00.980 and then we'll go on. 1.00

00:13:03.720 Let's see. 1.00

00:13:05.200 First asshole, where was he? 1.00

00:13:07.500 There we go. 1.00

00:13:08.220 Gutter dog. 1.00

00:13:09.820 Asshole number one. 1.00

00:13:12.340 Hide user.

00:13:14.520 Eric says,

00:13:15.140 Morning, Scott.

00:13:15.680 Got a weird one for you today.

00:13:16.800 If you could design a creative hell-on-earth prison

00:13:19.660 for any fictional character, who would it be?

00:13:22.500 Well, that's a weird question.

00:13:23.800 Eric, a fictional prison.

00:13:27.760 Well, I don't know.

00:13:29.780 That's a little off topic.

00:13:32.740 I do have a joke coming in the Dilbert comic

00:13:35.760 in which Dogbird is a futurist,

00:13:38.660 sort of a play on myself.

00:13:41.140 And Dogbird is making all of his money.

00:13:43.680 You won't see this for a few weeks.

00:13:45.820 Dogbird is making his money as a futurist

00:13:47.700 by always predicting the worst possible outcome.

00:13:50.860 Because whoever predicts the most doom and gloom outcome

00:13:54.420 gets all the attention.

00:13:55.980 So Dogbird, in an upcoming series, will realize that.

00:13:59.440 And so he challenges, Dogbird challenges Dilbert

00:14:02.440 to ask him for a prediction,

00:14:05.700 and he'll prove that he can come up

00:14:07.180 with the worst possible prediction,

00:14:09.700 you know, the dubious prediction.

00:14:12.600 And so Dilbert asks him,

00:14:13.820 will I live a long life?

00:14:19.540 And Dogbird gives him the worst-case scenario.

00:14:24.780 Yes.

00:14:26.520 So that's coming up.

00:14:28.360 All right.

00:14:29.780 Here's a new reality.

00:14:31.000 Remember I told you yesterday

00:14:32.180 how to use the really filter.

00:14:34.940 Now, the really filter is you read a story

00:14:36.880 that somebody thinks is fake

00:14:38.300 and somebody thinks is true.

00:14:39.680 You're trying to figure out if it's true.

00:14:40.960 And you use the word really

00:14:43.000 and then a sarcastic voice

00:14:45.460 to just describe the story

00:14:47.360 and see if it works, right?

00:14:48.780 Now, if something is true,

00:14:50.920 this doesn't work.

00:14:53.180 Like if I said,

00:14:55.200 oh, my lights are on.

00:14:56.640 Oh, really?

00:14:57.780 Really?

00:14:58.320 Really?

00:14:58.680 The lights are on?

00:15:00.540 Oh, yeah, actually, the lights are on.

00:15:02.680 See, it doesn't work.

00:15:03.980 But you can use the really thing

00:15:05.400 to find things that aren't true.

00:15:06.900 It spots them right away.

00:15:07.920 So there was a fake news about Jen Psaki

00:15:11.680 and I guess somebody had made a fake quote from her

00:15:16.360 and the fake quote and passed it around and said,

00:15:19.020 if you don't buy anything,

00:15:20.180 you won't experience inflation.

00:15:22.420 And then she went on to say,

00:15:24.060 people should barter

00:15:25.060 so you won't even see a price tag.

00:15:27.820 All right, now let's apply the filter.

00:15:30.280 Apply the filter.

00:15:32.140 Really?

00:15:33.280 Really?

00:15:33.640 The spokesperson for the President of the United States

00:15:38.340 really went in front of people and said,

00:15:42.300 inflation isn't a problem if you don't buy anything.

00:15:45.520 Really?

00:15:46.800 Really?

00:15:48.280 And then went on to say

00:15:49.840 that instead of buying things,

00:15:52.080 you should maybe become more of a barter economy.

00:15:55.760 Really?

00:15:57.040 I mean, really?

00:15:58.280 You really think that happened?

00:16:00.400 And of course, it didn't happen.

00:16:01.860 It's fake news.

00:16:02.520 But you see, the really filter works, right?

00:16:06.220 I'm not wrong about that, am I?

00:16:08.120 That if you just apply the really filter to it,

00:16:11.660 you find all the weird ones. 0.95

00:16:13.620 It's not 100%, but damn, it's good. 0.98

00:16:16.540 It's really good. 0.97

00:16:18.200 Use it.

00:16:19.740 Well, Biden gave a speech yesterday

00:16:21.420 that was the darkest, most divisive speech

00:16:23.940 I've ever heard from a president

00:16:25.220 in which he turned against part of the country,

00:16:28.760 which is not really the job of a president.

00:16:30.780 It should be turning against other people.

00:16:34.260 But he gave it from the spot where,

00:16:36.940 as CNN puts it,

00:16:38.520 Donald Trump's mob defiled the U.S. tradition

00:16:41.420 of peaceful transfer of power.

00:16:42.900 And he went real hard at it

00:16:46.080 about the horribleness of it,

00:16:49.240 and he redefined himself

00:16:51.840 against the extremism of an ex-president.

00:16:54.940 Yeah, that may be what happened.

00:16:56.920 That's CNN's take.

00:16:58.180 It may be that Biden had a strong day

00:17:00.560 in which he defined himself

00:17:02.600 against the extremism of Trump.

00:17:06.100 That could be exactly what happened there.

00:17:11.060 Another possibility

00:17:12.120 is that Biden is...

00:17:17.100 The other possibility is that Biden...

00:17:21.100 Sorry.

00:17:22.280 That's the trouble with the super chats.

00:17:24.920 Can I turn those off?

00:17:26.940 Like, it's so bad for the flow.

00:17:28.460 I mean, I really think that

00:17:29.660 YouTube should just get rid of them.

00:17:31.460 All right.

00:17:34.700 Now, is there a feature here

00:17:36.120 where if I click this,

00:17:38.040 I can go back to it?

00:17:39.060 Oh, okay.

00:17:40.420 Well, okay, that makes me less mad.

00:17:42.540 So if I skip your super chat,

00:17:44.580 I'll try to go back to him

00:17:45.560 because it gives me an option to do that.

00:17:49.300 But I was saying that Biden

00:17:51.140 either gave a strong speech

00:17:52.940 comparing himself to Trump,

00:17:54.180 or he defined himself

00:17:57.040 against a hallucination.

00:18:01.460 To me,

00:18:04.680 Trump doesn't really exist anymore,

00:18:07.620 does he?

00:18:09.420 Meaning,

00:18:10.660 we're not in an election.

00:18:13.460 Trump isn't president.

00:18:15.520 I feel as though...

00:18:16.620 I mean, he might run.

00:18:18.280 Might run, might not.

00:18:20.040 But I don't think he's going to run

00:18:21.520 against Biden, is he?

00:18:24.300 Do you think there's any chance

00:18:25.860 that Biden and Trump

00:18:26.680 are going to have another contest?

00:18:28.300 I feel like Biden just defined himself

00:18:30.620 by comparing himself

00:18:32.640 to something imaginary.

00:18:35.580 Trump running for president.

00:18:37.060 I mean, he might.

00:18:38.420 So I think you have to see

00:18:39.680 this whole thing

00:18:40.260 as laying down

00:18:41.340 like suppression fire

00:18:43.160 to keep Trump from running, right?

00:18:45.280 Would you all agree

00:18:46.000 that this is all about

00:18:47.220 suppressing Republicans

00:18:48.820 and suppressing Trump?

00:18:50.400 The whole January 6th scam

00:18:52.420 is pretty much all about that, right?

00:18:55.220 So that's a pretty weak thing

00:18:56.820 for a president to do,

00:18:58.000 and he did this big angry talk. 0.91

00:19:00.620 Really disgusting 1.00

00:19:01.680 and weak and pathetic 1.00

00:19:03.320 would be my take from that. 0.99

00:19:07.420 All right.

00:19:10.500 Here's a little update

00:19:12.600 from the simulation.

00:19:15.000 Twitter user Ben McCauley

00:19:16.500 asks this,

00:19:17.220 why does the simulation

00:19:19.320 let false memories exist?

00:19:22.740 If we are indeed a simulation,

00:19:26.080 which I'm sure we are,

00:19:28.940 why would there be fake memories,

00:19:31.780 false memories?

00:19:33.100 Do you know why?

00:19:35.480 Because false memories

00:19:36.740 are the only way

00:19:37.580 you could create this situation.

00:19:40.540 Here's the problem.

00:19:41.900 If everybody had perfect memory,

00:19:43.660 you would have to create

00:19:46.040 your simulation

00:19:48.680 so that my memory

00:19:50.880 and your memory,

00:19:51.640 if they were both perfect,

00:19:53.080 told the same story

00:19:54.240 all the time.

00:19:55.460 And then you have to connect

00:19:56.700 all of those different

00:19:57.960 true stories

00:19:59.040 and make all of them

00:20:00.420 compatible,

00:20:01.980 and that would be

00:20:03.220 really, really hard

00:20:04.860 to program.

00:20:05.740 Like, so hard,

00:20:06.560 I think it borders

00:20:07.580 on impossible.

00:20:09.380 But,

00:20:10.420 suppose you did this.

00:20:11.680 You told your people

00:20:13.420 to imagine they were seeing

00:20:14.720 a high-definition world,

00:20:16.940 but in fact,

00:20:17.840 their senses were only

00:20:19.660 giving them low-definition.

00:20:23.900 On low-de...

00:20:24.780 Come on.

00:20:27.040 Nick Fuentes was six months

00:20:28.420 ahead of Scott on BLM. 1.00

00:20:30.320 Fuck you. 1.00

00:20:31.420 I don't even know 1.00

00:20:31.940 what you're talking about. 1.00

00:20:32.920 That is the dumbest criticism. 0.99

00:20:34.600 I don't know what Nick Fuentes said, 0.99

00:20:36.500 but I know that that's

00:20:37.780 just not true.

00:20:38.900 So I'm just going to get rid 1.00

00:20:40.140 of you for being an asshole. 1.00

00:20:41.880 God. 1.00

00:20:42.920 Like, how does that kind

00:20:43.720 of stuff even happen?

00:20:44.980 But anyway,

00:20:45.660 I would say that the simulation

00:20:47.300 has to give you

00:20:49.580 false memories

00:20:50.340 so that we can all

00:20:52.340 live our individual lives

00:20:53.880 without worrying

00:20:54.980 that they're incompatible

00:20:56.100 with somebody else's memory.

00:20:58.180 Also,

00:20:58.820 we have to imagine

00:20:59.780 that we see more detail

00:21:00.880 than we do.

00:21:01.920 Because the simulation

00:21:02.760 can't fill in all the detail

00:21:04.180 all the time.

00:21:05.160 It would be too much

00:21:05.780 of a resource.

00:21:06.800 But it can make you think

00:21:07.840 you see it.

00:21:08.900 That's just one line of code.

00:21:10.180 Imagine it's clearer

00:21:12.140 that you see it.

00:21:13.680 That's more than one line.

00:21:15.200 But it'd be easy

00:21:16.760 to program that.

00:21:17.740 It'd be really hard

00:21:18.440 to program all the details.

00:21:19.920 So false memories

00:21:20.760 are evidence

00:21:21.700 that we are a simulation.

00:21:24.900 Also,

00:21:25.460 it could be evidence

00:21:26.040 we're not.

00:21:26.960 But it's compatible with it.

00:21:30.340 Username

00:21:30.740 to not Mark Emmert

00:21:32.380 asks this question.

00:21:36.760 As a simulated,

00:21:38.120 meaning us,

00:21:38.860 if we are simulated,

00:21:40.660 as we simulated people

00:21:42.080 create our own simulations,

00:21:44.280 will we become self-aware

00:21:45.900 of the absurdity?

00:21:47.080 In other words,

00:21:49.000 when civilization,

00:21:50.200 this civilization,

00:21:51.700 assuming it's a simulation,

00:21:53.500 gets to the point

00:21:54.140 where it can create

00:21:54.840 its own simulation,

00:21:56.520 will that be the point

00:21:57.480 it becomes self-aware

00:21:58.720 that it is

00:22:00.040 a simulation?

00:22:01.540 And the answer is

00:22:02.400 yes,

00:22:04.160 and that's where we are.

