Episode 1594 Scott Adams: Proof We Live in a Simulation, and My Interview With Dale About January 6

Well, welcome to the best thing that's Ever happened to you. We call this Coffee with Scott Adams. In large part because I'm Scott Adams. And there will be coffee. But I think we'd all agree that no matter what you're drinking here, this is the best thing that's ever happened to you and anybody, really. I haven't done a complete survey, but it feels like common sense if you'd like to take it up a notch. And, boy, do we have a show for you today. Do we have a show? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. And to enjoy it at its maximum capacity, all you need is a cup of margarita, glass of tanker chalice or stein, a canteen, juggernaut flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. It's the dopamine hit of the day. It's the thing that makes everything better, including the simulation. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Well, I don't have many rules in my household, but one of the most important rules is don't make loud noises from 7 to 8 in the morning. So if you can hear that shower that's running in the wall right next to me, that would be somebody in my house who's violating the cardinal rule, the prime directive. But shouldn't last too much longer. Well, today we learned that 75 members of Congress invested in companies that were related to the pandemic. Companies that have a direct stake in the nation's response to the pandemic. 75 of your elected professionals. 75. Are you as shocked by this as I am? There are 75 members of Congress who bought stock in companies that were almost guaranteed to go up because of what the government was voting on. Are you shocked? Well, I'm shocked because I was hoping there were more than 75 smart people in Congress. My God. Are you telling me that out of 400 whatever, of these assholes it was completely legal, apparently completely legal to invest in the very companies that they were guaranteeing were going to quadruple in value. Completely legal. And only 75 of these assholes did it? What the hell is wrong with Congress? Seriously. Let's take a list of the 75, keep them and get rid of all the other fucking idiots. Because really, if it's legal, they should all be doing it or it should not be legal. Pick one. But I don't want idiots running the country. If it's legal, do it. Document it. Show it to us. Then I might think you have some, you know, ability to predict. But if you're not doing this and it's totally legal and it's obvious and it's free money and 435 members of Congress, 75 smart ones, and I'm only kidding a little bit. Now, I'd like to think that the other members resisted for ethical reasons. What do you think? Do you think the other members of Congress resisted for ethical reasons? Maybe three or four of them. I have a feeling they just aren't good at investing because it's hard to explain otherwise. All right. Well, it's getting harder and harder to be a Democrat these days now that the Democrats have decided that the Build Back Better bill might go on the shelf. Let's just put that back on the shelf. We tried, but we're going to have to put that back on the shelf. So they thought instead of that, they'll try to pivot and try to get something done and they'll move that to the election reform. Try to get something done. A little election reform. Does the election reform include the ability to fully audit our votes in real time or very quickly so that we can have full transparency in our elections? No, of course not. Do you know why? Because there's no politician who wants that. Do you know why no politician wants actual good reform? Because everybody who got elected. Wait for it. Wait for the big reveal. Everybody who is currently elected got elected under the current situation. That's it. Why would anybody want to change the thing that got them elected? Nobody wants to change the thing that got them elected. The people who should have nothing to do with election reform are people who got elected under the current system. That's the people who should be recused. We've actually. We've delegated the job the most, I would say. Is it too far to say a sacred mission? Is that too far? I mean, the core, you know, the core engine of the democratic republic in which we live, the driving engine of the most important country in the world according to Americans, and we've delegated it to the only people who should not be involved in that in any way. Are we happy with that? Yeah, we're acting like that's perfectly natural. Has anybody brought that up but me, that the only people who shouldn't be working on this are exactly the people we delegated it to. Right. Who else even said that out loud? Nobody. Right. There's a shower running in the room next to me. That's the noise you hear. I'm sorry, somebody else did bring it up. Matt. Matt. Over on Locals brought it up. And I'm disappointed in all of you for not listening to Matt. So good on you, Matt. You were there early. So I love the fact that Kirsten Sinema is not supporting the filibuster reform under the perfectly good theory that if you do that, it's just going to rip apart the republic, basically, and everybody will just undo what the other party did and it'll just be a mess. So, good for her. What are the odds that one of the people involved in two movies on one screen, her last name would be Cinema? Cinema. Involved in two movies on one screen. Cinema What? Well, if you didn't think we lived in a simulation, there's a story coming up that will prove that we are. Wait for that. Okay, I have a new way to determine bs. I'm going to add this to my bullshit detector. Ways to determine if somebody is telling you the