Episode 1214 Scott Adams - Fang Fang, Hunter Biden, Rapid Testing, CNN Versus Trump
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Massive disinformation campaign impacted election - Eric Swalwell, Fang Fang and many questions - Government Facebook misdirection - Election fraud happened, guaranteed - Ivermectin as a therapeutic for COVID19 - Michigan Rep. Cynthia A. Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. I just realized what time it is. Do you know what time it is? That's right, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day. There was this one time that I thought it wouldn't be the best time of the day, but I was wrong and it was. So learn fro…
View segment →is the biggest delight, completely unexpected, about President Trump's probable change of careers. It looks like, you know, I was sort of saying to myself I sure would enjoy another four years of being entertained by President Trump, but there is a c
View segment →onsolation prize. There's a consolation prize, and it is that making fun of Democrats is sort of fun. It's a little bit better than I was hoping, and a lot of it has to do with the material they're serving up now. I'm going to say that President Trump did serve up some good material himself for his…
View segment →gets any bigger than that. And apparently they were using the media as part of that, Politico in particular, among others, probably all of the other big media. How is that not the biggest story in the world? It's amazing. All right, let's go on. You all want to talk about Representative Swalwell, w…
View segment →Now if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up. I'll be there, you know, given the performance review like, all right, all right, Bob, let's see, looking at your performance over the year. There was, yeah, you were very punctual. That's a plus for you, Bob. Good job in…
View segment →ing taken to court for unfair competition stuff, monopoly stuff. And so some of the things being suggested as monopoly stuff is that they're buying up their little competitors. So they buy the competitors, and there are some of them. As an example, they bought Instagram so it wouldn't compete with t…
View segment →here on this. Would you like me to gamble in front of you? All right, here's my statement. Election fraud, because of the nature of our election systems and what we've learned about the at least the potential for fraud and what we've learned about the hatred for Orange Hitler, given that setup, ther…
View segment →n? Yeah, so those are the ones that do work. So ivermectin, he says there have been recent studies that even though you can't get to certainty, like we don't have enough time and data to really, really, really, really know, but he says that there's so much and it's so much in the same direction that…
View segment →at needs to happen. We're not in the same galaxy with that, just to be clear. Now here, let me tell you what the big story is to me. The big story is not that there was this one person who said this one thing, because we live in a big world of crazy people. There's always going to be somebody sayin…
View segment →that COVID was real. So that's their explanation. Let me add my own explanation. Why, what other reason could you think of? What other reason would Trump supporters deny that the election was fair? Could it be because there's no chance it was fair? Could be. Could be. What would be another explanat…
View segment →rst true thing they said. What the hell are all the people who have been deluged by fake news for four years, what are they supposed to think? They just reflexively say if CNN says that it can't be true because they have a whole four years of knowing that that's the pattern. Don't expect people to b…
View segment →s little experiment you'll be able to more easily recognize that you might be in it in some future time when I don't tell you you're in it. I'm telling you you're in it right now. You can depend on the fact you will experience confirmation bias on this name repeating thing. It's going to happen. Al…
View segment →say to yourself we're all being fed fake news and the people who are consuming one kind of fake news fall for a certain set of lies, the people consuming another set of fake news are likely to fall for another set of lies, then you might be smart. That would be an indication of somebody who might be…
View segment →Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. I just realized what time it is. Do you know what time it is? That's right, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day. There was this one time that I thought it wouldn't be the best time of the day, but I was wrong and it was. So learn from history, will you? Because it repeats in this particular way and only this way. This is the best time of the day, and it'll be better if you have a copper mug or glass, a tiger challenger stein, a canteen, jug or flask, or vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, except Representative Swalwell. It's called the simultaneous sip. Join me. Well, that makes everything better. Everything.
Let me tell you what is the biggest delight, completely unexpected, about President Trump's probable change of careers. It looks like, you know, I was sort of saying to myself I sure would enjoy another four years of being entertained by President Trump, but there is a consolation prize. There's a consolation prize, and it is that making fun of Democrats is sort of fun. It's a little bit better than I was hoping, and a lot of it has to do with the material they're serving up now. I'm going to say that President Trump did serve up some good material himself for his critics. I think he'll have the best four years of any president, but he did serve up a lot of red meat for the critics. Turns out that the Democrats are just as good at serving up the good stuff. Shall we dig in? Yeah, we shall.
So it turns out that Hunter Biden might be in a little trouble. And when I say he's in a little trouble, there are, within the category of what you might call financial crimes, a lot of categories. So you might have your tax-related financial crimes. Potentially somebody might be laundering a little money. That would be a financial crime. Maybe, let's see, maybe you were, let's see, what are some other financial crimes? Oh, having foreign ties. Well, you know, I suppose if there's a financial connection, that'd be a financial thing too. So it turns out that Hunter Biden has been accused of all financial crimes simultaneously. Like if it were a financial crime, somebody's looking into it on Hunter Biden. I'm only exaggerating a little bit, but the point is that we're learning after the election that he's in massive trouble. From securities fraud, there's a securities fraud unit looking into it. Doesn't mean that's the crime, so we don't know the exact allegations.
I will defend Hunter Biden the following way. Number one, Hunter Biden is an attorney. If he set up a business situation that is transparently illegal, I'd be a little bit surprised. I mean, it's not impossible, but he's a lawyer and he works with lawyers. It's hard to believe that he set up a situation that would be both easy to discover and just flat-out illegal. So I don't know that these allegations will turn into anything. How many times have we seen allegations not turn into anything? It's a pretty common thing, right? So I don't want to be the one who says Hunter Biden is guilty of anything, anything at all. You know, obviously the swampy behavior is apparently technically legal, so we're pretty sure he was involved with swampy stuff. But in terms of actually breaking the law, there's nothing in evidence. So I'm going to treat it that way. There's nothing in evidence, and it's the type of investigations that we do see when people are ultimately not charged. But there are a lot of them. There's a lot of smoke here. I'm telling you that I can't see the fire, but there's a lot of smoke. So use your judgment.
The big part of the story, of course, is that this was completely squashed as a story before the election. I was just tweeting a difference between how Politico treated it right before the election versus how they're treating it now. Now Politico is dumping out all the allegations. Before then they actually ran a major story on Politico, same site, before the election, saying that according to former and current intel people, all of the Hunter Biden allegations looked like Russian disinformation. So our own current and former intel people were working against the United States. That's interesting, isn't it? So according to Politico, our own current and former intel people are actually not on our team. That's a little scary, isn't it? Wouldn't you like to know that your former intel people were on your side? That's like the last people that you want to piss off. Ask Chuck Schumer. He said it directly. It's the last group of people you'd want to piss off because they can get back at you so many ways, according to Chuck Schumer.
So it's pretty distressing that our own current and former intel people were lying to our media so that the media could lie to us. What do you make of that? I feel like that's maybe the biggest story. The biggest story is the misinformation or disinformation from our side. Our own intelligence people, retired and current, were feeding disinformation in a massive way, massively disinformation, to our own press in real time. And what are we going to look into instead of that? Well, we'll talk about it, but that feels like one of the biggest stories in the country, doesn't it? If you were going to say to yourself, like, you know, rank the big stories, what would be a bigger story than current and former intel people starting a disinformation campaign in this country? Because that's really bad. That's really, really, really bad. That's a nine or a ten on a scale of one to ten.
And we're in this really weird new environment. You've seen it before. Maybe it's just attenuated or maybe I just didn't notice it as much, but it goes like this. In any given day, let's say there are a hundred things happening in the world that could legitimately be called news. Which of the hundred things that are happening in the world end up actually being news? Well, not all hundred, you know that. It's some little subset of the hundred things that could be news become news, and then we obsessively talk about that little group of things that we decided to use. Well, if you're not familiar with the news business, there are entities called newsmakers, meaning somebody who's in the news business who's important enough to look into the hundred things that all could be news. They're all important, but they've picked this one. And once, let's say, the New York Times picks it, it could be CNN, could be Washington Post, by any of the big entities, once they pick it they say this is news. Then we sort of ignore all the other stuff that was just that was important, and we act like that's the only news.
And so I guess the news was always able to redirect you to the only thing they cared about as opposed to things you might care about. But I feel as if their ability to simply tell you that something deeply, deeply important doesn't matter is really the superpower. Because the story about these ex and current intel people running a disinformation campaign in the middle of an election in this country, that feels like to me just about the biggest story in the country. And it's treated as it's not even a story. They simply have to treat it like it's not a story, and it becomes not a story. And if it's not a story, it's also not a crime. There's nothing to investigate. There's no call from the public to do it. It just goes away. And this could have just as easily, you could imagine it would take you no trouble at all to imagine that it became the biggest story in the country. You could imagine that, right? What would be a bigger story than current and former intel people running an obvious disinformation campaign during an election? I don't know that it gets any bigger than that. And apparently they were using the media as part of that, Politico in particular, among others, probably all of the other big media. How is that not the biggest story in the world? It's amazing.
All right, let's go on. You all want to talk about Representative Swalwell, who coincidentally, because the simulation is running out of processing power, you'll see that. And I've told you this before, you'll run into too many repeats. For example, the biggest story in the country is about a representative in Congress. What were the odds it would be my representative? Well, pretty low, but there it is. So again, I'm only teasing because coincidences are generally just coincidences and confirmation bias. But if you start looking for it, it's sort of a fun exercise to see how often you'll see it if you tune your brain to expect it. Now, just for fun, just for fun, look for all the repeats and things that would look like you're a computer simulation that's running out of memory so it's repeating stuff. For example, could the biggest story in the news be about my representative, somebody I've met in person? What are the odds that one of the biggest stories in the world is somebody I know? Okay, I mean, I bet a lot of people, but that's one thing. And then what are the odds that the main character in the story, who is not Swalwell himself, is named Fang Fang? Did I, can you confirm, I want you to confirm that I've been telling you now for a few weeks, I guess, that you would see the simulations serve up names that are like duplicates. Did I not tell you that the simulation would start serving up duplicate names? Confirm this, because anybody who hears me say that is going to say you didn't say that. You didn't predict that the duplicate names would be coming. I want you to see it in the comments that I predicted duplicate names were coming. And then yeah, you see it confirmed. It's in the comments now.
Of all the weird things I've predicted, is that the weirdest? Is that the weirdest thing I've ever predicted? And it's because you can see it happening. We're seeing just the same people popping up all the time and now just the same names of things, right? Yeah, you're seeing in the comments. I'm not making this up. I actually predicted that the news would start using duplicate names, and here it is. The headline: Fang Fang. And we're hearing a little bit more about this story. It turns out that Fang Fang had a sort of a name for her boyfriend, allegedly. She called him Fart Fart. So it was Fang Fang and Fart Fart. Very cute couple. Now I say they're a couple, but I do not have evidence that they were ever actually a couple, so I don't think it's fair that, especially since he's married, I don't think it's fair that we should assume that this is true. You know, there's allegations that he had a sexual relationship with her, but we don't have evidence. In fact, when Swalwell's staff was asked whether he had a sexual relationship with this alleged Chinese spy, here's what his staff said. And you know, I think you can trust this. The staff says, well, here's the, it says we asked Swalwell's office, this is what the news reported, and his staff replied by saying that they couldn't comment on whether or not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang because that information might be classified.
So I guess we'll never know, because according to his staff, whether or not this married representative was having sex with a Chinese spy, they can't tell us because it might be classified. Now let me give some advice to Representative Swalwell. I know you, maybe you don't need some advice from me, but it goes like this. If your staff has ever been asked if you've had a sexual relationship with a Chinese spy, the correct answer is no. Now, under the condition that he had not had sex with a Chinese spy, the answer is always no. There's not really a second way to answer that that doesn't sound like yes. I'll get back to you sounds like sort of maybe you did. I can't talk about it because it might be what they call it, might be classified. That's really saying yes. So Representative Swalwell, you might want to make some changes on your staff, because I think they just confirmed you had sex with a Chinese spy.
Now if I'm doing the performance review for my staff, that's going to come up. I'll be there, you know, given the performance review like, all right, all right, Bob, let's see, looking at your performance over the year. There was, yeah, you were very punctual. That's a plus for you, Bob. Good job in that punctuality. I like a lot of your writing. You know, you did some good writing and some projects, a plus there. There was really just one thing, just one thing that I have a little problem with, and I think this will have to be reflected on your permanent record. There was a time you confirmed to the press that I was having sex with a Chinese spy. That was suboptimal, Bob, and I'm going to have to give you a below expectation for that. You did not exceed my expectations. So marking me out for having sex, allegedly, with a Chinese, allegedly, spy, not such good performance. Not such a good performance. You did not get a raise.
All right. Now let me ask you this. Now that this Swalwell story is gaining some credibility and we know, we all know about it, does it not explain everything that you saw with Swalwell? What was there not some point you said to yourself, I feel like he's getting ahead of himself running for president. Didn't you? Didn't you say to yourself, why is he running for president? I get that he's on TV a lot, but I don't feel like he's quite ready to run for president. And sure enough the public agreed. But you say to yourself, why does somebody go too soon? You know, maybe later he'd be more groomed or maybe he'd be a senator by then. Who knows? But the first thing I had a question about is he seemed too ambitious for what his potential was at the moment. Could have been more later. So that was sort of a little flag. I've always wondered about that. So that seems a little bit too ambitious. I like ambitious people, but it just seemed a little, you know, it's not like he was Obama. He wasn't a superstar. So that was weird.
And then of course watching his entire act in which he was trying to paint President Trump as a Russian puppet never looked even slightly real. It never looked like he believed it. It never looked like he was even American, honestly. He gave the opinion, he gave the look, Swalwell did, as not somebody who was just anti-Republican and not even somebody who was a Democrat. He gave the look of somebody who wasn't even on the side of America. I mean, that's what it looked like, because he was so far over the edge into that Russia collusion thing it didn't even look like he was trying to be helpful, right? It looked like he was literally on some other team. And now we know that there was a connection to the other team that may have been pretty deep, including financial support, etc. So I think we could say at this point that certainly Swalwell should not have any kind of job in the government after that. I can't imagine it would just be ridiculous to re-elect him. You should certainly shouldn't be on any kind of committee. And again, it doesn't even matter if he's guilty. It doesn't matter if he's guilty. If you lose that much trust, that's all you need to know. You don't know if he's actually guilty of these things. You just need to know that the situation is such that you shouldn't trust it by its setup, right? You don't need to know the details.