00:22:05.640 We are at exactly

00:22:07.020 that point

00:22:07.620 where we are realizing

00:22:09.180 we're a simulation

00:22:10.040 because when we build

00:22:11.520 our own,

00:22:12.680 the metaverse,

00:22:13.940 we have all the same

00:22:15.620 constraints

00:22:16.160 that we witness

00:22:17.300 in what we think

00:22:18.940 is the real world.

00:22:20.320 Wait a minute,

00:22:20.820 you can't program

00:22:21.780 infinity,

00:22:23.220 oh, okay,

00:22:24.220 so we'll just say

00:22:24.860 that the universe

00:22:25.540 is expanding,

00:22:26.840 but there's nothing

00:22:27.720 beyond the edge of it.

00:22:29.780 You can't program

00:22:30.880 infinite time,

00:22:32.680 oh, okay,

00:22:34.140 so we'll just make

00:22:34.820 a big bang

00:22:35.560 and then you can't

00:22:36.380 see past that,

00:22:37.360 so we don't need

00:22:37.860 any time past that.

00:22:39.260 And of course,

00:22:39.700 we don't have to program

00:22:40.420 the future yet,

00:22:41.620 so we're constraining it.

00:22:43.340 Then you add

00:22:43.860 the false memories,

00:22:45.240 which would be required

00:22:46.240 for a good simulation,

00:22:47.760 and we see that

00:22:48.440 we would do the same.

00:22:49.340 So, yes,

00:22:51.340 that's exactly

00:22:51.900 where we are.

00:22:53.540 Expanding into what?

00:22:54.600 Exactly.

00:22:55.400 If you're software,

00:22:57.260 expanding into what

00:22:58.240 doesn't make any sense,

00:22:59.620 which is what

00:23:00.140 I think we are.

00:23:02.420 All right.

00:23:07.480 As I've been promoting

00:23:08.920 this idea,

00:23:10.340 I keep seeing

00:23:11.020 more examples of it,

00:23:12.440 that you have to

00:23:13.340 assume guilt

00:23:14.380 when it comes

00:23:15.100 to your government

00:23:15.800 whenever they're

00:23:16.720 non-transparent,

00:23:18.240 which is the opposite

00:23:19.160 of the standard

00:23:20.540 you'd want

00:23:20.980 for a citizen.

00:23:22.260 For a citizen,

00:23:23.060 they're innocent

00:23:23.560 until proven guilty,

00:23:25.160 and it has to be

00:23:25.920 that way.

00:23:27.520 For the government,

00:23:29.800 if the government

00:23:30.380 won't tell you

00:23:31.360 some information

00:23:32.120 that the citizens

00:23:33.680 have a right to know,

00:23:35.360 the presumption

00:23:36.120 has to be guilt.

00:23:38.220 Am I right?

00:23:38.720 Everybody agree?

00:23:40.100 The presumption

00:23:40.760 has to be guilt.

00:23:41.680 You might not have proof,

00:23:43.320 but you have to presume

00:23:44.120 they're guilty.

00:23:44.980 And here are some,

00:23:46.680 we have a growing list

00:23:48.400 of things that fit

00:23:49.900 into that category

00:23:50.900 where you should assume

00:23:52.160 as a responsible,

00:23:54.640 well-informed citizen,

00:23:56.240 you should assume corruption.

00:23:59.340 Number one,

00:24:00.920 the 2020 election.

00:24:02.880 We have no evidence

00:24:04.100 of fraud

00:24:05.220 that would have changed

00:24:06.040 the election.

00:24:07.120 But because they don't

00:24:08.300 let us audit

00:24:09.100 the full system,

00:24:10.500 you should presume

00:24:11.640 it's fraudulent,

00:24:12.720 even if it isn't.

00:24:13.580 That's the right presumption.

00:24:17.620 I saw a bit

00:24:19.460 on Twitter

00:24:20.180 that the Ray Epps

00:24:21.580 name has been removed

00:24:24.120 from the FBI's

00:24:25.000 wanted list

00:24:25.660 and there were no charges

00:24:26.720 and he's just sort of

00:24:28.200 been disappeared.

00:24:30.400 If the FBI

00:24:31.600 has been asked

00:24:32.580 a valid question,

00:24:33.540 who's this Ray Epps guy?

00:24:34.700 Who's he worked for?

00:24:35.900 How many of your agents

00:24:37.060 were involved,

00:24:37.860 if any,

00:24:38.660 in the January 6th events?

00:24:41.080 And apparently

00:24:42.000 they're not going to answer

00:24:43.020 those questions

00:24:43.780 and they're going to

00:24:44.820 make stuff go away.

00:24:47.060 The presumption is guilt

00:24:48.480 that the FBI

00:24:49.620 was behind it.

00:24:51.240 Doesn't mean they were.

00:24:53.020 I'm not saying that.

00:24:54.360 I'm saying as an informed

00:24:55.760 citizen,

00:24:56.860 you should assume they were.

00:24:58.440 And anytime it comes up,

00:24:59.840 you should say,

00:25:00.420 well, we don't know,

00:25:01.140 but that's an obvious

00:25:02.580 assumption.

00:25:03.060 By their actions,

00:25:05.640 they've confessed.

00:25:06.480 I would say that

00:25:09.120 for the government,

00:25:10.200 if the government says,

00:25:11.400 I'm not going to tell you,

00:25:13.180 treat it as a confession.

00:25:15.740 Is that fair?

00:25:17.060 You should treat it

00:25:18.420 as a public confession.

00:25:20.420 Tell us how many people

00:25:21.600 were working for the government

00:25:23.240 who were part of that

00:25:24.000 January 6th crowd.

00:25:25.740 Nope,

00:25:26.140 I'm not going to tell you that.

00:25:27.400 Thank you for your confession.

00:25:29.560 It just has to be treated

00:25:30.780 as a confession.

00:25:32.060 It has to be.

00:25:32.600 What else have we got

00:25:34.960 that fits into that category?

00:25:38.900 A few things.

00:25:39.840 Let's see.

00:25:41.840 So the rapid test approvals.

00:25:44.800 So we don't have transparency

00:25:46.360 on why it took us so long

00:25:47.620 to get rapid tests.

00:25:49.620 Assume corruption.

00:25:51.580 Was it a case of corruption?

00:25:54.400 Don't know for sure.

00:25:56.240 But as an informed citizen,

00:25:57.740 you should say it is.

00:25:59.380 That should be your

00:26:00.380 starting assumption.

00:26:01.720 I don't know if it's corrupt,

00:26:03.480 but yeah,

00:26:03.880 that's what they said. 0.51

00:26:05.920 They confess they're corrupt

00:26:07.740 by not giving you

00:26:08.920 the information.

00:26:11.040 How about any

00:26:12.060 omnibus spending bill

00:26:13.600 where they take something

00:26:14.900 that could be something

00:26:16.560 that the citizens

00:26:17.500 would understand.

00:26:19.340 Let's spend this money

00:26:20.420 for this specific thing.

00:26:22.400 And then they lump it

00:26:23.360 all together

00:26:23.800 into a big confusing bill,

00:26:25.860 the purpose of which

00:26:27.000 is a little bit

00:26:28.740 of horse trading, right?

00:26:29.860 But some of it is

00:26:31.560 about bamboozling

00:26:34.380 the public

00:26:34.900 so we can't tell

00:26:35.760 what's in there.

00:26:37.140 What should you assume

00:26:38.200 about an omnibus

00:26:39.480 spending bill

00:26:40.380 that's full of corruption?

00:26:43.620 I don't know,

00:26:44.020 doesn't mean it is,

00:26:45.480 but that's

00:26:46.060 a reasonable assumption.

00:26:48.840 All right,

00:26:49.500 speaking of fake things,

00:26:50.940 I think that we should

00:26:52.000 start celebrating

00:26:53.040 January 6th

00:26:54.020 every year

00:26:54.560 and call it

00:26:55.720 Fake Insurrection Day.

00:26:56.900 and we should commemorate

00:26:58.900 that Fake Insurrection Day

00:27:01.220 and I think

00:27:02.200 Fake Insurrection Day

00:27:03.620 should be

00:27:03.940 a national holiday

00:27:05.360 so that we never forget

00:27:07.460 the thing that didn't happen,

00:27:09.640 the insurrection

00:27:10.320 that didn't happen.

00:27:11.980 And we should never forget

00:27:14.120 that it didn't happen

00:27:15.220 so we should always

00:27:16.220 have a national holiday.

00:27:17.840 And I would even go

00:27:20.400 so far as to say

00:27:21.100 we should have

00:27:21.540 a hoax calendar.

00:27:23.480 So there should be

00:27:24.280 a calendar that shows

00:27:25.160 on this day

00:27:25.920 the fine people hoax

00:27:28.300 or the drinking bleach hoax

00:27:29.680 or the Russia collusion hoax

00:27:32.180 was hatched.

00:27:33.800 So you can see

00:27:34.440 how many hoaxes

00:27:35.440 have happened

00:27:36.600 on how many days.

00:27:37.820 Now it would be

00:27:38.280 different years

00:27:39.320 that you'd be saying it

00:27:40.260 but I'd like to see

00:27:41.860 just how many hoaxes

00:27:42.760 there are

00:27:43.220 because I think

00:27:44.020 you could fill the calendar

00:27:45.040 with just modern hoaxes.

00:27:47.800 So I plan to

00:27:48.960 celebrate next year

00:27:50.740 as Fake Insurrection Day

00:27:52.480 January 6th.

00:27:54.100 I hope you'll all join me.

00:27:57.860 Factcheck.org

00:27:59.020 says

00:28:00.460 and I quote

00:28:01.220 there is no evidence

00:28:02.740 that quote

00:28:03.460 unindicted co-conspirators

00:28:05.340 mentioned in federal indictments

00:28:07.200 related to the

00:28:08.340 January 6th

00:28:09.580 capital tax

00:28:10.440 are undercover

00:28:11.760 FBI agents

00:28:13.380 or informants

00:28:14.080 as conservative

00:28:15.420 outlets have claimed.

00:28:17.040 So the fact check

00:28:17.680 is there's no evidence

00:28:18.960 of it.

00:28:19.880 No evidence of it.

00:28:20.940 But also

00:28:22.220 who is it

00:28:24.720 who would give us

00:28:25.260 the evidence?

00:28:27.000 Huh.

00:28:28.100 Where does evidence

00:28:29.400 of that sort of thing

00:28:30.440 come from?

00:28:31.800 You need some kind

00:28:32.860 of an organization

00:28:33.720 that works for the government

00:28:35.020 of course

00:28:36.520 and it would be

00:28:37.860 some organization

00:28:38.500 that investigates things.

00:28:41.780 So if we wanted

00:28:42.940 to find out

00:28:43.580 if the FBI

00:28:44.400 had been involved

00:28:45.400 in some bad behavior

00:28:46.420 you would call

00:28:47.700 this entity

00:28:48.620 that works

00:28:49.700 for the government

00:28:50.340 that investigates

00:28:51.900 things

00:28:52.300 and that would

00:28:54.960 be the FBI

00:28:55.560 wouldn't it?

00:28:57.100 That's right.

00:28:58.340 The FBI

00:28:59.060 looked into

00:28:59.800 whether the FBI

00:29:00.820 had bad behavior

00:29:02.720 and said

00:29:03.240 well

00:29:03.540 no evidence

00:29:04.300 of it.

00:29:06.260 What should

00:29:06.960 you assume?

00:29:09.660 You should assume

00:29:10.860 that they're guilty

00:29:11.820 even if they're not

00:29:13.580 because they've told you

00:29:15.540 basically they're guilty

00:29:16.540 even if they're not.

00:29:18.940 They've confessed.

00:29:20.740 That's the way

00:29:21.340 governments confess.

00:29:22.800 The way a government

00:29:23.540 confess is

00:29:24.240 I'm not going to tell you.

00:29:25.720 As soon as you hear it

00:29:26.780 that's a guilty.

00:29:28.580 That's a guilty.