truth. And I saw this example in the Joe rogan interview with Dr. McCullough. Now, I want to be very careful. I'm not saying that Dr. McCullough is wrong about anything. All right? Can you hear that clearly? I'm not saying he's wrong about anything. I'm going to tell you that he flipped a switch that I consider a strong tell for lying or being wrong. Not lying is imagining. I could read somebody's mind. That's not what's happening. So I have no information that he would be lying about anything, but a strong indication that what he's saying is not necessarily true. Which doesn't mean he's lying. Right? People could have opinions that don't pan out, but here it goes like this, Scott, can you give me the evidence to support your point? And I say, can I give you evidence? There are thousands of citations in several books and it's all laid out there. Is it true? Am I telling you the truth or am I bullshitting? I'll do it again. I'm being interviewed. Scott, give me the evidence for your point of view. Evidence? Are you kidding me? There's so much evidence. We're swimming in evidence. There's like thousands of studies and citations and details and footnotes. They're across four different books, and you should read them all. And if you do, you're going to see it, too. Would you believe me? I hope not. I hope you're smart enough not to believe that. Here's what the truth would look like. Just hypothetically, Scott, give me the evidence supporting your point of view. All right, well, I'm saying there's a conspiracy. There's an email that shows that person one talked to person two who was in charge of this decision. So we can see the email. It's been confirmed. It's real. And this email says, go ahead and do this bad thing. And then the person who did the bad thing replied to the email, said, I'm going to do the bad thing. And then we measured the thing to see if it was bad and sure enough, it happened. That's what an honest opinion looks like. Do you want to see again what a not I don't want to say honest because I have no evidence that the good doctor is saying anything he doesn't believe. I do believe he's saying stuff he believes. So it's one thing to be wrong, it's another thing to be lying. And nobody's accusing him of that. At least I'm not. So for all of you who are pretty sure that Dr. McCullough has the goods and that Joe Rogan heard them and you heard McCullum tell them to Joe Rogan, can you explain for me why it can't be summarized? Here's the other Basically, here's the summary of this bullshit detection point. Anything that can't be summarized isn't true. Watch for that. Anything that can't be summarized isn't true. Watch how often that's predictive. All right. Ted Cruz has an anti critical race theory ebook. Had a fight back against teaching it in schools. Wait, wait. Are there any Democrats watching? If there are any Democrats watching. What did you just say in your head? CRT in schools. Nobody's teaching CRT in schools. Duh. You idiots on the right. You idiots. You fools. How many times do we have to tell you the CRT is a college level course if that it's based on some theories that are certainly not being taught in the K12. There is no critical race theory being taught in K12, say every Democrat who has been hypnotized by the news. Is it true? Is it true that CRT is not being taught in K through 12 schools, period? Not anywhere. True or false? True. It's true. It's 100% true. How many Republicans disagree with that? It is true. There's no critical race theory being taught in any K12 school. Here's the second thing that's also true. The concepts that are related to or come from critical race theory are being taught in K12 in a fairly widespread manner. True or false. Things that overlap with and are similar to and may be suggested by, perhaps influenced in some sense by are being taught in K12 in a fairly widespread way. True. So there's your two movies or your two Kirsten cinemas, as I like to say. Or Kirsten Cinemas. Sorry. Yeah. In one, there's no critical race theory in K through 12. And then the other one, there's plenty of it. They just don't use that label because it's the wrong label. So the Republicans are walking directly into the trap that the Democrats have set for themselves because they fall into their own trap by believing their own bullshit. Here's what the Democrats or the I'm sorry, this is what the Ted Cruz's of the world should do if it is their intention to fight against the critical race theory stuff. Yeah, yeah, Anthony, I see your point. Here's what the Republicans should do. Instead of saying we want to get rid of critical race theory in schools, they should say we want to get rid of teachings that overlap with critical race theory or teachings that are inspired by or teachings that are, let's say, familiar or similar to in some ways. So you need to go at it that way. I'd add the modifiers because if you don't add modifiers, people are just talking about the word choice and there's no argument there at all. Ron DeSantis is also in this fight. Have I mentioned that Ron DeSantis is like a fricking success machine, Republican wise. Right. Democrats will disagree with that characterization. But if you were, if you're a Republican, I'm not. So I'm just speaking as an observer here. But if you're A Republican, Ron DeSantis is just a machine. He's just pumping out one perfect move after another. Am I wrong? Does anybody disagree with that characterization? I've never seen anything like it, to be honest. I've never seen a politician just walk up to bat about once every two weeks and just hit a. Like a rope, like he's just hitting. Sorry, this is, you know, baseball reference, but. But it's like he's getting up the bat and he's