So after seeing this completely explaining Swalwell's behavior, it looked like he was a Chinese agent. Right now I'm not saying he was a Chinese agent. I'm not alleging he was a Chinese agent. I'm just saying his behavior looked exactly like one, which doesn't mean he was one, because he could have been just a partisan Democrat, right? But then I say to myself, if this is some kind of massive Chinese plot to influence politicians who they find when they're minor politicians and then they elevate them beyond, you know, maybe a little too early, is there anybody else who fits the same pattern as Swalwell? In other words, if you thought there was a signal given out by the Swalwell situation that said, oh, now that we know there was some Chinese spy involvement, maybe you could see the tells for that, the signals in it. And one of the signals was somebody who is, let's say, not the strongest politician is getting a lot of attention. So that's one of the tells, right? If you see somebody like Trump getting a lot of attention, you say to yourself, well, that makes sense. He's a very substantial politician. Of course you should get lots of attention. But when you see an Adam Schiff or a Swalwell get a lot of attention, it seems a little weird, doesn't it? Because they don't seem like substantial people. They both seem amazingly unsubstantial. Am I right?
So if you're looking for the tells, look for an unsubstantial politician, somebody who could be molded and moved, someone who is not their own man or woman, and someone who gets way more attention than the amount of substance they bring demands. And here's the third thing. The claims are so over the top that they don't look like a Republican. They don't look like even a Democrat. They look like they're on the other team, meaning not Team America. Right? Am I right? Does somebody, somebody is throwing AOC in the mix and I disagree. I think AOC is just young, but I would say she has substance unlike the other two. She has some X factor native thing, you know, meaning that she was born a powerful person, will always be. So I don't see that with Schiff and I don't see that with Swalwell. So I wouldn't put her in that list of having those same characteristics. I think she's her own thing. And indeed even, you know, the Green New Deal and stuff with AOC may be right, may be wrong. I think it's wrong, but it doesn't look exactly like a Chinese plot, although you could argue that it might destroy the country, so maybe it was anyway.
So here's my question. I'm not going to say there's any evidence that Adam Schiff has anything going on with China. There's no evidence. There's nothing in evidence, period. But if you're looking for patterns, he really fits that pattern. And if I had to place a bet, like with actual money, on this question, does Adam Schiff or has he ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend who were a Chinese spy, I would probably place a bet on that because I could probably get good odds, right? Doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's more likely to be true than not. But based on just the smell of it, I'd place a bet on it. You know, I'd put a thousand dollars on it if I could. I would put a thousand dollar bet that you could find someday that Adam Schiff had a Chinese spy connection just because the way he acts. And I want to be as clear as possible. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Adam Schiff has any kind of an external foreign connection. I'm just saying he acts exactly like a guy who does, because we just saw a guy who has that connection. We don't know how much it influenced him if it did, but we know that somebody looks just like that. And I can't explain it with other explanations.
I'll just put it out there. I have to hang my head in shame today because I'm a professional humorist, and if I miss a joke that's just right there for me and I miss it, I just feel embarrassed. And that's how I felt when I saw my Twitter feed this morning and non-professional humorist Alex Guevara said, and I quote about this story, "That's what she said," except he spelled she "Xi" as in President Xi of China. "That's what Xi said." And when I read it, and of course it's one of these jokes that you have to read, it doesn't work if you say it out loud, but when I read it I said to myself, I quit. I quit. I can't be a professional humorist anymore. How in the hell did I not say that joke before Alex Guevara said it on Twitter? How the hell can I live with myself now? It was right there. It was right there. It was right in front of me glowing and big. Didn't see it. Did not see it. But Alex did. That's what Xi said.
All right. Will rapid testing for coronavirus get approved under Biden? I tweeted that later today. There's an online event about this idea of doing rapid testing. So this is a virtual event. Today's the 10th, right? Today's the 10th, yeah. It's a virtual event about the topic of rapid COVID tests. Now if you're new to this, there is very little in common with doing regular testing for coronavirus and this idea of rapid testing. You should think of it as just a completely different animal with a completely different way of working than just testing people like we do now. And the reason it's different is the proposal is to use paper strips, which we just heard word actually today there's news that somebody developed a good paper strip that would be cheap for testing. So this event which we'll talk about, this idea, this is the Michael Mina idea I think of using cheap test strips that you can do as many tests as you want at home. Maybe it's two or five dollars for each test. You don't need a doctor. You just get a bunch of them, test yourself every few days just because you want to know. And then they're not perfect tests. And here's the part people don't understand. The idea of doing rapid cheap tests that are ubiquitous and everybody can test like crazy uses cheap tests that are not quite as accurate as these really expensive tests that we have now. So the point is if you do enough cheap tests, you get a better result than a fewer number of high-quality tests. So that's what's different.
The proposal is that doing a small number, whatever we can do with our current technology, it never gets you to the point where the testing cures the coronavirus. It just tells you if you need to be treated. The cheap test thing with the cheap test strips is meant to stop the virus. The other testing isn't even meant to do that, right? So they're not similar. They just both have the words "coronavirus test," and those two words basically the only thing they have in common. Otherwise it's a completely different idea. And the reason, part of the reason that it hasn't been going anywhere fast so far is that people can't understand that difference. And people will say, we already have tests, and then they're done. But they don't understand it's different.
All right, so that's today. I tweeted it so you can add it to your calendar directly from the tweet when you see it. That's worth looking at. And the question I have is whether the Biden administration might get more interested in this than the Trump administration was. In my opinion, the lack of the Trump administration dealing with this idea, specifically this idea, is either a gigantic, gigantic failure or they should have communicated to us why they're not doing it. So I would have been happy with, we looked into this deeply, there's a problem here that maybe they didn't tell you, but because of this problem we're not going to pursue this aggressively. If I'd heard that, even if they were wrong, you know, maybe they're wrong, but at least I'd say okay, they dealt with the very promising idea. They dealt with it. They dismissed it right or wrong. At least I feel like it was handled in some way. But it's just sort of ignored. I know that this idea has reached the administration multiple times and through multiple outlets. It's not that they haven't heard it. They've heard it lots of times, but they don't respond to it. They don't say it's a good idea. They don't say we're looking into it. And to me that's an enormous failure of the Trump administration's coronavirus task force. Enormous. I'm talking about a 10 out of 10 in terms of mistake. I mean just a serious, serious mistake. Well, again, I could be wrong. I just need to hear a reason. And the fact that they don't give the public a reason for not doing it or even to tell us if they are doing it, we don't know about it, that's just an enormous mistake. There's no way around that. There's no way to soften that. There is no way to soften that. It's an enormous, enormous mistake that could have killed a hundred thousand people. That's just a fact. And that's not, I don't think you can put that on Trump because the entire task force could talk about it. Fauci could bring it up. Fauci could bring it up just to debunk it, which would be fine. He's not even brought it up as far as I know. Does the news bring it up? No.
All right, here's the other thing that's fun. The FTC said that Facebook is engaged in quote "a systemic strategy to eliminate its competition." So they're being taken to court for unfair competition stuff, monopoly stuff. And so some of the things being suggested as monopoly stuff is that they're buying up their little competitors. So they buy the competitors, and there are some of them. As an example, they bought Instagram so it wouldn't compete with them. They bought WhatsApp so it wouldn't compete with them. So of all the things that Facebook is doing, was that the one you were worried about? I feel as if that was the only one I don't care about. Let me ask you this. Are you worse off because Facebook owns Instagram? Not because of competition, because I think I'm pretty sure Facebook improved Instagram, and now I can post on one and it shows up on both. I feel like I came out ahead, right? What about Facebook buying WhatsApp? Did that hurt you in some way? Did you not get to eat today because of Facebook WhatsApp? And what about all the smaller companies that they bought? Every one of those companies was hoping Facebook would buy them or somebody like them. Small companies, startups, they want to be purchased by the large companies. That's their exit strategy. Oh, we'll reach a certain size and Facebook or Google or somebody will buy us. Why would I want to take that away? Why would I want every startup not to have an exit strategy? That's the most obvious exit strategy that they all look for.
So here's my take on this movement against Facebook. I'm not defending Facebook. I'm just saying that there's sort of a gigantic dead elephant in the room here, isn't there? And the dead gigantic elephant is that the real problem is that they just changed the election result, effectively eliminating the republic, because they can just decide who gets to be president because the social media companies decide what you see and that decides and that makes your opinion and then you vote on it. So you have this gigantic problem, which is that the social media influences the election. That is an enormous problem. And then you've got this monopoly thing. Yeah, I get that it's the law. I understand the concept of not wanting monopolies as a general thing. I have a degree in economics. I'm no fan of monopolies. But am I watching my government go after the smallest problem they could identify? Because this is not my problem. I don't really care that Facebook bought its competitors. I don't really care that my friend who worked for WhatsApp made so much money that it's hard to count it. I don't care. I'm happy for my friend. He worked for a startup which was intended, everybody expected one of the ways they would exit is selling to a big platform, and then he did and he made a ton of money. I'm happy for my friend. I'm just not happy that they controlled the election. So that's an interesting misdirection going on there.
So what's interesting though is that 48 states are suing Facebook over this, which means that it's not Republican and it's not Democrat. Apparently everybody in the government likes to beat up on Facebook on this point as opposed to anything that I care about.
YouTube has told its creators by emails that they're going to start removing content about election fraud even though at the same time that there are still active court cases. Is that the most mind-boggling thing you've heard today? That YouTube is literally going to decide what the truth is and then they're going to take that and then they're going to remove from your site the ones that don't match their idea of what is true. Now I'm going to admit, and remember I said this from the start, that at least 95 percent of all the claims of fraud would be BS. At least 95. Would you say that that has borne out? That at least 95 of the claims you've seen claims have turned out not to be what you thought they were? I think so. I think I hit that prediction pretty well. About 95 are not true. But are they all not true? Can I not do a YouTube in which I say, you know, these areas had results that have a one in one quadrillion odds of being natural as opposed to being a sign of fraud? Can I not say that? Will I be demonetized or removed from YouTube if I say the following statement? Because I'm going to say it right now and see if I get removed. So I'm going to gamble a little bit of money here on this. Would you like me to gamble in front of you? All right, here's my statement. Election fraud, because of the nature of our election systems and what we've learned about the at least the potential for fraud and what we've learned about the hatred for Orange Hitler, given that setup, there's a guarantee of widespread fraud. It's guaranteed. It can't not happen. So there's a direct statement about election fraud from me, very direct. It had to happen. It exists. It's real. There is no evidence I'm aware of that we can identify specifically enough of it that it would win in a court case or overthrow the election. That's true, wouldn't you say? I mean, there are a lot of you who think, well, we're close or maybe we'll get there or I think one more day and we'll have it. But as of today we haven't seen anything that would change the court. We have seen things that at least some members of Congress and the states are saying, the Republicans anyway, are saying maybe we should not certify or maybe we should question the result, etc. But that's just the news. The regular news is reporting that there are some people talking about that. So will I be banned from YouTube for saying what I just said, which I don't believe has any question to it? That the setup gives the opportunity for fraud and given the motivation it's guaranteed that it happened. We just don't know the specifics. That's all. And it probably can't be reversed. So we'll see. Let's see what happens there. That's your little test.
I saw a doctor, a very qualified doctor, but it's not on the major news sites. And here's my question to you. Is this real? Is the reason that this following story is on minor news sites but not major ones, is there a good reason for this? So here's the story. There's a doctor, Dr. Pierre Kory. He's a physician at St. Luke's Medical Center in Milwaukee. And he and a group of other highly qualified doctors, and the highly qualified is important to the story, highly qualified, really, really know their stuff. And they decided that since the government was not doing this they would do it, which is to do a deep dive on all existing medicines to see if there's something that exists already that could work. Now I think I heard that this group or at least this one doctor was behind the, was it the category of drugs that are working against COVID if you have a bad case of it, the steroids? Is it the steroids? But so I think he's, he already has credibility as somebody who found that these steroids, I may be using the wrong word, whatever, yeah, steroids, right, he found that those would be effective in a certain kind of patient that's gotten to a certain point. So he's got lots of credibility.
All right, so it's really important that you know that this is not a doctor like the ones who were mocked for coming on Fox News, who were also real doctors by the way, the ones who were mocked on Fox News for hydroxychloroquine, real doctors with real credentials, and there were multiple of them, but they all got mocked, right? Because Trump liked that drug so that was impossible. But here we have somebody who not only has that kind of credential as a medical professional but is already a track record of succeeding, finding some recommendations that made a gigantic difference in coronavirus treatment. So this is a real credible person, worked with other credible people, and has decided that this drug ivermectin, which already exists, I think there are several companies that make it in generic form already, so it's already generic. Somebody says dexamethasone. According to, you know what I mean? Yeah, so those are the ones that do work. So ivermectin, he says there have been recent studies that even though you can't get to certainty, like we don't have enough time and data to really, really, really, really know, but he says that there's so much and it's so much in the same direction that it's sort of a no-brainer that it works, according to this doctor.
Now here's the tough part. And he says directly that even if you had looked into this in August of this year, in August of this year when science was looking into it, they looked at ivermectin and they decided that it was not quite right. One of the problems was that it would only work at a dose too high for your body to handle it. So it might work in theory but you couldn't put that much of it in your body without hurting yourself. So that's what we thought in August. So here's the problem. Once you know something is true it's really hard to change your mind. It's hard for the public, the news, to wrap its head around that August was a million years ago. So apparently what we've learned from August where the evidence was suggesting you shouldn't try it to now is a whole bunch of news, like a whole bunch of data that is all positive, just all positive according to this doctor. So according to this doctor, and I'm not making this claim, I'll just report what he said, this is so effective that it effectively ends the pandemic. So there's a real live doctor with real qualifications. Doesn't mean he's right. We can all be subject to confirmation bias. Doesn't matter how qualified you are, you can still be subject to confirmation bias. But here's a guy I'm not going to ignore. I'm not going to ignore this guy. I really, really want to know if this works. And since it's widely available we could be 30 days away from being done with this if he's right. So now the history of this kind of thing being right is very low, right? Most of the time these turn out to be dead ends. But it makes me feel good to talk about them.