00:29:31.200 Well apparently

00:29:32.080 Ted Cruz

00:29:32.780 was speaking

00:29:34.700 yesterday I guess

00:29:35.620 and referred to

00:29:37.000 some members

00:29:38.000 of the January 6th thing

00:29:39.300 as a violent

00:29:40.220 terrorist attack.

00:29:42.180 Now unfortunately

00:29:42.720 he did not

00:29:43.400 parse his words

00:29:44.220 as well as I just did

00:29:45.400 and it sounded like

00:29:46.720 he was calling

00:29:47.180 the whole event

00:29:48.040 a violent terrorist attack

00:29:49.600 which got him

00:29:50.900 an appearance

00:29:51.320 on Tucker Carlson's show

00:29:52.700 and

00:29:53.080 this is one of the reasons

00:29:55.960 we like

00:29:56.480 Tucker Carlson.

00:29:58.560 He didn't give him

00:29:59.500 a break.

00:30:01.260 Tucker did not

00:30:02.200 give him 0.96

00:30:02.700 a freaking break. 0.98

00:30:04.480 Nor should he have. 0.90

00:30:06.440 Nor should he have.

00:30:08.300 This

00:30:08.520 and

00:30:10.320 Tucker's take on it

00:30:11.660 was

00:30:11.980 that Ted Cruz

00:30:14.760 of all people

00:30:15.700 knows how to

00:30:17.040 choose words.

00:30:18.860 Am I right?

00:30:20.400 I mean Tucker's

00:30:21.040 right about that.

00:30:23.180 That there's probably

00:30:23.840 few people

00:30:24.800 in the country

00:30:26.080 who would be

00:30:27.460 as good

00:30:28.100 at choosing

00:30:29.100 words in public

00:30:30.080 as Ted Cruz.

00:30:31.180 The guy's argued

00:30:31.980 cases to the

00:30:32.880 Supreme Court.

00:30:33.920 He's run for president.

00:30:35.280 He's a senator.

00:30:36.880 You know

00:30:37.040 ex-attorney

00:30:38.020 or still attorney

00:30:39.020 I don't know.

00:30:39.440 But really

00:30:41.160 who chooses

00:30:42.940 their words

00:30:43.440 more carefully

00:30:44.020 than Ted Cruz?

00:30:44.900 And if he

00:30:46.140 even used

00:30:47.400 the term

00:30:47.800 a violent

00:30:48.200 terrorist attack

00:30:49.020 I think Tucker

00:30:50.100 was trying to

00:30:50.660 figure out 0.74

00:30:51.160 what the hell? 0.70

00:30:53.800 Like how do you 0.94

00:30:54.360 explain

00:30:54.820 that you never

00:30:56.020 make that kind

00:30:56.680 of mistake

00:30:57.280 we think you're

00:30:58.500 the person

00:30:58.840 who doesn't

00:30:59.240 make that mistake

00:30:59.900 and then you

00:31:00.900 seem to have

00:31:01.380 made one of

00:31:01.780 the biggest

00:31:02.340 mistakes

00:31:03.020 you could make

00:31:04.560 of choosing

00:31:05.060 the wrong

00:31:05.480 words.

00:31:05.860 I mean really

00:31:06.400 it would be

00:31:07.940 hard to choose

00:31:08.620 wronger words

00:31:09.580 than that

00:31:10.040 for your base.

00:31:12.520 And

00:31:12.800 Ted Cruz's

00:31:14.580 defense

00:31:15.040 I accept

00:31:16.820 which is that

00:31:18.820 he's always

00:31:19.440 called

00:31:19.840 violence

00:31:20.860 terrorism.

00:31:23.820 Now that seems

00:31:24.320 like something

00:31:24.760 you could

00:31:25.260 fact check

00:31:26.040 and I think

00:31:26.540 somebody would

00:31:27.020 have done it

00:31:27.380 by now.

00:31:28.280 So I'm

00:31:28.540 pretty sure

00:31:29.120 pretty sure

00:31:30.600 that Ted Cruz

00:31:32.380 was just

00:31:32.860 using his

00:31:33.820 normal

00:31:34.460 historical

00:31:35.460 language

00:31:35.880 for bad

00:31:37.640 behavior

00:31:38.060 and it

00:31:39.020 looked like

00:31:39.380 he was just

00:31:39.820 trying to

00:31:40.420 pace the

00:31:41.600 people who

00:31:42.120 said there

00:31:43.520 was violence

00:31:44.060 there.

00:31:45.000 But man

00:31:45.820 I think he

00:31:46.280 really lost

00:31:47.160 his chance

00:31:47.660 to be president

00:31:48.320 there.

00:31:49.320 How many of

00:31:49.760 you feel that?

00:31:51.200 Because the

00:31:51.680 problem is

00:31:52.220 that this

00:31:53.480 small slip

00:31:54.400 and I think

00:31:55.120 it was actually

00:31:55.700 just a slip

00:31:57.120 I don't think

00:31:57.640 there was bad

00:31:58.060 intention behind

00:31:58.880 it.

00:31:59.440 There's no

00:31:59.720 evidence of

00:32:00.220 that anyway.

00:32:00.600 And not

00:32:02.620 only is there

00:32:03.020 no evidence

00:32:03.520 but it

00:32:03.860 wouldn't make

00:32:04.240 sense.

00:32:05.820 There's no

00:32:06.460 way you

00:32:06.860 can imagine

00:32:07.420 that Ted

00:32:08.980 Cruz would

00:32:09.460 say those

00:32:09.900 things.

00:32:11.160 Well let me

00:32:11.760 try the

00:32:12.100 really filter.

00:32:13.980 Let's try

00:32:14.460 it.

00:32:15.660 Let's do

00:32:16.280 the fake

00:32:16.680 news filter

00:32:17.240 on this.

00:32:18.520 The claim

00:32:19.160 is that

00:32:19.740 Ted Cruz

00:32:20.940 referred to

00:32:21.720 a bunch

00:32:22.340 of

00:32:22.600 Republicans

00:32:23.820 as 0.90

00:32:27.080 violent 0.86

00:32:27.520 terrorists 0.94

00:32:28.180 and

00:32:30.220 doing

00:32:30.700 violent

00:32:31.060 terrorist

00:32:31.400 attack

00:32:31.900 while we

00:32:33.340 assume he's

00:32:34.000 going to

00:32:34.200 run for

00:32:34.540 president

00:32:34.980 and requires

00:32:36.880 all of the

00:32:37.780 support of

00:32:39.080 these people.

00:32:40.240 Really?

00:32:40.640 Really?

00:32:41.700 Really?

00:32:43.480 Ted Cruz

00:32:44.180 Cruz, the

00:32:45.820 person who

00:32:46.600 we think is

00:32:49.280 operating a

00:32:49.860 very high

00:32:50.280 capability

00:32:50.800 even if you

00:32:51.320 don't like

00:32:51.640 him.

00:32:52.140 You think

00:32:52.560 that that

00:32:52.980 person, Ted

00:32:53.620 Cruz, who's

00:32:54.720 going to run

00:32:55.080 for president

00:32:55.620 probably as a

00:32:57.080 Republican is

00:32:59.260 going to insult

00:33:00.280 all the

00:33:00.620 Republicans in

00:33:01.360 public and

00:33:02.120 call them 0.66

00:33:02.420 terrorists. 0.53

00:33:03.400 Really?

00:33:04.680 Really?

00:33:06.140 It doesn't

00:33:06.680 really pass that

00:33:07.280 test, does

00:33:07.780 it?

00:33:09.080 The really

00:33:09.800 test does

00:33:11.140 absolve Ted

00:33:11.960 Cruz unless we

00:33:13.360 hear something

00:33:13.740 else.

00:33:15.380 And as

00:33:15.760 others have

00:33:16.200 pointed out, he

00:33:16.740 got in within

00:33:17.280 the 48-hour

00:33:18.280 clarification window

00:33:20.060 that I like to

00:33:20.820 use.

00:33:21.480 If you apologize

00:33:22.320 or clarify within

00:33:23.540 48 hours, I

00:33:25.300 just say, let's

00:33:26.420 accept that.

00:33:28.020 Unless it's

00:33:28.700 crazy talk.

00:33:29.680 I don't think it

00:33:30.140 was crazy talk.

00:33:31.720 I think it was a

00:33:32.780 really bad

00:33:33.320 mistake.

00:33:34.640 But I accept

00:33:35.700 his clarification.

00:33:37.280 I do think it

00:33:37.940 might keep him

00:33:38.440 from getting

00:33:39.800 nominated for

00:33:40.420 president.

00:33:40.740 People are not 0.99

00:33:42.620 going to forget

00:33:43.200 that.

00:33:43.580 That's a big

00:33:44.280 mistake.

00:33:45.160 But I think it

00:33:45.520 was just a

00:33:46.000 mistake.

00:33:48.740 All right.

00:33:50.980 Why is it that

00:33:51.920 we allow big

00:33:53.140 pharma to

00:33:53.820 advertise on

00:33:54.940 the news and

00:33:56.240 also on social

00:33:56.880 media?

00:33:59.180 Why do we

00:33:59.880 allow that?

00:34:00.900 Are you aware?

00:34:01.760 Now, I saw

00:34:02.400 this fact,

00:34:03.820 alleged fact,

00:34:04.780 on social media

00:34:05.860 today, on

00:34:06.540 Twitter.

00:34:07.400 Somebody said

00:34:08.060 that the only

00:34:08.680 two countries

00:34:09.420 that allow

00:34:10.000 pharma to

00:34:11.040 advertise directly

00:34:12.020 to consumers

00:34:12.720 are New

00:34:14.040 Zealand and

00:34:14.580 the United

00:34:15.020 States.

00:34:16.660 Is that

00:34:16.960 true?

00:34:17.920 Give me a

00:34:18.360 fact check on

00:34:18.940 that.

00:34:19.660 Is it true

00:34:20.100 that only two

00:34:20.860 countries allow

00:34:22.880 pharma to

00:34:23.800 advertise directly

00:34:25.160 to consumers?

00:34:26.140 Now, that

00:34:26.460 would include

00:34:26.960 being on TV,

00:34:28.140 news, but it

00:34:29.300 would also

00:34:29.580 include social

00:34:30.220 media.

00:34:30.580 They couldn't

00:34:30.880 do it at

00:34:31.220 all.

00:34:32.440 Somebody says

00:34:32.940 Mexico allows 0.77

00:34:33.760 it.

00:34:35.380 Somebody says

00:34:35.920 Poland allows 0.82

00:34:36.640 it.

00:34:36.900 So, but

00:34:40.120 we can all

00:34:40.560 agree that

00:34:41.280 other, and

00:34:42.700 I heard that

00:34:43.120 India doesn't 1.00

00:34:43.860 allow it.

00:34:50.640 Okay.

00:34:51.860 Anyway, so

00:34:52.740 shouldn't the

00:34:56.180 pandemic be

00:34:57.020 the reason that

00:34:57.760 we banned

00:34:58.260 pharma advertising

00:34:59.360 to the public?

00:35:00.920 Can you think

00:35:01.420 of a better

00:35:01.780 reason?

00:35:02.480 Because the

00:35:02.840 problem is not

00:35:03.540 just that the

00:35:05.320 public gets

00:35:06.240 excited about

00:35:06.880 drugs and

00:35:07.460 then goes and

00:35:09.120 twists the arm

00:35:09.820 of their

00:35:10.080 doctor, which

00:35:10.740 is the whole

00:35:11.100 point of it.

00:35:12.360 But at

00:35:14.320 this point,

00:35:15.360 the drug, I'm

00:35:16.460 sorry, the

00:35:16.760 pharma companies,

00:35:17.520 because they're

00:35:18.040 the major

00:35:18.460 advertisers, they

00:35:20.080 can control

00:35:20.700 what the news

00:35:21.260 says about

00:35:23.060 themselves during

00:35:24.400 a pandemic.

00:35:25.840 And it looks

00:35:26.640 like they do.

00:35:28.520 And how

00:35:32.300 can we stand

00:35:32.860 for this?

00:35:33.320 is there

00:35:34.840 anybody in

00:35:35.500 our

00:35:35.780 ineffective, 0.56

00:35:37.020 flaccid 0.96

00:35:38.520 government that

00:35:39.960 is pushing a

00:35:41.280 bill that is

00:35:42.700 to ban this

00:35:43.980 advertising?