hitting the first pitch like a solid, a solid double into the outfield. And then you think to yourself, well, that's something people can do 2 out of 10 times if they're really good. Then he gets up to bat, he hits another one, you're like, well, two in a row. Anybody can get lucky. And he's up to like what, 14 of these in a row or something where he'll find some national topic that at least his party, the Republicans are worked up about and then just come up with the perfect response. And so now he's got this. What is it called, the anti woke bill or something like that. And so they're gonna have some legislation proposed anyway to make it possible for parents to sue, I think, to school. If there's any critical race theory related stuff there. Yeah. Scott, sports analogies are the worst. That's true. It's a frozen rope. Yeah. So he's hitting, he's hitting frozen ropes into the, into the gap. How about that? Yeah, he's hitting a frozen rope into the gap. Okay. If you like your sports analogies, that's an analogy on an analogy. The frozen rope. And then it's sort of. Yeah, it's a nested. A nested analogy. Very difficult to do. And so DeSantis is framing it as no tax dollars to teach kids to hate each other. How good is that? How good is that? Framing no tax dollars to teach kids to hate each other. It's perfect. You couldn't improve on that. I don't think so. That is as good as it gets. Simple. Direct. Now, is Ron DeSantis full of bullshit? Well, remember what bullshit looks like? It would have looked like, well, you know, there's a concept of the thing and it's in a book and somebody talked about it in their 15 citations. And if you have the time, you should go look into it. Nope, he said directly, no tax dollars to teach kids to hate each other. Is that a fair characterization? It is. It is. It's not the only thing that it teaches. Right. You know, let's, let's give some credit to the intention. The intention, I think, is to make the world a better place. It just doesn't do it in a way that has greater benefits than costs according to Republicans. All right. Watching CNN spin bullshit into gold is so entertaining. Are you watching the January 6 coverage? The coverage will produce absolutely nothing, and CNN will treat it like there was something. And I'm watching the opinion people try to, you know, try to cook this into something. And it's basically they're cooking with water. They've got a little cup of water and they're trying to make dinner with it. And they're thinking, all right, where's the other ingredients for my soup? And the network saying, well, this time, no ingredients. We're just going to give you a cup of water. But it's your job to make people who are watching think that cup of water is full of beef. But it's just a cup of water. And so I would like to, if I may, interview my Democrat operative. His name is Dale Some of you know him. Some of you may be new to him. And Dale will explain to me the breaking stories, the blockbusters that just recently came out about January 6th. Dale, are you busy? Just come over here for a minute. I'd like to ask you a few questions about the January 6th blockbuster reports. Glad to help. Glad to help. What's your question? Well, I keep seeing there's some kind of blockbuster news, but then I read the news, and I'm not actually seeing the blockbuster. Can you. Can you help me connect the dots? Dale? Simple, simple Republicans. Am I right? Am I right? They're all dumb. They're all dumb. Let me explain it to you in the simplest way so that even a Republican can understand. Goes like this. There was an insurrection on January 6th. It's now proven. And the proof positive is that there was an email from Hannity to Mark Meadows saying that the president should call off the riots and therefore insurrection. Okay, okay. Hannity sent an email, but that doesn't really seem to be in any way related to your point that there was an insurrection. There are two facts or there's a claim and then there's a fact. Can you just, like, connect the claim to the fact? I'm missing the connecting tissue there, Republicans, am I right? I don't know if I can make this any simpler. There was an email. It's a blockbuster. It's proof that President Trump is an insurrectionist because there's an email. And if one email isn't enough. There were three. Three emails. There were three emails, and President Trump is an insurrectionist. Blockbuster proof. He's a liar. You get it now, right? My problem is that the one email didn't seem connected to the point. But having three of those emails that are also not connected to the point you're making, I'm not seeing how that bolsters the argument. Is that because you're watching all the fake news on Fox News, I call it faux doos. Faux dos. They don't even know it. And scene. I believe that's what's going on here. Spinning bullshit into gold over on cnn. All right, let me tell you a story that proves the simulation exists. Was there a topic you were expecting me to talk about this morning? Was there something that happened yesterday that you're thinking, I'll bet Scott's going to mention that today. Anything? Well, let me tell you a little story in case you missed it. So yesterday I said to myself, man, I am so overstimulated, like, talking about the news. I did two live streams yesterday, and My head was just full of stuff, and I had several issues. I had to work out a whole bunch of scheduling things. I just said to myself, I'm going to take a day off of Twitter. So after I did my morning stuff, I thought, I'm going to go for a long walk, and for the first time, and I don't remember how long, I'm just going to not check Twitter for maybe the rest of the night. Very unusual. I can't even