You also, the story of the Michigan representative who threatened Trump supporters in a video. Let me read to you what a Michigan, I guess her name was Cynthia Johnson, Michigan representative said. This quote, so this is just a warning to you Trumpers. Be careful. Walk lightly. We ain't playing with you. Michigan State Representative Johnson said in the video. And then she went on, enough of the shenanigans. Enough is enough. And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay. So she was actually calling for people with training and violence, soldiers, to make Trump supporters pay in this country. She was literally a government employee recommending violence against citizens in this country. Now the politicians in her state acted quickly. The speaker of the house immediately stripped Representative Johnson of all of her committee duties. That's not enough. No, no, that's not enough. Let me tell you how not enough that is. She needs to lose her job right away. Right away. You need to change the locks on her place. Like even if you can't get rid of her with some system, you know if the system doesn't allow quickly to get rid of her, change the locks. Change the locks because she doesn't get to go to work anymore after this. All right, so I don't know what can happen to her, but losing your committee assignments isn't really close to what needs to happen. We're not in the same galaxy with that, just to be clear.
Now here, let me tell you what the big story is to me. The big story is not that there was this one person who said this one thing, because we live in a big world of crazy people. There's always going to be somebody saying crazy things you don't like. Here's the part that just is chilling. She lives in a world, meaning that whatever information comes to her, whoever she talks to, she lives in an environment or a reality in which she didn't think she would get in trouble for recommending physical violence against Trump supporters in public as an elected person. She thought that as an elected person she could suggest violence against citizens who had nothing but a political difference of opinion. Now that's the story. The story isn't that she said it because people do bad things all the time. That's no story. The story is she didn't think there was anything wrong with it. Didn't think there was anything wrong with it. Probably thought she was helping in her own mind. Might have actually believed this was good for the world. Think about that. Think about the level of brainwashing that's happened that somebody could think, well I'll just say this in public. What could happen? I mean that part just makes my head explode. And you know of course that that'll get buried a little bit in the story because it's going to be about her. It shouldn't really be about her. I mean something has to happen there, but it should be the bigger picture, which is why did she think that that was even maybe a little bit okay to say? I don't think she was even a little bit worried. Do you? Do you think she was worried after she posted that that somebody would find that that went too far? I don't think she was worried. I think she thought that that was acceptable public discourse. That's the part of the story that isn't getting covered.
Speaking of CNN creating problems and then assigning it to supporters, here's the funniest one that I've seen lately. They're talking about the denialism, they call it, in the Trump camp. And they're making two points. One is the denialism about the election being fraud-free and being done, and the other is what they call the denialism about COVID being real. Now I suppose you could add on top of it being real that it's not as bad as people think. So that would be what they call the denialism. And they offer this, one article on CNN offers three reasons that connect the two kinds of denialism. So why is it that Trump supporters would deny two things, not just one thing? If it were just one thing then you say maybe it's about the information or the data about that one thing. But if you've got two separate things that CNN is presenting as facts that Trump supporters say just don't exist, here are the reasons that CNN proposes for why that could be. Would you guess that it's President Trump's fault? Of course. They say that President Trump won't admit defeat in the election so you know there's, and he won't admit any missteps in COVID, creating a bedrock of inaccuracy. All right, so they're building their case. So now President Trump says things that CNN says are not true and therefore he's created a bedrock, a bedrock of inaccuracy. All right, now they're going to build their case on that. So they've started with the bedrock of inaccuracy.
Number two, the democratization of information. So they're saying that information can come through the internet as well as through the gatekeepers of the professional news. So you've got a bedrock of inaccuracy and you've got all this stuff that comes in through the internet that's unfiltered. All right, that's two. Then three, as the country gets more tribal, people just like to have villains, good guys and bad guys, so they just take sides. So those are those three answers and those are the three reasons they give that collectively we created an environment in which Republicans uniquely are denialists and they deny that the election was real and that COVID was real. So that's their explanation.
Let me add my own explanation. Why, what other reason could you think of? What other reason would Trump supporters deny that the election was fair? Could it be because there's no chance it was fair? Could be. Could be. What would be another explanation? Well I'll just put this out there. One possible explanation for why Republicans don't believe the news they see on CNN is that CNN has been feeding them fake news for four years. If your source of this information is literally something called fake news, is it really a surprise that if some real news were to come along, allegedly, that people wouldn't believe it? Let me ask you this. If you would watch the political news on CNN for four years and you had simply made this one adjustment in your thinking that the real news is the opposite of whatever they report, would you have had a better idea of what happened in the world or worse? If in political topics every time they reported the news you said to yourself it's probably opposite of that, which would have been a better picture of the world? It's the opposite one. It really is. If you had just said Russia collusion, okay they're saying it happened, okay it didn't. Just that kind of stuff. Just the reverse every single time, you would have been a lot closer to the truth.
And now I've saved my best point. Aren't you glad you waited? Here's my best point. I prepare you now. You may know of course you know that the media has been accusing President Trump of over, what is the count, 22,000 lies, 25,000 lies, something like that. So in CNN's view of the world Trump has lied 22,000 times and therefore people don't know what to believe. So Trump has polluted things to the point where his base will disbelieve anything in the news because of all that Trump lies. But let me ask you this, and here is my best point. Has anybody tried to count the number of lies on CNN? No, nobody has. What do you think they'd get? CNN is on all day long. How many times has CNN said just the fine people hoax? Just that one thing. How many lies have they told just about the fine people? Thousands. Thousands. What do you say when you say that there are at least a thousand times that they've lied just on that one lie? Now add in Russia collusion. What does the number get to? If you had Russia collusion, tens of thousands. If you look at all their programming, all the hours, all the commenters, probably tens of thousands. Nobody has ever counted the number of lies in the mainstream news. So let's count them. Let's compare them. And maybe every time somebody says President Trump told 25,000 lies, which in his case are generally hyperbole, you know, for some good persuasion purpose, whereas the news is just lying to you. And I know it would be more than 22,000.
Why did we let them get away with four years of telling us that one person was lying without anybody counting how many times they lied? I mean it's a lot of work and there's a lot of opinion. Now when they say that President Trump is lying it's also opinion because they would say he said this but we say that so therefore he's lying. No, it just means you say different things. Doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. It just might mean that you don't report the same fact. So that's what I would like to see. I'd like to see the mainstream news fact-checked and count how many lies they have. And then maybe I could explain to you why Trump supporters reflexively assume that whatever is on the news is the opposite. So after spending four years of opposite news and then a virus comes along and then they treat the virus, you know, right. Just say hey this is really a real virus and it's deadly. It might be the first true thing they said. What the hell are all the people who have been deluged by fake news for four years, what are they supposed to think? They just reflexively say if CNN says that it can't be true because they have a whole four years of knowing that that's the pattern. Don't expect people to break pattern. It's hard to do.
Somebody says but it isn't true. It is a low risk. Well it can be a low risk and kill millions of people. Is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that something could be a very low risk, let's say the coronavirus, while also killing millions of people? As long as both of those are true, you saying it's a low risk doesn't say anything. If you say it's a low risk therefore we should not treat it like it's important, well you're stupid. All right, unfortunately there's no way around that. That would just be stupid. It's a low risk for the population in general. That population in general is not necessarily you. Now if you're 12 years old, yeah you could treat it like it's not a risk. It might kill grandma if you do, but if you're 12 it probably won't kill you. If you're me and you've got a comorbidity, if you're over 60 with a comorbidity, asthma in my case, do you treat that like it's low risk? I treat it like it's one risk I can control. So I'm going to. I can control it in a little bit. I can't control it totally but I'm going to do what I can do. So don't be fooled by saying it's a 99.99 chance that you'll survive. That is unrelated to whether it's a big problem. You get that right? Does everybody get that? Those two things can be true. That 99.99 of you will have no problem at all at the same time with no conflict whatsoever it's a gigantic global problem. You get that right? Those are not conflicts. Those are saying the same thing. Just two facts.
Now I'm being blamed for being bad at math by somebody who's literally named Jim Davis. That's right. The most common insult I get is oh you're the creator of Garfield. Go back to drawing your cat. The most common criticism I get, the one critic I choose to read out of that list, his name is Jim Davis. The same as, I don't think it's Jim Davis the creator of Garfield, but the name of the creator of Garfield. The only one I saw. How did I start this Periscope? I started it by saying you're going to see name repeats. That's how I started and there it was. You're watching it right in front of you. That's a name repeat right there. Of all the names in the world I only read one and of all these names that went by I only read one and I didn't see the name first. I saw the comment first and then I noticed the name. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.
Now this of course is more of a, it's a demonstration of confirmation bias is what it is, right? It's, you know, maybe it's the simulation which would be fun. But watch how much I can prime you because I'm doing it intentionally. I'm priming you to see name repeats. Watch how often you see it. This should teach you that in other situations where I don't tell you in advance, I'm going to prime you for confirmation bias. I'm a trained hypnotist if anybody doesn't know that already. I'm a trained hypnotist. I'm priming you right now. I'm priming you for confirmation bias. You're going to see name repeats when you do and you will tell yourself oh this is how everything works. Everything is priming me. Almost everything I think is true is confirmation bias. And once you see it with this little experiment you'll be able to more easily recognize that you might be in it in some future time when I don't tell you you're in it. I'm telling you you're in it right now. You can depend on the fact you will experience confirmation bias on this name repeating thing. It's going to happen.
All right, that's all for now. I'll talk to you tomorrow. And those of you on YouTube you have another minute or so of me. So even the story about the representative Cindy Johnson. Cindy Johnson is the name of one of my classmates when I grew up. You know, a prom, sort of a big name in my childhood was Cynthia Johnson and that's the name in the news again. It's confirmation bias but it's funny.
Somebody says are Trump supporters smart enough to know lies from facts? Let me give you a definitive answer to that. Nobody is. There's nobody who's smart enough. If people could tell the difference between lies and facts there wouldn't be lies or at least nobody would lie to smart people but they do. Now nobody, nobody can tell the difference. And here's the way to know if you're stupid. There is a way. If you think the other side is the stupid side that's how you know you're the stupid one. Because if you were smart you would know that whatever is going on on your side is definitely happening on the other side too and vice versa. Whatever is happening with Democrats that makes them unable to see simple truth is clearly, obviously, definitely happening with Republicans and with independents and with humans because it's a human thing. It has nothing to do with politics. You know being a Trump supporter doesn't make you dumb. Being dumb doesn't make you a Trump supporter. It doesn't work that way. People are just dumb and people are in different groups and you're going to find some dumb people in every group. But the way you can know you're dumb is to think it's the other side that's dumb. The moment you tell yourself it's the other side that's dumb and my side got it figured out you have identified yourself absolutely as a dumb person. There's no way around that. If you want one of the few rules in life that you could depend on, you know something that has a hundred percent predictive value because very few things do, right? Most things are like well maybe probably whatever. But you could say with a hundred percent certainty that if you believe you were lucky and you got on the smart side, God lucky I joined the smart team, I'm on the Democrats or I'm on the Republicans, thank goodness I'm not like those guys. As soon as you say that you are the dumb one. Guaranteed. Guaranteed you're the dumb one.
Now if you say to yourself we're all being fed fake news and the people who are consuming one kind of fake news fall for a certain set of lies, the people consuming another set of fake news are likely to fall for another set of lies, then you might be smart. That would be an indication of somebody who might be smart. But if you think it's only the other team that's dumb, maybe a little self-examination would be in order. You might want to read my book "Win Bigly" or my other book "Loserthink" and that'll illustrate it all out.
All right, that's all I got. I'll talk to you tomorrow.