00:35:45.000 Now, this

00:35:45.680 would take Fox

00:35:46.380 News practically

00:35:47.160 off the air,

00:35:47.860 wouldn't it?

00:35:48.780 Probably CNN

00:35:49.560 too.

00:35:50.100 Because it

00:35:50.660 would really,

00:35:51.300 really hurt the

00:35:53.580 business model of

00:35:54.500 a lot of these

00:35:54.880 people.

00:35:55.480 But it's a must

00:35:56.480 do.

00:35:57.800 You know, you

00:35:58.080 need somebody

00:35:58.560 like, somebody

00:35:59.640 who's got some 0.99

00:36:00.180 balls. 0.99

00:36:03.480 Rand Paul?

00:36:05.620 Is there

00:36:06.180 anybody in

00:36:06.660 Congress who

00:36:07.180 has any 0.98

00:36:08.940 balls at all 0.98

00:36:09.660 besides Rand

00:36:11.020 Paul?

00:36:12.000 Right?

00:36:12.400 I feel like

00:36:13.160 Rand Paul needs

00:36:13.820 to do it because

00:36:14.360 everybody else is

00:36:15.020 weak and 0.90

00:36:15.400 ineffective. 0.99

00:36:16.620 And he's the

00:36:17.080 only one who

00:36:17.440 would be brave

00:36:17.940 enough to do

00:36:18.420 it.

00:36:20.620 I think.

00:36:21.480 I don't think

00:36:21.900 there's anybody

00:36:22.280 else brave enough

00:36:22.920 to do it.

00:36:24.040 Am I wrong?

00:36:24.800 Name one person

00:36:27.600 in Congress who

00:36:28.420 would be brave

00:36:29.020 enough to take

00:36:29.620 on Big Pharma.

00:36:33.960 Give me a name

00:36:35.040 of anybody in

00:36:35.860 Congress who

00:36:36.340 would be brave

00:36:37.060 enough to do

00:36:37.560 that.

00:36:38.920 You say Tom

00:36:39.660 Cotton, but I

00:36:40.960 need to, you

00:36:41.700 may be, I

00:36:42.520 need to see it.

00:36:44.100 I mean, he

00:36:44.600 goes hard at

00:36:45.420 China and goes 0.99

00:36:46.140 hard at a lot

00:36:46.660 of stuff.

00:36:47.840 But he also

00:36:48.760 stays within the

00:36:50.040 realm of safety

00:36:51.880 even when he's

00:36:52.460 going hard.

00:36:54.140 You say

00:36:54.480 Matt Gaetz?

00:36:55.920 Maybe.

00:36:56.540 I mean, maybe.

00:36:59.900 Swalwell, no.

00:37:01.060 Massey, yeah,

00:37:01.800 there you go.

00:37:02.880 Thomas Massey.

00:37:04.440 How about

00:37:04.900 Thomas Massey?

00:37:07.020 Thomas, you

00:37:07.680 might be

00:37:07.980 listening right

00:37:08.520 now.

00:37:09.520 Is there

00:37:09.800 anything wrong

00:37:10.300 with that?

00:37:11.160 You could get

00:37:11.860 a shit ton of

00:37:12.960 support. 0.87

00:37:14.260 Boy, talk about

00:37:14.840 something that the

00:37:15.540 public is ready

00:37:16.260 to support.

00:37:17.860 How many people

00:37:18.620 would say no

00:37:19.340 to that bill?

00:37:21.280 It would be

00:37:21.660 pretty embarrassing

00:37:22.320 if Congress

00:37:23.020 turns it down

00:37:24.380 and it's got

00:37:24.860 85% public

00:37:26.000 support?

00:37:26.960 Because I

00:37:27.300 think it

00:37:27.580 would,

00:37:28.380 wouldn't it?

00:37:29.540 Don't you

00:37:29.840 think you,

00:37:30.200 well, you'd be

00:37:30.560 over 75 to

00:37:32.580 ban advertising,

00:37:33.460 I'm sure of it.

00:37:35.580 All right, but

00:37:36.200 let's put them

00:37:36.580 in that position.

00:37:37.240 So those few

00:37:40.320 people in

00:37:40.820 Congress who

00:37:41.900 actually have

00:37:42.400 some guts,

00:37:44.020 let's get that

00:37:44.940 done.

00:37:45.900 All right, how

00:37:46.500 many of you

00:37:46.900 wanted me to

00:37:47.840 do a deep

00:37:50.420 dive on the

00:37:51.000 Dr. Malone

00:37:51.580 interview,

00:37:52.120 three-hour

00:37:52.480 interview with

00:37:53.320 Joe Rogan.

00:37:55.820 I'm going to

00:37:56.420 use this just

00:37:57.060 to put the,

00:37:57.980 try to put to

00:37:58.820 bed the

00:38:00.540 talking about

00:38:01.640 the pandemic.

00:38:03.080 I just want 0.96

00:38:03.960 to like hit 0.99

00:38:04.440 the Dr. Malone

00:38:05.200 stuff and then

00:38:06.440 I won't be able

00:38:07.040 to not talk

00:38:07.700 about the

00:38:08.020 pandemic because

00:38:08.720 it's just too

00:38:09.220 everywhere, but

00:38:10.080 I'm going to

00:38:10.500 make a concerted

00:38:11.660 effort to really

00:38:13.180 ramp down hard

00:38:14.900 on the talk.

00:38:16.800 Around February

00:38:17.500 one, I'm

00:38:17.940 going to ramp

00:38:18.300 it back up

00:38:18.780 again because

00:38:19.500 we have to

00:38:20.300 get serious

00:38:20.800 about getting

00:38:21.320 out of the

00:38:21.760 mandates.

00:38:23.100 But many

00:38:24.320 of you asked

00:38:24.940 me to do

00:38:26.140 my homework

00:38:26.740 and listen

00:38:28.620 to the whole

00:38:28.940 Dr. Malone

00:38:29.420 thing and

00:38:30.380 give you a

00:38:30.740 readout and

00:38:31.200 I will do

00:38:31.500 that and I

00:38:31.960 will introduce

00:38:32.440 to you another

00:38:33.220 filter, a

00:38:34.720 real good one.

00:38:35.820 You ready for

00:38:36.280 this one?

00:38:37.380 This is a

00:38:38.000 variant on the

00:38:38.920 Gelman amnesia 0.99

00:38:40.360 filter, famous

00:38:42.700 because a famous

00:38:44.280 physicist whose

00:38:45.860 last name was

00:38:46.620 Gelman, noticed

00:38:48.900 that when he

00:38:49.380 read stories that

00:38:50.220 involved his

00:38:51.060 expertise, he

00:38:52.520 could tell that

00:38:53.080 the news was

00:38:53.720 fake or

00:38:54.380 incorrect.

00:38:55.640 Every time.

00:38:57.300 So it seemed

00:38:57.840 like every time

00:38:58.620 he read about

00:38:59.180 physics, it was

00:39:00.080 just the story

00:39:00.740 was wrong.

00:39:01.960 But then he

00:39:02.680 noticed that he

00:39:03.960 would believe the

00:39:04.660 other stories.

00:39:06.000 And he started

00:39:06.840 to say, wait a

00:39:07.520 minute, what are

00:39:08.640 the odds that

00:39:09.960 every time I read

00:39:11.060 a story, my

00:39:12.380 expertise is wrong,

00:39:13.580 but when I

00:39:14.660 read stories that

00:39:15.340 are not my

00:39:15.780 expertise, I

00:39:16.480 believe that

00:39:16.940 they're true.

00:39:18.580 What's up with

00:39:19.320 that?

00:39:20.380 So obviously

00:39:21.040 there's a lot

00:39:22.280 more fake news.

00:39:23.960 Now I'm going

00:39:24.380 to use a variant

00:39:25.060 of that filter

00:39:25.820 on the Dr.

00:39:27.460 Malone interview.

00:39:28.020 Do you think

00:39:29.420 that I have the

00:39:30.040 capability to

00:39:32.200 assess his

00:39:33.140 medical and

00:39:34.080 scientific expertise?

00:39:36.840 No.

00:39:37.840 No.

00:39:38.980 No, I don't

00:39:39.800 have that.

00:39:40.920 So I'm going

00:39:41.960 to use instead

00:39:42.820 the Gelman 0.89

00:39:43.700 filter.

00:39:45.200 And that means

00:39:45.840 that if I can

00:39:46.480 tell that he

00:39:47.200 is, let's say,

00:39:48.700 wrong, I'll just

00:39:50.040 use wrong instead

00:39:50.960 of lying or

00:39:51.920 whatever, I'll

00:39:52.880 just say wrong.

00:39:54.180 If I can

00:39:54.720 determine he's

00:39:55.360 wrong on the

00:39:56.180 few things that

00:39:56.980 I do have

00:39:57.540 vision on,

00:39:58.780 should I trust

00:39:59.660 him on the

00:40:01.440 doctor parts?

00:40:03.860 What do you

00:40:04.520 say?

00:40:05.060 If I knew

00:40:05.780 for sure, this

00:40:06.560 is just

00:40:06.780 hypothetical, if

00:40:07.940 I knew for

00:40:08.480 sure that the

00:40:09.140 few things he

00:40:09.940 talked about

00:40:10.500 that I did

00:40:11.600 have knowledge

00:40:12.360 about, if I

00:40:13.080 knew they

00:40:13.380 were wrong,

00:40:14.900 should I

00:40:15.340 trust the

00:40:15.900 doctor part

00:40:16.600 that I can't

00:40:17.420 really pierce?

00:40:19.320 Well, that's

00:40:19.940 the question I

00:40:20.540 will put to

00:40:20.920 you.

00:40:21.140 You don't

00:40:21.420 need to

00:40:21.700 answer it.

00:40:22.460 I will tell

00:40:22.960 you how many

00:40:23.400 things I

00:40:23.860 spotted that I

00:40:24.760 have a problem

00:40:25.280 with that are

00:40:26.340 outside the

00:40:27.760 expertise that I

00:40:29.060 wouldn't challenge.

00:40:29.960 Okay?

00:40:30.600 So here's my

00:40:31.140 bottom line on

00:40:32.040 Dr. Malone,

00:40:33.860 having watched

00:40:34.440 the entire thing.

00:40:35.240 Number one,

00:40:35.780 he's very

00:40:36.140 impressive.

00:40:37.560 Very impressive.

00:40:38.500 Number two,

00:40:39.780 Joe Rogan,

00:40:40.360 very impressive.

00:40:42.280 Hearing the

00:40:42.940 entire three

00:40:43.540 hours, I

00:40:44.760 would say that

00:40:45.480 Joe Rogan's

00:40:46.480 interview skills,

00:40:48.100 excellent.

00:40:49.660 Great job.

00:40:50.880 I mean, as

00:40:51.400 entertainment, as

00:40:52.240 information, great

00:40:53.600 job.

00:40:54.720 And a service to

00:40:56.020 the world, I

00:40:56.540 think.

00:40:57.420 Now, I've

00:40:57.840 complained that

00:40:58.540 not having fact

00:41:00.300 checking is a

00:41:00.860 problem, but I'll

00:41:01.800 do the fact

00:41:02.280 checking now, and

00:41:03.620 then you can

00:41:04.140 follow up on it

00:41:04.880 yourself.

00:41:06.740 The following

00:41:07.540 things that Dr. 0.73

00:41:08.300 Malone said, I

00:41:09.520 agree with

00:41:10.120 completely.

00:41:11.800 And most of

00:41:12.920 what he said,

00:41:13.380 actually, I

00:41:13.840 agree with

00:41:14.340 completely.

00:41:15.840 And the

00:41:16.720 following list

00:41:17.400 are things we

00:41:18.120 can all agree

00:41:18.640 on.

00:41:19.520 Big pharma is

00:41:20.480 historically terribly

00:41:21.620 corrupt, like

00:41:22.940 way more than 0.95

00:41:23.560 you could even

00:41:24.160 imagine.

00:41:25.620 I agree.

00:41:27.240 Everybody agree

00:41:28.020 so far?