think of a time I've ever done that. And as I was walking, I was feeling great, because once the stimulation was behind me, I was just outdoors in the quiet. So I'm taking a nice walk to clear my mind. And I had this distinct feeling, which I've had before, that I was in a simulation and that I was an avatar and that I was being watched by perhaps the creator of the simulation or the. The game player or whatever. Whatever is happening. And so I talked out loud to the creators of the simulation and I said, this is actually true, by the way. Everything I tell you is true. I swear I wouldn't make this up. And I'll tell you, I'm never going to lie to you. If I tell you I'm telling you the truth. If I say directly, you don't have to worry about it. This is real. So I said to my. I actually talked out loud and I said, if this is a simulation, I need some evidence. And I said, specifically, if it's really a simulation, I'm going to need to show that I can author it. In other words, I could make something happen that only the simulation could explain. So that actually happened yesterday in the afternoon. And I stayed off Twitter for a few hours and I was feeling good about it, and I got a text that directed me to look at Twitter. How many times has that ever happened to me? Almost never, right? Almost never. Do I get a text telling me to look at Twitter, because usually I'm on Twitter, so I've already seen it. Somebody would just DM me on Twitter or something. And so I looked at the message, and it was a message that Elon Musk had added in the. In the string of tweets about Elizabeth Warren where he was calling her Senator Karen. We were all having a good laugh about that. Yesterday, somebody asked him something about, I don't know, me or Dilbert. And Elon Musk tweeted this. He said, I love Dilbert, exclamation mark. Use it all the time to illustrate that we're doing something wrong at Tesla SpaceX. If it could be a Dilbert cartoon in real life, this happens more often than I'd like. Sigh. Now, of course, when the richest person tweets something about you, in this case about Dilbert, a lot of people notice it and called it out to me. Now, you are aware that the person most famous for promoting the idea that we live in a simulation is Elon Musk, right? He's never tweeted at me before. And the one day that I'm waiting for a sign that we live in the simulation, Elon Musk tweets at me. Now, that by itself wouldn't be the biggest coincidence in the world, right? I mean, coincidences happen, but it gets better. Twitter user Pranay. I hope I'm pronouncing that somewhere close to the name. He tweets this at Elon. He says, do you sometimes feel like you're living in a Dilbert cartoon simulation? Elon tweets back, yeah, exclamation mark. So the person most famous for saying we live in a simulation is tweeting in front of the world that he feels like he's living in a simulation that I created. This really happened. I'm not making up any of this. This actually happened. So after I saw Elon's tweet, I think it was like, I don't know, it was in the middle of the morning, which you call the night. Those of you who like to sleep in, you call it night. But I think people like Elon Musk and people like me who hate sleep, we call that the morning. I think I got up this morning at 12:30, a little earlier than usual. So I was up tweeting and stuff, working. And so I tweeted back at Elon when he said that he does feel like he lives in a Dilbert cartoon simulation. I tweeted this back. I said, too soon. You aren't scheduled to become self aware until after I finish drawing the Mars colony. So that's out there now. I don't even know what to say about this story. You know, this is one of those stories where you just put it out there and you just have to sort of accept that it really happened. So that was pretty weird. Anyway, That was the favorite story of the day. So there's a graph on Twitter. Now, if it's a graph and it's on Twitter, what do you know about it? Let's see. It's information about the pandemic, and it's a graph and it's on Twitter, so therefore it's totally true, right? Because it's a graph. I don't know if I mentioned it's on Twitter, but it's not just a graph. It's a graph on Twitter. So that's completely credible. And this graph was something I'd been wanting to see for a long time, which is the difference in the death rates from COVID 19 between Republicans and Democrats. And somebody found a way to do that, actually, which was to use the voting records of different counties as the proxy and then look at the infection rates in those counties versus bluer counties, et cetera. And they showed that most recently, the Republican line of COVID deaths is way above, way above the Democrats. What's that tell you? What does that tell you? Did I mention that it's a graph? But it's not just a graph. It's on Twitter, so I hope you're not doubting the credibility of it. What? Oh, my God, you're so skeptical. Did I tell you it's a graph and it's on Twitter? I mean, if you hear those two things, we should be done here. That is a fact my friends, even Snopes will tell you. They just give up if they see it's a graph on Twitter. They're. Oh, that's true. It's probably true. It's a graph. It's on Twitter. Well, here are a few things that might be wrong with that graph on Twitter. Number one, if you monkey with the Y axis, you can make small differences look like really big ones. Do you remember the. The Democrats telling us that the gas prices have dropped precipitously? Well, if you monkey with the Y axis, it looks like that 2 cents, you know, only went down, I guess a dime so far. So you can make anything look bigger. So that's the first thing you need to know. Second thing you need to know is they didn't adjust for age. There's no adjustment for age. And at least in one state I saw some data. I think it was Texas. But let's say this isn't too far from the rest of the world. The Republican voters are close to eight years older on average than Democrat voters would. Eight years. If that were the only difference, eight years of difference, would that explain a substantial difference in outcomes? Well, eight years wouldn't be the biggest difference, would it? You know, 20 years would be pretty noticeable, for sure. By eight years would be a smaller difference you would predict. But you could make that look pretty big, couldn't you? Just adjust the Y axis until it looks big? How about. How about weight? We know that weight is a comorbidity. Somebody said 9 out of 10 of the red states are the fattest in the country. If the only thing you were measuring was how people did by weight, would that graph look exactly the same? It might. Especially if you play with the Y axis. Right. So I would love to see. And then I asked, in response to that tweet, I asked, I'd like to see the same graph except by race. Suppose they did the same thing except by race and do it the same way. Use representative voting clusters or something. Or just, I guess, census data to find out if the areas with the most black population have higher infections are lower. Now, what do you expect they would find? Now, if I'm right about this, and I believe you get kicked off of Twitter if you say this wrong. So if I say something that's not true here, my understanding is that I could get kicked off of Twitter or blocked or something. And one of the things that I think is not allowed is to suggest that any ethnic groups have a different outcome, which I don't entirely understand because I need a fact check on this. But my understanding is that it was mainstream understanding that there was a different outcome and that black Americans were having a worse time of it. I thought that was just well understood. But give me a fact check so I have to act like I don't know that's true or else I'll get bumped off of Twitter. I think according to the guidelines, if I understand them right. So what would happen if you saw two graphs, hypothetically? There are graphs on Twitter. They're both graphs on Twitter. One of them is just the one you saw, the Republicans versus Democrats showing that Republicans have worse outcomes according to that graph. That's a graph on Twitter. So, you know, it's very, very credible. But suppose you did that side by side with one by race and specifically compared just black and white, just to keep it simple. And suppose it showed a similarly appalling difference, like an alarming difference in outcome where the black Americans were dying at twice the rate or something. How would the news interpret those two outcomes? Well, let me tell you. They would look at the Republicans versus Democrat and they say, well, that's proof that Republicans are stupid because they're not getting the vaccine. This would be the Democrat spin, right? Well, all those Republicans are dying because they're not getting the vaccination because they're anti science. Right? That's how the Democrats would spin it. How would they spin the one that showed that the black Americans are less vaccinated than white Americans, they would spin that as less access. They would spin that as racism. Why is it so racist that we can't give more vaccinations to black Americans? Right. Those two things would just be interpreted completely differently. I don't know that either of them would be right, but you know that that's the way it would look. All right, that is all the excitement that I had planned for today, I believe. I feel like there was one other thing that was happening that I'm forgetting about. Is there anything else happening? Spot on today. Thank you. Please review remdesivir. Why don't we know it doesn't work? Is there anything to review about remdesivir? They thought it might work. It doesn't, right? Isn't that the whole story? All right. How many of you think Ivermectin works against Covid? And how many of you have heard the hypothesis from pretty smart people that it may look like it worked because of a combination of some large studies that were actually fraudulent or didn't exist, plus the experience with countries where they had some internal worms? So I guess if you've got a parasite in your stomach and you've got Covid, you're more likely to die. So the people who took the ivermectin probably were getting rid of a comorbidity, if that's the right word for it, instead of getting rid of the virus. But that would give you the same improvement in life expectancy. So how many of you knew that, that there is, there is an explanation of why it would appear that ivermectin works while it doesn't? Now, I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that's the official, the official take on it right? Now. How many of you are aware of that? So I'm just checking your bubble in the comments. How many of you had heard that Ivermectin might look like it works and that those are the reasons? A couple of big fake studies that are skewing the rest along with the ivermectin, cleaning up the comorbidity of, of the parasites in the stomachs, seeing a lot of no's. A lot of no's. I only heard this a few days ago, so I think Scott Alexander apparently was talking about it and I tend to listen to him. He's one of the smartest people on the Internet, So it must be true. Well, I'm not saying I know it's true. I'm saying that now we have a pretty reasonable sounding hypothesis. For why it could look like it's working and not because here's the thing. The longer we go without even one city or municipality completely getting rid of COVID with either hydroxychloroquine with some other stuff or with ivermectin, the longer we go without even one example of a city, a county, somebody just squashing it. The odds of it really being effective against Covid specifically are pretty low. I would say I'd put the odds of both of them at 10%. I wouldn't go to zero. I could be surprised, But I'd say the odds that either hydroxychloroquine or in any combination with anything else or ivermectin works against coronavirus. I started down at well over 50% when we were first hearing about it. When I heard that there were lots of studies and that the meta analysis would make it look good, I said, I don't really trust meta analysis, but I give it a 50% chance. Certainly enough that I would have tried it if I'd gotten Covid. When Joe Rogan got Covid, oh, I'd take the ivermectin. That was the right risk management decision. I think his doctor advised him correctly. That doesn't mean it worked, but it was the right decision. You know, from the perspective of looking back now, if it happened to be today and I'd heard this stuff about, well, it doesn't look like the indications of it working are true. Would I take it today if there's only a 10% chance? I don't know. I don't know. There's still almost zero side effects, right? So if there's almost zero side effects and 10% chance it might work, and I'm not saying it would work. 10% like it work a little bit. I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's only a 10% chance it has any effect that you'd notice. I don't know. That'd be a toss up, you know, at 10%, I guess, maybe if my doctor said so, I'd probably try it just because there's no downside. But I wouldn't be counting on it, that's for sure. I definitely wouldn't be putting the Regeneron off. Oh, by the way, an update on my friend who had a bad turn with COVID He. He was denied regeneron until about 10 days into it because there was some guideline about when you can give it early and when you can't. But they bent the rules and he got the regeneron. And I don't know if it was the regeneron that regenerated him, but that was about the turning point. And now he's on the mend. We got a little lingering, little lingering symptoms, but I think the virus is cleared. Yeah, that was regeneron, all right. What about hydroxychloroquine? Was there any research with zinc? Well, I am aware we talked this extensively in the beginning, that it looked like the studies were intentionally done to fail. Would you agree with that? You could imagine if you were a big vaccine company, you didn't want these things to succeed. You would actually fund tests that you knew would fail. So you'd look for somebody who had a test structure that by its nature it was going to show it didn't work, and you would fund that one. That's what I'd do if I were. If I were a dirty trickster, you know, pharma, big pharma company. That's what I'd do. Now, if you're wondering would big pharma do a horrible, horrible thing, you have to watch the special dopesick about the Sackler family in Purdue and Oxley content. If you think there's anything they wouldn't do, there's nothing they wouldn't do. They meaning there's somebody in that universe that would do almost anything. Right. So that doesn't mean it happened. I'll tell you my current best opinion about the vaccinations. You ready? So this is a modified sort of evolving opinion, my current best opinion, and there seem to be a binary going on here. One, that the risks of vaccines are not, not worth it. And the other is that the risks are low compared to the COVID itself. So they're not just worth it, they're really, really worth it. So the binary is it's worthless or it's pretty great. Even though it's not a true vaccine, it still has many benefits. Here's my take. I think it might be the most dangerous vaccine we've ever had. But I think the people who did the science probably thought it worked. That's what I think. I think that the actual scientists who did the studies for these big companies, I think they believed it worked, meaning that the benefit was far greater than the risk. I do think they may have. They may have underplayed the risks. Is there anybody who would disagree with that? That the pharma companies would or have underplayed the risk? What do you think? I think that could be almost certainly true because that would be every Company acting exactly like every company acts. It's not even an indictment of the pharma industry. That would just be a statement of what companies do. They minimize their problems and they exaggerate their benefits. I don't think it could be that different with pharma. They must be exaggerating their benefits and hiding to some extent there's a limit beyond which it becomes purely criminal. Here's what I don't think happened. I don't think that anybody was involved in a money making big pharma scheme that could be easily detected later. That part is a stretch for me. Although people do crazy stuff, so they do things that are not good for themselves, but it would be unlikely. Generally speaking, when somebody does something underhanded, when there are shenanigans, they at least do things that they think they can get away with. Would you agree with the premise that at least if you're talking about not career criminals who can do some crazy stuff, but I'm talking about, you know, people who wear science jackets and neckties. That group of people, you know, the educated segment of the society, if they're going to do something that's a huge crime, they're going to try pretty hard to make sure nobody ever finds out, right? That's sort of important in the crime. You don't steal a bunch of stuff that you know you're going to get caught at. You don't murder somebody on video, right? At the very least, you're going to try pretty hard not to do a crime that you know you're going to get caught for. Now suppose a bunch of the people at one of these big pharma companies knew, and I don't think this is the case, but hypothetically, suppose they knew that the vaccines were worse than the COVID itself or at least, you know, not that much better. Do you think that they could have made their billions of dollars? Because even the employees are making bank with their 401ks and everything. So everybody at the big pharma companies are making a lot of money, that's for sure. Even the lower employee level because of stock. So do you think that there was somebody who would do that kind of crime? With the odds of detection being I think close to 100% if you wait long enough now, they might not get caught this year. Hypothetically, if anything underhanded happened, maybe not next year, but what are the odds that they could go five years without somebody uncovering the crime? I don't think so. I feel like there would be too many people involved Too many potential whistleblowers, too many, too many people looking at the same data with different, you know, different ways in. I feel like you would know for sure you couldn't get away with that. So I don't think anybody would steal $1 billion if they knew they were going to get caught. A lot of people would steal a billion dollars if they thought there was a good chance of not getting caught. You find lots of volunteers for that. But if you knew you were going to get caught. And I think they would have to know that if they literally fake the data, that's going to bite them in the ass. And so I say if we ever find out that anybody in the vaccine universe did something literally illegal to make it look like it was safer than it was, that's got to be the death penalty. Would you agree? Now some of you just may disagree with the death penalty on principle, that's a different question. But in terms of the maximum penalty that the United States gives to anybody, what would be bigger than that? I think it would be criminal in itself to be executing, you know, low income people who've done, you know, equally heinous things or actually not even close. There's probably nobody on death row who's done anything close to that in terms of body count if it happened. Right. And my, my guess is that it didn't happen. So if you want a prediction that you can take, you know, you can hold me to, here's my prediction that nobody did a crime. That will be easily detectable. There could be crime. In fact, almost certainly the odds that all of these big pharma companies did everything legally and there was no employee who broke a crime or broke a law in some way, zero. I mean, you know, big companies sometimes, you know, they'll cross some lines to get things done. So definitely there was some shenanigans. But my personal opinion is we won't find the, the hidden, like obvious fraud that somebody did to make a billion dollars because nobody does that crime. Now I say nobody. Like it's an absolute, but it's never an absolute. So if I give you a prediction, you should just, in your mind you should say that's not 100% because nothing is. But I'd say the odds are I'm going to go 80%. I'll give you an 80% chance that no matter how good or bad the vaccines are, in reality that there won't be somebody that you find just hid the bad data to make a bunch of money because they would definitely go to jail. For that. And by the way, I'm not even sure if they could live a life in the, in the United States. You know, even if they didn't go to jail for it, if somehow they got off on it, I don't even know if they could live in the United States because they would be responsible for, you know, countless deaths and under this scenario would have known about it. Would have known they did it. Yeah. So when you see the 75 year thing, you have to assume criminal activity, don't you? I mean seriously, if a company says we'll show you our data in 75 years, you should just shut them down. You should just take that as proof of criminal intent. You don't even know what the crime is. You say I don't even know what the crime is, but you're committing one. Like if there could be a clear indication of a crime, I've never heard of one. So I think just the fact that they asked for the 75 years, I mean, I'm joking, but I feel like you should shut them down for that. You should shut down the whole vaccination, basically. I would have withdrawn the vaccination at that point. Let me say it directly. If Pfizer or whoever requires 55 years or 75, I think they're still negotiating some of that. But if they require that and there's no explanation for why that makes sense, I think you have to withdraw the vaccine, don't you? I mean, I think that's a, that's a no brainer. Now you want to get mad, this will be easy. Watch me trigger you. As obvious as that is to you and to me. Which one of our politicians is even suggesting that? Right. Did you hear any Republicans suggest it? I didn't. Did you hear any Democrats suggested? I didn't, no. And let me tell you that unless there's more to the story, there might be. It could be that if you listen to Pfizer's side, they would give you some reason that you'd never even thought of. It's like, oh God, yeah, that would take 75 years. I can't imagine what that would be. But I think until we hear that, in other words, oh, Rand Paul. Did Rand Paul say that directly? That because of the 75 years, that's reason enough to withdraw the vaccine? To me, that's reason enough. And not only is it reason enough, it's more than reason enough. I mean, that's beyond the best reason anybody ever gave for anything. Right. Can you think of anything that anybody's ever done in any domain. That would be a better reason than pulling vaccinations when the company won't give you data about their safety. No, no, no. There's nothing more obvious and easy to make than that decision. Assuming that you have enough of the other vaccinations now, some of it might be that, you know, if you don't have it, fewer people will get vaccinated. So maybe some calculation there. Is it Pfizer or the FDA that's withholding the data? Well, either way, does it matter if the data is being withheld from the public and from the rest of the scientific community? It doesn't matter who's withholding it. You still have to pull the vaccination. And by the way, is our government even talking about it? Except for Rand Paul. I mean, Biden should be saying out loud, well, we've got a problem with Pfizer. I think Trump would do that, wouldn't he? Can you imagine Trump in the same situation where Pfizer told him they couldn't give the data for X years? Don't you think Pfizer would tell them, we're going to pull your approval? The most obvious thing in the world? I think he would say, okay, you've got a week and then we're going to pull your emergency approval. It's the most obvious play. What's going on now, keep in mind, this might be a news problem. It could be that the news is serving us so poorly that we don't even understand this issue about the documents in the 75 years because there's something about it we don't understand. I have trouble believing it's as cut and dried as they're hiding data from us. Was it really that's it? Is that the whole story? They are intentionally hiding data from us until they die. I mean, if that is the whole story, then the management of it is just moronically simple. You pull the authorization. You have to. How could the public have any confidence in its government if they don't pull the authorization? Or, or just as happy, or explain the reasoning in a way that makes sense. There might be an explanation. In fact, I would say there's at least a 50% chance there's some reason that we don't even understand. It could be that it takes, you know, years to produce new data that goes in these documents, something like that. I mean, if you consider that almost every other story we hear is fake some way fake. It's hard to believe this one's the one that's clean. Privacy issues or something. That's interesting. Privacy issues. I don't see any way that you couldn't remove identities. That doesn't sound real. Redactions take time. Well, if they're redacting things, I got questions. Is the FDA is asking for 75 years to clear out patient data, meaning that we would remove the way to identify which patient it is. So are we waiting for the patients involved to die of natural causes? Let me just say that isn't a good enough reason. Like I hear it as a reason, but I want to invite Dale back because it's not connecting with the problem. I don't see how you can't remove identifying information unless that's the only. Maybe it is the identified identities of the people. That's the only thing that'll take 75 years. I mean, if that's the case, then it's irrelevant, isn't it? So I'm going to keep my 50% odds that there's nothing to this story. How do you like that? 50% odds that there's actually nothing to the story and that the thing that's being withheld wasn't anything that everybody needed anyway, such as the actual identities of the people. All right. But I'll keep with. If we don't have a good explanation from the government, we can't live with that. All right. That is all I have to talk about today. I think you'll agree this is the best live stream that has ever happened in the history of the United States, possibly the entire world, maybe the rest of the solar system, and could be the universe. Scott, ban me. You are shilling. If you believe 50% will do, Ken, you are banned. I'd use it on this channel, yes. If you think that you can detect shilling by my. By my opinions, you're not smart enough to be on this live stream. Goodbye. Ken, Get a band hammer. What time do you go to bed? Well, last night, 10pm and I woke up two and a half hours later and I said to myself, you know, I'm tired of sleeping. So I just got up. One of the things that I teach you when I. When I do my micro lessons, I think one of them is on sleep. One of these sleep tricks is if you can't get back to sleep, don't try. You know, you can try for a little while, but if you know it's not going to happen, you get up. And then tonight I'll go to bed at 10 o' clock and I'm going to be exhausted. And tonight I'll get back on track. But don't. Don't stay up torturing yourself. Just get up and do something you wanted to do anyway. Clean the house, do some work. You know, take a walk. Just get up and do something. That's what I've been doing for years, and I enjoy it quite a bit. Scott's writing the coattails of Dale's fame. Well, that's one way to do it. All right. Somebody says all Indians have worms is a fallacy. Well, I don't think anybody was claiming all Indians have worms. I think that there may have been enough people in some areas that it could show up in the data. That's a big distance from all Indians have worms. All right, that's all for now. And I will talk to you, Jimmy Dore and RFK Jr last night was better. Was it? Did they tell you in a way that you can summarize what RFK said? Because here's the test. If you can summarize it like direct sentence, somebody did this and caused this, then maybe there's something to it. But if you can summarize it, there might not be anything there. Anyway, that's the test, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.