hey everybody come on in come on in i just realized what time it is do you know what time it is that's right it's time for coffee with scott adams the best time of the day there was this one time that i thought it wouldn't be the best time of the day but that i was wrong and it was so learn from history will you because it repeats in this particular way and only this way this is the best time of the day and it'll be better if you have a copper mug or glass a tiger challenger stein a canteen jug or flask of vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything better except representative swalwell it's called the simultaneous goes down join me well that makes everything better everything let me tell you what is the biggest delight completely unexpected about uh president trump's probable change of careers it looks like you know i was sort of saying to myself i sure would enjoy another four years of being entertained by president trump but there is a consolation prize there's a consolation prize and it is that making fun of democrats is sort of fun it's a little bit better than i was hoping and a lot of it has to do with the material they're they're serving up now i'm going to say that president trump did serve up some good material himself for his critics he i think he'll have the best four years of any president but he did serve up a lot of red meat for the critics turns out that the democrats are just as good serving up the good stuff shall we dig in yeah we shall so uh turns out that uh hunter biden might be in a little trouble and when i say he's in a little trouble there are within the category of what you might call financial crimes there are a lot of categories so you might have your tax related financial crimes potentially somebody might be laundering a little money that would be a financial crime uh maybe uh let's see maybe you were um let's see what are some other financial crimes oh having foreign ties well you know i suppose if there's a financial connection that'd be a financial thing too so it turns out that hunter biden has been accused of all financial crimes simultaneously like if it were a financial crime somebody's looking into it on oh hunter biden i'm only exaggerating a little bit but the point is that we're learning after the election that he's in massive trouble from securities fraud there's a securities fraud unit looking into it doesn't mean it's that's the crime so we don't know the exact allegations i will defend hunter biden the following way number one hunter biden is an attorney if he set up a business situation that is transparently illegal i'd be a little bit surprised i mean it's not impossible but he's a lawyer and he works with lawyers it's hard to believe that he set up a situation that would be both easy to discover and just flat out illegal so i don't know that these allegations will turn into anything how many times have we seen allegations not turn into anything it's pretty pretty common thing right so um i don't want to be the one who says hunter biden is guilty of anything anything at all you know obviously this the swampy behavior is apparently technically legal so we're pretty sure he was involved with swampy stuff but in terms of actually breaking the law there's nothing in evidence so i'm going to treat it that way there's nothing in evidence and it's the type of investigations that we do see when people are ultimately not charged but there are a lot of them there's a lot of smoke here i'm telling you that i can't see the fire but there's a lot of smoke so use your judgment the big part of the story of course is that this was completely squashed as a story before the election uh i was just tweeting a a difference between how politico treated it right before the election versus how they're trading it now now politico is you know dumping out all the allegations before then they actually ran a major story on politico same site before the election saying that according to former and current intel people that all of the hunter biden allegations looked like russian disinformation so our own current and former intel people were working against the united states that's interesting isn't it so according to politico our own our own uh current and former intel people are actually not on our team that's a little scary isn't it wouldn't you like to know that your former intel people were on your side that's like the last people that you want to piss off ask chuck schumer he said it directly it's the last group of people you'd want to piss off because they can get back at you so many ways according to chuck's humor so it's pretty distressing that our own current and former intel people were lying to our media so that the media could lie to us what do you make of that i feel like that's maybe the biggest story the biggest story is the misinformation or disinformation from our side our own intelligence people retired and current were feeding disinformation in a massive way massively disinformation to our own our own press in real time and what are we what are we going to look into instead of that well we'll talk about it but that feels like one of the biggest stories in the country doesn't it if you were going to say to yourself like you know rank the big stories what would be a bigger story than current and former intel people starting a disinformation campaign in this country because that's really bad that's really really really bad that's a nine or a ten on a scale of one to ten and we're in this really weird new environment you've seen it before maybe it's just uh attenuated or maybe i just didn't notice it as much but it goes like this in any given day let's say there are a hundred things happening in the world that could legitimately be called news which of the hundred things that are happening in the world end up actually being news well not all hundred you know that it's some little subset of the hundred things that could be news become news and then we obsessively talk about that little group of things that we decided to use well if you're not familiar with the news business there are entities called news makers meaning somebody who's in the news business who's important enough to look into the hundred things that all could be news they're all important but they've picked this one and once let's say the new york times picks it it could be cnn could be washington post by any of the big entities once they pick it they say this is news then we sort of ignore all the other stuff that was just that was important and we act like that's the only news and so i guess the news was always able to redirect you to the only thing they cared about as opposed to things you might care about but i feel as if their ability to simply tell you that something deeply deeply important doesn't matter is really the superpower because the story about these ex and current intel people running a disinformation campaign in the middle of a of an election in this country that feels like to me just about the biggest story in the country and it's treated as it's not even a story they simply have to treat it like it's not a story and it becomes not a story and if it's not a story it's also not a crime there's nothing to investigate there's no call from the public to do it it just goes away and this could have just as easily you could imagine it would take you no no trouble at all to imagine that it became the biggest story in the country you could imagine that right what would be a bigger story than current and future intel people running an obvious disinformation campaign during an election i don't know that it gets any bigger than that that's and apparently they were using the media as part of that politico in particular among others probably all of the other other big media how is that not the biggest story in the world it's amazing all right let's go on you all want to talk about representative swalwell who coincidentally because the simulation is running ant of processing power you'll see that and i've told you this before you'll run into too many repeats for example the biggest story in the country is about a representative in congress what were the odds it would be my representative well pretty low but there it is so again i'm only teasing because coincidences are generally just coincidences and confirmation bias but it but if you start looking for it it's sort of a fun exercise to see where see how often you'll see it if you tune your brain to expect it now just for fun just for fun look for all the repeats and things that would look like you're a computer simulation that's running out of memory so it's repeating stuff for example could the biggest story in the news be about my representative somebody i've met in person what are the odds that one of the biggest stories in the world is somebody i know okay i mean i bet a lot of people but that's one thing and then what are the odds that the main character in the story who is not swalwell himself is named fang fang did i can you confirm i want you to confirm confirm that i've been telling you now for a few weeks i guess that you would see the simulations serve up names that are like duplicates did i not tell you that the simulation would start serving up duplicate names confirm this because anybody who hears me say that is going to say you didn't say that you didn't predict that the that duplicate names would be coming i want you to see it in the comments that i predicted duplicate names were coming and then the yeah you see it confirmed it's in the comments now of all the weird things i've predicted is that the weirdest is that the weirdest thing i've ever predicted and it's because you can see it happening we're seeing just the same people popping up all the time and now just the same names of things right it's uh yeah you're seeing in the comments i'm not making this up i actually predicted that the news would start using duplicate names and here it is the headline fang fang um and uh here's we're hearing a little bit more about this story uh it turns out that fang fang had a uh sort of a a name for her boyfriend allegedly uh she called him fart fart so it was fang fang and fart fart very cute couple now i say there are a couple but i do not have evidence that they were ever actually a couple so i don't think it's fair that especially since he's married i don't think it's fair that we should assume that this is true you know there's allegations that he had a sexual relationship with her but we don't have evidence in fact when swalwell's staff was asked whether he had a sexual relationship with this alleged chinese spy here's what his staff said and you know i think you can trust this the staff says well here's the it says we asked swalwell's office this is what the news reported uh and his staff replied by saying that they couldn't comment on whether or not swalwell had a sexual relationship with fang because that information might be classified so so i guess i guess we'll never know because according to his staff whether or not this married representative was having sex with a chinese spy they can't tell us because it might be classified now let me give some advice to representative swalwell i i know you maybe you don't need some advice from me but it goes like this if your staff has ever asked if you've had a sexual relationship with a chinese spy the correct answer is no now under the condition that he had not had sex with a chinese spy the answer is always no there's not really a second way to answer that that doesn't sound like yes i'll get back to you sounds like sort of maybe you did i can't talk about it because it might be what they call it uh might be classified that's really saying yes so representative swalwell you might want to make some changes on your staff because i think they just confirmed you had sex with a chinese spy now if i'm doing the performance review for my staff that's going to come up i'll be there you know given the performance rules like all right all right uh bob uh let's see looking looking at your performance over the year there was a yeah you were very punctual that's that's a plus for you bob good job in that punctuality um i like a lot of your writing you know you did some good writing and some projects a plus there was uh really just one thing just just one thing that i have a little problem with and i think this will have to be reflected on your permanent record there was a time you confirmed to the press that i was having sex with a chinese spy that was suboptimal bob and i'm going to have to give you a below expectation for that you did not exceed my expectations so marking me out for having sex allegedly with a chinese allegedly spy not such good performance not such a good performance you did not get a raise all right now let me ask you this now that this wall will story is you know gaining some credibility and we know we all know about it does it not explain everything that you saw with swalwall what was there not some point you said to yourself i feel like he's getting ahead of himself running for president didn't you didn't you say to yourself why is he running for president i get that he's on tv a lot but i don't feel like he's quite ready to run for president and sure enough the public agreed but you say to yourself why does somebody go too soon you know maybe later he'd be more groomed or maybe he'd be a senator by then who knows but the first thing i had a question about is he seemed too ambitious for what his potential was at the moment could have been more later so that was sort of a little flag i've always wondered about that so that seems a little bit too ambitious i like ambitious people but it just seemed a little you know it's not like he was obama he wasn't he wasn't a superstar so that was weird and then of course watching his entire act in which he was trying to paint president trump as a russian puppet never looked even slightly real it never looked like he believed it it never looked like he was even american honestly he he gave the opinion he gave the look swallow did as not somebody who was just anti-republican and not even somebody who was a democrat he gave the look of somebody who wasn't even on the side of america i mean that's what it looked like because he was so far over the the edge into that russia collusion thing it didn't even look like he was trying to be helpful right it looked like he was literally on some other team and now we know that there was a connection to the other team that may have been pretty deep including financial support etc so i think we could say at this point that certainly swalwell should not have any kind of job in the government after that i can't imagine it would just be ridiculous to re-elect them you should certainly shouldn't be any kind of committee and again it doesn't even matter if he's guilty it doesn't matter if he's guilty if you lose that much trust that's all you need to know you don't know if he's actually guilty of these things you just need to know that the situation is such that you shouldn't trust it by its setup right you don't need to know the details so after seeing this completely explaining swalwell's behavior it looked like he was a chinese agent right now i'm not saying he was a chinese agent i'm not alleging he was a chinese agent i'm just saying his behavior looked exactly like one which doesn't mean he was one because he could have been just partisan democrat right but then i say to myself if this is some kind of massive chinese plot to influence politicians who they they find when they're minor politicians and then they elevate them beyond you know maybe a little too early is there anybody else who fits the same pattern as swalwell in other words if you thought there was a signal given out by the swalwell situation that said oh now that we know there was some chinese spy involvement maybe you could see the the tells for that the signals in it and one of the signals was somebody who is let's say not the strongest politician is getting a lot of attention so that's one of the tells right if you see somebody like trump getting a lot of attention you say to yourself well that makes sense he's a very substantial politician of course you should get lots of attention but when you see an adam schiff or a swalwell get a lot of attention it seems a little weird doesn't it because they don't seem like substantial people they both seem amazingly unsubstantial am i right so if you're looking for the tells look for a unsubstantial politician somebody who could be molded and moved someone who is not their own man or one woman and someone who gets way more attention than the amount of substance they bring demands and here's the third thing the claims are so over the top that they don't look like a republican they don't look like even a democrat they look like they're on the other team meaning not team america right am i right does somebody somebody is throwing aoc in the mix and i disagree i think aoc is just young and but i would say she has substance unlike the other two she has some x factor native thing you know meaning that she she was born a powerful person will always be so i don't see that with schiff and i don't see that with swalwell so uh i wouldn't put her in that list of having those same characteristics i think she's she's her own thing and and indeed even you know the green new deal and stuff with aoc may be right may be wrong i think it's wrong but it doesn't it doesn't look exactly like a chinese plot although you could argue that it might destroy the country so maybe it was anyway so here's my question i'm not going to say there's any evidence that adam schiff has anything going on with china there's no evidence there's nothing in evidence period but if you're looking for patterns he really fits that pattern and if i had to place a bet like with actual money on this question does does adam schiff or has he ever had a boyfriend or girlfriend who were a chinese spy i would probably place a bet on that because i could probably get good odds right doesn't mean it's true doesn't mean it's more likely to be true than not but based on just the smell of it i'd place a bet on it you know i'd put a thousand dollars on it if i could i would put a thousand dollar bet that you could find someday that adam schiff had a chinese spy connection just because the way he acts and i want to be as clear as possible there is no evidence that i'm aware of the adam schiff has any kind of an external foreign connection i'm just saying he acts exactly like a guy who does because we just saw a guy who has that connection we don't know how much it influenced him if it did but we know that somebody looks just like that and i can't explain it with other explanations i'll just put it out there i have to hang my head in shame today because uh i'm a professional humorist and if i miss a joke that's just it's just right there for me and i i miss it i just feel embarrassed and that's how i felt when i saw my twitter feed this morning and non-professional humorist alex guevaras said and i quote about this story that's what she said except he spe he spelled she xi as in president xi of china that's what she said and when i read it and of course it's one of these jokes that you have to read it doesn't work if you say it out loud but when i read it i said to myself i quit i quit i can't be a professional humorist anymore how in the hell did i not say that joke before alex guevaras said it on twitter how the hell can i live with myself now it was right there it was right there it was right in front of me glowing and big didn't see it did not see it but alex did that's what she said all right um will uh rapid testing of for coronavirus get approved under biden i tweeted that later today there's an online event about this idea of doing rapid testing so this is a virtual event today's the 10th right today's the 10th yeah uh it's a virtual event about the topic of rapid cova tests now if you're new to this there is very little in common with doing regular testing for coronavirus and this idea rapid testing you should think of it as just a completely different animal with a completely different way of working than just testing people like we do now and the reason it's different is they use the proposal is to use paper scripts which we just heard word actually today there's news that somebody developed a good paper strip that would be cheap for testing so this event which we'll talk about this idea this is the michael mina idea i think of using cheap test strips that you can do as many tests as you want at home maybe it's you know two or five dollars for every t each test you don't need a doctor you just you just get a bunch of them test yourself every few days just because you want to know and then they're not perfect tests and here's the part people don't understand the the idea of doing rapid cheap tests that are ubiquitous and everybody can test like crazy uses cheap tests that are not quite as rapid or they're not as accurate as these really you know expensive tests that we have now so the point is if you do enough cheap tests you get a better result than a fewer number of high quality tests so that's what's different the proposal is that doing a small number whatever we can do with our current technology it never gets you to the point where the testing cures the coronavirus it just tells you if you need to be treated the other the the cheap test thing with the cheap test strips is meant to stop the virus the other testing isn't even meant to do that right so they're they're not they're not similar they just both have the words coronavirus test and those two words basically the only thing they have in common otherwise it's a completely different idea and the reason part of the reason that it has it isn't going anywhere fast so far is that people can't understand that difference and people will say uh we already have tests and then they're done but they don't understand it's different all right so that's today uh i tweeted it so you can add it to your calendar directly from from the tweet when you see it that's worth looking at and the question i have is whether the biden administration might get more interested in this than the trump administration was in my opinion the lack of the trump administration dealing with this idea specifically this idea is either a gigantic gigantic failure or they should have communicated to us why they're not doing it so i would have been happy with we looked into this deeply there's a problem here that maybe they hadn't they didn't tell you but because of this problem we're not going to pursue this aggressively if i'd heard that even if they were wrong you know maybe they're wrong but at least i'd say okay they dealt with the very promising idea they dealt with it they dismissed it right or wrong at least i feel like it was handled in some way but it's just sort of ignored i i know that this idea has reached the administration multiple times and through multiple outlets it's not that they haven't heard it they've heard it lots of times but they don't respond to it they don't say it's a good idea they don't say we're looking into it and to me that's an enormous failure of the trump administration's coronavirus task force enormous i'm talking about a 10 out of 10 in terms of mistake i mean just a serious serious mistake well again i could be wrong i just need to hear a reason and the fact that they don't give the public a reason for not doing it or even to tell us if they are doing it we don't know about it that's just an enormous mistake there's no way around that there's no way to soften that there is no way to soften that it's an enormous enormous mistake that could have killed a hundred thousand people that's just a fact and that's not i don't think you can put that on trump because the entire task force could talk about it fauci could bring it up fauci could bring it up just to debunk it which would be fine he's not even brought it up as far as i know does the news bring it up no all right here's the other thing that's fun the ftc uh said that facebook is engaged in quote a systemic strategy to eliminate his competition so they're being taken to court for uh unfair competition stuff monopoly stuff and so some of the things being suggested as monopoly stuff is that they're buying up their little uh competitors so they buy the competitors and there and some of them as an example they bought instagram so it wouldn't compete with them they bought whatsapp so it wouldn't compete with them so of all the things that facebook is doing was that the one you were worried about i feel as if that was the only one i don't care about let me ask you this are you worse off because facebook owns instagram not because of competition because i think i'm pretty sure facebook improved instagram and now i can post on one and it shows up on both i feel like i came out ahead right what about uh facebook buying whatsapp did that hurt you in some way did you not get to eat today because facebook whatsapp and what about all the smaller companies that they bought every one of those companies was hoping facebook would buy them or somebody like them small companies startups they want to be purchased by the large companies that's their exit strategy oh we'll get so we'll reach a certain size and facebook or you know google or somebody will buy us why would i want to take that away why would i want every uh startup not to have an exit strategy that's the most obvious exit strategy that they all look for so here's my take on this movement against facebook i'm not defending facebook i'm just saying that there's sort of a gigantic dead elephant in the room here isn't there and the dead gigantic elephant is that the real problem is that they just changed the election result effectively eliminating the republic because they can just decide who gets to be president because the social media companies decide what you see and that decides and that makes your opinion and then you vote on it so you have this gigantic problem which is that the social media influences in you know the election that is enormous problem and then you've got this this monopoly thing yeah i get that it's the law i understand the concept of not wanting monopolies as a general thing i have a i have a degree in economics i'm no fan of monopolies but am i watching my government go after it the smallest problem they could identify because this is this is not my problem i don't really care that facebook bought its competitors i don't really care that my friend who worked for whatsapp made so much money that it's it's hard to count it i don't care i'm happy for my friend he worked for a startup which was intended everybody expected one of the ways they would exit is selling to a big platform and then he did and he made a ton of money i'm happy for my friend i'm just not happy that they controlled the election so that's an interesting misdirection going on there so what's interesting though is that 48 states are suing facebook over this which means that it's not republican and it's not democrat apparently everybody in the government likes to beat up on facebook on this point as opposed as opposed to anything that i care about um youtube has told its creators by emails that they're going to start removing content about election fraud even though at the same time that there are still active court cases is that the most mind-boggling thing you've heard today that youtube is literally going to decide what the truth is and then they're going to take that then they're going to remove from your site the ones that don't match their idea of what is true now i'm going to admit and remember i said this from the start that at least 95 percent of all the claims of fraud would be bs at least 95 would you say that that has borne out that at least 95 of the claims you've seen claims have turned down not to be what you thought they were i think so i think i think i hit that prediction pretty well about 95 are not true but are they all not true can i not do a uh is it is it not good for me to do a youtube in which i say you know these areas had uh results that have a one and one in one quadrillion odds of being natural as opposed to being a sign of fraud can i not say that will i be demonetized or removed from youtube if i say the following statement because i'm going to say it right now and see if i get removed so i'm going to gamble gamble a little bit of money here on this would you like me to gamble in front of you alright here's my statement election fraud because of the nature of our election systems and what we've learned about the at least the potential for fraud and what we've learned about the hatred for orange hitler given that set up there's a guarantee of widespread fraud it's guaranteed it can't not happen so there's a direct statement about election uh fraud from me very direct it had to happen it exists it's real there is no uh evidence i'm aware of that we can identify specifically enough of it that it would win in a court case or overthrow the election that's true wouldn't you say i mean we there a lot of you who think well we're close or maybe we'll get there or i think you know one more day and we'll have it but as of today we haven't seen anything that would change the court we have seen things that at least some members of you know congress and the states are saying the republicans anyway are saying maybe we should not certify or maybe we should question the result etc but that's just the news the regular news is reporting that there are some people talking about that so will i be banned from youtube for saying what i just said which i don't believe has any question to it that the setup gives the opportunity for fraud and given the motivation it's guaranteed that it happened we just don't know the specifics that's all and it probably can't can't be reversed so we'll see let's see what uh happens there that's your little test i saw a doctor a very qualified doctor but it's not on the major news sites and here's my question to you is this real is the reason that this following story is on minor news sites but not major ones is there a good reason for this so here's the story there's a doctor dr pier corey he's a physician at st luke's medical center in milwaukee and he and a group of other highly qualified doctors and the highly qualified is important to the story highly qualified really really know their stuff and they decided that since the government was not doing this they would do it which is to do a deep dive on all existing medicines to see if there's something that exists already that could work now i think i heard that this group or at least this one doctor was behind the uh was it the uh um what's the name of the the category of drugs that are working against covid if you have a bad case of it the uh steroids is it the steroids but uh so i think he's he already has credibility as somebody who found that these steroids i may be using the wrong word whatever where yeah steroids right he found that those would be effective in a certain kind of patient that's gotten to a certain point so he's got lots of credibility all right so it's really important that you know that this is not a doctor like the the ones who were mocked for coming on fox news who were also real doctors by the way the ones who were mocked on fox news for hydroxychloroquine real doctors with real credentials and there were multiple of them but they all got mocked right because because trump liked that drug so that was uh impossible but here we have somebody who's not only has that kind of credential as a medical professional but is already a track record of succeeding finding some recommendations that made a gigantic difference in corroded virus treatment so this is a real credible person worked with other credible people and has decided that this drug ivermectin which already exists it's uh i think there are several companies that make it in generic form already so it's already generic um somebody says dexamethasone according you know what i mean yeah so those are the ones that uh do work so ivor mechtin he says there have been recent studies that even though you can't get to certainty like we don't have enough time and data to really really really really know but he says that there's so much and it's so much in the same direction that it's sort of a no-brainer that it works according to this doctor now here's the tough part and he says directly that even if you had looked into this in august of this year in august of this year when science was looking into it they looked at ivermectin and they decided that it was not quite right one of the problems was that it would only work at a dose too high for your body to handle it so so it might work in theory but you couldn't put that much of it in your body without hurting yourself so that's what we thought in august so here's the problem once you know something is true it's really hard to change your mind it's hard for the public the news to wrap its head around that august was a million years ago so apparently what we've learned from august where the evidence was suggesting you shouldn't try it to now is a whole bunch of news like a whole bunch of data that is all positive just all positive according to this doctor so according to this doctor and i'm not making this claim i'll just report what he said um this is so effective that it effectively ends the pandemic so there's a real live doctor with real qualifications doesn't mean he's right right we can all we can all be subject to confirmation bias doesn't matter how qualified you are you can still be subject to confirmation bias but here's a guy i'm not going to ignore i'm not going to ignore this guy i really really want to know if this works and since widely available we could be we could be 30 days away from being done with this if he's right so now the history of this kind of thing being right is very low right most of the time these turn out to be dead ends but makes me feel good to talk about them you also the story of the michigan representative who threatened trump supporters in a video let me read to you what a michigan i guess her name was cynthia johnson michigan representative said this quote so this is just a warning to you trumpers be careful walk lightly we ain't playing with you michigan state representative johnson said in the video and then she went on enough of the shenanigans enough is enough and for those of you who are soldiers you know how to do it do it right be in order make them pay so she was actually calling for people with training and violence soldiers to make trump supporters pay in this country she was literally a government employee recommending violence against citizens in this country now the politicians in their state acted quickly the speaker of the house immediately stripped representative johnson of all of her committee duties uh that's not enough ah no no that's not enough let me tell you how not enough that is you you she needs to lose her job right away right away you need to change the locks on her place like even if you can't get rid of her with some you know system you know if the system doesn't allow quickly to get rid of her change the locks change the locks because she doesn't get to go to work anymore after this all right so i don't know what can happen to her but losing your committee assignments isn't really close to what needs to happen we're not in the same galaxy with that just to be clear now here let me tell you what the big story is to me the big story is not that there was this one person who said this one thing because we live in a big world of crazy people there's always going to be somebody saying crazy things you don't like here's the part that just is chilling she lives in a world meaning that whatever information comes to her whoever she talks to she lives in an environment or a reality in which she didn't think she would get in trouble for recommending physical violence against trump supporters in public as an elected pro elected person she thought that as an elected person she could suggest violence against citizens who had nothing but a political difference of opinion now that's the story the story isn't that she said it because people do bad things all the time that's no story the story is she didn't think there was anything wrong with it didn't think there was anything wrong with it probably thought she was helping in her own mind might have actually believed this was good for the world think about that think about the level of brainwashing that's happened that somebody could think well i'll just say this in public what could happen i mean that part just makes my head explode and you know of course that that'll get buried a little bit in the story because it's going to be about her it shouldn't really be about her i mean something has to happen there but it should be the bigger picture which is why did she think that that was even maybe a little bit okay to say i don't think she was even a little bit worried do you do you think she was worried after she posted that that somebody would find that that went too far i don't think she was worried i think she thought that that was acceptable public discourse that's the part of the story that isn't getting covered speaking of cnn creating problems and then assigning it to supporters um here's here's the funniest one that i've seen lately they're talking about the denialism they call it in the trump camp and they're making two points one is the denialism about the election being fraud free and being done and the other is what they call the denialism about kovid being real now i suppose you could add on top of it being real that it's you know not as bad as people think so that would be the what they call the denialism and they offer this uh one article on cnn offers three reasons that connect the two kinds of denialism so why is it that trump supporters would deny two things not just one thing if it were just one thing then you say maybe it's about about the information or the data about that one thing but if you've got two separate things the cnn is presenting as facts that trump supporters say just don't exist here are the reasons that cnn proposes for why that could be uh would you guess that it's president trump's fault of course uh they say that president trump won't admit defeat in the election so you know there's and he won't he won't admit any missteps in covent creating a bedrock of inaccuracy all right so they're building their case so now president trump says things that cnn says are not true and therefore he's created a bedrock a bedrock of inaccuracy all right now they're going to build their case on that so they've started with the bedrock of inaccuracy number two the democratization of information so they're saying that information can come through the internet as well as through the gatekeepers of the professional news so you've got a bedrock of inaccuracy and you've got all this stuff that comes in through the internet that's unfiltered all right that's two then three as the country gets more tribal uh people just like to have villains good guys and bad guys so they just take sides so those are those three answers and those are the three reasons they give that collectively we created an environment in which republicans uniquely are denialists and they deny that the election was real and that kovud was real so that's their explanation let me add my own explanation why what other reason could you think of what other reason would trump supporters deny that the election was fair um could it be because there's no chance it was fair could be could be um what would be another explanation well i'll just put this out there one possible explanation for why republicans don't believe the news they see on cnn is that cnn has been feeding them fake news for four years if your source of this information is literally something called fake news is it really a surprise that if some real news were to come along allegedly that people wouldn't believe it let me ask you this if you would watch the le just the political news on cnn for four years and you had simply made this one adjustment in your thinking that the real news is the opposite of whatever they report would you have had a better idea of what happened in the world or worse if in political topics every time they reported the news you said to yourself it's probably opposite of that which would have been a better picture of the world it's the opposite one it really is if you had just said uh russia collusion okay they're saying it happened okay it didn't just that kind of stuff just just the reverse every single time you would have been a lot closer to the truth and now i've saved my best point aren't you glad you waited here's my best point i prepare you now you may know of course you know that the media has been accusing president trump of uh over what is the count 22 000 lies 25 000 lies something like that so in cnn's view of the world uh trump has lied 22 000 times and therefore people don't know what to believe so trump is trump has polluted things to the point where his base will disbelieve anything in the news because of all that trump lies but let me ask you this and here is my best point has anybody tried to count the number of lies on cnn no nobody has what do you think they'd get cnn is on all day long how many times has cnn said just the fine people hoax just that one thing how many lies have they told just about to find people thousands thousands what do you say when you say that there are at least a thousand times that they've lied just on that one lie now add in russia collusion what does the number get to if you had russia collusion tens of thousands if you look at all their programming all the hours all the all the commenters probably tens of thousands nobody has ever counted the number of lies in the mainstream news so let's count them let's compare them and maybe every time somebody says president trump told 25 000 lies which in his case are generally hyperbole you know for some good persuasion purpose whereas the news is just lying to you and i know it would be more than 22 000.
why did we let them get away with four years of telling us that one person was lying without anybody counting how many they how many times they lied i mean it's a lot of work and there's a lot of opinion now when they say that president trump is lying it's also opinion because they would say he said this but we say that so therefore he's lying no it just means you say different things doesn't necessarily mean he's lying it just might mean that you don't report the same fact so um that's what i would like to see i'd like to see the mainstream news fact checked and count how many lies they have and then maybe i could explain to you why trump supporters reflexively reflexively assume that whatever is on the news is the opposite so after spending four years of opposite news and then a virus comes along and then they they treat the virus you know right just say hey this is really a real virus and it's deadly it might be the first true thing they said what the hell is all the people who have been deluged by fake news for four years what are they supposed to think they just reflexively say if cnn says that it can't be true because they have a whole you know four years of knowing that that's the pattern don't don't expect people to break pattern it's hard to do somebody says but it isn't true it is a low risk well it can be a low risk and kill millions of people is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that something could be a very low risk let's say the coronavirus while also killing millions of people as long as both of those are true you saying it's a low risk doesn't say anything if you say it's a low risk therefore we should not treat it like it's important well you're stupid all right unfortunately there's no way around that that would just be stupid it's a low risk for the population in general that that population in general is not necessarily you now if you're 12 years old yeah you could treat it like it's not a risk it might kill grandma if you do but if you're 12 it probably won't kill you if you're me and you've got a comorbidity if you're over 60 with a comorbidity asthma in my case do you treat that like it's low risk i treat it like it's one risk i can control so i'm going to i can control it in a little you know a little bit i can't control it totally but i'm going to do what i can do so don't be fooled by saying it's on 99.99 chance that you'll survive that is unrelated to whether it's a big problem you get that right does everybody get that those two things can be true that 99.99 of you will have no problem at all at the same time with no conflict whatsoever it's a gigantic global problem you get that right those are not conflicts those are saying the same thing just two facts now i'm being being blamed for being bad at math by somebody who's literally named jim davis that's right the most common insult i get is oh you're the creator of garfield go back to drawing your cat the most common critic criticism i get the one critic i choose to read out of that list his name is jim davis the same as i don't think it's jim davis the the creator of garfield but the name of the creator of garfield the only one i saw how did i start this periscope i started it by saying you're going to see name repeats that's how i started and there it was you're watching it right in front of you that's a name repeat right there of all the names in the world i only read one and of all these names that went by i only read one and i didn't see the name first i saw the comment first and then i noticed the name i'm just saying i'm just saying now this of course is more of a uh it's a demonstration of confirmation bias is what it is right it's you know maybe it's the simulation which would be fun but watch how much i can prime you because i'm doing it intentionally i'm priming you to see name repeats watch how often you see it this should teach you that in other situations where i don't tell you in advance i'm gonna i'm gonna prime you for confirmation bias i'm a trained hypnotist if anybody doesn't know that already i'm a trained hypnotist i'm priming you right now uh i'm i'm priming you for confirmation bias you're gonna see name repeats when you do and you will tell yourself oh this is how everything works everything is priming me almost everything i think is true is confirmation bias and once you see it with this little experiment you'll be able to more easily recognize that you might be in it in some future time when i don't tell you you're in it i'm telling you you're you're in it right now you can depend on the fact you will you will experience confirmation bias on this name repeating thing it's going to happen all right that's all for now i'll talk to you tomorrow and uh those of you on youtube you have another minute or so of my so even the story about the representative cindy johnson cindy johnson is the name of one of my classmates when i grew up you know a prom sort of a a big name in my childhood was cynthia johnson and that's the name in the news again it's confirmation bias but uh it's funny um our somebody says are trump supporters smart enough to know lies from facts let me give you a definitive answer to that nobody is there's nobody who's smart enough if people could tell the difference between lies and facts there wouldn't be lies or at least nobody would lie to smart people but they do now nobody nobody can tell the difference and here's here's the way to know if you're stupid there is a way if you think the other side is the stupid side that's how you know you're the stupid one because if you were smart you would know that whatever is going on on your side is definitely happening on the other side too and vice versa whatever is happening with democrats that makes them unable to see simple truth is clearly obviously definitely happening with republicans and with independents and with humans because it's a human thing it has nothing to do with politics you know being being a trump supporter doesn't make you dumb being dumb doesn't make you a trump supporter it doesn't work that way people are just dumb and people are in different groups and you're going to find some dumb people in every group but the way you can know you're dumb is to think it's the other side that's done the moment you tell yourself it's the other side that's dumb and my side got it figured out you have identified yourself absolutely as a dumb person there's no way around that if you want one of the few rules in life that you could depend on you know something that has a hundred percent predictive value because very few things do right most things are like well maybe probably whatever but you could say with a hundred percent certainty that if you believe you were lucky and you got on the smart side god lucky i joined the smart team i'm on the democrats or i'm on the republicans thank goodness i'm not like those guys as soon as you say that you are the dumb one guaranteed guaranteed you're the dumb one now if you say to yourself we're all being fed fake news and the people who are consuming one kind of fake news fall for a certain set of lies the people consuming another set of fake news are likely to fall for another set of lies then you might be smart that would be an indication of somebody who might be smart but if you think it's the only only the other team that's dumb maybe a little self-examination would be in order you might want to read my book wynn bigly or my other book loserthink and that'll illustrate me out all right that's all i got i'll talk to you tomorrow
[Applause]
hey
everybody come on in come on in
i just realized what time it is do you
know what time it is
that's right it's time for coffee with
scott adams the best time of the day
there was this one time that i thought
it wouldn't be the best time of the day
but that i was wrong and it was so
learn from history will you because it
repeats
in this particular way and only this way
this is the best time of the day and
it'll be better if you have a copper mug
or glass
a tiger challenger stein a canteen jug
or flask of vessel
of any kind fill it with your favorite
liquid i like coffee and join me now
for the unparalleled pleasure of the
dopamine of the day the thing that makes
everything better except representative
swalwell
it's called the simultaneous goes down
join me
well that makes everything better
everything
let me tell you what is the biggest
delight
completely unexpected
about uh president trump's
probable change of careers it looks like
you know i was sort of saying to myself
i sure would enjoy another four years of
being entertained
by president trump but there is a
consolation prize
there's a consolation prize and it is
that
making fun of democrats is
sort of fun it's a little bit better
than i was hoping
and a lot of it has to do with the
material they're
they're serving up now
i'm going to say that president trump
did serve up some good material himself
for his critics he i think he'll have
the best four years of any president
but he did serve up a lot of red meat
for the critics
turns out that the democrats are just
as good serving up the good stuff
shall we dig in yeah we shall
so uh turns out that uh
hunter biden might be in a little
trouble and when i say
he's in a little trouble there are
within the category of what you might
call financial crimes
there are a lot of categories so you
might have your
tax related financial crimes potentially
somebody might be laundering a little
money that would be a financial crime
uh maybe uh let's see maybe you were
um let's see what are some other
financial crimes oh having foreign ties
well you know i suppose if there's a
financial connection
that'd be a financial thing too
so it turns out that hunter biden has
been accused of
all financial crimes simultaneously
like if it were a financial crime
somebody's looking into it
on oh hunter biden i'm only exaggerating
a little
bit but the point is that we're learning
after the election that he's in massive
trouble from securities fraud there's a
securities fraud unit looking into it
doesn't mean it's
that's the crime so we don't know the
exact allegations
i will defend hunter biden the following
way
number one hunter biden is an attorney
if he set up a business situation
that is transparently illegal
i'd be a little bit surprised i mean
it's not impossible
but he's a lawyer and he works with
lawyers
it's hard to believe that he set up a
situation that would be both
easy to discover and just flat out
illegal
so i don't know that these allegations
will turn into anything
how many times have we seen allegations
not turn into anything it's pretty
pretty common thing right
so um i don't want to be the one who
says hunter biden is guilty of anything
anything at all you know obviously this
the swampy
behavior is apparently technically legal
so we're pretty sure he was involved
with swampy stuff
but in terms of actually breaking the
law there's nothing in evidence
so i'm going to treat it that way
there's nothing in evidence and
it's the type of investigations that we
do see when people are
ultimately not charged but there are a
lot of them
there's a lot of smoke here i'm telling
you that i can't
see the fire but there's a lot of smoke
so use your judgment the big part of the
story of course is that this was
completely
squashed as a story before the election
uh i was just tweeting a a difference
between how politico
treated it right before the election
versus how they're trading it now
now politico is you know dumping out all
the allegations
before then they actually ran a major
story on politico
same site before the election
saying that according to former and
current
intel people that all of the hunter
biden allegations
looked like russian disinformation
so our own current and former intel
people
were working against the united states
that's interesting isn't it so according
to politico our own
our own uh current and former intel
people are actually not on our team
that's a little scary isn't it wouldn't
you like to know that your former intel
people were on your side that's like the
last people that you want to piss off
ask
chuck schumer he said it directly it's
the last group of people you'd want to
piss off because they can get back at
you so many ways
according to chuck's humor so
it's pretty distressing that our own
current and former intel people were
lying
to our media so that the media could lie
to us what do you make of that
i feel like that's maybe the biggest
story the biggest story is
the misinformation or disinformation
from our side our own intelligence
people retired and current were feeding
disinformation in a massive way
massively disinformation
to our own our own press in real time
and what are we what are we going to
look into instead of that
well we'll talk about it but that feels
like one of the biggest stories in the
country doesn't it
if you were going to say to yourself
like you know rank
the big stories what would be a bigger
story
than current and former intel people
starting a disinformation campaign in
this country
because that's really bad that's really
really really bad that's a
nine or a ten on a scale of one to ten
and we're in this really weird new
environment you've seen it before
maybe it's just uh attenuated or maybe i
just
didn't notice it as much but it goes
like this
in any given day let's say there are a
hundred things happening in the world
that could legitimately be called news
which of the hundred things that are
happening in the world end up
actually being news well not all hundred
you know that it's some little subset of
the hundred things that could be news
become news and then we obsessively talk
about that little group of things that
we decided to use
well if you're not familiar with the
news business
there are entities called news makers
meaning somebody who's in the news
business who's important enough
to look into the hundred things that all
could be news they're all important
but they've picked this one and once
let's say the new york times picks it
it could be cnn could be washington post
by any of the big entities
once they pick it they say this is news
then we sort of ignore all the other
stuff that was just that was important
and we act like that's the only news and
so i guess the news was always
able to redirect you to the only thing
they cared about
as opposed to things you might care
about
but i feel as if their ability to simply
tell you that something
deeply deeply important doesn't matter
is really the superpower because the
story about
these ex and current intel people
running a disinformation campaign
in the middle of a of an election in
this country
that feels like to me just about the
biggest story in the country
and it's treated as it's not even a
story
they simply have to treat it like it's
not a story
and it becomes not a story and if it's
not a story it's also not a crime
there's nothing to investigate there's
no call from the public to do it
it just goes away
and this could have just as easily you
could imagine
it would take you no no trouble at all
to imagine
that it became the biggest story in the
country you could imagine that right
what would be a bigger story than
current and future intel people
running an obvious disinformation
campaign during an election
i don't know that it gets any bigger
than that that's and
apparently they were using the media as
part of that politico in particular
among others probably all of the other
other big media
how is that not the biggest story in the
world
it's amazing all right let's go on
you all want to talk about
representative swalwell who
coincidentally
because the simulation is running ant of
processing power
you'll see that and i've told you this
before
you'll run into too many repeats
for example the biggest story in the
country is about a representative in
congress
what were the odds it would be my
representative
well pretty low but there it is so
again i'm only teasing because
coincidences are generally just
coincidences
and confirmation bias but it but if you
start looking for it
it's sort of a fun exercise to see where
see how often you'll see
it if you tune your brain to expect it
now just for fun
just for fun look for all the repeats
and things that would look like you're a
computer simulation
that's running out of memory so it's
repeating stuff
for example could the biggest story in
the news be about
my representative somebody i've met in
person
what are the odds that one of the
biggest stories in the world
is somebody i know okay i mean i bet
a lot of people but that's one thing and
then what are the odds
that the main character in the story who
is not swalwell himself
is named fang fang
did i can you confirm i want you to
confirm
confirm that i've been telling you now
for a few weeks i guess
that you would see the simulations serve
up
names that are like duplicates did i not
tell you
that the simulation would start serving
up duplicate names
confirm this because anybody who hears
me say that is going to say you didn't
say that
you didn't predict that the that
duplicate names would be coming
i want you to see it in the comments
that i predicted
duplicate names were coming and then the
yeah you see it confirmed it's in the
comments
now of all the weird things i've
predicted
is that the weirdest is that the
weirdest thing i've ever predicted
and it's because you can see it
happening we're seeing just the same
people popping up all the time
and now just the same names of things
right it's uh yeah you're seeing in the
comments i'm not making this up i
actually predicted that the news would
start using duplicate names
and here it is the headline fang fang
um and uh here's
we're hearing a little bit more about
this story uh it turns out
that fang fang had a uh sort of a
a name for her boyfriend allegedly
uh she called him fart fart so it was
fang fang and fart fart
very cute couple now i say there are a
couple but i do not have evidence
that they were ever actually a couple so
i don't think it's fair
that especially since he's married i
don't think it's fair
that we should assume that this is true
you know there's
allegations that he had a sexual
relationship with her
but we don't have evidence in fact
when swalwell's staff was asked whether
he had a sexual relationship
with this alleged chinese spy
here's what his staff said and you know
i think you can trust this
the staff says well here's the it says
we asked swalwell's office this is what
the news reported
uh and his staff replied by saying that
they couldn't comment
on whether or not swalwell had a sexual
relationship with fang
because that information might be
classified
so so i guess i guess we'll never know
because according to his staff whether
or not
this married representative was having
sex with a chinese spy
they can't tell us because it might be
classified
now let me give some advice to
representative swalwell i i know you
maybe you don't need some advice from me
but it goes like this
if your staff has ever asked
if you've had a sexual relationship with
a chinese spy
the correct answer is
no now under the condition
that he had not had sex with a chinese
spy
the answer is always no
there's not really a second way to
answer that
that doesn't sound like yes
i'll get back to you sounds like sort of
maybe you did
i can't talk about it because it might
be
what they call it uh might be classified
that's really saying yes so
representative swalwell you might want
to make some changes on your staff
because i think they just confirmed you
had sex with a chinese spy
now if i'm doing the performance review
for my staff that's going to come up
i'll be there you know given the
performance rules like all right all
right uh bob
uh let's see looking looking at your
performance over the year there was a
yeah you were very punctual that's
that's a plus
for you bob good job in that punctuality
um i like a lot of your writing you know
you did some good writing and some
projects
a plus there was uh
really just one thing just just one
thing that i have a little problem with
and i think this will have to be
reflected on your permanent record
there was a time you confirmed to the
press that i was having sex with a
chinese spy
that was suboptimal bob
and i'm going to have to give you a
below expectation
for that you did not exceed my
expectations
so marking me out for having sex
allegedly
with a chinese allegedly spy
not such good performance not such a
good performance
you did not get a raise
all right now let me ask you this
now that this wall will story is you
know gaining some
credibility and we know we all know
about it
does it not explain everything that you
saw with swalwall
what was there not some point you said
to yourself
i feel like he's getting ahead of
himself running for president
didn't you didn't you say to yourself
why is he running for president i get
that he's on tv
a lot but i don't feel like he's
quite ready to run for president and
sure enough the public
agreed but you say to yourself why does
somebody
go too soon you know maybe later he'd be
more groomed or maybe he'd be a senator
by then who knows
but the first thing i had a question
about is he seemed
too ambitious for
what his potential was at the moment
could have been more
later so that was sort of a little flag
i've always wondered about that so that
seems a little bit too ambitious
i like ambitious people but it just
seemed a little you know it's not like
he was obama he wasn't
he wasn't a superstar so that was weird
and then of course watching his entire
act in which he was trying to paint
president trump as a russian puppet
never looked even slightly real it never
looked like he believed it
it never looked like he was even
american
honestly he he gave the opinion he gave
the look
swallow did as not somebody who was just
anti-republican
and not even somebody who was a democrat
he gave the look of somebody who wasn't
even on the side of america
i mean that's what it looked like
because he was so far
over the the edge into that russia
collusion thing
it didn't even look like he was trying
to be helpful
right it looked like he was literally on
some other team
and now we know that there was a
connection to the other team
that may have been pretty deep including
financial support etc so
i think we could say at this point that
certainly swalwell should not have any
kind of job in the government
after that i can't imagine it would just
be ridiculous to re-elect them
you should certainly shouldn't be any
kind of committee
and again it doesn't even matter if he's
guilty it doesn't matter if he's guilty
if you lose that much trust
that's all you need to know you don't
know if he's actually guilty of these
things you just need to know
that the situation is such that you
shouldn't trust it
by its setup right you don't need to
know the details
so after seeing this
completely explaining swalwell's
behavior
it looked like he was a chinese agent
right
now i'm not saying he was a chinese
agent i'm not alleging he was a chinese
agent
i'm just saying his behavior looked
exactly like one which doesn't mean he
was one because he could have been just
partisan democrat right but then i say
to myself
if this is some kind of massive chinese
plot
to influence politicians who they they
find when they're minor politicians and
then they elevate them beyond
you know maybe a little too early is
there anybody else who fits the same
pattern
as swalwell in other words if you
thought there was a signal
given out by the swalwell situation that
said oh
now that we know there was some chinese
spy
involvement maybe you could see the the
tells for that the signals in it
and one of the signals was somebody who
is let's say
not the strongest politician is getting
a lot of attention
so that's one of the tells right if you
see somebody like trump
getting a lot of attention you say to
yourself well that makes sense
he's a very substantial politician
of course you should get lots of
attention but when you see an
adam schiff or a swalwell get a lot of
attention
it seems a little weird doesn't it
because they don't seem like
substantial people they both seem
amazingly
unsubstantial am i right
so if you're looking for the tells
look for a unsubstantial politician
somebody who could be molded and moved
someone who is not their own man
or one woman and someone who gets
way more attention than the amount of
substance they bring
demands and here's the third thing
the claims are so over the top
that they don't look like a republican
they don't look like
even a democrat they look like they're
on the other team
meaning not team america right
am i right does somebody somebody is
throwing aoc in the mix and i disagree
i think aoc is just young and
but i would say she has substance unlike
the other two
she has some x factor native
thing you know meaning that she she was
born a powerful person will always be so
i don't see that with schiff and i don't
see that with swalwell
so uh i wouldn't put her in that list of
having those same characteristics i
think she's
she's her own thing and and indeed even
you know the green new deal and stuff
with aoc
may be right may be wrong i think it's
wrong but it doesn't
it doesn't look exactly like a chinese
plot
although you could argue that it might
destroy the country so maybe it was
anyway so here's my question i'm not
going to say there's any evidence that
adam schiff has anything going on with
china
there's no evidence there's nothing in
evidence period
but if you're looking for patterns
he really fits that pattern and if i had
to
place a bet like with actual money
on this question does does adam
schiff or has he ever had a boyfriend or
girlfriend
who were a chinese spy i would probably
place a bet on that because i could
probably get good odds right
doesn't mean it's true doesn't mean it's
more likely to be true than not
but based on just the smell of it
i'd place a bet on it you know i'd put a
thousand dollars on it if i could
i would put a thousand dollar bet that
you could find someday that adam schiff
had a chinese
spy connection just because the way he
acts
and i want to be as clear as possible
there is no
evidence that i'm aware of
the adam schiff has any kind of an
external foreign connection
i'm just saying he acts exactly like a
guy who does
because we just saw a guy who has that
connection we don't know how much it
influenced him if it did
but we know that somebody looks just
like that
and i can't explain it with other
explanations i'll just put it out there
i have to hang my head in shame today
because uh i'm a professional humorist
and if i miss a joke that's just
it's just right there for me and i i
miss it i just feel embarrassed
and that's how i felt when i saw my
twitter feed this morning and
non-professional humorist alex guevaras
said and i quote about this story
that's what she said except he spe
he spelled she xi as in president xi
of china that's what she said and when i
read it and of course it's one of these
jokes that you have to read it doesn't
work if you say it out loud
but when i read it i said to myself
i quit i quit i can't be a professional
humorist anymore
how in the hell did i not say that joke
before alex guevaras said it on twitter
how the hell can i live with myself now
it was right there it was right there it
was right in front of me
glowing and big didn't see it
did not see it but alex did that's what
she said
all right um
will uh rapid testing of for coronavirus
get approved under biden
i tweeted that later today there's
an online event about this idea of doing
rapid testing
so this is a virtual event today's the
10th right
today's the 10th yeah uh it's a virtual
event
about the topic of rapid cova tests
now if you're new to this
there is very little in common with
doing regular testing for coronavirus
and this idea rapid testing
you should think of it as just a
completely different animal
with a completely different way of
working
than just testing people like we do now
and the reason it's different is they
use the
proposal is to use paper scripts which
we just heard word actually today
there's news that
somebody developed a good paper strip
that would be cheap
for testing so this event which we'll
talk about this idea this is the michael
mina idea i think
of using cheap test strips that you can
do as many tests as you want at home
maybe it's you know two or five dollars
for every t each test
you don't need a doctor you just you
just get a bunch of them
test yourself every few days just
because you want to know
and then they're not perfect tests and
here's the part people don't understand
the the idea of doing rapid cheap tests
that are ubiquitous and everybody can
test like crazy
uses cheap tests that are not quite as
rapid
or they're not as accurate as these
really
you know expensive tests that we have
now
so the point is if you do enough cheap
tests
you get a better result than a fewer
number of high quality tests
so that's what's different the proposal
is
that doing a small number whatever we
can do with our current technology
it never gets you to the point where the
testing cures the coronavirus it just
tells you if you need to be treated
the other the the cheap test
thing with the cheap test strips is
meant to stop the virus
the other testing isn't even meant to do
that right
so they're they're not they're not
similar they just both have the words
coronavirus test
and those two words basically the only
thing they have in common
otherwise it's a completely different
idea and the reason part of the reason
that it has it isn't going anywhere fast
so far
is that people can't understand that
difference
and people will say uh we already have
tests and then
they're done but they don't understand
it's different all right so that's today
uh
i tweeted it so you can add it to your
calendar directly from
from the tweet when you see it that's
worth looking at
and the question i have is whether the
biden administration
might get more interested in this than
the trump
administration was in my opinion the
lack
of the trump administration dealing with
this idea specifically this idea
is either a gigantic gigantic
failure or
they should have communicated to us why
they're not doing it
so i would have been happy with we
looked into this deeply
there's a problem here that maybe they
hadn't they didn't tell you
but because of this problem we're not
going to pursue this aggressively
if i'd heard that even if they were
wrong
you know maybe they're wrong but at
least i'd say okay they dealt with the
very promising idea they dealt with it
they dismissed it
right or wrong at least i feel like it
was handled in some way
but it's just sort of ignored i i know
that this idea has reached the
administration multiple times and
through multiple
outlets it's not that they haven't heard
it they've heard it lots of times but
they don't respond to it
they don't say it's a good idea they
don't say we're looking into it
and to me that's an enormous failure of
the
trump administration's coronavirus task
force
enormous i'm talking about a 10 out of
10
in terms of mistake i mean just a
serious serious mistake
well again i could be wrong i just need
to hear a reason and the fact that they
don't give the public
a reason for not doing it
or even to tell us if they are doing it
we don't know about it
that's just an enormous mistake there's
no way around that there's no way to
soften that
there is no way to soften that it's an
enormous
enormous mistake that could have killed
a hundred thousand people that's just a
fact and that's not
i don't think you can put that on trump
because the entire task force
could talk about it fauci could bring it
up
fauci could bring it up just to debunk
it which would be fine
he's not even brought it up as far as i
know does the news bring it up
no all right
here's the other thing that's fun the
ftc
uh said that facebook is engaged in
quote
a systemic strategy to eliminate his
competition so they're being
taken to court for uh unfair competition
stuff
monopoly stuff and so some of the things
being
suggested as monopoly stuff
is that they're buying up their little
uh competitors so they buy the
competitors
and there and some of them as an example
they bought instagram so it wouldn't
compete with them they bought whatsapp
so it wouldn't compete with them so of
all the things that facebook is doing
was that the one you were worried about
i feel as if that was the only one i
don't care about
let me ask you this are you worse off
because
facebook owns instagram
not because of competition because i
think
i'm pretty sure facebook improved
instagram and now
i can post on one and it shows up on
both
i feel like i came out ahead right
what about uh facebook buying
whatsapp did that hurt you in some way
did you not get to eat today because
whatsapp and what about all the smaller
companies that they bought
every one of those companies was hoping
facebook would buy them
or somebody like them small companies
startups they want to be purchased
by the large companies that's their exit
strategy oh we'll get
so we'll reach a certain size and
facebook or
you know google or somebody will buy us
why would i want to take that away
why would i want every uh startup
not to have an exit strategy that's the
most obvious exit strategy that they all
look
for so here's my take
on this movement against facebook
i'm not defending facebook i'm just
saying
that there's sort of a gigantic
dead elephant in the room here isn't
there
and the dead gigantic elephant
is that the real problem is that they
just changed the
election result effectively eliminating
the republic
because they can just decide who gets
to be president because the social media
companies decide what you see
and that decides and that makes your
opinion and then you vote on it
so you have this gigantic problem
which is that the social media
influences
in you know the election that is
enormous problem
and then you've got this this monopoly
thing
yeah i get that it's the law i
understand the concept of not wanting
monopolies as a general
thing i have a i have a degree in
economics i'm no fan of monopolies
but am i watching my government go after
it the smallest problem they could
identify
because this is this is not my problem i
don't
really care that facebook bought its
competitors
i don't really care that my friend who
worked for whatsapp
made so much money that it's
it's hard to count it i don't care i'm
happy for my friend
he worked for a startup which was
intended
everybody expected one of the ways they
would exit is
selling to a big platform and then he
did and he made a ton of money
i'm happy for my friend i'm just not
happy that they controlled the election
so that's an interesting misdirection
going on there
so what's interesting though is that
48 states are suing facebook over this
which means that it's not republican
and it's not democrat apparently
everybody in the government likes to
beat up on facebook on this point
as opposed as opposed to anything that i
care about
um youtube has told its creators by
emails that they're going to start
removing content
about election fraud
even though at the same time that there
are still active court cases
is that the most mind-boggling thing
you've heard today
that youtube is literally going to
decide what the truth is
and then they're going to take that then
they're going to remove from your
site the ones that don't match their
idea of what is true
now i'm going to admit and remember i
said this from the start
that at least 95 percent of all the
claims of fraud
would be bs at least 95
would you say that that has borne out
that at least 95
of the claims you've seen claims
have turned down not to be what you
thought they were i think so
i think i think i hit that prediction
pretty well
about 95 are not true but
are they all not true
can i not do a uh is it is it not good
for me to do a youtube in which i say
you know these areas had uh results
that have a one and one in one
quadrillion odds of being natural
as opposed to being a sign of fraud can
i not
say that will i be demonetized or
removed
from youtube if i say the following
statement
because i'm going to say it right now
and see if i get removed
so i'm going to gamble gamble a little
bit of money here
on this would you like me to gamble in
front of you
alright here's my statement election
fraud
because of the nature of our election
systems and what we've learned about
the at least the potential for fraud and
what we've learned about the hatred for
orange hitler given that set up
there's a guarantee of widespread fraud
it's guaranteed it can't not happen
so there's a direct statement about
election
uh fraud from me very direct
it had to happen it exists it's real
there is no uh evidence i'm aware of
that we can identify specifically enough
of it that it would
win in a court case or overthrow the
election
that's true wouldn't you say i mean we
there a lot of you who think well we're
close or maybe we'll get there
or i think you know one more day and
we'll have it
but as of today we haven't seen anything
that would change the court
we have seen things that at least some
members of
you know congress and the states are
saying the republicans anyway
are saying maybe we should not certify
or maybe we should question the result
etc
but that's just the news the regular
news is reporting that there are
some people talking about that so
will i be banned from youtube
for saying what i just said which i
don't believe
has any question to it that the setup
gives the opportunity for fraud and
given the motivation it's guaranteed
that it happened
we just don't know the specifics that's
all and it probably can't
can't be reversed so we'll see let's see
what uh happens there that's your little
test
i saw a doctor a very qualified doctor
but it's not on the major news sites
and here's my question to you is this
real
is the reason that this following story
is on minor news sites
but not major ones is there a good
reason for this so here's the story
there's a doctor dr pier corey he's a
physician at
st luke's medical center in milwaukee
and he and a group of other highly
qualified doctors and the highly
qualified is important to the story
highly qualified really really know
their stuff
and they decided that since the
government was not doing this
they would do it which is to do a deep
dive on all existing
medicines to see if there's something
that exists already
that could work now i think i heard that
this group
or at least this one doctor was
behind the uh was it the uh
um what's the name of the the category
of drugs that are working against
covid if you have a bad case of it the
uh
steroids is it the steroids
but uh so i think he's he already
has credibility as somebody who found
that these steroids i may be using the
wrong word whatever where
yeah steroids right he found that those
would be effective in a certain kind of
patient that's gotten to a certain point
so he's got
lots of credibility all right so it's
really important that you know
that this is not a doctor like the the
ones who were mocked for coming on fox
news
who were also real doctors by the way
the ones who were mocked on fox news for
hydroxychloroquine
real doctors with real credentials and
there were multiple of them
but they all got mocked right because
because trump liked that drug so that
was
uh impossible but here we have somebody
who's not only
has that kind of credential as a medical
professional but is already a track
record
of succeeding finding some
recommendations that
made a gigantic difference in
corroded virus treatment so this is a
real credible person
worked with other credible people and
has decided that this drug
ivermectin which already exists it's uh
i think there are several companies that
make it in generic form already
so it's already generic um
somebody says dexamethasone according
you know what i mean yeah so those are
the ones that uh
do work so ivor mechtin
he says there have been recent studies
that
even though you can't get to certainty
like we don't have
enough time and data to really really
really really know
but he says that there's so much and
it's so much in the same direction
that it's sort of a no-brainer that it
works according to this doctor
now here's the tough part and he says
directly that even if you had looked
into this in august
of this year in august of this year when
science was looking into it they looked
at ivermectin and they decided
that it was not quite right
one of the problems was that it would
only work at a dose
too high for your body to handle it
so so it might work in theory but you
couldn't put that much of it in your
body without hurting yourself
so that's what we thought in august so
here's the problem
once you know something is true it's
really hard
to change your mind it's hard for the
public the news to wrap its head around
that august was a million years ago
so apparently what we've learned from
august
where the evidence was suggesting you
shouldn't
try it to now is a whole bunch of news
like a whole bunch of data that is all
positive
just all positive according to this
doctor
so according to this doctor and i'm not
making this claim i'll just report what
he said
um this is so effective that it
effectively ends the pandemic
so there's a real live doctor with real
qualifications doesn't mean he's right
right we can all we can all be subject
to confirmation bias
doesn't matter how qualified you are you
can still be subject to confirmation
bias
but here's a guy i'm not going to ignore
i'm not going to ignore this guy i
really really want to know
if this works and since widely available
we could be we could be 30 days away
from being done with this
if he's right so now the history of
this kind of thing being right is very
low right
most of the time these turn out to be
dead ends but
makes me feel good to talk about them
you also the story of the michigan
representative who threatened trump
supporters in a video
let me read to you what a michigan i
guess her name was cynthia johnson
michigan representative said this quote
so this is just a warning to you
trumpers
be careful walk lightly
we ain't playing with you michigan state
representative johnson said in the video
and then she went on enough of the
shenanigans enough is enough
and for those of you who are soldiers
you know how to do it
do it right be in order make them pay
so she was actually calling for people
with
training and violence soldiers
to make trump supporters pay in this
country
she was literally a government employee
recommending violence against citizens
in this country
now the politicians in their state
acted quickly the speaker of the house
immediately stripped
representative johnson of all of her
committee duties
uh that's not enough
ah no
no that's not enough
let me tell you how not enough that is
you
you she needs to lose her job
right away right away you need to change
the locks on her place
like even if you can't get rid of her
with some you know
system you know if the system doesn't
allow
quickly to get rid of her change the
locks
change the locks because she doesn't get
to go to work anymore
after this all right so i don't
know what can happen to her but
losing your committee assignments isn't
really close
to what needs to happen we're not in the
same galaxy with that
just to be clear now here let me tell
you what the big story is to me
the big story is not that there was this
one person who said this one thing
because we live in a big world of crazy
people there's always going to be
somebody saying crazy things you don't
like here's the part that just
is chilling she lives in a world
meaning that whatever information comes
to her
whoever she talks to she lives in an
environment or a reality in which she
didn't think she would get in trouble
for recommending physical violence
against
trump supporters in public as an elected
pro
elected person she thought that as an
elected person
she could suggest violence against
citizens
who had nothing but a political
difference of opinion
now that's the story the story isn't
that she
said it because people do bad things all
the time that's no story
the story is she didn't think there was
anything wrong with it
didn't think there was anything wrong
with it probably
thought she was helping in her own mind
might have actually believed
this was good for the world think about
that
think about the level of brainwashing
that's happened that somebody could
think well i'll just say this in public
what could happen i mean that part just
makes my head explode and you know of
course that that'll get buried a little
bit in the story because it's going to
be about her
it shouldn't really be about her i mean
something has to happen there
but it should be the bigger picture
which is
why did she think that that was even
maybe a little bit okay to say
i don't think she was even a little bit
worried do you do you think she was
worried after she posted that that
somebody would find
that that went too far i don't think she
was worried
i think she thought that that was
acceptable public
discourse that's the part of the story
that isn't getting covered
speaking of cnn creating problems and
then assigning it
to supporters um here's here's the
funniest one that i've seen lately
they're talking about the denialism they
call it in the trump camp
and they're making two points one is the
denialism about the election
being fraud free and being done and the
other is what they call the denialism
about
kovid being real now
i suppose you could add on top of it
being real that it's
you know not as bad as people think so
that would be the what they call the
denialism
and they offer this uh one article on
cnn offers three reasons
that connect the two kinds of denialism
so why is it that trump supporters would
deny two things
not just one thing if it were just one
thing then you say maybe it's about
about the information or the data about
that one thing but if you've got
two separate things the cnn is
presenting as facts
that trump supporters say just don't
exist
here are the reasons that cnn proposes
for why that could be
uh would you guess that it's president
trump's fault of course
uh they say that president trump won't
admit defeat in the election
so you know there's and he won't he
won't admit any missteps in covent
creating a bedrock of inaccuracy all
right so they're building their case
so now president trump says things that
cnn says are not true
and therefore he's created a bedrock a
bedrock of inaccuracy all right now
they're going to
build their case on that so they've
started with the bedrock of inaccuracy
number two the democratization
of information so they're saying that
information can come through the
internet
as well as through the gatekeepers of
the professional news
so you've got a bedrock of inaccuracy
and you've got all this stuff that comes
in through the internet
that's unfiltered all right that's two
then three
as the country gets more tribal uh
people just like to have villains
good guys and bad guys so they just take
sides
so those are those three answers and
those are the three reasons they give
that collectively
we created an environment in which
republicans uniquely
are denialists and they deny that the
election was real and that kovud was
real
so that's their explanation
let me add my own explanation
why what other reason could you think of
what other reason would trump supporters
deny
that the election was fair
um could it be because there's no chance
it was fair
could be could be um
what would be another explanation well
i'll just put this out there one
possible
explanation for why republicans
don't believe the news they see on cnn
is that cnn has been feeding them fake
news
for four years if your source of this
information
is literally something called fake news
is it really a surprise
that if some real news were to come
along allegedly
that people wouldn't believe it let me
ask you this
if you would watch the le just the
political news on cnn for
four years and you had simply made this
one adjustment in your thinking
that the real news is the opposite of
whatever they report
would you have had a better idea of what
happened in the world
or worse if in political topics
every time they reported the news you
said to yourself it's probably
opposite of that which would have been a
better
picture of the world it's the opposite
one it really is
if you had just said uh russia collusion
okay they're saying it happened okay it
didn't just that kind of stuff just
just the reverse every single time you
would have been
a lot closer to the truth and now i've
saved
my best point aren't you glad you waited
here's my best point
i prepare you now
you may know of course you know that the
media has been accusing president trump
of uh
over what is the count 22 000 lies
25 000 lies something like that so
in cnn's view of the world uh trump has
lied 22 000 times and therefore
people don't know what to believe so
trump is
trump has polluted things to the point
where his base will
disbelieve anything in the news because
of all that trump lies
but let me ask you this and here is my
best point
has anybody tried to count the number of
lies
on cnn
no nobody has what do you think they'd
get
cnn is on all day long how many times
has cnn said
just the fine people hoax just that one
thing
how many lies have they told just about
to find people
thousands thousands what do you say when
you say that there are at least a
thousand
times that they've lied just on that one
lie
now add in russia collusion what does
the number get to if you had russia
collusion
tens of thousands if you look at all
their programming all the hours all the
all the commenters probably tens of
thousands
nobody has ever counted the
number of lies
in the mainstream news so let's count
them
let's compare them and maybe every time
somebody says president trump told 25
000 lies which in his case
are generally hyperbole you know for
some good
persuasion purpose whereas the news is
just
lying to you and
i know it would be more than 22 000. why
did we let them get away with four years
of telling us that one person was lying
without
anybody counting how many they how many
times they lied i mean it's a lot of
work
and there's a lot of opinion now when
they say that president
trump is lying it's also opinion because
they would say he said this but we say
that so therefore he's lying no
it just means you say different things
doesn't necessarily mean he's lying
it just might mean that you don't report
the same fact
so um
that's what i would like to see i'd like
to see the mainstream news
fact checked and count how many lies
they have and
then maybe i could explain to you why
trump supporters reflexively
reflexively assume that whatever is on
the news
is the opposite so after spending four
years of
opposite news and then a virus comes
along and then they they treat the virus
you know right just say hey this is
really a real virus and it's deadly
it might be the first true thing they
said
what the hell is all the people who have
been
deluged by fake news for four years what
are they supposed to think
they just reflexively say if cnn says
that it can't be true
because they have a whole you know four
years of knowing that that's the pattern
don't don't expect people to break
pattern it's hard to do
somebody says but it isn't true
it is a low risk well it can be a low
risk and kill millions of people
is there anybody who would disagree with
the statement that something could be a
very low risk
let's say the coronavirus while also
killing
millions of people as long as both of
those are true
you saying it's a low risk doesn't say
anything
if you say it's a low risk therefore we
should not treat it like it's important
well you're stupid all right
unfortunately
there's no way around that that would
just be stupid it's a low risk
for the population in general that that
population in general is not necessarily
you
now if you're 12 years old yeah you
could treat it like it's not a risk
it might kill grandma if you do but if
you're 12 it probably won't kill you
if you're me and you've got a
comorbidity
if you're over 60 with a comorbidity
asthma in my case
do you treat that like it's low risk
i treat it like it's one risk i can
control
so i'm going to i can control it in a
little you know a little bit i can't
control it totally
but i'm going to do what i can do so
don't be fooled by saying it's on 99.99
chance that you'll survive that is
unrelated
to whether it's a big problem you get
that right
does everybody get that those two things
can be true
that 99.99 of you will have no problem
at all
at the same time with no conflict
whatsoever
it's a gigantic global problem you get
that right
those are not conflicts those are saying
the same thing
just two facts
now i'm being being blamed for being bad
at math
by somebody who's literally named jim
davis
that's right the most common insult i
get
is oh you're the creator of garfield go
back to drawing your cat
the most common critic criticism i get
the one critic
i choose to read out of that list
his name is jim davis the same as i
don't think it's jim davis the
the creator of garfield but the name of
the creator of garfield
the only one i saw how did i start this
periscope
i started it by saying you're going to
see name
repeats that's how i started
and there it was you're watching it
right in front of you
that's a name repeat right there of all
the names in the world i only read one
and of all these names that went by i
only read one and i didn't see the name
first i saw the comment first
and then i noticed the name
i'm just saying i'm just saying now
this of course is more of a uh it's a
demonstration of confirmation bias
is what it is right it's you know maybe
it's the simulation which would be fun
but watch how much i can prime you
because i'm doing it intentionally
i'm priming you to see name repeats
watch how often you see it this should
teach you
that in other situations where i don't
tell you in advance i'm gonna
i'm gonna prime you for confirmation
bias i'm a trained hypnotist if
anybody doesn't know that already i'm a
trained hypnotist
i'm priming you right now uh
i'm i'm priming you for confirmation
bias you're gonna see name
repeats when you do and you will
tell yourself oh this is how everything
works
everything is priming me almost
everything i think is true is
confirmation bias
and once you see it with this little
experiment you'll be able to more
easily recognize that you might be in it
in some future time
when i don't tell you you're in it i'm
telling you you're
you're in it right now you can depend on
the fact
you will you will experience
confirmation bias on this name repeating
thing
it's going to happen all right that's
all for now
i'll talk to you tomorrow
and uh those of you on youtube you have
another
minute or so of my so even the story
about the representative
cindy johnson cindy johnson is the name
of
one of my classmates when i grew up you
know
a prom sort of a a big name in my
childhood was cynthia johnson
and that's the name in the news again
it's confirmation
bias but uh it's funny
um our
somebody says are trump supporters smart
enough to know lies
from facts let me give you a definitive
answer to that
nobody is there's nobody who's smart
enough if people could tell the
difference between lies and facts
there wouldn't be lies or at least
nobody would lie to smart people
but they do now nobody nobody can tell
the difference
and here's here's the way to know if
you're stupid
there is a way if you think the other
side is the stupid
side that's how you know you're the
stupid one
because if you were smart you would know
that whatever is going on on your side
is definitely happening on the other
side too and vice versa
whatever is happening with democrats
that makes them unable to see
simple truth is clearly obviously
definitely happening with republicans
and with independents
and with humans because it's a human
thing it has nothing to do with politics
you know
being being a trump supporter doesn't
make you dumb being dumb doesn't make
you a trump supporter
it doesn't work that way people are just
dumb
and people are in different groups and
you're going to find some dumb people in
every group
but the way you can know you're dumb is
to think it's the other side that's done
the moment you tell yourself it's the
other side that's dumb and
my side got it figured out you have
identified yourself
absolutely as a dumb person
there's no way around that if you want
one of the few rules in life
that you could depend on you know
something that has a hundred percent
predictive value because very few things
do right most things are like well maybe
probably whatever but you could say with
a hundred percent certainty
that if you believe you were lucky and
you got on the smart side
god lucky i joined the smart team
i'm on the democrats or i'm on the
republicans
thank goodness i'm not like those guys
as soon as you say that you are the dumb
one
guaranteed guaranteed you're the dumb
one
now if you say to yourself we're all
being fed fake news
and the people who are consuming one
kind of fake news
fall for a certain set of lies the
people
consuming another set of fake news are
likely to fall for another set of lies
then you might be smart that would be an
indication of somebody who might be
smart
but if you think it's the only only the
other team that's dumb
maybe a little self-examination would be
in order
you might want to read my book wynn
bigly
or my other book loserthink and that'll
illustrate me out all right that's all i
got i'll talk to you
tomorrow