00:41:28.960 Big pharma

00:41:29.560 historically has

00:41:30.580 been caught

00:41:31.120 enough times,

00:41:33.120 and gone to

00:41:33.820 court enough

00:41:34.300 times, and

00:41:34.840 lost enough

00:41:35.300 times.

00:41:35.820 We can say

00:41:36.480 with some

00:41:36.820 certainty that

00:41:37.720 as an

00:41:38.160 industry, it's

00:41:38.860 a seriously

00:41:39.900 messed up

00:41:40.480 industry.

00:41:41.380 Totally agree.

00:41:43.540 That the

00:41:44.380 trials for

00:41:45.240 the vaccines

00:41:46.480 were rushed

00:41:47.440 in terms of

00:41:49.000 how we would

00:41:49.580 prefer.

00:41:50.840 Totally agree.

00:41:52.340 It was a

00:41:52.920 crisis.

00:41:53.460 We rushed.

00:41:54.080 Everybody knew

00:41:54.580 it.

00:41:55.300 So that

00:41:56.180 introduces risk.

00:41:57.460 Totally agree.

00:41:59.060 He said that

00:42:00.060 even these

00:42:00.740 trials, you

00:42:02.420 think you're

00:42:02.860 getting objective

00:42:03.720 information.

00:42:04.320 He gave one

00:42:04.880 good example.

00:42:05.440 But actually,

00:42:07.060 it could be a

00:42:07.860 lot more

00:42:08.200 subjective than

00:42:08.980 you think.

00:42:09.940 Because there's

00:42:10.380 tons of stuff

00:42:11.040 being submitted

00:42:11.680 for approval

00:42:12.340 by the FDA.

00:42:13.640 And there's a

00:42:14.200 whole bunch of

00:42:14.680 judgment calls

00:42:15.560 about, do you

00:42:17.060 measure this or

00:42:17.940 measure it this

00:42:18.820 way?

00:42:19.400 So the people

00:42:19.980 submitting the

00:42:20.780 information have

00:42:21.380 a whole bunch

00:42:22.160 of subjectivity

00:42:23.780 about what is

00:42:25.300 accurate and what

00:42:26.000 is not, which

00:42:27.300 is a real

00:42:27.680 problem.

00:42:29.400 So I agree

00:42:30.240 with that.

00:42:31.300 That sounds

00:42:31.780 right.

00:42:33.280 And then all

00:42:34.120 the things he

00:42:34.560 talked about,

00:42:35.080 about the

00:42:35.480 spike protein

00:42:36.140 being risky,

00:42:37.260 about how

00:42:37.800 especially it

00:42:39.000 could be risky

00:42:39.580 for pregnant

00:42:41.060 women, those 1.00

00:42:42.340 are all things

00:42:42.860 I say, well,

00:42:44.080 he's the

00:42:44.580 doctor.

00:42:46.140 I'm not.

00:42:47.160 If he says

00:42:48.020 there's a

00:42:48.520 logical reason

00:42:49.340 to think that

00:42:49.860 this spike

00:42:50.360 protein could

00:42:51.760 cause some

00:42:53.520 issues later,

00:42:54.380 especially in

00:42:55.040 reproduction, I

00:42:56.420 would say, well,

00:42:57.420 I'm not going to

00:42:57.800 question that.

00:42:58.540 I don't know if

00:42:58.900 it's true or

00:42:59.320 not.

00:43:00.560 But it

00:43:00.900 sounded right.

00:43:02.520 He sounds

00:43:02.980 smart.

00:43:03.740 I can tell

00:43:04.220 that.

00:43:04.900 All right.

00:43:05.180 So those are

00:43:05.620 the things we

00:43:06.160 agree on.

00:43:06.600 So I think

00:43:07.120 on all the

00:43:07.520 big stuff, or

00:43:09.100 the biggest

00:43:09.580 stuff, we

00:43:10.220 actually agree.

00:43:11.420 He's anti-mandate,

00:43:12.760 so am I.

00:43:13.660 He's pro-free

00:43:14.540 speech, even if

00:43:15.400 you're wrong, so 0.97

00:43:16.180 am I.

00:43:17.680 Pretty much we

00:43:18.540 agree on what

00:43:19.180 to do.

00:43:20.080 So I'd say

00:43:20.540 philosophically, I'm

00:43:22.240 identical.

00:43:23.920 Can I say

00:43:24.620 that?

00:43:26.060 Philosophically,

00:43:26.500 about how we

00:43:27.200 should treat the

00:43:27.940 pandemic, I think

00:43:29.420 I'm identical with

00:43:30.700 Dr. Malone.

00:43:31.980 So no argument

00:43:33.120 there.

00:43:34.300 Here is the,

00:43:35.920 using the

00:43:36.940 Dr.

00:43:37.500 Gelman

00:43:37.980 approach, I'm

00:43:41.840 going to tell

00:43:42.060 you the things

00:43:42.440 that I think he

00:43:42.900 got wrong.

00:43:44.120 And by wrong, I

00:43:45.380 mean that they

00:43:45.960 look sketchy to

00:43:46.940 me.

00:43:48.480 Doesn't mean that

00:43:49.480 he's wrong and 0.64

00:43:50.220 I'm right, right?

00:43:51.520 I'm just saying

00:43:52.300 that from my

00:43:52.960 perspective, in

00:43:54.420 the things I

00:43:55.020 know, these are

00:43:55.760 the things that I

00:43:56.360 think he got

00:43:56.800 wrong.

00:43:57.140 Number one, he

00:44:00.460 often said that he

00:44:01.960 doesn't need to be

00:44:03.100 doing this, all the

00:44:04.300 public stuff, because

00:44:06.220 he's 62, his life

00:44:08.640 is good, he can

00:44:09.440 retire to his

00:44:10.940 farm, I guess he's

00:44:11.800 got enough money, so

00:44:13.540 he doesn't need to do

00:44:14.300 any of this.

00:44:15.580 That is a sketchy

00:44:17.120 claim that I would

00:44:18.080 say is close to a

00:44:19.080 lie.

00:44:20.960 Why?

00:44:22.240 Because it's clear

00:44:23.140 that he likes doing

00:44:24.060 this.

00:44:25.040 So it might be true 0.72

00:44:26.300 that nobody's

00:44:26.900 paying him, that

00:44:28.500 part I believe, but

00:44:30.060 he is getting a lot

00:44:31.160 out of this, which

00:44:33.200 he's enjoying it.

00:44:34.580 One assumes that

00:44:35.800 he has enjoyed

00:44:36.480 being a doctor, and

00:44:40.180 that that gives you

00:44:40.960 like a little local

00:44:42.000 fame, maybe even

00:44:43.460 fame within the

00:44:44.260 doctor community,

00:44:45.240 because he was

00:44:45.780 sort of a superstar

00:44:47.140 within some fields

00:44:48.340 within doctoring.

00:44:49.700 But when you go

00:44:50.800 from famous as a

00:44:52.560 doctor to famous

00:44:54.440 just famous,

00:44:56.300 which is what

00:44:57.060 happened to Dr.

00:44:57.740 Malone, that is

00:44:59.120 addictive.

00:45:00.740 So what would

00:45:01.780 have been more

00:45:02.220 honest is, I

00:45:04.300 have recently

00:45:05.040 become addicted to

00:45:06.320 a drug called

00:45:07.120 fame, and since

00:45:10.280 I can't get off

00:45:11.000 the drug, if I

00:45:13.520 can't say something

00:45:14.240 that's true, I'm

00:45:16.000 going to say

00:45:16.380 something, because

00:45:17.200 I need more of

00:45:17.740 the drug.

00:45:20.200 So sketchy claim

00:45:21.900 number one, that he

00:45:22.820 doesn't have a

00:45:23.460 downside interest

00:45:24.260 influencing me.

00:45:26.140 Would you say the

00:45:27.020 same about me?

00:45:28.580 Because I have

00:45:29.320 F you money.

00:45:30.060 He does too,

00:45:30.620 apparently.

00:45:31.140 He has F you

00:45:31.660 money.

00:45:32.500 Would you say

00:45:33.080 that therefore I

00:45:33.980 am free from

00:45:35.400 bias?

00:45:36.380 You shouldn't.

00:45:38.420 You should only

00:45:39.260 know that I'm free

00:45:39.960 from somebody

00:45:40.680 paying me or

00:45:41.660 having to be

00:45:43.080 poor.

00:45:43.500 I am free from

00:45:44.240 those.

00:45:44.580 But I do make

00:45:46.540 money from

00:45:48.760 monetizing, so am I

00:45:52.100 influenced by money

00:45:52.860 even though I

00:45:53.280 don't really need

00:45:53.940 it?

00:45:54.600 Yeah, yeah.

00:45:55.300 Everybody's

00:45:55.780 influenced by money

00:45:56.540 even when they

00:45:57.020 don't need it.

00:45:58.020 So you should

00:45:58.520 incorporate that

00:45:59.240 when you view

00:45:59.760 me.

00:46:01.120 Am I addicted

00:46:02.920 to fame?

00:46:06.660 Would I do

00:46:07.560 something because

00:46:08.460 of my addiction

00:46:09.240 to fame?

00:46:11.520 Yes.

00:46:12.000 Yes, I would.

00:46:15.140 So when I call

00:46:15.920 Dr. Malone, he

00:46:17.480 say that he looks 0.63

00:46:18.360 like an addict to 0.95

00:46:19.960 me, an addict to

00:46:21.440 fame, I'm speaking

00:46:24.100 as an addict.

00:46:25.860 It takes one to

00:46:26.600 know one.

00:46:27.520 In fact, I've

00:46:28.160 referred to myself

00:46:28.880 as a grandiose

00:46:30.780 narcissist, meaning

00:46:33.460 that I want

00:46:34.620 attention, but I

00:46:36.180 want to earn it.

00:46:37.300 Like I want to do

00:46:37.960 something that's

00:46:38.460 good for the

00:46:38.940 world, and then

00:46:40.060 the world will

00:46:40.540 say, hey, good

00:46:41.100 job, and then

00:46:41.640 I'll feel good.

00:46:42.920 But I tell you

00:46:43.520 that directly all

00:46:45.100 the time.

00:46:46.420 My take, and of

00:46:47.400 course you can't

00:46:47.980 diagnose people from

00:46:48.980 a distance, but Dr.

00:46:50.580 Malone looks like 0.98

00:46:51.300 one of those, looks

00:46:52.920 like me, basically.

00:46:54.760 He looks like me

00:46:55.620 with a beard, meaning

00:46:58.020 that it looks like

00:46:59.000 he would like to

00:46:59.540 do something really

00:47:00.300 good for the

00:47:00.840 world, and big

00:47:02.860 surprise, he's a

00:47:03.640 doctor, right?

00:47:05.140 Like his whole job

00:47:06.180 is trying to do big

00:47:07.040 things that are good

00:47:07.720 for the world with

00:47:08.460 the trials he works

00:47:09.300 on, et cetera.

00:47:09.960 And so I find it

00:47:17.220 sketchy that he

00:47:18.480 tries to sell us on

00:47:19.800 being free from

00:47:20.540 bias when that's

00:47:21.880 obviously not true.

00:47:23.500 So that's sketchy.

00:47:24.940 But not terribly

00:47:26.100 sketchy, because

00:47:27.340 there's no evidence

00:47:29.540 he's being paid or

00:47:30.460 something.

00:47:31.220 Now he does say

00:47:31.860 that to set him

00:47:32.540 apart from his

00:47:33.300 peers, he thinks

00:47:34.680 the other people

00:47:35.240 with his level of

00:47:36.180 experience about the

00:47:37.160 mRNA platform, all

00:47:39.660 have conflict of

00:47:40.600 interest.

00:47:41.980 That's probably true.

00:47:43.260 I'll bet they do

00:47:43.740 have conflict of

00:47:44.500 interest.

00:47:45.460 But it would be

00:47:46.500 less true to say

00:47:47.380 that he would be

00:47:48.920 free from all of

00:47:49.780 bias.

00:47:51.640 He says he doesn't

00:47:52.360 know for sure what

00:47:53.160 got him banned on

00:47:54.080 Twitter.

00:47:54.580 I call that

00:47:55.400 disingenuous.

00:47:57.540 That's disingenuous.

