Episode 976 Scott Adams： The COVID-19 Cure, Biden's Raisen-Brain, the ＂Worse Than Watergate＂ Guy
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
150.17674
Summary
Joe Biden is off the rails, and it's time to ask the question, is he mentally capable? Is he actually losing his mind, or is he just not that bad at being a politician? And if so, what does that have to do with Joe Biden blowing his sentences?
Transcript
00:00:26.000
We might need a breakthrough therapeutic, a cure, a vaccine maybe.
00:00:32.000
But until we have those things, and I'm sure that they're near,
00:00:37.000
we can get a head start on it with a little thing I call the simultaneous sip.
00:00:53.000
A simultaneous sip will boost your immune system,
00:00:56.000
probably protect you from, I don't know, cancer, coronavirus,
00:01:05.000
Well, that's why you don't get your medical advice from cartoonists.
00:01:08.000
But all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein,
00:01:12.000
a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
00:01:48.000
Challenge them to make the following definitive statement.
00:01:53.000
I challenge you to say publicly here on Twitter that you believe Joe Biden is mentally competent.
00:02:07.000
They're just going to say, sure, he's mentally confident.
00:02:21.000
And I just said that directly because he made some comment about, you know, Biden being better than Trump.
00:02:29.000
oh, it was after I tweeted yet another Biden blowing his sentence clip,
00:02:36.000
which is ironic because I blew my sentence describing Biden losing his mind and blowing his sentence.
00:02:48.000
And so somebody on Twitter, you know, made the comment that Trump's no better and showed a clip where Trump is mashing some words,
00:03:01.000
And so I thought to myself, does he really think that looks the same?
00:03:06.000
Because you could do a mash up, a mash up of anybody, you know, who speaks a lot in public getting their words wrong.
00:03:17.000
But does that look the same as the Joe Biden stuff?
00:03:21.000
Can you really look at me honestly and say, yeah, it's just the same thing.
00:03:31.000
So I just said, can you state directly here on Twitter that you believe that Joe Biden is mentally capable?
00:03:45.000
Actually, he actually said directly he still prefers Biden.
00:03:50.000
So without answering the question, do you think he's mentally capable?
00:03:57.000
I'm thinking, you know, especially since this was done in public on Twitter, that would have been the ideal time to say, oh, he's he's mentally capable.
00:04:09.000
You know, I wouldn't be I wouldn't be supporting the guy for president of the United States that is, you know, have his finger on the nuclear button unless I thought he was mentally capable.
00:04:23.000
And we're actually in a situation that is so divorced from anything that's sensible or just makes any sense at all that people are literally and in public preferring the guy that they can't even say.
00:04:39.000
They can't say in public that he's mentally capable and they want to put him in front in charge of the nuclear arsenal.
00:04:51.000
So you have to try this this technique if you run into any perfect situations online.
00:04:59.000
So the latest I think there are three different clips of Biden just going off the rails at just the last 24 hours.
00:05:10.000
The best one, of course, is when Biden saying we've lost eighty five thousand jobs.
00:05:25.000
If you can't tell that he then he starts going in and millions and millions of things.
00:05:31.000
And he's just completely off the he's off the tracks.
00:05:40.000
Like, did he actually momentarily think that it was eighty five thousand jobs we lost?
00:05:47.000
It makes you wonder if he actually thought it for a moment or or did you just mash the jobs and the death numbers?
00:05:57.000
But then also yesterday, I think Trump is on the way to having one of the best weeks anybody ever had.
00:06:09.000
But Biden also said that he doesn't remember Tara Reid, but he advised that if women believe her, that they probably shouldn't vote for him.
00:06:26.000
It's the it's everything that you shouldn't say all in one sentence.
00:06:30.000
The first part where he says Biden says he doesn't remember her.
00:06:43.000
Do you think it helps Joe Biden that he has a memory problem?
00:06:47.000
Because isn't the first thing you think when he says, I don't remember her.
00:06:53.000
Oh, well, there's so many people who have worked for him over the years.
00:07:10.000
Because of his age and his brain is in question.
00:07:13.000
Well, the first thing you think is, well, he may have forgotten her, but he's pretty quick
00:07:20.000
to deny that he didn't have sex with a woman he doesn't know existed.
00:07:26.000
Because if you can forget she existed, maybe there are other things you could have forgotten,
00:07:36.000
Now, the part that Joe does well, I would say, is that his denial of this does seem unambiguous.
00:07:45.000
If I'm being fair, if we're being fair, his denial is pretty darn good.
00:07:51.000
You know, I have to say, you know, his accuser is very credible.
00:08:02.000
It just means that everything about her seems consistent and believable.
00:08:06.000
So I would say I would put complete credibility on the claim.
00:08:11.000
But at the same time, it could also be true that the denial can be credible.
00:08:17.000
You could have a credible claim and a credible denial, and they could both be solid gold credibility.
00:08:23.000
Only one of them could be true, but they could both be credible.
00:08:27.000
I got to say, Biden's denial of this, given that he's not the most clever with words,
00:08:35.000
you would expect that if it was a fake denial, in other words, if he had an actual memory of it,
00:08:42.000
and he was just lying, I feel like his words would reveal it.
00:08:47.000
Because he's just not that good with concealing his, you know, words,
00:08:55.000
Every time I talk about Biden not being able to talk clearly,
00:09:06.000
But anyway, I would rate the quality of Biden's denial really good.
00:09:19.000
He says it clearly and confidently, and he doesn't leave any wiggle room when he denies it.
00:09:27.000
He also says, and this helps his denial, he says that it's on a character.
00:09:32.000
So even though he says that, you know, he doesn't remember it, he's saying, you know,
00:09:37.000
I would certainly remember assaulting somebody in a hallway, basically, you know,
00:09:50.000
It would be like, it would be like if somebody accused me of eating a steak last week,
00:10:00.000
They can't really come back to me and say, all right, well, you said you don't remember,
00:10:11.000
So given that I haven't had a steak in 30 years, I don't have to remember if I had a steak last week.
00:10:20.000
I know I didn't, so I can know it without having a memory.
00:10:24.000
Biden has a similar situation, you know, from his telling of it, right?
00:10:29.000
I'm not saying I'm getting in his head, but from his telling of it, that's a pretty good denial.
00:10:34.000
It's like, okay, that's like you're describing a person who's a whole different person.
00:10:39.000
I don't have to remember to know I didn't do that.
00:10:42.000
You know, I can tell you with confidence I've never sexually molested anybody in a hallway, right?
00:10:51.000
Do I have a memory of all the times I've been in a hallway?
00:10:55.000
Not really, but I know who I am, and I didn't eat a steak last week,
00:11:01.000
and I didn't sexually molest anybody in the hallway of the Capitol.
00:11:08.000
All right, I have this great enduring curiosity about this, and I wonder if you do too.
00:11:17.000
Are the people who have been lying to us about the Russia collusion thing
00:11:23.000
and now are trying to lie to us that the Obamagay thing is no big deal at all,
00:11:36.000
Jennifer Rubin, Maggie Haberman, and Carl Bernstein, the worse than the Watergate guy.
00:11:48.000
Do you think there's any self-reflection going on?
00:11:57.000
Do you think that in their quiet times they say to themselves,
00:12:01.000
oh my God, I wonder if the country realizes that we lied to them for three years,
00:12:24.000
I'm looking at your comments because I'm actually very interested in seeing your opinion.
00:12:29.000
So, some say they're believers, unaware, mental illness, they're all nuts.
00:12:43.000
So, look at your opinions, they're just all over the place.
00:12:57.000
Alright, so your answers are all over the place.
00:13:00.000
So, you're about where I am, which is, it's just hard to tell.
00:13:09.000
You know, we're all stereotypers, and we're all biased.
00:13:16.000
So, you try not to put your bias on the news, but you can't really help it.
00:13:22.000
And, I'll tell you, if I watch, let's say historically, not talking about the last year or anything,
00:13:28.000
but historically, if I watched a Republican on the news,
00:13:33.000
and let's say the Republican was saying something I didn't like,
00:13:40.000
Well, usually my feeling was, oh, that's coming from, you know, some religious base that, you know,
00:13:48.000
So, I would often think, oh, they're starting from some philosophical starting place
00:13:53.000
that I don't buy into, so therefore it makes sense that we don't have the same opinion on a few things.
00:14:00.000
So, when I see a Republican, I'm just, okay, they got this philosophy or religion or something,
00:14:09.000
But, when I see a lot of the Democrats, let's say the anti-Trumpers in particular,
00:14:14.000
I'm not going to say Democrat, I'll say anti-Trumpers.
00:14:17.000
When I see the anti-Trumpers, such as Carl Bernstein and Haverman and Jennifer Rubin and some of the hosts on CNN,
00:14:30.000
such as Don Lemon, what is your just impression of those people?
00:14:40.000
Is your impression that they're coming at it with a different philosophy and that's why your opinion doesn't match?
00:14:48.000
Is your opinion that they're coming at it as basically criminals who are just making stuff up to make money
00:14:56.000
I mean, it wouldn't be illegal, but, you know, sort of a fraudulent intent.
00:15:08.000
Because, so I'm going to give you my opinion, which is that it registers as mental illness,
00:15:14.000
which is different from saying it's mental illness, all right?
00:15:22.000
Even though my medical opinion has so far been better than the experts on the coronavirus,
00:15:31.000
We're not going to say that that's a trend that should continue.
00:15:34.000
But when I look at a lot of the anti-Trump critics, the way it registers to me,
00:15:42.000
and I'm going to be careful with my language, right?
00:16:01.000
When I watch the anti-Trumpers on TV, not all of them, some of them are perfectly reasonable people,
00:16:06.000
but there's a class of them, you know, the really hardcores, that read to me like mental illness.
00:16:14.000
Now, you are aware from your own life that, and by the way, when I say mental illness,
00:16:24.000
I don't mean there's necessarily something organically wrong with them,
00:16:27.000
but rather that they're troubled by whatever the situation is.
00:16:31.000
So, let's just say troubled in a way that would be a mental distress of some sort.
00:16:36.000
It doesn't necessarily have to have a name on it.
00:16:38.000
Like, you know, I'm not saying it's bipolar or something that has a name.
00:16:52.000
Do you, do you receive them, just your human sensors?
00:16:58.000
Do you read them as mentally having a problem, or as just lying?
00:17:11.000
Alright, just looking at your comments as they come in, they're a little out of time.
00:17:17.000
And is it a coincidence that Carl Bernstein hasn't been on television?
00:17:22.000
I suppose he's hiding in his basement and may not have all the technology he needs.
00:17:27.000
But has Carl Bernstein been on CNN since Obamagate became Obamagate?
00:17:36.000
Because I have to wonder if they feel comfortable putting him on.
00:17:43.000
Wouldn't you love to know what the conversation is at CNN, privately?
00:17:47.000
Wouldn't you love to know what the producers at CNN and the on-air talent are talking to themselves about right now?
00:17:58.000
Because I feel like I know what Fox News is saying, you know, the producers and stuff.
00:18:04.000
Because I feel like what they're saying ends up on the page.
00:18:10.000
So, don't you feel like you know exactly what the producers and on-air people at Fox News think?
00:18:21.000
But are the CNN people putting on the air what they think?
00:18:30.000
It doesn't look like they're trying to put on the air the things they actually internally think to be the truth.
00:18:37.000
It feels like they must be in some kind of weird world.
00:18:47.000
There must be people in CNN who are on both sides, internally.
00:18:51.000
There must be people who say, okay, okay, we just have to say we were wrong about this for three years.
00:19:00.000
We should just admit we were wrong for three years.
00:19:03.000
And then there's probably some other producer saying, we don't have to do that.
00:19:09.000
Because the Republicans don't watch this station.
00:19:12.000
The only people who watch it are the ones who are going to believe anything we tell them.
00:19:28.000
They can literally create any reality they want,
00:19:31.000
so long as they know their people are walled off from the rest of the competing opinions.
00:19:43.000
Jennifer Rubin, who is still saying the walls are closing in on Trump's lawless presidency.
00:19:48.000
And I guess there's clips of her saying the walls are closing in all through the Russia collusion stuff.
00:19:54.000
It's so absurd now in an entertaining way that I can't do anything but laugh at it.
00:20:03.000
If you're not watching CNN just for the jokes, well, you're missing a good show.
00:20:14.000
Here's the biggest story of the day, if you haven't heard it.
00:20:49.000
So what did I tell you when there are two networks, and one has a story that says this is totally true, and the other one, not so much?
00:21:02.000
I'd let this one age a little bit because it's brand new news.
00:21:06.000
I think it's news from probably yesterday afternoon.
00:21:10.000
But it's a California-based biopharmaceutical company called Sorrento, California, representing.
00:21:19.000
You know, if you want some smart people, come to California.
00:21:25.000
We've got your hypodermic needles on the streets.
00:21:34.000
We've got lots and lots of problems in California.
00:21:36.000
But the other thing we have, we've got some smart people here.
00:21:40.000
We've got some smart, smart, smart people in California.
00:21:44.000
And some of them are at this company, Sorrento, and they have made the following claim.
00:21:50.000
So Sorrento Therapeutics will announce their discovery, I guess today, of the STI-1499 antibody, which is a good one.
00:22:00.000
If you're keeping track of your antibodies, this is the good one.
00:22:09.000
So I guess it's a company that had millions of antibodies sort of in their library for just this sort of reason,
00:22:16.000
so that they could run their tests against, I don't know if it's computer simulation or actual tests,
00:22:22.000
but they were probably computer simulation, just guessing.
00:22:25.000
But they ran their tests against all their existing catalog of millions of antibodies,
00:22:31.000
and they found this one that's sort of a superstar.
00:22:35.000
And what it does is it wraps around the coronavirus.
00:22:40.000
It just puts a wrapper around it, and it can't infect you, and it just gets passed from your body.
00:22:51.000
But here's the thing that just caught me by surprise.
00:22:55.000
If you're a legitimate traded company, you've got to keep some credibility, right?
00:23:02.000
What would be worse than making a claim that you knew was just BS?
00:23:07.000
And then, you know, three weeks later, everybody knows you lied.
00:23:17.000
So, you know, it's a serious company, billion-dollar company.
00:23:21.000
At least that's what somebody offered to buy them several months ago, a billion dollars.
00:23:43.000
When have you ever heard a legitimate American biotech company say in direct language,
00:23:55.000
There is a solution that works 100%, Dr. Henry Gee, founder and CEO of Sorrento Therapeutics, told Fox News.
00:24:03.000
If you have the neutralizing antibody in your body, you don't need the social distancing.
00:24:19.000
They found there was one particular antibody, blah, blah, blah.
00:24:22.000
Now, if this guy's lying, well, he could be wrong and not lying, right?
00:24:31.000
But how unusual is it for a CEO to make a claim of 100% cure?
00:24:49.000
Now, this guy is either so far out on a branch that he's just a nut.
00:25:02.000
Because even if you were 99% sure, you wouldn't say 100%.
00:25:17.000
Nobody responsible, and we don't know if he's responsible, right?
00:25:23.000
He could be like the biggest bad guy in the world.
00:25:27.000
So if he was the biggest bad guy in the world, yeah, he could make a crazy claim.
00:25:32.000
Apparently, some big companies have made crazy claims already and gotten in trouble.
00:25:36.000
So it wouldn't even be the first pharmaceutical biotech company during coronavirus to make a claim that wasn't true.
00:25:49.000
So if you're evaluating this, you'd have to say, why is it only news on Fox News?
00:25:56.000
You know, why isn't there more widespread coverage of this?
00:26:01.000
Is it just because CNN doesn't want to give you any good news about coronavirus?
00:26:09.000
Is it because the claim is so, so ridiculous, meaning ridiculously optimistic, that CNN just said, I don't know about this.
00:26:24.000
I hate to say it, but you can't rule out the fact that Fox News bit on something and the CNN reporters are saying that's that's a big claim.
00:26:37.000
You know, if you would not use the word cure, fine, we'll write a story about it.
00:26:50.000
But it could be that these claims are so absurd.
00:26:56.000
But they're absurd sounding in our brains at the moment that that the other news organizations just went.
00:27:17.000
Maybe take a little while before they report on it.
00:27:19.000
But I'm going to tell you, this is highly, highly unusual for anybody at that level to make that kind of claim is either it's either career suicide.
00:27:33.000
Because this founder, he's he's got a billion dollar company.
00:27:37.000
So basically, you know, he's a super rich guy unless he messes up and he didn't need to do this.
00:27:45.000
Remember, this is a company already successful and a founder who's probably already worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
00:27:56.000
Would he get in front of the world, risk his entire company, his entire fortune on a lie this this ridiculous?
00:28:06.000
Now, of course, there's also the possibility he's not lying, but he's also not right.
00:28:16.000
Full disclosure, don't take any advice from me.
00:28:26.000
I've had a number of situations where I've been right guessing on some financial stuff, but probably as many when I'm wrong.
00:28:34.000
So, you know, I feel like I get the politics right more often than not.
00:28:42.000
Except for general concepts like diversification.
00:28:45.000
But just for full disclosure, I bought their stock this morning.
00:28:51.000
Now, you should not buy stock in Sorrento if you think it's an investment.
00:28:59.000
It's just something that dumb people like me will do because, I don't know.
00:29:13.000
It is not smart, not even close to smart, to put your actual hard earned money on a news story about one company making a claim in a context where lots of companies are making claims.
00:29:28.000
But, I just found myself wanting to bet on optimism today.
00:29:33.000
Sometimes, sometimes you just want to bet on optimism.
00:29:37.000
The stock has already gone up so much before I bought it that I can't even imagine it will be a good idea.
00:29:44.000
You should be hearing me in a week saying I wish I hadn't done that.
00:30:01.000
When these various states are being reviewed for how they're doing with their reopenings, the early indications seem to be there's not any problem with the early opening places.
00:30:23.000
What may be the reason that the southern states that are opening up earlier are getting a good result?
00:30:34.000
So, we will never know why something worked and why it didn't.
00:30:41.000
Everybody who's bias is that we should open up quickly.
00:30:44.000
We'll look at the states that opened up quickly.
00:30:47.000
And they're going to say, well, it's right in front of you.
00:30:56.000
So, therefore, we were right all along when we said you should open up early.
00:31:02.000
There will be no reasonable basis for that opinion.
00:31:06.000
Because we won't know, probably never, we won't know what worked.
00:31:14.000
When this is all done, for the rest of time, smart people will say, okay, you got it wrong.
00:31:21.000
The real reason it didn't go wrong in Florida, let's say it doesn't.
00:31:28.000
The real reason was they dealt with things differently.
00:31:31.000
The real reason was the people social distanced on their own.
00:31:35.000
The real reason was, you know, it's going to be like that.
00:31:38.000
The real reason was people stopped shaking hands.
00:31:41.000
You'll never know why something worked or even if it worked.
00:31:45.000
I don't think we'll ever be able to tease it out of the data.
00:31:50.000
People are going to be sure they see stuff in that data that they don't see.
00:31:55.000
And so I just said on Twitter this morning, you know, it's called the anecdotal data.
00:32:01.000
And somebody said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, Florida, you know, they closed late.
00:32:14.000
Is it anecdotal, Scott, that Florida not only closed late, but they opened early, meaning that they were open more than other states.
00:32:23.000
And they still have, you know, acceptable death rate.
00:32:33.000
That's like literally the definition of anecdotal.
00:32:49.000
And still the fascinating two-movie situation with this Obamagate unmasking.
00:33:01.000
So on CNN, the Obamagate thing is nothing but gaslighting and conspiracy theory, and there's nothing to it.
00:33:08.000
On Fox News, it's bigger than Watergate, and it's this giant conspiracy to spy on a political campaign using the organs of government.
00:33:25.000
Well, I'm going to be on the side of saying that the walls are closing in.
00:33:33.000
It feels like the walls are closing in on the Obama administration bad people who did whatever they did with FISA and spying on Flint.
00:33:45.000
But, at the same time, I'm going to say those walls have not completely closed in.
00:33:52.000
So if you think that you see the direct evidence of the crime, it's not there yet.
00:34:05.000
There might not be any indication of what people were thinking, which is really the entire accusation.
00:34:13.000
Because if we found out, you know, if we found the documents to say why they wanted to unmask and why 39 people needed it,
00:34:24.000
39 people had to fill out legal paperwork that could be discovered to say why they needed to know that Flynn was the other person on the transcript.
00:34:42.000
Or do you think they said something like, in the context of my work, I need to know where we are vis-a-vis Russia?
00:34:55.000
Anyone who unmasked, whether they're a diplomat or Obama's chief of staff, who you automatically think, well, what do they have to do with any of this?
00:35:05.000
But since the issue was the very nature of the relationship between the United States and Russia, basically everybody in the government who had some kind of an official role had a reason to know that.
00:35:18.000
Now, I don't know how common it is that they would unmask to get a little bit of data about something.
00:35:27.000
So, it does seem to me highly, highly unusual, based on what we know.
00:35:35.000
So again, if you're asking my opinion, it sure looks guilty.
00:35:43.000
But I don't have the direct evidence yet, and I'm going to hold off for it.
00:35:50.000
A new study suggests that COVID-19 cases could be cut as much as 80% if people wore masks.
00:36:04.000
Do you believe that if everybody wore masks, and I'm assuming that the hypothetical here is that you'd wear them as soon as you woke up, right?
00:36:14.000
Do you think it would cut coronavirus spread by 80%?
00:36:25.000
Yeah, I don't know if it's 80% or 60% or 50%, but it does feel to me, if the people who were infected were wearing them, why wouldn't it reduce it?
00:36:45.000
Imagine you were the Surgeon General, and you wake up in the morning, and you're the guy who's famous for saying in public, don't get a mask, masks don't work.
00:36:55.000
And then you wake up, and it's still the crisis.
00:37:01.000
And you say, yeah, actually, if you had not told people that, it might have cut the spread down by 80%.
00:37:10.000
I'm the Surgeon General, and I gave people advice, the wrong advice, and if I had given them the right advice, it would have reduced infections by 80%.
00:37:21.000
Well, it wouldn't have, because we didn't have enough supply.
00:37:24.000
But in theory, this is some of the worst medical advice of all time.
00:37:30.000
If you had to guess what was the worst medical advice of all time, well, probably back when they said smoking was good for you, that was probably the worst medical advice of all time.
00:37:41.000
But I would say second place would be that masks don't help you in an infection.
00:37:48.000
Really, that had to be the second worst advice.
00:37:56.000
I keep seeing more and more things that vitamin D is going to be important.
00:38:05.000
So I was holding off, you know, I was just using the sun and everything, and I still just ground the sun.
00:38:12.000
But I didn't know if I wanted to also supplement, but I thought that the risk reward of that was good.
00:38:20.000
So I'm going to do, you know, maybe 1,000, 2,000 units a day.
00:38:25.000
So that would be way under a level that I would have to worry about having too much of it, but it would be probably protective in a general way, not necessarily a coronavirus way, but in a general way.
00:38:40.000
Mitch McConnell conceded Thursday that he was wrong to claim that Obama had left no kind of coronavirus plan behind.
00:38:50.000
Apparently there was a detailed Obama administration plan for how to deal with the coronavirus breakout.
00:38:57.000
But what we don't know is would that plan have helped us have enough PPE?
00:39:05.000
Would that plan have told us what to do about closing the airport?
00:39:10.000
Did that plan have anything in it about risk management if you thought hydroxychloroquine worked but it wasn't proven?
00:39:18.000
So I don't know what was in that detailed plan.
00:39:21.000
I think it was mostly about which organizations talked to who and who was in charge.
00:39:28.000
I think it was more of a framework for how the government organizes, if I'm right.
00:39:37.000
We've heard tons of problems of, you know, hey, where's our ventilators?
00:39:52.000
I'm just saying it's weird that we haven't heard about it.
00:39:54.000
Have we heard one complaint that the real problem was that the government didn't get self-organized efficiently?
00:40:02.000
Or that they didn't know who to talk to, didn't know who was in charge.
00:40:06.000
You know, I'm sure on the ground there was plenty of that complaining because there always is.
00:40:13.000
But in terms of, you know, you're the country and you're looking at your government, how'd they do?
00:40:20.000
Was there anything in the Obama coronavirus plan that made any difference?
00:40:27.000
Because don't you think everybody knew what the CDC's role was?
00:40:32.000
Don't you think everybody knew the president was in charge?
00:40:36.000
Don't you think that all of the different organizations that knew immediately, uh-oh, I have a role in this?
00:40:43.000
Don't you think that as soon as they read the news and said, oh, I'm a virus department or I'm a medical this or, you know, I'm FEMA or whatever.
00:40:52.000
Don't you think every one of those organizations said immediately, oh, this is where I jump in.
00:40:58.000
And the way I connect to the process is the way I always connect.
00:41:02.000
So I'll call the CDC, make sure they know who our main contact is.
00:41:06.000
I'll hit the president's office, make sure he knows we're up and running.
00:41:10.000
I've got a feeling that the Obama plan that said how you organized for the pandemic probably just happened spontaneously.
00:41:18.000
Because every organization already knows who they are.
00:41:22.000
If you know your organization has a certain role and the time comes for that role to come into play, probably there wasn't that much of a problem figuring out who does what.
00:41:36.000
According to Scott Gottlieb, MD, who is a great follow, by the way, on Twitter,
00:41:44.000
he says the national data is showing that the number of coronavirus deaths is plateauing or going down a little bit.
00:41:53.000
Do we still have some kind of a time lag problem?
00:41:56.000
I'm not sure I'm going to believe anything yet.
00:42:09.000
So he's the ousted director of, I guess it was a vaccine agency.
00:42:14.000
And he's complaining now, among other things, that the N95 masks that we bought were not effective.
00:42:34.000
But if your whistleblower is complaining that the masks we bought from Asia were not effective,
00:42:43.000
Is that on the government that products they bought were poorly made?
00:42:50.000
I mean, obviously we wish they had known to check or they'd done some testing or something.
00:42:57.000
But it seems to me that in an emergency situation, everybody just bought everything that they could buy
00:43:07.000
Wouldn't it be way better to have a mask that was half effective than not being able to get a mask?
00:43:14.000
So I think everybody did what they could do, which is just buy every frickin' thing you could get and live with the consequences,
00:43:21.000
which was, unfortunately, the best risk management thing they could have done.
00:43:25.000
But CNN's turning it into a whistleblower story about how, I don't know, they did a bad job at buying masks.
00:43:33.000
Also, according to CNN, the hydroxychloroquine story is dead.
00:43:43.000
Were you aware that in the other movie, it's already a fact that hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and might just be bad for you?
00:43:56.000
I mean, I don't know if Fox News has talked about it recently.
00:43:58.000
But CNN's evidence is two studies, one that said it had no harm and no benefit,
00:44:05.000
and another one that said it had no benefit, but it did have harm in terms of strokes or something.
00:44:11.000
But given that we know that this drug has been around forever, that's not really credible?
00:44:17.000
That suddenly this is the only case that those drugs cause problems?
00:44:21.000
Oh yeah, the one and only time that these drugs that have been around forever, the one time they cause problems is this time.
00:44:30.000
But the other study didn't show anything like that.
00:44:36.000
I had been at a 40% chance that hydroxychloroquine would make some kind of a big difference.
00:44:43.000
You know, I had started down higher, but I had lowered it.
00:44:46.000
And the reason was that I hadn't heard good things about it.
00:44:51.000
But isn't it still true that doctors are using it?
00:44:57.000
So you've got CNN saying, yeah, the studies are in, it's useless.
00:45:02.000
Isn't it also true that the doctors are still prescribing it?
00:45:07.000
So why would the doctors, whose job it is to prescribe it, still doing it in a widespread fashion,
00:45:16.000
when CNN says, oh yeah, the studies are in, it's over.
00:45:24.000
Now, it could be that my information is behind the times.
00:45:28.000
It could be that, let's say a week ago, doctors all over the country just stopped using hydroxychloroquine.
00:45:40.000
You know, it was promising, but I guess there's no reason to try it now.
00:45:58.000
So, a user on LinkedIn sent me a long description about the monetary situation.
00:46:07.000
You know, I was asking, can we just print money?
00:46:13.000
Because I thought to myself, there's something about this unique crisis situation that we've never seen before that might be the one and only time that you could just print money.
00:46:25.000
And any other time it would cause, you know, you'd have inflation or if you borrowed you'd cause debt, etc.
00:46:32.000
But I was thinking, I don't know, there's something about this.
00:46:36.000
Everything seems to have lined up where we can just print money.
00:46:40.000
And haven't you been waiting for somebody to tell you you can't do that?
00:46:45.000
Aren't you waiting for an expert to come on TV and say, um, you could print a little bit of money.
00:46:57.000
But you can't just print four or five trillion dollars.
00:47:02.000
You can't just print the entire GDP of your country and just hand it out and say, hey, here's some money.
00:47:09.000
There has to be some kind of cost down the road.
00:47:13.000
Have you seen one economic expert say that there would be?
00:47:25.000
Where's the other side that says, I got to tell you this five, whatever it's going to end up.
00:47:31.000
I'm guessing five trillion, but fact check me on that.
00:47:35.000
Wherever it ends up, where's the person going on TV?
00:47:38.000
An expert, an economist who says, look, look, look, you're all dreaming.
00:47:44.000
If you print five trillion dollars, even under these unique situations, you're dead.
00:48:02.000
How could everybody be on the same side that we can print five trillion dollars?
00:48:11.000
What in this universe am I missing that is so big that I don't understand why we can not just invent five trillion dollars?
00:48:22.000
So I wanted to read to you, if you don't mind, can I read to you a little bit of a lengthy explanation of this?
00:48:30.000
Because I'm not sure I understand it all, but maybe some of you will.
00:48:35.000
This is from Paul Vallejo, and he gave it to me on LinkedIn.
00:48:40.000
So on the question of money printing, point one, in normal circumstances, printing money creates bank reserves.
00:48:47.000
So some of you are already lost, but just stick with me.
00:48:50.000
This would throw the Fed Fund's interest rate off target, so normally you can't do that.
00:48:54.000
So the first point is, in a normal situation, you couldn't just print money.
00:49:00.000
He goes, however, now that interest rates are at zero, and they might even be negative pretty soon, this does not matter.
00:49:07.000
The Fed could print and not alter the Fed Fund's rate.
00:49:11.000
And again, most of you are not going to be able to follow that.
00:49:16.000
If the Treasury does not issue bonds to mop up those reserves, the supply of bank reserves lowers the Fed Fund's rate.
00:49:23.000
And again, the only thing I want you to get into the technical part is that this is somebody who knows what they're talking about.
00:49:32.000
Now, I can't fact check it, because I don't know enough of the context to know if any of this is wrong,
00:49:39.000
but it sounds like he knows what he's talking about.
00:49:43.000
The buying and selling of bonds modulates the Fed Fund's rates to be on target.
00:49:47.000
Point two, neither China nor any other country has to buy our printed money.
00:49:55.000
We're not borrowing money from China, which you'll see on TV.
00:49:59.000
People say we are, but that's not what this is.
00:50:01.000
First, because it does not have to be issued in bonds.
00:50:05.000
Second, even if it was insisted that it be issued in bonds, the Fed could buy them.
00:50:15.000
And he goes, the Bank of Japan owns most of the Japanese government bonds.
00:50:21.000
So your government can issue a debt and then just buy it.
00:50:24.000
So it could just basically be its own debt, I guess.
00:50:27.000
And the U.S. banking system could do it with regulators agreement.
00:50:32.000
So I guess you need some regulator agreement to do that.
00:50:36.000
So he says normally printing money creates inflation because it creates demand without supply.
00:50:41.000
This is an exception, which is what I've been saying.
00:50:50.000
Here we have to get into the paradox of thrift.
00:50:53.000
So it starts getting more complicated, blah, blah, blah.
00:50:55.000
Second brief, banks create money when they lend.
00:51:04.000
But the point of it all is that this is someone who does seem to understand all of the mechanisms of the system
00:51:11.000
and is agreeing with the one point, which is there might be something about this specific situation.
00:51:19.000
It might be the one time you can print $5 trillion.
00:51:30.000
Could anyone see coming that we could just print money?
00:51:43.000
And that is mostly what I wanted to talk about.
00:51:50.000
Yesterday, I mentioned that the locals platform that I'm moving some of my other content to, extra content.
00:52:00.000
This will still keep going on, as always, the Periscopes.
00:52:03.000
But I'll be putting some extra stuff, including these, on locals.
00:52:07.000
But I sent so much traffic there, I crashed their server.
00:52:10.000
So if you tried to go there yesterday and it didn't load, that was my fault.
00:52:15.000
I sent a few hundred thousand people there all at once, and it crashed it for a few minutes.
00:52:22.000
If you try it again today, it's probably fine, I'm sure.
00:52:29.000
Yeah, and the only people I see weighing in on the question of printing money are people saying,
00:52:47.000
And the pain pills are masking the pain well enough that she doesn't seem to be in discomfort.
00:52:55.000
The hard part is keeping her non-active, which is not easy.
00:53:10.000
One, to see if it gets reported on CNN or anyplace else.
00:53:14.000
Because if it's on Fox News and then you never see it anywhere else, well, judge the credibility based on that.
00:53:23.000
Thanks so much for those of you who did go to the locals and I will talk to you tonight.
00:53:35.000
And yes, there's a link to the article on my Twitter.
00:53:39.000
I'm going to talk to you tonight about the news.