00:47:59.300 Here's what an

00:48:00.180 honest answer would

00:48:01.140 look like.

00:48:02.500 Well, I don't have

00:48:04.580 100% certainty, but

00:48:06.640 almost certainly it

00:48:07.640 was one of these.

00:48:09.040 And then tell us

00:48:09.940 what he said and

00:48:10.660 whether it was true

00:48:11.340 or not.

00:48:12.380 Instead, he did this

00:48:14.400 little dodge, which 0.98

00:48:15.400 was to say, let's

00:48:16.900 table for a moment,

00:48:17.880 I'm paraphrasing, let's

00:48:19.340 table for a moment

00:48:20.220 whether the information

00:48:21.600 I sent around was

00:48:22.460 accurate, because it's

00:48:24.160 a free speech question.

00:48:27.300 I agree.

00:48:28.600 It is a free speech

00:48:29.560 question.

00:48:30.380 And I also agree that

00:48:32.000 whether it was

00:48:32.560 technically accurate or

00:48:33.600 not, it shouldn't

00:48:34.080 actually matter.

00:48:34.760 Because free speech

00:48:36.680 has to allow that.

00:48:37.900 You have to allow

00:48:38.440 mistakes.

00:48:39.620 So on a philosophical

00:48:41.480 level, completely

00:48:42.540 agree.

00:48:43.380 But if I'm trying to

00:48:44.700 judge him for his

00:48:45.620 genuineness, it seems

00:48:47.700 disingenuous to me to

00:48:50.000 say I'm not even going

00:48:51.500 to give you some

00:48:52.300 examples of what I

00:48:54.000 think I got banned

00:48:54.860 for.

00:48:55.860 Because I would have.

00:48:57.020 I would have.

00:48:57.560 If I got banned on

00:48:58.360 Twitter, I'd be showing

00:48:59.180 you the exact tweets,

00:49:00.780 even if I wasn't sure.

00:49:02.360 I'd say, well, it's

00:49:03.000 either this one or this

00:49:03.820 one, take a look for

00:49:05.460 yourself.

00:49:06.620 Is it true?

00:49:07.740 Oh, wait, I got

00:49:08.340 something wrong?

00:49:09.060 I guess I should fix

00:49:09.820 that.

00:49:11.080 Right?

00:49:11.240 That's what transparency

00:49:12.160 would look like.

00:49:13.560 So he looks disingenuous

00:49:15.680 when he doesn't talk

00:49:16.780 about what specifics of

00:49:18.240 what got him banned,

00:49:19.080 because he doesn't

00:49:19.620 exactly know for sure.

00:49:21.580 I'm not buying that.

00:49:23.140 And then he does a

00:49:24.120 diversion to free

00:49:25.000 speech, which I agree

00:49:26.000 with, but it feels like

00:49:27.600 a diversion.

00:49:29.240 So it feels

00:49:29.920 disingenuous.

00:49:30.640 Here's our biggest

00:49:35.000 point of difference.

00:49:37.080 He believes, this is

00:49:38.540 what I took from it,

00:49:39.380 that hydroxychloroquine

00:49:40.700 and ivermectin work

00:49:42.840 against COVID, and

00:49:44.700 that the data is

00:49:45.700 clear.

00:49:47.320 He doesn't seem to be

00:49:48.520 able, he doesn't seem

00:49:49.560 to have doubt.

00:49:51.560 Give me a fact check on

00:49:52.600 that if you watch it.

00:49:53.500 He doesn't seem to have

00:49:54.560 doubt whether those two

00:49:56.500 drugs are effective and

00:49:57.760 really make a big

00:49:58.880 difference.

00:49:59.200 pretty much no doubt.

00:50:04.220 This is where we differ,

00:50:06.040 because I would say

00:50:07.120 that the experts who

00:50:08.160 have the same amount

00:50:09.020 of expertise as he

00:50:10.400 does say that they

00:50:12.720 might work, but the

00:50:14.480 evidence doesn't

00:50:15.300 support it.

00:50:18.040 Dr. Johnson says,

00:50:19.360 not everyone is a

00:50:20.240 narcissistic fraud like 0.99

00:50:21.520 you, Scott. 0.99

00:50:23.580 I'll hide my mascot

00:50:24.780 for now.

00:50:26.140 Dr. Johnson is not a

00:50:27.300 troll, he's a mascot.

00:50:28.100 Once the trolls get to

00:50:30.360 a high level of

00:50:31.560 effectiveness, then they

00:50:33.140 become mascots.

00:50:34.460 Part of the show, if you

00:50:35.620 will.

00:50:36.980 So since I believe that

00:50:38.700 the people who are best

00:50:39.800 at looking at data have

00:50:41.620 debunked the certainty of

00:50:43.640 hydroxychloroquine and

00:50:44.820 ivermectin, they haven't

00:50:46.540 debunked that they

00:50:47.160 weren't.

00:50:48.400 But they've definitely

00:50:49.140 debunked the certainty.

00:50:50.040 So you have a doctor who's

00:50:52.240 showing certainty on

00:50:54.080 something that, in my

00:50:55.080 opinion, I have a

00:50:57.500 visibility on.

00:50:59.260 Because he and I can

00:51:00.800 both look at the

00:51:01.500 experts and say, well,

00:51:02.400 what do you think?

00:51:03.380 Hey, experts, look at

00:51:04.400 the data.

00:51:05.420 Do you think it looks

00:51:06.060 good to you?

00:51:07.080 And if the experts say

00:51:08.200 yes, then I'd say, well,

00:51:09.580 okay, probably is.

00:51:11.080 But if there are experts

00:51:12.220 you trust who say no,

00:51:14.280 these meta-analyses are a

00:51:15.660 BS, here's why.

00:51:17.640 And by the way, I

00:51:18.180 think you can do a

00:51:18.840 meta-analysis when the

00:51:20.560 studies are similar, but

00:51:22.160 they're just underpowered,

00:51:23.360 don't have enough people.

00:51:24.720 Then if you add them

00:51:25.640 together, the meta-analysis

00:51:26.880 makes sense.

00:51:27.920 But if you do any

00:51:29.020 judgment about what's in

00:51:30.660 the meta-analysis or

00:51:31.800 not, or you know that

00:51:33.880 there's some big studies

00:51:34.820 that look fishy, then

00:51:36.420 don't trust the

00:51:37.120 meta-analysis.

00:51:38.280 So I think that's where

00:51:39.300 the ivermectin and

00:51:40.380 hydroxychloroquine are,

00:51:42.080 in my view.

00:51:43.420 They're in that don't

00:51:44.640 trust the meta-analysis,

00:51:45.860 don't have the RCTs that

00:51:48.400 we'd like.

00:51:50.380 It might work.

00:51:51.600 It's probably worth the

00:51:52.720 risk management.

00:51:54.440 It's worth the risk,

00:51:55.900 because it's a low risk.

00:51:58.560 But I don't think it's

00:51:59.420 proven.

00:52:00.100 So here, this looks

00:52:01.120 sketchy to me.

00:52:02.020 And then there's a

00:52:02.620 whole bunch that comes

00:52:03.520 from his opinion that

00:52:05.080 these are proven.

00:52:06.400 If you believe they're

00:52:07.540 proven, then you would

00:52:09.040 also wonder why they're

00:52:10.140 being so suppressed.

00:52:12.460 Right?

00:52:12.640 So if you think that

00:52:14.180 the evidence is strong

00:52:16.380 for them, you would

00:52:17.700 say, well, there must be

00:52:18.860 some reason that they're

00:52:19.700 being suppressed.

00:52:20.920 And that would be maybe

00:52:21.900 the vaccination companies,

00:52:24.420 Big Pharma is suppressing

00:52:25.500 it for some reason.

00:52:26.900 I would say that claim of

00:52:29.580 Big Pharma suppressing it

00:52:31.080 is accurate-ish, meaning

00:52:34.800 that I'm sure they are,

00:52:36.540 aren't you?

00:52:36.980 Do you think that Big Pharma,

00:52:39.600 who is putting together

00:52:40.900 vaccinations, you don't

00:52:42.060 think that they spend a

00:52:43.000 little bit of money to

00:52:45.080 tell you that that's the

00:52:46.160 best way to go?

00:52:47.660 I would think so.

00:52:49.300 I would think so.

00:52:50.500 We don't have proof, but

00:52:51.580 you'd imagine that would

00:52:53.260 be normal.

00:52:54.380 But that doesn't mean that

00:52:55.760 they work or don't work.

00:52:59.420 Now, he gives the story

00:53:01.900 about some individual who

00:53:05.060 blocked a hydrochloroquine

00:53:07.320 study or ivermectin study

00:53:09.120 or something based on the

00:53:10.140 fact that, you know, he

00:53:11.560 didn't believe there was

00:53:12.440 evidence for it.

00:53:16.780 I've destroyed the story,

00:53:18.280 so just forget that part

00:53:19.640 of the story.

00:53:20.400 The point is, if you

00:53:21.460 believe that these two

00:53:22.260 drugs work, then it looks

00:53:23.940 like a mass conspiracy to

00:53:25.440 stop them.

00:53:26.140 If you believe that people

00:53:27.440 genuinely think they don't

00:53:28.860 work, then all it is is

00:53:30.980 people trying to keep

00:53:31.780 misinformation out of

00:53:33.060 the public.

00:53:34.420 Right?

00:53:35.060 And I feel as if the

00:53:36.880 doctor should have given a

00:53:38.080 little bit of at least

00:53:40.200 respect to the alternative

00:53:42.140 theory that the reason

00:53:44.200 that hydroxychloroquine and

00:53:46.680 ivermectin are being

00:53:47.900 blocked, let's say on social

00:53:49.500 media and other ways, is

00:53:51.720 because people genuinely

00:53:52.720 think that they're unproven.

00:53:56.080 Don't you think that there

00:53:57.200 are plenty of people who

00:53:58.060 genuinely think that those

00:53:59.740 drugs are unproven or don't

00:54:01.400 work?

00:54:01.700 You don't have to have a

00:54:03.700 conspiracy, because we

00:54:05.460 actually have all kinds of

00:54:06.600 different opinions.

00:54:08.600 Yeah, I think that they

00:54:09.780 think they don't work.

00:54:11.160 Now, I don't know that they

00:54:12.180 don't work, but I think the

00:54:13.280 people who look like they're 1.00

00:54:14.460 in some conspiracy probably

00:54:16.280 just think they don't work.

00:54:17.660 That would be the most

00:54:18.340 logical one.

00:54:20.200 All right.

00:54:20.720 Now, the big question I have

00:54:23.340 is if ivermectin works, why

00:54:25.500 the heck don't we see it

00:54:26.480 working somewhere?

00:54:27.940 Now, the good doctor knew

00:54:29.000 that he had to address that.

00:54:30.820 If they work, why aren't they

00:54:33.640 working?

00:54:34.720 Like, where is it working?

00:54:36.000 It would have to be some

00:54:37.580 state, city, hospital,

00:54:39.900 somewhere in the world where

00:54:41.300 they didn't have access to

00:54:42.340 vaccines.

00:54:43.180 They had big success, and it

00:54:45.340 worked.

00:54:46.040 And of course, the doctor is

00:54:46.980 aware that that would be the

00:54:48.240 right question.

00:54:48.880 If these drugs work, why

00:54:51.440 aren't they working?

00:54:53.000 And so he says, well, take a

00:54:55.160 look at Uttar Pradesh, the

00:54:56.460 state in India.

00:54:57.900 And he says that they don't

00:54:59.340 have transparency on what

00:55:00.980 their early treatment was, but

00:55:03.080 he sort of suspected it was

00:55:04.760 one of these, probably

00:55:05.740 ivermectin, could have been

00:55:07.240 hydroxychloroquine.

00:55:08.440 But he suspects they were in

00:55:09.540 the mix and points out that

00:55:11.340 their early treatment method

00:55:15.380 crushed COVID in that state.

00:55:18.880 And so one of his biggest

00:55:20.140 pieces of information or

00:55:22.480 evidence that ivermectin works

00:55:25.160 is this one state in India.

00:55:27.120 But that's completely

00:55:29.560 debunked, in my opinion.

00:55:32.380 Again, if you have to look at

00:55:34.000 the debunk, you have to look at

00:55:35.160 the claim.

00:55:36.080 And unfortunately, we're left to

00:55:37.400 our own devices to figure out

00:55:38.820 which is stronger.

00:55:40.020 In my opinion, the debunk that

00:55:43.440 that state worked is rock solid.

00:55:45.600 Because apparently at the same

00:55:47.700 time, they had no COVID deaths.

00:55:50.420 They didn't have any other kind

00:55:51.560 of deaths.

00:55:52.760 Nobody died in a car accident.

00:55:54.340 Nobody had a heart attack.

00:55:55.480 So you could tell that the data

00:55:56.660 was just wrong.

00:55:58.200 Because all deaths stopped at the

00:56:00.120 same time.

00:56:00.640 All deaths.

00:56:01.540 It wasn't just COVID deaths.

00:56:03.240 So once you know that, and it's

00:56:05.200 easy to find out, I mean, you just

00:56:06.660 Google it.

00:56:07.980 You just Google it.

00:56:08.800 The fact checks are everywhere.

00:56:09.800 Now, don't you think that Dr. Malone

00:56:12.380 had a responsibility to say that I

00:56:16.920 believe ivermectin worked in that

00:56:18.480 case, but there are other people who

00:56:20.860 say the data is just wrong.

00:56:23.260 Right?

00:56:25.100 Don't know which one's right, but a

00:56:27.580 genuine person trying to tell you

00:56:29.140 the truth would at least tell you

00:56:31.200 that there's a counter, a

00:56:32.860 counter possibility.

00:56:34.580 He didn't.

00:56:35.880 That's sketchy.

00:56:37.380 It suggests disingenuity.

00:56:40.100 Disingenuous.

00:56:41.780 Doesn't prove it.

00:56:42.960 It suggests it.

00:56:44.820 He also said, he also used a lot of

00:56:49.500 anecdotal evidence, which I think at

00:56:54.600 least one point he pointed out that it

00:56:56.040 was anecdotal, but he used it in a

00:56:58.220 persuasion way.

00:57:00.400 So it's great to say you understand that

00:57:02.880 anecdotal information is not

00:57:04.400 confirmation, but then if you use it to

00:57:08.140 persuade, that seems disingenuous.

00:57:12.600 If you say it doesn't mean anything, you

00:57:14.280 just leave it out of the conversation.

00:57:16.600 But if you say it doesn't mean anything and

00:57:18.420 then you give a bunch of examples, you're

00:57:21.520 saying it means something.

00:57:24.360 Take the VAERS database.

00:57:25.920 I want you to do a fact check on this with

00:57:28.360 me, but I feel as if the doctor said that the

00:57:32.120 VAERS database, which was largely anecdotal,

00:57:35.100 just humans reporting it, that he took that as

00:57:38.920 being reliable enough that he could draw some

00:57:41.320 conclusions.

00:57:41.880 At the same time, he was saying that you

00:57:45.340 shouldn't trust that kind of information.

00:57:47.880 I feel like he took both sides, which again

00:57:50.400 looked sketchy.

00:57:51.920 He also is a believer that if there are cases

00:57:58.340 where somebody who had COVID and a gunshot wound that

00:58:02.060 was obviously fatal, that the doctors would code that

00:58:05.280 as a COVID death and not a gunshot wound.

00:58:08.880 Do you believe that?

00:58:09.640 Do you believe that as, you know, I'm not talking

00:58:13.760 about whether it happened once.

00:58:15.840 I'm saying, do you believe that a doctor would code a

00:58:19.980 gunshot wound as COVID just because it was a

00:58:24.840 financial incentive?

00:58:29.500 I will respect your differing opinion on this.

00:58:33.620 So many of you say, yes, the financial incentive is

00:58:36.520 great enough.

00:58:37.080 We would totally do that.

00:58:38.160 And follow the money works most of the time, right?

00:58:42.980 So we're all on the same page there.

00:58:44.440 I'm going to give you a contrarian view.

00:58:47.300 And I'll ask you to just do this.

00:58:49.820 Talk to a doctor who is involved in making that call.

00:58:54.860 Like an actual doctor who has to sign a death

00:58:57.960 certificate.

00:58:59.300 And ask them this question.

00:59:01.920 I know you have a financial incentive there for the

00:59:04.160 hospital.

00:59:04.480 But if you had somebody who obviously died from a

00:59:07.720 gunshot wound and also had COVID, would you

00:59:10.660 personally, doctor, would you code that as a COVID

00:59:14.420 death?

00:59:15.460 I believe you will get zero doctors to agree to that.

00:59:19.180 Because I've asked that question.

00:59:21.460 And I've got zero doctors to say, no, we use our

00:59:25.100 judgment.

00:59:25.740 This would be obvious.

00:59:26.800 Gunshot death.

00:59:27.440 I believe that you and the doctor believe that this is a

00:59:33.240 widespread thing of, you know, car accidents coded as COVID.

00:59:37.600 I guarantee it's happened.

00:59:40.000 Can we agree on that?

00:59:42.080 We can all guarantee that somebody's coded things wrong.

00:59:45.940 And probably quite a bit.

00:59:47.340 But if you think it's widespread, talk to a doctor who

00:59:52.400 doesn't.

00:59:53.040 Because I have.

00:59:54.300 I've talked to a doctor who doesn't. 0.98

00:59:55.960 And the doctor who doesn't says, there's no fucking way we're 0.98

00:59:58.980 going to code a guy with a missing head as a COVID death. 0.99

01:00:03.420 No fucking way. 0.99

01:00:05.620 It doesn't matter if the hospital gets extra money. 1.00

01:00:08.460 It doesn't matter if the hospital is going to get mad at us. 0.99

01:00:11.000 There's no fucking way we're going to code a guy with no head as a 1.00

01:00:15.100 COVID death. 0.99

01:00:18.040 Let's try the really filter.

01:00:20.620 You want to try it?

01:00:21.740 Let's do the really filter on that.

01:00:24.220 Guy comes to the hospital.

01:00:25.540 His head is missing.

01:00:27.160 Doctor looks at it, sees he also has a COVID.

01:00:30.440 Doctor says, well, this is a COVID death because we'll get more money.

01:00:35.060 Be a little bit more money.

01:00:36.240 It won't be for me.

01:00:37.160 By the way, the doctor doesn't need more money.

01:00:39.140 It's for the hospital.

01:00:39.880 But he wants to keep working at the hospital.

01:00:42.340 So he's like, yeah, I think I will risk.

01:00:45.520 Everything I've worked for.

01:00:47.640 So that the hospital can make more money.

01:00:50.520 He's not risking everything he worked for, for his own money directly.

01:00:54.820 But to keep the hospital happy, so that he can keep having hospital privileges.

01:00:59.740 So let's do the really filter.

01:01:01.640 Guy's got no head.

01:01:03.860 Really?

01:01:05.660 Really?

01:01:06.060 Really?

01:01:06.680 You think that a doctor looks at a guy with no head, and the financial incentive is not

01:01:11.540 directly his.

01:01:12.320 It's the hospital.

01:01:13.720 And he thinks he's going to get in trouble and lose his privileges for coding a headless

01:01:18.820 guy as COVID.

01:01:20.540 Really?

01:01:21.640 Really?

01:01:22.000 Is there a hospital that's going to take away somebody's privileges because they coded a 1.00

01:01:26.780 headless guy as a COVID death for their benefit?

01:01:30.160 I don't know.

01:01:33.580 This one could go either way, couldn't it?

01:01:35.740 Because as soon as you throw in follow the money, it can certainly follow the money.

01:01:41.680 So I could do it with the other one and say, there's a financial incentive to do this,

01:01:45.880 and you think it didn't happen?

01:01:47.340 Really?

01:01:48.580 Really?

01:01:48.920 A huge financial interest, and you think it didn't happen?

01:01:53.240 Really?

01:01:54.380 See?

01:01:54.860 So the really works both ways on this one.

01:01:56.920 So I would say that would be inconclusive.

01:01:59.780 Inconclusive.

01:02:02.260 Flawed example.

01:02:03.240 You're right.

01:02:05.320 All right.

01:02:05.940 But in my mind, this is not your opinion, but in my mind, anybody who believes that a gunshot

01:02:11.860 person gets coded as COVID, I believe, that's sketchy.

01:02:18.880 You know what it sounds like?

01:02:20.720 Here's my problem with it.

01:02:22.640 Dr. Malone's claims were identical to MAGA opinion.

01:02:28.300 Did you notice that?

01:02:29.980 That the things that Malone was saying were identical, identical to conservative, you know,

01:02:37.120 anti-vaxxer kind of views.

01:02:40.040 And that bothers me.

01:02:42.420 Because it's a little too coincidental.

01:02:44.520 And the one that really was the flag was the gunshot person coded as COVID.

01:02:49.780 That's a little too on the nose for me.

01:02:52.760 That's the sort of thing you could expect the public to say.

01:02:56.260 Might even be true.

01:02:57.340 But you'd expect the public to say it.

01:02:59.560 But the fact that the doctor said it could be true.

01:03:02.680 That's just a little too on the nose, compatible with what his audience wants to hear.

01:03:10.080 Bothered me.

01:03:11.860 He says that hospitals make more money by treating COVID because of the special bonuses

01:03:16.660 they get.

01:03:17.880 Has anybody ever fact checked that?

01:03:20.420 Because I think hospitals lose money by treating COVID.

01:03:23.460 Because they have to keep so much extra capacity so they can't do their normal hospital stuff.

01:03:31.780 Now, I do know that hospitals would get direct payments for COVID patients.

01:03:37.200 So that's not in dispute.

01:03:38.480 I'm saying that if you netted it out, you get extra money for COVID, but you lose money on your regular hospital business,

01:03:47.260 because you're stopping business, don't you lose money?

01:03:51.080 In all caps, life is good says, hell no, they get a ton of money.

01:03:59.600 Let me see if I can simplify this for you.

01:04:01.780 Yes, they get a ton of money for each COVID patient.

01:04:13.180 Okay, did you hear that?

01:04:15.180 Now, see if you can handle the rest of it. 0.94

01:04:17.640 I'm only talking to this one troll.

01:04:19.000 They also lose money in other ways, because the hospital is not capacity.

01:04:30.760 So, does the hospital say, let's do as much COVID as we can, because that makes us money,

01:04:36.140 or do they say, let's do as little COVID as we can, even though we get money,

01:04:41.360 because there'll be less impact on the other stuff?

01:04:44.280 My only question is, has that been studied?

01:04:46.320 I don't know.

01:04:49.140 I don't think it's obvious that the hospitals make money on COVID.

01:04:52.780 To me, I would guess, I would bet against it, actually.

01:04:56.320 Now, again, this is my field, right?

01:05:00.040 So, economics and business, that's my expertise.

01:05:04.160 And my expertise says, I don't think that people are coding gunshot wounds as COVID,

01:05:10.660 because it would be too risky once you get caught.

01:05:13.640 And, although there are obviously some of that.

01:05:17.720 And I'm not positive the hospitals are coding people for money, if you consider their entire situation.

01:05:25.780 Maybe.

01:05:26.540 I'm open to it.

01:05:28.000 Could be proven.

01:05:29.800 But not necessarily.

01:05:30.920 Also, Dr. Malone thought that the information coming out of that one state in India that he, I believe, mistakenly thinks crushed COVID,

01:05:44.400 he thinks that there was a hush, maybe a cover-up after Biden visited Modi,

01:05:50.220 because that's about the time that they stopped hearing about Adar Pradesh.

01:05:53.580 Now, that feels a little conspiracy theory-ish.

01:05:58.880 He didn't connect the dots and say there definitely was a conversation.

01:06:03.460 But when he raises these conspiracy-ish thoughts, that reduces his credibility, in my mind.

01:06:10.880 Because it's also a little too on the nose with what his audience wants to hear.

01:06:15.040 All right.

01:06:17.680 He talked about athletes dropping dead as part of the anecdotal evidence.

01:06:23.220 Do you believe that athletes are dropping dead at a higher rate than in the past?

01:06:29.400 Because you've seen the videos, right?

01:06:30.840 Compilation videos.

01:06:33.120 I believe that that is not true.

01:06:36.300 And I base it on the following fact.

01:06:38.400 Do you think the athletes themselves don't know if people are dying on the field in an unusual rate?

01:06:49.200 Really?

01:06:50.880 Really.

01:06:52.480 All the attention on professional athletes, they play in public.

01:06:57.140 All that attention on professional athletes,

01:06:59.460 and you think that the players themselves haven't noticed that people are dropping dead at a rate that never happened before?

01:07:08.400 Really?

01:07:09.940 Really?

01:07:11.260 Now, I think the really filter works on this one. 0.97

01:07:14.320 There's no fucking way that people are dropping like flies in public in front of all these witnesses, 0.94

01:07:24.760 and in front of all these witnesses, and the teams themselves haven't noticed. 0.99

01:07:30.980 The players haven't noticed this.

01:07:33.700 Like they're not talking to the other players and saying,

01:07:36.260 you had one drop dead on your team?

01:07:38.400 We just lost a guy last week.

01:07:40.640 They would all know it.

01:07:42.800 It would be the most well-known fact you had ever seen in your life.

01:07:46.900 And I believe, and I know some of you believe that it's true because you've seen the compilations,

01:07:51.460 but remember video lies.

01:07:54.500 Right?

01:07:56.240 Videos lie.

01:07:58.080 Mostly.

01:07:59.040 They don't mostly tell the truth.

01:08:00.580 They mostly lie.

01:08:01.280 So the very fact that you saw it on a video should give you a 60% chance it's not true.

01:08:07.040 Just because we live in that world where here it is on video, well, 60% chance it's not true.

01:08:13.660 So I'm going to say that personally, I think the athletes dropping dead couldn't possibly be true.

01:08:22.400 Could be wrong.

01:08:24.120 I could be wrong.

01:08:25.160 I say that, just assume that everything I say is appended with, but I could be wrong.

01:08:29.540 Well, so I would say that's kind of an obvious mistake for a doctor to make, in my opinion.

01:08:38.080 Now, again, I'm dealing outside of his field of expertise and I'm in mine, right?

01:08:44.140 My field of expertise would be the psychological part and the fake news part.

01:08:51.060 So I know more about fake news and probably more about some of the psychological stuff.

01:08:57.020 And to my view, it looks obvious that that's not real and he believes it's real.

01:09:02.100 So that works against him.

01:09:04.220 All right.

01:09:04.660 He also said that look at Israel versus the Palestinian territories.

01:09:09.600 Israel has lots of vaccinations.

01:09:11.080 The Palestinian territories don't have much.

01:09:14.900 So you could look at those two situations and maybe that would tell you something.

01:09:20.200 At the same time, he says you can't compare any two situations because there are too many variables involved.

01:09:26.900 Within a period of, I think, 10 minutes, he gave opinions on both sides of this, I think.

01:09:32.580 But go look at it.

01:09:33.320 Maybe I'm wrong.

01:09:34.620 I believe he said you couldn't compare countries because there are too many confounding variables.

01:09:40.240 And then he said, go look at the difference between Israel and the Palestinian states.

01:09:45.940 And I think he actually said that he believes the Palestinians might have some kind of ivermectin or early treatment thing going on.

01:09:56.520 And he says, he basically indicated you could just look at their numbers and you could deduce that they were using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

01:10:05.940 Now, he didn't say it as directly as I just said it.

01:10:09.820 That was the impression I got.

01:10:12.500 So remember, I'm only dealing from the impressions I got.

01:10:15.540 I can't get inside his head to know what he meant.

01:10:18.320 I can only tell you what I heard.

01:10:20.740 What I heard was, don't pay attention to data like this, but you can totally pay attention to data like this.

01:10:28.520 Now, I'm not mind reading.

01:10:31.360 I'm telling you what I received, which is different from what was true.

01:10:37.360 So, in my opinion, that decreased his credibility substantially.

01:10:44.640 He also said something similar about the VAERS database.

01:10:48.260 He makes the point you can't judge too much by anecdotal stuff,

01:10:53.100 but then the VAERS database is pretty anecdotal in the sense that it's humans reporting things.

01:10:59.040 And I think he misses the following point.

01:11:01.760 The VAERS database, I think we all know, is reporting more problems with these vaccines than normal.

01:11:08.540 Fact check me.

01:11:09.620 True?

01:11:10.600 The VAERS database is showing much more problems than normal.

01:11:17.100 His assumption is that the VAERS database is underreported because it has been in the past.

01:11:22.500 That assumption, I don't consider good thinking.

01:11:25.660 Because what's different about this is that we're all thinking and talking about the pandemic all the time.

01:11:31.780 One would assume that in this situation, the psychology of it could easily make the VAERS database far overreported.

01:11:41.160 But only in this specific case, because of the attention.

01:11:44.240 If we were not paying attention to the vaccine, probably underreported.

01:11:50.060 I would think that's a good assumption.

01:11:52.560 Probably underreported.

01:11:53.920 This specific case, we're all worked up about...

01:11:57.560 I mean, how many people think they had COVID and didn't?

01:12:01.160 How many of your friends, or even you, believe that at some point you had already had COVID

01:12:05.720 and you did your PCR test and you never had it?

01:12:08.840 So, people are imagining symptoms.

01:12:15.680 Vastly imagining symptoms.

01:12:17.860 So, what does the VAERS database, which is people reporting their symptoms,

01:12:21.840 what's going to happen when you know that people are massively imagining symptoms?

01:12:27.940 You don't have to wonder if people are massively imagining symptoms.

01:12:32.240 Because so many people said they had COVID and didn't.

01:12:35.180 We know it's true.

01:12:35.940 So, if you don't at least acknowledge that the VAERS database this time could be overreported,

01:12:43.880 I consider that either bad thinking or a little sketchy.

01:12:48.820 Here's another one.

01:12:50.020 I forget the context, but he was talking about some situation in which your risk is doubled.

01:12:56.040 Fact check me on this.

01:12:57.280 Was it if you've already been infected, getting the vaccination would increase your risk of side effects?

01:13:04.000 Was that the context?

01:13:05.120 It doesn't matter the context.

01:13:07.100 The point was that he mentioned a change in the percentage without mentioning the raw numbers.

01:13:13.600 What have I taught you?

01:13:14.600 When somebody tells you the percentage without the raw number, they are trying to mislead.

01:13:20.140 If they tell you the raw number without the percentage, they are trying to mislead.

01:13:26.060 If they tell you both, they're probably trying to just give you information.

01:13:30.280 He gave us a percentage without a raw number, suggesting that something was risky, when in fact, without the raw number, you don't know if your risk went from two in a million to four in a million.

01:13:42.160 That's double the risk, right?

01:13:44.600 From two to four people.

01:13:46.380 But if it's an of a million, does it change your decision?

01:13:50.800 No.

01:13:51.960 Two out of a million, four out of a million, it's the same decision.

01:13:54.500 So, these are tells for disingenuous and or bad analysis.

01:14:02.320 So, using the Gelman theory of the things which I believe my expertise has visibility on, which doesn't include any of the medical stuff.

01:14:12.500 The only visibility I have is fake news, how anecdotes fool us, consistency, BS detector, economics.

01:14:25.220 All right, so those are fields which I have pretty good visibility in.

01:14:27.660 And in most of those things that I can see, I have real problems.

01:14:33.880 The stuff I have no visibility on, which is all the doctory stuff about spike proteins, I didn't see a problem.

01:14:41.240 Did you?

01:14:42.300 I didn't see any problem in that.

01:14:44.900 But that is all invisible to me.

01:14:48.500 I wouldn't see a problem there.

01:14:50.140 I couldn't.

01:14:50.620 So, my bottom line is, trust the rogue doctors at your peril.

01:14:58.840 Because, as often as they are, as awesome as they are, and might even be right.

01:15:05.080 In fact, the doctor's main message is that the, you know, the pharma is corrupt, the data is probably bad, and the vaccinations might be worse for you than you think.

01:15:15.600 I'm on board with all that.

01:15:17.920 I'm on board with all of that.

01:15:19.140 Well, I'm not on board with the, let's say, the credibility of the presentation.

01:15:25.760 And so, there may be some things there that you should at least put your skepticism thing up.

01:15:33.820 Now, some of you have accused me of not being skeptical enough.

01:15:39.720 Not being skeptical enough.

01:15:41.380 Because, I refuse to believe everything that Dr. Malone says, and I guess that means that I'm believing the official narrative, so that I'm not skeptical enough.

01:15:54.280 Wrong.

01:15:55.540 I'm a double skeptic, and many of you are single skeptics.

01:15:59.980 I doubt everything the mainstream narrative tells me.

01:16:04.720 I also doubt the rogue doctors.

01:16:07.600 So, I doubt two things.

01:16:09.540 If you believe the doctor, but doubt the mainstream narrative, you are way less skeptical than I am.

01:16:17.680 Way less.

01:16:18.520 So, if you want to mock me, do it from a position of you believing things that I don't believe, because, well, they don't look that credible to me.

01:16:27.900 You might be right.

01:16:29.520 I like to say that as often as possible.

01:16:31.660 You could be right.

01:16:33.200 Completely.

01:16:33.680 It's not ruled out.

01:16:37.720 That's just my take.

01:16:39.080 Now, let's give me an audit on this.

01:16:42.680 Number one, was my approach reasonable, given that I'm a non-expert looking at an expert?

01:16:49.600 It was my gel man approach reasonable.

01:16:57.040 No, you wasted time.

01:16:59.100 Some people said yes.

01:17:00.080 I got some yeses, and I got some noes.

01:17:04.800 I think if you think I wasted my time because I didn't convince anybody, that's probably true. 1.00

01:17:09.900 But I was asked to do this, and I had committed to do it, and so I felt a responsibility to do it.

01:17:17.400 Now, I guess I should say this.

01:17:20.780 I'm not aware of anything that Dr. Malone is saying that would look to me like he would be aware of lying to you.

01:17:31.000 So I didn't see anything that looked like a lie.

01:17:37.800 That's worth something, right?

01:17:40.000 Did you?

01:17:40.940 I didn't see anything that looked like anything like an intentional lie.

01:17:44.500 I just saw things that I think maybe our assumptions were different about what's true and what's not.

01:17:48.720 You're not aware you're lying.

01:17:58.180 Well, if you're not aware of it, it's not a lie.

01:18:00.600 It's just wrong.

01:18:04.760 Oh, and let me give you my bottom line.

01:18:08.260 Maybe I should have led with this.

01:18:11.020 He talked me out of the booster.

01:18:12.440 Are you happy now?

01:18:17.360 That's my decision.

01:18:19.420 Dr. Malone talked me out of the booster.

01:18:23.900 Now, I just spent a whole bunch of time saying that there were signs of his credibility.

01:18:30.560 But within the realm that I can't fact check him on, he scared me enough that there was at least the possibility that the booster would be a problem, that he talked me out of it.

01:18:45.280 At the moment, that's my decision.

01:18:47.700 My current decision is no booster.

01:18:53.220 Am I right?

01:18:54.740 I don't know.

01:18:56.180 I don't know.

01:18:57.700 Time will tell.

01:18:59.100 I don't know if he may have killed you.

01:19:00.920 That's true. 0.93

01:19:02.020 Yep, he may have killed me.

01:19:04.180 That's actually literally true. 0.98

01:19:05.520 He may have killed me.

01:19:06.620 Because if I don't get the booster and I die from it, well, there you go.

01:19:12.660 I invested in Pfizer.

01:19:14.020 Please get a booster.

01:19:15.280 I'll do it for you.

01:19:16.740 All right.

01:19:18.960 If you still have problems with any of my COVID opinions, go look at my pinned tweet.

01:19:23.420 It's all my COVID predictions.

01:19:25.520 You can see what I predicted and what I didn't.

01:19:28.340 I believe this is the best show I've ever put on.

01:19:31.620 Maybe the best one you've ever seen in your whole life.

01:19:35.100 Possibly the best thing that's ever happened to you.

01:19:37.740 And on that note, we will be ending today's episode.

01:19:40.900 And I will see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 07, 2022

Episode 1616 Scott Adams： The Dr. Malone Interview, How to Know You Are in a Simulation, Ted Cruz and More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript