Episode 1396 Scott Adams - Dilbert Filter on the Wuhan Lab Story, Headlines That Don't Match Stories

hey everybody you know i said by uh twitter this morning that this might be one of the best coffees with scott adams of all time let me check my notes yeah yeah it's true it's the best one of all time and before we get to the simultaneous sip because i know there's some kind of a delay here that blocks you from seeing it but until we get to that let me tell you a little story i have long believed that the past can be changed by what happens in the in the present now this is a form of affirmations because the idea with affirmations is that when you're affirming something you say oh i want this to work out or or this part of my life to be better that in order for those things to happen as if by magic which is often the way you observe them i'm not saying magic exists i'm saying you you feel like it's magic when something happens just the way you wanted it to happen but in order for that to happen often the past has to be altered or at least seem like it's been altered and what i mean is let me give you an example you heard the story i think some of you in which i was experimenting with christina to see if we could simply use affirmations to make money show up substantial money that we had not anticipated something that wasn't related to my normal work just money showing up and sure enough it turns out that sometime in the past maybe over a year ago i had inadvertently left some cryptocurrency just a little bit in an account that i forgot i had which is worth a quarter of a million dollars today just came out of nowhere now what are the odds that i was doing this affirmation for money to command in nowhere exactly when it happened what are the odds well if affirmations is let's say real or we live in a simulation it could be that i altered the past because in my model of reality you can alter the past under one condition all right what is the one condition in which you can alter the past hypothetically we're just talking for fun here but if we live in a simulation and you can change it you'd have to be able to change the past for the events to work their way up to the future to be just the way you want it because if the past isn't just the way you want it neither will the future so yeah so so you're close the one time under this model if this were true the one time you could change the past is when there's no counter evidence in other words nobody has already looked into the past that you know of and found it to be different than the than the past you want it to be well yesterday i got a hundred dollars in the mail uh and thank you james you're probably watching this right now and but this is cheating one of my viewers sent me some free money to make my affirmations come true thank you now the rest of you don't send me any money you don't need to be sending me money right but thank you it was kind of funny and you definitely got my attention so thanks for doing that but maybe you can change the past is all i'm saying and how would you like to enjoy the simultaneous sip oh i made you wait i made you wait some of you are thinking wait a minute did i already miss the simultaneous zip no it's coming now and all you need is a copper marker glass of tanker chelsea stein a canteen cherry flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like that's right coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day i'm going to mix in a little serotonin just a dash of oxytocin this is going to be the good one it's called the simultaneous step and it happens now all over the world go you know if tony robbins had come up with this idea maybe he could have made something of himself well let's talk about all the things uh looks like bill gates and warren buffett are major investors in in a nuclear energy i think it's a fourth generation nuclear reactor now if you don't know what a fourth generation nuclear reactor is the definition is a little squishy but basically it means a safer more economical form of nuclear energy you might not be aware i think this is true that there's never been a major problem with current the the newest type of nuclear power do be a fact check fact check on that but i think it's true that uh generation three which is what you would build today not counting this bill gates thing i'll talk about but up until today any new plant would have been the so-called third generation i believe there's never been an accident in one of those that killed anybody but check check that out i think only second generation or prior have ever had an accident because we know how to do it now third generation i don't think there's ever been one but fact check me on that i think i'm right anyway but even way safer than the third generation which probably has never killed anybody i think um the uh the new stuff is even better and so wyoming has decided to partner with the gates and warren buffett funded entity i think it's terrapower but it's this is going to be the natrium power plant and it's expected to be more fuel efficient cost-effective and safer i don't know if it actually eats the waste from traditional plants but some of the generation four will do that i don't know if this one does this uh here's my take on this we we quite rightly do a lot of complaining about the you know the income gap and the wealth gap in the world it doesn't seem fair that people are starving at the same time somebody has a hundred billion dollars right your sense of fairness just it's hard to process that but it is nonetheless true that our mega billionaires can do some things that the government can't why does the government do anything for you like why do you have a government the point of a government is that the government has god-awful amount of money in power so they can just do stuff that requires a god-awful amount of money and power but fast forward to 2021 our billionaire class our billionaire class has god awful amount of money that they can focus on particular projects you know they don't they don't have the government kind of money so they can't focus everywhere which wouldn't make sense but a bill gates and a warren buffett could just say all right here's a problem the government isn't fixing and then they just go fix it now what are the odds that this power plant will work out the way they hope i don't know you know it's the first of it's the first of its kind it's the first of its kind so maybe they'll you know be little stops stops and starts but whether it's perfect on the first try or or they you know they tweak it later this is amazing news you do you understand how big a news this is if you've been following the the whole climate change and even especially the nuclear energy field let me let me put a value on this in terms of what this could mean for the planet it's a 10 and a 10.

did you know that that this news is a 10 out of 10 for the health of the planet i mean this is this is so big it's almost incalculable if it works right now even if it doesn't work like i said it probably moves us closer to the one that does you know they might have to tweak it or whatever but this is amazing news is it the top headline no no is there anything more important happening in the world than this yeah you know the pandemic and you know china is rising and we've got genocide and those things but this is right up there this is one of the biggest stories on the planet golden age what do you think i think the golden age is coming there's more on this too jobs report came out it's a little less than people expected is that bad news the jobs report came out and there are fewer people going back to work than people hoped is that good news or bad news nothing it's nothing news because there's so many jobs that are unfilled we don't have anything like an employment problem so you can actually just stop talking about employment it actually doesn't matter have you ever seen a time in in the history of well your life have you ever seen a time when the employment rate didn't even matter it was like the one statistic that we all thought was the most important your your employment levels basically tell you how the entire economy is going to go how the entire economy goes tells you everything normally but we we've reached this bizarre situation where there are open jobs and there are people without those jobs and they're not especially hurrying to get them because they have the benefits from the from the the government largesse so the jobs reports means nothing but i imagine the stock market will move anyway you know it'll well let me check did the stock market move on the jobs reports because it shouldn't and the answer is the market went up all right so so as i predicted the fact that the jobs report is not excellent didn't change the market at all and it shouldn't so that's actually irrational for once it's rational all right let's put the dilbert filter on this question about the wuhan lab and the the fouchy stuff so here's some little backgrounds and new things that we're learning about it uh i guess dr fauci gave a wide-ranging interview recently um in which he said he was asked if he believed his own uh national institute of uh allergy and infectious diseases could have any responsibility for the global pandemic now the the reasoning here is that maybe he approved it was part of approving some funding that made its way through the wuhan lab that may have been involved in some way in gain of function may have contributed to the outbreak is is at least the allegation and or question and here's how dr fauci answered it he said quote are you really saying that we are implicated because we gave a mil a multi-billion dollar institution 120 000 a year for bat surveillance now this is according to the financial times and they didn't publish the question he was asked but the answer is pretty interesting without the question i hope i hope we're not losing any context here so just put a little check mark in that box in your brain that says might be some missing context but for now i'm going to treat it like it's true so here's the first dilbert filter you're going to talk to your boss and you want to ask him for a lot of money all right so you go to your boss you say i need a lot of money what's the best way to express it well if you want it to sound like it's a small amount of money you say it's 120 000 per year not that much if you want to make it sound like a large amount of money you say it's 600 000 because that's what five years of 120 000 dollars gets you so fauci calls it 120 000 a year his critics call it six hundred thousand so the first thing is uh the deliberate principle is beware of the weasel numbers so weasel numbers comes right out of dilbert right every big organization does weasel numbers where they may be accurate but but where you focus and whether you say it's one year or multiple years is really just persuasion it's just you know corporate organizational right so that's the first thing number two how do you know that any specific money got spent in a way that has nothing to do with gain a function it's a multi-billion dollar operation presumably with lots of shared and overlapping functions and equipment probably the spaces that that they use probably overlap with whoever may or may not be doing gain a function with people doing other things so if you pump a little bit of money into this big you know organization full of dilberty scientists how do you know if the money was spent on anything what what if there was a lab that they needed to build for gain of function but they also needed it for other reasons did the money fund the gain of function or was it going to happen anyway because they needed to build a lab that does a number of things i'm not entirely sure you can even determine what is gain of function even if they're doing it right now i believe fouchy actually said you know we don't have control of what happens after the money goes over there and we don't even have a lot of visibility we were just sort of trusting that things were going well so there are certainly some big questions about oversight and you know and uh you know ability to know what's happening over there so that's a very diligent situation you give a bunch of money to somebody and you don't exactly know why they're spending it right the dilbert filter works on every part of this if you just assume that it works like every other big corporation every other big organization everything makes sense like suddenly you go oh okay so it makes sense here's some other dilberty examples uh weasel words in any big corporation in any dilberty situation people are going to use weasel words here's an example uh fauci refers to funding quote bat surveillance does funding bat surveillance include or not include gain of function do you know i don't know i don't know if the big category that you funded is bat surveillance what's in that is part of your bat surveillance may be tweaking a little bit i don't know do you know so this is this is classic you know weasel wording i don't know why why would you talk about gain of function we just got some bat surveillance here now question why was it done in wuhan was it because they were closer to the bats and the wet markets and so they could you know do a little more direct research because they're right there where things happen maybe do you know what's uh do you know what would be another good reason to fund the wuhan lab instead of doing it in the united states anybody anybody what would be a perfectly smart reason to fund this research in china instead of boston what would be a good reason to do that besides the fact that they have access to more of the wildlife implicated in this somebody says no snitches maybe in case of escape let me ask you this if you knew that dr fauci had some money to look into you know being more cautious about bat viruses if you knew he had some money and it was going to be spent for that would you want him to build that lab or fund a lab to do this where you live or would you like to fund this lab in the middle of a chinese population center i feel as if maybe that wasn't the worst idea in the world now i don't know if this research we could trust what they learned from it to all come our way or maybe they're doing stuff that only goes to the chinese government that's a big problem that's a big problem and the lack of transparency it's a big problem but i don't think you could ignore the fact that you're happy it wasn't in boston anybody anybody you're still happy it was over there right and i can't imagine that wasn't part of the decision let's get that over there we don't want it around here and if wuhan had closed down a little more effectively if china had closed down more effectively as effective as they were uh maybe that wouldn't have gotten out so it wasn't a bad idea to put that away from us all right here's some more dilbert filter on this um does it seem to you that the entire reason that we're so confused about what got funded over there and who funded what to do what it seems like a cover your ass situation right there is a report that there even people in the state department were saying no don't push this wuhan lab leak because then people are going to ask questions about our stuff is that reasonable would you think it were reasonable that the united states anybody associated with this kind of work is it reasonable for them to say you know if we start asking questions about the wuhan lab there's no way you can contain that there's gonna they're gonna be asking questions about us next because you just can't separate it you just can't so would it be reasonable to say that the united states knew they were doing something wrong and that's why they wanted to cover their ass in the comments answer this question this will test your worldliness how much do you understand about reality and the way with the way things work uh i forgot how i asked the questions now i don't know what the yes means but the question the question should be do you think that that the u.s the people who were in the know do you think that they would try to stop the questions about the wuhan lab unless they were guilty of something themselves unless they were guilty of something themselves why else would they do it right well let me ask you this let me give you a hypothetical and this might this might help you a little bit let's say you're married and you're going to go golfing and one member of the foursome that you're going to go with happens to be the brother of your ex-girlfriend would you want your wife to be asking a lot of questions about your golf game and if you said yeah i just went we golfed and just had to force him it was a good time and you didn't mention that one of the foursome was the brother of your ex-girlfriend and then your wife finds out wait a minute you golfed with the brother of your ex-girlfriend well now there's a fight right is that because you're getting closer to her were you trying to find out some more about her because you're interested in the real world the fact that you're guilty or innocent has nothing to do with whether you want people to look into your right take your phone your you live a completely clean life everything that you've ever done since your marriage and and before is clean and you're conscious free there's nothing on your phone no flirting no messages no no no no anything hand it to your spouse and say spouse i'm totally free of any guilt just take a look through my phone go ahead will your spouse find something to be really mad at you about remember there's nothing on your phone incriminating nothing what will your spouse find well you'll be divorced in about an hour you'll be divorced because your spouse will find plenty of things that you thought were innocent and were but look pretty sketchy if you're looking at it out of context right pretty sketchy so in the real world you should try like hell not to get people to look into your no matter if you're guilty or not it's the most basic hygiene of safety you could ever practice don't look into my unless you've got a warrant right so um what do you make of the fact that there were americans who were also pushing to not look into the lab as the main cause of the thing to me that's just normal dilbert behavior it doesn't mean they knew they were guilty it could mean that i'm not ruling it out i'm just saying it could go either way and you would always get the same result they would always resist that and should next here's the other dilberty filter find a scapegoat everybody wants a scapegoat right dr fauci he'll be our scapegoat or china china will be our scapegoat or trump mean old orange man he'll be our scapegoat but we need scapegoats it's the most dilberty thing you can do it doesn't matter what happened or who did what we just need to find who's to blame blame do you think it'll make any difference if we confirm that china knew it came from the lab and it did what difference will that make seriously we're not going to change our security protocols in any way because we already suspect it could have come from there or if even if it didn't come from there we're still going to beef up security because of the worry so it won't have any it would have no effect on security because presumably we're already doing everything we can to increase that um china is not going to admit culpability so it's just going to be hey you did this look at all our proof and then china's saying hey you made that up no we didn't make it up look here's all our evidence here's the here's the video here's the here's the scientist talking about it here's our 15 witnesses it's proof nobody could doubt this absolute total proof here you go what would china say nope nope no that's that's not real there's nothing you can do with the knowledge we are chasing knowledge with no use it doesn't have a it doesn't have a function you think it does but i don't think it does it just feels like you should matter but it doesn't it doesn't because i agree with fauci when he says there's no way anybody did this intentionally it just wouldn't be a rational act all right um what are other reasons in a dilbert filter oh here here's another here's another one um did you note that it was only maybe 48 hours ago that we were saying that fauci was lying stouchy lied about x fauci lied about why fauci lied about this but already it's starting to soften so now we're going from him lying to at least in this one one situation to underplaying he's not lying about the wuhan lab being a potential source of the leak no he wasn't lying about it because he didn't tell a direct lie he only underplayed it he underplayed it who gets to decide what is underplayed do you is there some international standard for what is underplayed versus what is played just right versus what is overplayed see the difference if something is a lie you can debunk it or confirm it if i say this is a lie you can fact check it but can you fact check underplayed you see the trick we went from something that could potentially be proven or not to something that's pure opinion i think you should have said more words around this i'm not sure he should have here's why so here are some uh dilberty reasons uh to not immediately look into the wuhan lab now i think we should so i'm saying these are the dilver reasons not good reasons one is that it might stop all gain of function and maybe related research there has to be a reason that a lab does gain a function stuff there are two reasons one would be to weaponize it which we don't have a confirmation anybody did and if we did i wouldn't believe it but we certainly have uh the experts saying that the other reason you do gain a function is to prevent an outbreak the point of gain of function the whole point is to avoid a pandemic now it may have caused one that's possible but it doesn't change the fact that the point of it was to make us smarter and better prepared so if you were a reasonable person who cared about the world might you try to discourage people from looking into the wuhan lab as the source just because it might have a dampening effect on other research that's essential it's a tough one isn't it because you might find that the most moral position you could take on this is to lie it's not impossible it could be that the most moral position would be to lie about it and just downplay it because you don't want this other research which is essential to be just killed at the same time just because people can't abide by this kind of stuff that wouldn't be a bad reason i'm not saying it was the reason i'm saying if if anybody thought that way it would be reasonable you can make your own decision about what is moral or ethical um fauci also said directly i believe he said this that accusing china before we had some kind of solid evidence we had less evidence then that it would make them less compliant with our requests is that fair do you think china would respond differently to an aggressive accusatory approach versus something more moderate i don't know you know china might just do what's good for china no matter what but it's not crazy to think that we would get a little less participation from them if we were mean to them so that's not crazy it's just hard it's but it's subjective right how about uh the fact that uh looking into the wuhan lab would at least highlight the fact that americans are funding some gain of function stuff that's going to look really dicey and even if the reason we were doing gain of function funding was to make vaccinations and to avoid pandemics it's not going to look like that is it so in the real world you do avoid it telling people the truth when the truth looks worse and more misleading than a lie that's the real world sometimes the truth is the most dangerous thing you can put out there that's just the fact right you could argue that you want it anyway you could argue you'd rather take the danger to get the honesty i'd listen to that argument but it's a fact that lying to the public sometimes has utility that's why it happens it's one of the reasons it happens so there were good reasons for people to push back against the lab leak story which had nothing to do with whether it was true sort of a cover your ass cover your other funding make sure it doesn't come into your backyard you know make sure we don't get blamed for the wrong thing those are all those are all reasonable reasons all right i have the most provocative uh probably get me cancelled topic of the day and it's based on this so the rioters in minneapolis we're smashing windows and looting at some scale i don't think it was the biggest thing in the world and it's because there was a suspect who was already accused in a homicide and he was stopped and i guess he wasn't supposed to have a firearm but he had one he brandished it he was shot in his car by law enforcement now of course he was black so that sparked these riots now you might say to yourself but wait a minute this is exactly the opposite of george floyd this is a known or at least accused murderer who had a gun and brandished it during a traffic stop this is nothing like anything else yeah somebody says good riddance here yes i join you in saying i have no sympathy for anybody who resists arrest um but here's my question would this be racist i need a ruling give me a ruling and i'll start with this context it would definitely be racist if you decided to move because there were too many black people in your neighborhood can we agree on that that if you just said ah there's a lot a lot of black people in my neighborhood let's say you're not black and you you decided to move just because there were two too many black people in your neighborhood according to you is that racist yes yes that's about as racist as you could get i would think right i see somebody say no okay but i'm gonna get to your point hold on hold on so i think it would be racist if you just said i don't like being around any ethnicity and then he moved but how about this suppose you said to yourself that in our current fake news politicized world that the fake news is riling up a certain population to be more disruptive than they would normally be in other words it has nothing to do with the ethnicity it has a lot to do with the fake news targeting a group and getting one group all worked up against another group under those conditions if you were a white person deciding where to move to or even where to move out of could you use the density of the black population as one of your criteria without being racist go could you because on the surface it sounds racist as hell right but if the context is nothing about the individuals and this wouldn't be this would not be it wouldn't be anything about the individuals which would be totally racist it's about the fake news and the fake news weaponizing part of the public against the other part do you want to be somewhere where the people who living who live in walking distance are weaponized against you i say no i say that in 2021 and this would not have been true in the past but in 2021 because of this special case of the fake news weaponizing the public against each other i think it's a fair it's a fair variable and i think that their people are going to say you know i just don't want to live next to a black population center because even if they haven't been radicalized yet it looks like it's going to happen because the fake news is relentless right so yeah it's going to be a judgment call but i'll put that out there we'll see if i get cancelled for that a funny story of the day that you could interpret in any way you want but apparently hunter biden is moving from his 5.4 million dollar rental home in venice beach um which appears to be overrun by the homeless now not his home per se but the place he lives is overrun by the homeless is that the reason he's moving is it possible and the story doesn't make this connection because he could be moving for any reason right he could be moving just because he got a better home which seems more likely but the implication here is that he would want to move out of this place because it was overrun by the homeless why were there so many so many homeless there that weren't always there would it be democrat policies is it possible that the president's son had to move out of a place that had too many democrat policies or was it too much access to drugs that's a possibility too right too much access to drugs because you know no joke you know we can all be critics of you know the bidens etc politically but there's one thing i will not be i refuse to be a critic of which is hunter biden's drug addiction drug addiction is a medical problem right i know you want it to be about your character you want it to be about you know being weak willed you want it to be all those things but it's not it's a medical problem and yeah i see the disagreements so i i'm conscious of your disagreement on this but in my opinion that's the one thing that i'm not going to give him a hard time for i just wish him well in terms of his health here's something i did not see coming reparations apparently is happening and it's working working in the sense that it's happening not working in the sense that you necessarily like it if you look at the defunding the police that's kind of reparations because it allows more crime without punishment in a place where you have a large black population and so you'd have fewer people presumably going to prison so that's good although they may have committed crimes so if you're the victim that's bad but also i would imagine shoplifting and looting or through the roof and and at least one member of black lives matter i believe has defended that as reparations so if i said to you reparations would be going along strongly in 2021 how many of you thought that would happen it's actually happening and now we see that the agricultural secretary wants to make unequal uh grants to farmers who are black to give them more money than if you're a white farmer now the reason for this is historical discrimination is it true that there was historical discrimination against black farmers i don't know but i would think so right i mean you don't have to stretch your imagination to imagine it was probably terrible like everything else during that that year and up to the few up to the current so yeah probably um so whether or not you think it's a good idea or a bad idea i'm making the point that is happening it's reparations so um so in a bunch of different ways reparations are actually happening now i don't think that they're being done in a way that makes me happy you know it seems like you could be done a better way in a way that helps all poor people specifically but uh it's actually happening i i i'm actually surprised in terms of my own predictions i'm going to mark this one as a failure because i didn't see all the side doors i i kind of imagined reparations as we're going to mail you a check and i thought well there's no way that's going to happen right but they don't have to mail a check they can just you know carve along the edges and get there here's a new story i tried to look at a story in the news and the news was referring to a facebook video and so i started to click on the facebook video but i couldn't because duckduckgo which i've been using as my browser told me that if i clicked on it which i could actually i could click on it but it gave me a warning and it said that if i click on it i would go to facebook and they track me and if i didn't want to be tracked don't click on this link so how great is that right again i didn't see this coming but in a world in which facebook can block trump and our social media platforms can block people talking about ivermectin can block talking about hydroxychloroquine which by the way i i don't have an opinion about whether those work and they can block the election fraud claims so the social media companies can be the deciders of what to block why doesn't that work the other way is there any reason you can't get a browser extension or just a browser that would work the way duckduckgo has worked in this case which would block you from seeing harmful things on the social media platforms according to your own requirements here's what i'd like to see i'd love to see your browser or extension which gave me a checklist of what things are lies and i can decide which ones are lies because there's no credible source to tell you what's a lie or what isn't you have to decide on yourself could you start blocking videos that appear on facebook and other social platforms because those platforms are not trusted it's kind of interesting isn't it because what is the response to the social plot social media platforms having so much control over you one possibility is that the public will use one platform to block the other and they'll use each platform to block the other it could be they're all being used to block everything until everything is blocked that's considered a lie and almost everything is considered a lie by somebody so where does this end up all right i just thought it was fun that i got blocked from facebook instead of being blocked by facebook that's maybe baby is healthy here's another story where the headline doesn't match the story this is a cnn example surprise um and here's what the the headline said now this is the headline as you would click it on their website to get to the story so on the front page it says this observers find massive security problems with arizona audit now if you saw the headline on cnn observers find massive security problems with arizona audit what do you expect that the story would include massive security problems with the arizona audit well here are the details once you find them you have to sort of dig down to get the details one person had a cell phone inside the audit it was one of the people in charge so one person had a cell phone so that's a major problem i guess some people had black and blue pens which is a problem because then they could fraudulently mark ballots but it's also all on video right like everything that's happening during the audit is on video if somebody picked up one of those black or blue plans and started marking ballots i think it's right there on video then the other major problem was there was one door unattended one unattended door okay and then also some observers or the observers were made to wear pink shirts which caused them to be teased by other and mocked by other people there so those were your those were your massive security problems those are massive that's it headline does not match the article here's a scary thought to the news is telling us today that people who are who are on immuno immunosuppressants which apparently could be 60 million americans it doesn't it makes the vaccination not work what 60 million americans might have a vaccination that didn't work at all and when i say didn't work the suspicion is worked zero as in didn't give you any immunity as in no immunity could be detected after you got the vaccination now so far it's anecdotal meaning that there's not a big study proving it there are some anecdotes but oh my god if this is true oh my god and here's my question which i didn't see in the story if if these immunosuppressants make the vaccine not work could they make you more susceptible to covet itself or is it just unrelated okay so that there's my my question of the day would the immunosuppressants make an individual more likely to die from covet feels like it would right feels like it would so if america had 60 million people on immunosuppressants how many of them are the ones that died because i didn't even hear this being part of a co-morbidity unless unless the reason you have an immunosuppressant is because you have a comorbidity and that was on the list but i don't think so i don't remember seeing it in the top five whatever you whatever it is that you take these drugs for so this is potentially a gigantic problem but i think this is a wait and see we'll see if it is now i've told you before that our our opinions on politics are assigned to us we think we're making up our own minds but not even close you're definitely getting an assigned opinion and you can see this when there's a question that doesn't have much of a political element to it but we forced the politics onto it now the the pandemic did that a lot why in the world would there be different opinions on a pandemic that would line up by political party does that make any sense in what world does pandemic science information correct or incorrect in what world is that political well in a world in which your opinions are assigned to you not not in a world in which you make up your own mind but we don't live in that world so here's uh rasmussen uh who did some questions that really point this out uh here one question was was the january 6 riot at the capitol the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war 76 percent of democrats said yes 26 of uh republicans said yes weren't we watching the same news it's all the same news right we watched the same news everybody has access to the same information so why is it 76 of democrats but only 26 percent of gop and i've told you that you can get a quarter of the people to say any damn thing so saying that a quarter of the people believe x means no people believe x except people who didn't understand the question or something so once you get down to 25 percent that's like zero because they're the ones not paying attention um this could not be more clear it could not be more clear that these opinions were assigned these are assigned opinions these are not independent opinions here's another one where the summer of 2020 disturbances in the u.s mostly peaceful protests or riots 69 percent of republicans say riots only 32 percent of democrats say riots or are we watching the same news why is a riot political if a store burns down it burned down it's not republican fire or democrat fire there should be nothing there should be absolutely nothing political in these stories and yet because our opinions are assigned to us it's hyper-political hyper-political now is this convincing to you because we're you're also in the category of somebody who got an assigned opinion but can you see it i'm interested because the comments are a little ambiguous right now watching your comments can you see this is it obvious to you that humans are not making up their own opinions on stuff like this i'm just interested if you can see it or it feels like hyperbole to you all right i'm seeing some yeses so you can see it but you don't think it happened to you right it feels like this is just something happening to democrats until you realize it's happening to you you're not really free you you don't get to go to the next level here's how you can be at least a little bit no i wouldn't say confident but a little bit safer that you have something closer to an independent opinion and that would be do you sometimes disagree with your own party on something where is there any situation where 75 of the people in your political party say one thing and you disagree with them if there are a few of those examples you might not be having your opinion assigned to you you might be actually coming up with your own opinions i think those people exist but they're by far rare all right so if you haven't disagreed with your own team you're probably just having to sign opinions and there's nothing else to say about it so there's a new force of evil in the world uh just about the most evil thing i've seen since the lincoln project it's a new pack it's called the strike back it looks like their deal is to make anti-republican commercials and they did one that says retweet retweet if you're sick and tired of the gop assault on democracy and are ready to fight back and that's filled with misleading imagery equating the capital protests with literal nazis and hitler but the worst part the part that just made me like fly into a rage was they take out of context laura ingraham and graham i never can pronounce your name right i apologize um because because i think laura watches the show sometimes so i apologize for some reason there are some kinds of names that no matter how many times i hear them like my brain can't process them so it has nothing to do with anybody personally there's just some names i can't handle i don't know why but um they showed a picture of her and i'm not going to do an impression of it but she was extending an arm and it looked like she was just waving to the crowd on some stage event where she was on stage and they they interspersed her with her extended arm with nazi imagery and when you see them trying to make the case very strongly they were making the case that republicans are basically just nazis with no you know there's no subtlety to it republicans are nazis that's the whole deal and i say to myself why does twitter allow that because that's the most hate speech you'll ever see that literally a group of people are nazis now do the social networks have some kind of a exception for nazi illusions or comparisons because it seems to me that anything that was somewhat this bad would be banned in any other context this would be banned why is it okay to call the gop nazis but they can't question the legitimacy of an election they can't talk about other medical hypotheses just because they're unproven they can't but you can do you can run this on twitter comparing uh people to nazis who just don't have just aren't uh so richard who i'll call dick scott has no readability he said trump did not mock a crippled man well dick let me tell you dick uh you've never seen the compilation videos that show that trump uses that same mocking impression for lots of different people were you aware of that dick dick did you know that almost everybody who's watching this except you for some reason dick you're the only person who hasn't seen the compilation video where he commonly uses that gesture you're the only one and the problem is that i have a readability problem that that's why you concluded because you're ignorance because your opinion was assigned to you by and you just adopted it oh i think that's true some told me that's true i guess it's true so dick um i would ban you but it's too much work to go find your comment so but thank you for the entertainment dick um is it just a coincidence that all the people who who are by trolls named richard that's weird there's a story about jake tapper of cnn he says he won't book anyone on his show who has pushed the quote big lie about election fraud to which many people asked including me is that a standard you're willing to use on everything because shouldn't you then ban people who told other big lies is there only one big lie that matters there were no other big lies can you think of anything anything in the last several years that cnn has said that's not true well they did say that the president called neo-nazis in charlottesville fine people over and over again and we know that didn't happen it was a rupaur video that made it look like it did we know that cnn has said that the president suggested drinking bleach and we know that didn't happen because again that was a rupaur video not a real one they took out the context um what about the koi fish hoax what about the russia collusion hoax where do you draw the line where do you draw the line how could you have the standard that liars can't be on the show if you have the standard that liars can't be on the show it's just an empty set there's nothing but liars on tv i mean there's just nothing about liars so it's a weird standing standard and it takes a lot of guts i mean you have to have guts to say that out loud or you have to think it's true which would be something else no thanks okay my devices just talk to me sometimes um how about this apparently in london this is one of the best ideas you want to hear a good idea and one that could change the world have you ever worried about fake news of course you have and what it's doing to us it turns out that there's a solution to fake news potentially i don't want to get ahead of myself but there might be a solution and it's not fact-checking and i'll tell you this story and then we'll tie it into the fake news a london-based people's tribute tribunal so in other words there's no government involvement this is just people who organized and they're organizing a public trial or a tribunal i guess called the uyghur tribunal there's no state backing and any judgment they make would not be binding on anybody but they'll basically have a public trial on whether china is committing genocide with the uyghurs you see where i'm going with this the only way i can imagine we will ever get past fake news is to have public trials for facts have a public trial on any anything that's in the news that's accused of being a hoax let's have a trial let's have both sides show their should make their case we're putting on trial this fact and now individuals can organize and they could turn it into entertainment would you watch a youtube channel in which you saw major questions put on trial and they made it nice and tight and entertaining so it doesn't you know drag on for days and years like a real trial but it's just tight and it gives both sides and there's some back and forth and there's some kind of a judge let's say a moderator judge who is more of a judge judy like a badass i just said no that's not true or nope if you don't have a link or a source for that it's not admitted just somebody you know really staying on top of the people because right now the model is a tv host lets two people who disagree talk and make lies until time runs out right good how good is that they can talk until time runs out and you don't know who is right nobody checks their sources nothing that's our current model it seems to me the only way around the stranglehold that the fake news organizations have is for the people to self-organize and self-organize around topics so for example if somebody wanted to do the topic of is israel a an apartheid state or just defending themselves and just organize it put it out there make it content i'd buy it you know keep it tight maybe you want to keep it 45 minutes no longer because that's all it would take but well somebody said i should do it but i'm thinking now it should be organized by topic rather than a person organizing a bunch of them because i don't know that anybody cares enough to organize a bunch of stuff but you might find somebody who cares enough to organize about a topic like the uyghurs so i'm going to be watching this this uyghur tribunal to see if this is maybe a model to beat the fake news um do you remember speaking of experts here's an expert opinion i haven't heard criticized yet do you remember early on in the pandemic when trump said we're going to work on a vaccination what did all the smart people say didn't all the smart people say first of all it would take you know too long but there's another thing the smart people said and they all said it and i have to admit i was fooled by it so i'm going to admit i was wrong about this those of you who say scott you never admit when you're wrong well here's one okay so add this to your list of something i'm telling you i got wrong so the next time you come and say give that back so you never saw you're wrong the list is growing because everybody gets stuff wrong right like i would never claim i don't get things wrong i get plenty of stuff wrong i'm just trying to get more right than wrong that's the best you can do but here's the thing in the beginning the experts said we've never made a coronavirus vaccination that worked and therefore there's probably a reason we probably don't know how and probably can't make a coronavirus vaccination that works we can make other kinds of vaccinations work do you remember that that was considered common knowledge and so the experts were telling us we couldn't do this at the same time it was that literally being done right now obviously modernity didn't say this so the people who knew how to do it knew they could do it apparently or had a strong suspicion so um i believed that when i heard it and i bought into that and although i thought i did predict that our therapeutics and our science would rise to the challenge i did not believe that the vaccinations would be the magic bullet so if you're if you're predicting you know who got that prediction right i got that one wrong so add that to my wrong list but here's some freaking incredible news do you like good news with your coffee sure you do sure you do i hear somebody say therapeutics is a better better answer you know it's still an open question whether we had the therapeutics that's all i can say without getting banned i don't want to be banned by social media so i'll just say it's still an open question whether i was right-ish that a therapeutic would be the big answer it could have been we just don't know i'd say it's an open question but the golden age is coming not only with nuclear energy as i mentioned but did you know that this mrna vaccination stuff has way more potential than just the coronavirus how many of you knew that that we're on the cusp of something really big really really big here's an example keep in mind that the people who are telling you this what i'm going to tell you the same people who are telling you this told you they could make a coronavirus vaccination in six months or whatever it took moderna moderna told you they could make a vaccination that nobody's ever made before for a coronavirus and they did it okay so these are credible people they're also trying to do a vaccination with the with the same platform of technology to target enough number of other uh problems including and and this is already happening right so this is in the pipeline this is not hypothetical it's happening now they're using this technology to come up with vaccinations against hiv nepa whatever that is nipah zika herpes deng deng fever hepatitis and malaria those are just the ones who are announced that's not even just the ones they might be able to do those are just the ones they announced and apparently what's so special about this mrna platform if i can call it that is that it is designed specifically that once you get it working you can quickly make vaccinations now could it be the end of humankind because the technology is bad and kills us all yeah i suppose so it's always possible but i i feel as though this field is going to be just gigantic just gigantic and we we may have through completely just completely inadvertently this might be one of the greatest boons to humanity of all time meaning the coronavirus that nobody wanted might be the best thing that ever happened to humanity isn't that weird it could be the best thing that ever happened because the number of people that would be saved by you turning this technology into a common platform to solve other problems it's incalculable i mean you were talking millions and millions and millions uh i've been asked to rate nick fuente's persuasion skills high very high now nick fuentes is very controversial uh i'm i'm not going to be the one to uh uh to endorse anything he says that's for him you know he he can defend himself and then as much as he wants but on the on the narrow question of whether he's capable yes yes he is and he's very capable so if you think that he's a bad force in the world you should be afraid because he's very capable and if you think he's entertaining and useful well good for you all right that is my live stream for today i dare say it was one of the best of all times um and now i'm going to go do some other things and oh catherine is asking how i'm feeling yeah so an update i got my second vaccination uh the moderna the the the 24 hours after it were rugged you know it was pretty uncomfortable i will say for about 24 hours but when it was over here's the weird thing other people have said this that you can feel like your whole body is fighting something or evolving or something you actually feel like your whole body is involved it doesn't it doesn't just feel like there's a part of your body or something you feel like your whole body has something new in it like i had goose bumps all day and you really there's something happening right it's definitely not a placebo i can tell you that well i guess i wouldn't know but here's the fun part the second day when i woke up 100 percent better but and here's the part i'm wondering about and let me ask this question for those of you who got the modern shot the madurana shot you've had the second shot and you also had a little discomfort or you had a bad day after how many of you had the following experience that when it went away maybe when you woke up it was 100 go on all the symptoms and you felt great see that's the part i didn't see coming i didn't just feel a lack of symptoms i felt great like great i didn't have a stiffness anywhere in my body i exercised more than i have in a long time it was great and i can't tell i can't tell if it's only just because i felt so bad the other day that it was the contrast so that's why i'm asking the question how many of you felt great after the symptoms were away like way beyond normal grade and a number of you are saying yes i said somebody says it was the marijuana no that's every day so i couldn't tell the difference um somebody says felt great somebody said that's crazy uh felt no symptoms psychological might be perfectly possible i felt relieved somebody says okay yeah it's probably just contrast so it may just be that you know my brain was relieved and my body was relieved and that's all so we won't we will not assume that that is a common experience but it was my experience and man do i feel good now uh sparky had no noticeable effects from the modernity shot well i hope you're not taking any immunosuppressants and that is all i've got now and i'll talk to you tomorrow

hey everybody you know i said by

uh twitter this morning that this might

be

one of the best coffees with scott adams

of all time

let me check my notes

yeah yeah it's true it's the best one

of all time and

before we get to the simultaneous sip

because i know there's some kind of a

delay here that

blocks you from seeing it but until we

get to that let me tell you a little

story i have long believed

that the past can be changed

by what happens in the in the present

now this is a form of

affirmations because the idea with

affirmations

is that when you're affirming something

you say oh i want

this to work out or or this part of my

life to be better

that in order for those things to happen

as if by magic

which is often the way you observe them

i'm not saying magic exists

i'm saying you you feel like it's magic

when something happens just the way you

wanted it to happen

but in order for that to happen often

the past

has to be altered or at least seem like

it's been altered

and what i mean is let me give you an

example you heard the story i think some

of you

in which i was experimenting with

christina to see if we could simply use

affirmations

to make money show up substantial money

that we had not anticipated something

that wasn't related to my normal work

just money showing up and sure enough

it turns out that sometime in the past

maybe over a year ago

i had inadvertently left some

cryptocurrency just a little bit in an

account

that i forgot i had which is worth a

quarter of a million dollars today

just came out of nowhere now

what are the odds that i was doing this

affirmation for money to command in

nowhere

exactly when it happened what are the

odds

well if affirmations is let's say real

or we live in a simulation

it could be that i altered the past

because in my model of

reality you can alter the past

under one condition all right what is

the one condition in which you can

alter the past hypothetically we're just

talking for fun here

but if we live in a simulation and you

can change it

you'd have to be able to change the past

for the events to

work their way up to the future to be

just the way you want it

because if the past isn't just the way

you want it neither will the future

so yeah so so you're close

the one time under this model if this

were true

the one time you could change the past

is when there's no

counter evidence in other words nobody

has already looked into the past that

you know of

and found it to be different than the

than the past you want it to be

well yesterday i got a hundred dollars

in the mail

uh and thank you james you're probably

watching this right now

and but this is cheating one of my

viewers

sent me some free money to make my

affirmations come true

thank you now the rest of you don't send

me any money

you don't need to be sending me money

right

but thank you it was kind of funny and

you definitely got my attention

so thanks for doing that but maybe you

can change the past is all i'm saying

and how would you like to enjoy the

simultaneous sip

oh i made you wait i made you wait

some of you are thinking wait a minute

did i already miss the simultaneous zip

no it's coming now and all you need is a

copper marker glass of tanker chelsea

stein a canteen cherry flask

a vessel of any kind fill it with your

favorite liquid

i like that's right coffee

and join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure

the dopamine hit of the day i'm going to

mix in a little serotonin

just a dash of oxytocin this is going to

be the good one

it's called the simultaneous step and it

happens now all over the world

go

you know if tony robbins had come up

with this idea

maybe he could have made something of

himself

well let's talk about all the things uh

looks like

bill gates and warren buffett are major

investors in

in a nuclear energy i think it's a

fourth generation

nuclear reactor now if you don't know

what a fourth

generation nuclear reactor is the

definition is a

little squishy but basically it means a

safer

more economical form of

nuclear energy you might not be aware

i think this is true that there's never

been a major problem with

current the the newest type of

nuclear power do be a fact check

fact check on that but i think it's true

that uh

generation three which is what you would

build today

not counting this bill gates thing i'll

talk about but

up until today any new plant would have

been the so-called

third generation i believe there's never

been an accident in one of those that

killed anybody

but check check that out i think only

second generation or

prior have ever had an accident

because we know how to do it now third

generation i don't think there's ever

been one

but fact check me on that i think i'm

right anyway but even

way safer than the third generation

which

probably has never killed anybody i

think

um the uh the new stuff

is even better and so wyoming has

decided to partner with

the gates and warren buffett funded

entity

i think it's terrapower but it's this is

going to be the natrium power plant

and it's expected to be more fuel

efficient cost-effective and

safer i don't know if it actually eats

the waste from traditional plants but

some of the generation four will do that

i don't know if this one does this uh

here's my

take on this we

we quite rightly do a lot of complaining

about the

you know the income gap and the wealth

gap in the world

it doesn't seem fair that people are

starving at the same time somebody has

a hundred billion dollars right your

sense of fairness just

it's hard to process that but it is

nonetheless true

that our mega billionaires can do some

things

that the government can't why does the

government do anything for you

like why do you have a government the

point of a government

is that the government has god-awful

amount of money in power

so they can just do stuff that requires

a

god-awful amount of money and power

but fast forward to 2021

our billionaire class

our billionaire class has god awful

amount of money

that they can focus on particular

projects you know they don't they don't

have the government kind of money

so they can't focus everywhere which

wouldn't make sense but a bill gates

and a warren buffett could just say all

right here's a problem the government

isn't fixing

and then they just go fix it now what

are the odds that this power plant will

work out the way they hope

i don't know you know it's the first of

it's the first of its kind

it's the first of its kind so maybe

they'll you know

be little stops stops and starts

but whether it's perfect on the first

try

or or they you know they tweak it later

this is amazing news

you do you understand how big a news

this is if you've been following

the the whole climate change and even

especially the nuclear energy field

let me let me put a value on this in

terms of

what this could mean for the planet

it's a 10 and a 10. did you know that

that this news is a 10 out of 10 for the

health of the planet

i mean this is this is so big it's

almost incalculable

if it works right now even if it doesn't

work like i said it probably moves us

closer to the one that does

you know they might have to tweak it or

whatever but this is amazing news

is it the top headline no

no is there anything more important

happening in the world

than this yeah you know the pandemic and

you know china is rising and we've got

genocide and

those things but this is right up there

this is one of the biggest stories on

the planet

golden age what do you think

i think the golden age is coming there's

more on this too

jobs report came out it's a little less

than people

expected is that bad news the jobs

report came out

and there are fewer people going back to

work than people hoped

is that good news or bad news

nothing it's nothing news because

there's so many jobs that are unfilled

we don't have anything like an

employment problem

so you can actually just stop talking

about employment

it actually doesn't matter have you ever

seen a time

in in the history of well your life

have you ever seen a time when the

employment rate didn't even matter

it was like the one statistic that we

all thought was the most important

your your employment levels basically

tell you how the entire economy is going

to go

how the entire economy goes tells you

everything

normally but we we've reached this

bizarre situation where there are open

jobs

and there are people without those jobs

and they're not especially

hurrying to get them because they have

the benefits from the

from the the government largesse

so the jobs reports means nothing but i

imagine the

stock market will move anyway you know

it'll

well let me check did the stock market

move on the jobs reports

because it shouldn't and the answer is

the market went up

all right so so as i predicted

the fact that the jobs report is not

excellent

didn't change the market at all and it

shouldn't so that's actually irrational

for once it's rational

all right let's put the dilbert filter

on this question about the

wuhan lab and the the fouchy

stuff so here's some little backgrounds

and new things that we're learning about

it

uh i guess dr fauci gave a wide-ranging

interview

recently um in which he said he was

asked if he

believed his own uh national institute

of uh

allergy and infectious diseases could

have any responsibility for the global

pandemic

now the the reasoning here is that maybe

he approved it was part of approving

some funding

that made its way through the wuhan lab

that may have been involved in some way

in gain of function

may have contributed to the outbreak is

is

at least the allegation and or question

and here's how dr fauci answered it he

said quote

are you really saying that we are

implicated

because we gave a mil a multi-billion

dollar institution

120 000 a year for bat surveillance

now this is according to the financial

times and they didn't publish the

question he was asked

but the answer is pretty interesting

without the question

i hope i hope we're not losing any

context here so just

put a little check mark in that box in

your brain that says

might be some missing context but for

now i'm going to treat it like it's true

so here's the first dilbert filter

you're going to talk to your boss and

you want to ask him for a lot of money

all right so you go to your boss you say

i need a lot of money what's the best

way to

express it well if you want it to sound

like it's a small amount of money

you say it's 120 000 per year

not that much if you want to make it

sound like a large amount of money

you say it's 600 000 because that's what

five years of 120 000 dollars gets you

so fauci calls it 120 000 a year

his critics call it six hundred thousand

so the first thing is uh the deliberate

principle is beware of the weasel

numbers

so weasel numbers comes right out of

dilbert right every big organization

does weasel numbers where they may be

accurate

but but where you focus and whether you

say it's one year

or multiple years is really just

persuasion

it's just you know corporate

organizational

right so that's the first thing

number two how do you know

that any specific money got

spent in a way that has nothing to do

with gain a function it's a

multi-billion dollar operation

presumably with lots of shared and

overlapping

functions and equipment probably the

spaces that

that they use probably overlap with

whoever

may or may not be doing gain a function

with people doing

other things so if you pump a little bit

of money into this

big you know organization full of

dilberty scientists

how do you know if the money was spent

on anything what what if there was a lab

that they needed to build for gain of

function but they also needed it for

other reasons

did the money fund the gain of function

or was it going to happen anyway

because they needed to build a lab that

does a number of things

i'm not entirely sure you can even

determine

what is gain of function even if they're

doing it

right now i believe fouchy actually said

you know we don't have control of what

happens after the money goes over there

and we don't even have a lot of

visibility we were just sort of trusting

that

things were going well so there are

certainly some big questions about

oversight and

you know and uh you know ability to know

what's happening over there

so that's a very diligent situation you

give a bunch of money to somebody

and you don't exactly know why they're

spending it

right the dilbert filter works on every

part of this

if you just assume that it works like

every other big corporation

every other big organization everything

makes sense

like suddenly you go oh okay so it makes

sense here's some other

dilberty examples uh weasel words

in any big corporation in any dilberty

situation

people are going to use weasel words

here's an example

uh fauci refers to funding quote

bat surveillance

does funding bat surveillance include or

not include

gain of function do you know

i don't know i don't know if the big

category that you funded is

bat surveillance what's in that

is part of your bat surveillance may be

tweaking a little bit

i don't know do you know so this is this

is classic

you know weasel wording i don't know why

why would you talk about gain of

function we just got some

bat surveillance here now

question why was it done in wuhan

was it because they were closer to the

bats and the wet markets

and so they could you know do a little

more direct

research because they're right there

where things happen maybe

do you know what's uh do you know what

would be another good reason

to fund the wuhan lab instead of doing

it in the united states

anybody anybody what would be a

perfectly smart reason

to fund this research in china

instead of boston

what would be a good reason to do that

besides the fact

that they have access to more of the

wildlife

implicated in this somebody says no

snitches

maybe in case of escape

let me ask you this if you knew that dr

fauci

had some money to look into

you know being more cautious about bat

viruses

if you knew he had some money and it was

going to be spent for that

would you want him to build that lab or

fund a lab to do this

where you live or would you like to fund

this lab in the middle of a chinese

population center

i feel as if maybe that wasn't the worst

idea in the world

now i don't know if this research we

could trust

what they learned from it to all come

our way or maybe they're doing

stuff that only goes to the chinese

government that's a big problem

that's a big problem and the lack of

transparency it's a big problem

but i don't think you could ignore the

fact

that you're happy it wasn't in boston

anybody anybody you're still happy it

was over there right

and i can't imagine that wasn't part of

the decision

let's get that over there we don't

want it around here

and if wuhan had closed down a little

more effectively

if china had closed down more

effectively as effective as they were

uh maybe that wouldn't have gotten out

so it wasn't a bad idea to

put that away from us all right here's

some more

dilbert filter on this

um does it seem to you

that the entire reason that we're so

confused about what got funded over

there and who funded what

to do what it seems like a cover your

ass

situation right there is a report that

there even people in the state

department were saying no

don't push this wuhan lab leak

because then people are going to ask

questions about our stuff

is that reasonable would you think it

were reasonable

that the united states anybody

associated with this kind of work

is it reasonable for them to say you

know if we start asking questions about

the wuhan lab

there's no way you can contain that

there's gonna they're gonna be asking

questions about us

next because you just can't separate it

you just can't

so would it be reasonable to say that

the united states

knew they were doing something wrong and

that's why they wanted to cover their

ass

in the comments answer this question

this will test your worldliness

how much do you understand about reality

and the way with the way things work

uh i forgot how i asked the questions

now i don't know what the yes means

but the question the question should be

do you think that that the u.s the

people who were in the know

do you think that they would try to stop

the questions about the wuhan lab unless

they were guilty of something themselves

unless they were guilty of something

themselves why

else would they do it right

well let me ask you this let me give you

a hypothetical and this might

this might help you a little bit let's

say you're married

and you're going to go golfing

and one member of the foursome that

you're going to go with

happens to be the brother of your

ex-girlfriend

would you want your wife to be asking a

lot of questions

about your golf game and if you said

yeah i just went we golfed and just had

to force him

it was a good time and you didn't

mention

that one of the foursome was the brother

of your ex-girlfriend and then your wife

finds out

wait a minute you golfed with the

brother

of your ex-girlfriend well now there's a

fight

right is that because you're getting

closer to her were you trying to find

out some more about her because you're

interested

in the real world the fact that you're

guilty or innocent

has nothing to do with whether you want

people to look into your

right take your phone

your you live a completely clean life

everything that you've ever done since

your marriage and

and before is clean and you're conscious

free

there's nothing on your phone no

flirting no messages no

no no no anything hand it to your spouse

and say spouse i'm totally free of any

guilt just take a look through my phone

go ahead will your spouse find

something to be really mad at you about

remember there's nothing on your phone

incriminating nothing

what will your spouse find well you'll

be divorced in about an hour

you'll be divorced because your spouse

will find plenty of things that you

thought were innocent

and were but look pretty sketchy

if you're looking at it out of context

right pretty sketchy

so in the real world you should try like

hell

not to get people to look into your

no matter if you're guilty or not

it's the most basic hygiene of safety

you could ever

practice don't look into my

unless you've got a warrant right

so um what do you make of the fact that

there were

americans who were also pushing

to not look into the lab as the main

cause of the

thing to me that's just normal dilbert

behavior

it doesn't mean they knew they were

guilty

it could mean that i'm not ruling it out

i'm just saying it could go either way

and you would always get the same result

they would always resist that

and should next here's the other

dilberty filter

find a scapegoat everybody wants a

scapegoat right

dr fauci he'll be our scapegoat

or china china will be our scapegoat

or trump mean old orange man he'll be

our

scapegoat but we need scapegoats

it's the most dilberty thing you can do

it doesn't matter what happened or who

did what

we just need to find who's to blame

blame

do you think it'll make any difference

if we confirm

that china knew it came from the lab and

it did

what difference will that make seriously

we're not going to change our security

protocols in any way

because we already suspect it could have

come from there

or if even if it didn't come from there

we're still going to beef up security

because of the worry

so it won't have any it would have no

effect on security

because presumably we're already doing

everything we can to increase that

um china is not going to admit

culpability

so it's just going to be hey you did

this look at all our proof

and then china's saying hey you made

that up no

we didn't make it up look here's all our

evidence here's the here's the video

here's the

here's the scientist talking about it

here's our 15 witnesses

it's proof nobody could doubt this

absolute total proof here you go

what would china say nope nope no that's

that's not real

there's nothing you can do with the

knowledge we are chasing knowledge

with no use it doesn't have a

it doesn't have a function you think it

does

but i don't think it does it just feels

like you should

matter but it doesn't it doesn't

because i agree with fauci when he says

there's no way anybody did this

intentionally it just wouldn't be a

rational act

all right um

what are other reasons in a dilbert

filter

oh here here's another here's another

one um

did you note that it was only maybe 48

hours ago

that we were saying that fauci was lying

stouchy lied about x fauci

lied about why fauci lied about this

but already it's starting to soften

so now we're going from him lying to at

least in this

one one situation to underplaying

he's not lying about the wuhan lab

being a potential source of the leak no

he wasn't

lying about it because he didn't tell a

direct lie

he only underplayed it he underplayed it

who gets to decide what is underplayed

do you is there some international

standard

for what is underplayed versus what is

played just right

versus what is overplayed see the

difference

if something is a lie you can debunk it

or confirm it if i say this is a lie

you can fact check it but can you fact

check

underplayed you see the trick

we went from something that could

potentially be proven or not

to something that's pure opinion i think

you should have said more words around

this

i'm not sure he should have here's why

so here are some uh dilberty reasons

uh to not immediately look into the

wuhan lab

now i think we should so i'm saying

these are the dilver reasons not good

reasons

one is that it might stop all gain of

function

and maybe related research there has to

be a reason

that a lab does gain a function stuff

there are two reasons one would be to

weaponize it

which we don't have a confirmation

anybody did and if we did i wouldn't

believe it

but we certainly have uh the experts

saying that the other reason you do gain

a function

is to prevent an outbreak the point of

gain of function

the whole point is to avoid a pandemic

now it may have caused one that's

possible

but it doesn't change the fact that the

point of it was to make us smarter and

better prepared

so if you were a reasonable person who

cared about the world

might you try to discourage people from

looking into the wuhan lab as the source

just because it might have a dampening

effect on other research

that's essential it's a tough one isn't

it

because you might find that the most

moral position you could take on this is

to lie

it's not impossible it could be that the

most

moral position would be to lie about it

and just downplay it

because you don't want this other

research which is essential

to be just killed at the same time just

because people can't abide by this kind

of stuff

that wouldn't be a bad reason i'm not

saying it was the reason

i'm saying if if anybody thought that

way it would be reasonable

you can make your own decision about

what is moral or ethical

um fauci also said directly

i believe he said this that accusing

china

before we had some kind of solid

evidence we had less evidence then that

it would make them less compliant with

our requests is that fair

do you think china would respond

differently

to an aggressive accusatory approach

versus something more moderate

i don't know you know china might just

do what's good for china

no matter what but it's not

crazy to think that we would get a

little less

participation from them if we were mean

to

them so that's not crazy it's just hard

it's but it's subjective right

how about uh the fact that uh

looking into the wuhan lab would at

least highlight the fact that americans

are funding

some gain of function stuff that's going

to look really dicey

and even if the reason we were doing

gain of function funding

was to make vaccinations and to avoid

pandemics

it's not going to look like that is it

so

in the real world you do avoid it

telling people the truth

when the truth looks worse and more

misleading

than a lie that's the real world

sometimes the truth is the most

dangerous thing you can put out there

that's just the fact

right you could argue that you want it

anyway

you could argue you'd rather take the

danger to get the honesty i'd listen to

that argument

but it's a fact that lying to the public

sometimes has utility that's why it

happens

it's one of the reasons it happens so

there were good reasons

for people to push back against the

lab leak story which had nothing to do

with whether it was true

sort of a cover your ass cover your

other funding

make sure it doesn't come into your

backyard you know make sure

we don't get blamed for the wrong thing

those are all those are all reasonable

reasons

all right i have the most provocative uh

probably get me cancelled

topic of the day and it's based on this

so the rioters in

minneapolis we're smashing windows and

looting

at some scale i don't think it was the

biggest thing in the world and it's

because there was a suspect

who was already accused in a homicide

and he was stopped

and i guess he wasn't supposed to have a

firearm

but he had one he brandished it he was

shot in his car

by law enforcement now of course he was

black

so that sparked these riots now you

might say to yourself

but wait a minute this is exactly the

opposite of george floyd

this is a known or at least accused

murderer

who had a gun and brandished it during a

traffic stop this is nothing like

anything else yeah somebody says good

riddance here

yes i join you in saying i have no

sympathy for anybody who resists arrest

um but here's my question would this be

racist i need a ruling

give me a ruling and i'll start with

this context

it would definitely be racist if you

decided to move

because there were too many black people

in your neighborhood

can we agree on that that if you just

said ah there's a lot a lot of black

people in my neighborhood let's say

you're not black

and you you decided to move just because

there were two

too many black people in your

neighborhood according to you is that

racist yes

yes that's about as racist as you could

get i would think

right i see somebody say no okay but i'm

gonna get to your point

hold on hold on so i think it would be

racist if you just said i don't like

being around

any ethnicity and then he moved but how

about this

suppose you said to yourself that in our

current fake news

politicized world that the fake news is

riling up a certain population to be

more disruptive than they would normally

be in other words it has nothing to do

with the ethnicity

it has a lot to do with the fake news

targeting a group

and getting one group all worked up

against another group

under those conditions if you were a

white person deciding where to move to

or even where to move out of could you

use

the density of the black population as

one of your criteria

without being racist go

could you because on the surface it

sounds racist as hell right

but if the context is nothing about the

individuals

and this wouldn't be this would not be

it wouldn't be anything about the

individuals which would be totally

racist

it's about the fake news and the fake

news

weaponizing part of the public against

the other part

do you want to be somewhere where the

people who living

who live in walking distance are

weaponized

against you i say no

i say that in 2021 and this would not

have been true

in the past but in 2021 because of this

special case

of the fake news weaponizing the public

against each other

i think it's a fair it's a fair variable

and i think that their people are going

to say you know i just don't want to

live next to a black

population center because even if they

haven't

been radicalized yet it looks like it's

going to happen

because the fake news is relentless

right

so yeah it's going to be a judgment call

but i'll put that out there we'll see if

i get

cancelled for that a funny story of the

day that you could

interpret in any way you want but

apparently hunter biden is moving

from his 5.4 million dollar rental home

in venice beach

um which appears to be overrun by the

homeless

now not his home per se but the place he

lives

is overrun by the homeless is that the

reason he's moving

is it possible and the story doesn't

make this connection

because he could be moving for any

reason right he could be moving just

because he got a better home

which seems more likely but the

implication here is that he would want

to move out of this place

because it was overrun by the homeless

why were there so many so many homeless

there

that weren't always there would it be

democrat policies

is it possible that the president's son

had to move

out of a place that had too many

democrat policies

or was it too much access to drugs

that's a possibility too right

too much access to drugs because you

know

no joke you know we can all be critics

of you know the bidens etc politically

but there's one thing i will not be

i refuse to be a critic of which is

hunter biden's drug addiction

drug addiction is a medical problem

right i know you want it to be about

your character

you want it to be about

you know being weak willed you want it

to be all those things

but it's not it's a medical problem

and yeah i see the disagreements so i

i'm conscious of your disagreement on

this

but in my opinion that's the one thing

that i'm not going to give him a hard

time for

i just wish him well in terms of his

health

here's something i did not see coming

reparations apparently is happening

and it's working working in the sense

that

it's happening not working in the sense

that you necessarily like it

if you look at the defunding the police

that's kind of reparations because it

allows more crime without punishment

in a place where you have a large black

population

and so you'd have fewer people

presumably going to prison

so that's good although they may have

committed crimes so if you're the victim

that's bad

but also i would imagine shoplifting

and looting or through the roof and

and at least one member of black lives

matter i believe

has defended that as reparations so if i

said to you

reparations would be going along

strongly in 2021 how many of you thought

that would happen

it's actually happening and now we see

that the agricultural secretary

wants to make unequal uh grants to

farmers who are black to give them more

money

than if you're a white farmer now the

reason for this is historical

discrimination is it true that there was

historical discrimination against

black farmers i don't know

but i would think so right i mean you

don't have to

stretch your imagination to imagine it

was probably terrible

like everything else during that that

year and up to the few

up to the current so yeah probably

um so whether or not you think it's a

good idea or a bad idea

i'm making the point that is happening

it's reparations so

um so in a bunch of different ways

reparations are actually happening

now i don't think that they're being

done in a way that

makes me happy you know it seems like

you could be done a better way

in a way that helps all poor people

specifically but uh it's actually

happening

i i i'm actually surprised in terms of

my own predictions i'm going to mark

this one as a failure

because i didn't see all the side doors

i i kind of imagined

reparations as we're going to mail you a

check and i thought well there's no way

that's going to happen

right but they don't have to mail a

check they can just

you know carve along the edges and get

there

here's a new story i tried to look at a

story in the news and the news

was referring to a facebook video

and so i started to click on the

facebook video

but i couldn't because duckduckgo

which i've been using as my browser told

me that

if i clicked on it which i could

actually i could click on it but it gave

me a warning

and it said that if i click on it i

would go to facebook and they track me

and if i didn't want to be tracked don't

click on this link

so how great is that

right again i didn't see this coming

but in a world in which facebook can

block trump

and our social media platforms can block

people talking about ivermectin

can block talking about

hydroxychloroquine which by the way i

i don't have an opinion about whether

those work

and they can block the election fraud

claims

so the social media companies can be the

deciders

of what to block why doesn't that work

the other way

is there any reason you can't get a

browser extension or just a browser

that would work the way duckduckgo has

worked in this case which would block

you

from seeing harmful things on the social

media platforms

according to your own requirements

here's what i'd like to see

i'd love to see your browser or

extension which gave me a checklist

of what things are lies and i can decide

which ones are lies

because there's no credible source to

tell you what's a lie or what isn't

you have to decide on yourself could you

start blocking

videos that appear on facebook and other

social

platforms because those platforms

are not trusted it's kind of interesting

isn't it because what is the response

to the social plot social media

platforms having so much control over

you

one possibility is that the public will

use one platform to block the other

and they'll use each platform to block

the other

it could be they're all being used to

block everything until

everything is blocked that's considered

a lie

and almost everything is considered a

lie by somebody

so where does this end up

all right i just thought it was fun that

i got blocked from

facebook instead of being blocked by

facebook that's maybe

baby is healthy here's another story

where the headline doesn't match the

story this is a cnn example

surprise um and here's what the

the headline said now this is the

headline as you would click it on their

website

to get to the story so on the front page

it says this

observers find massive security problems

with arizona

audit now if you saw the headline on cnn

observers find massive security problems

with arizona audit

what do you expect that the story would

include

massive security problems with the

arizona audit

well here are the details once you find

them you have to sort of dig down to get

the details

one person had a cell phone inside the

audit it was one of the people in charge

so one person had a cell phone

so that's a major problem i guess

some people had black and blue pens

which is a problem because then they

could fraudulently mark ballots

but it's also all on video right like

everything that's happening

during the audit is on video if somebody

picked up one of those black or blue

plans and started marking ballots

i think it's right there on video

then the other major problem was there

was one door unattended

one unattended door okay

and then also some observers or the

observers were made to wear

pink shirts which caused them to be

teased

by other and mocked by other people

there

so those were your those were your

massive security problems

those are massive that's it

headline does not match the article

here's a scary thought to the news is

telling us today that

people who are who are on immuno

immunosuppressants

which apparently could be 60 million

americans

it doesn't it makes the vaccination not

work

what 60 million americans

might have a vaccination that didn't

work at all

and when i say didn't work the suspicion

is

worked zero as in didn't give you any

immunity

as in no immunity could be detected

after you got the vaccination

now so far it's anecdotal meaning that

there's not a

big study proving it there are some

anecdotes

but oh my god if this is true

oh my god

and here's my question which i didn't

see in the story if

if these immunosuppressants make

the vaccine not work could they make you

more susceptible to covet itself

or is it just unrelated okay so that

there's my

my question of the day would the

immunosuppressants make

an individual more likely to die from

covet feels like it would right

feels like it would so if america had 60

million people on

immunosuppressants how many of them

are the ones that died because i didn't

even hear this being part of a

co-morbidity

unless unless the reason you have an

immunosuppressant is because you have a

comorbidity and that was on the list

but i don't think so i don't remember

seeing it in the top five

whatever you whatever it is that you

take these drugs for

so this is potentially a gigantic

problem but i think

this is a wait and see we'll see if it

is now i've told you before that our

our opinions on politics are assigned to

us

we think we're making up our own minds

but not even close

you're definitely getting an assigned

opinion and you can see this when

there's a question that doesn't have

much of a political element to it

but we forced the politics onto it

now the the pandemic did that a lot why

in the world

would there be different opinions on a

pandemic

that would line up by political party

does that make any sense

in what world does pandemic

science information correct or incorrect

in what world is that political

well in a world in which your opinions

are assigned to you not

not in a world in which you make up your

own mind but we don't live in that world

so here's uh rasmussen uh

who did some questions that really point

this out

uh here one question was was the january

6 riot at the capitol

the worst attack on our democracy since

the civil war

76 percent of democrats said yes

26 of uh republicans said yes

weren't we watching the same news it's

all the same news right

we watched the same news

everybody has access to the same

information

so why is it 76

of democrats but only 26 percent of gop

and i've told you that you can get a

quarter of the people to say any damn

thing

so saying that a quarter of the people

believe x means

no people believe x except people who

didn't understand the question or

something

so once you get down to 25 percent

that's like zero

because they're the ones not paying

attention um

this could not be more clear it could

not be more clear

that these opinions were assigned these

are assigned opinions these are not

independent opinions

here's another one where the summer of

2020 disturbances in the u.s mostly

peaceful protests or riots

69 percent of republicans say riots only

32 percent of democrats say riots

or are we watching the same news why is

a riot

political if a store burns down it

burned down

it's not republican fire or democrat

fire

there should be nothing there should be

absolutely

nothing political in these stories and

yet

because our opinions are assigned to us

it's hyper-political

hyper-political now is this convincing

to you

because we're you're also in the

category of somebody who got an assigned

opinion

but can you see it i'm interested

because the comments are a little

ambiguous right now

watching your comments can you see this

is it obvious to you

that humans are not making up their own

opinions on stuff like this

i'm just interested if you can see it or

it feels like

hyperbole to you

all right i'm seeing some yeses so you

can see it but you don't think it

happened to you right

it feels like this is just something

happening to democrats

until you realize it's happening to you

you're not really free you you don't get

to go to the next level

here's how you can be at least a little

bit

no i wouldn't say confident but a little

bit safer

that you have something closer to an

independent opinion

and that would be do you sometimes

disagree

with your own party on something where

is there any situation where 75

of the people in your political party

say one thing and you disagree with them

if there are a few of those examples you

might not be

having your opinion assigned to you you

might be actually coming up with your

own opinions

i think those people exist but they're

by far

rare

all right so if you haven't disagreed

with your own team

you're probably just having to sign

opinions and there's nothing else to say

about it

so there's a new force of evil in the

world uh just about the most

evil thing i've seen since the lincoln

project

it's a new pack it's called the strike

back

it looks like their deal is to make

anti-republican commercials

and they did one that says retweet

retweet if you're sick and tired of the

gop

assault on democracy and are ready to

fight back

and that's filled with misleading

imagery

equating the capital protests with

literal nazis and hitler but the worst

part the part that just made me

like fly into a rage

was they take out of context

laura ingraham and graham i never can

pronounce your name right i apologize

um because because i think laura watches

the show sometimes so i apologize

for some reason there are some kinds of

names that no matter how many times i

hear them

like my brain can't process them so it

has nothing to do with

anybody personally there's just some

names i can't handle i don't know why

but um they showed a picture of her

and i'm not going to do an impression of

it but she was extending an arm

and it looked like she was just waving

to the crowd on some stage event where

she was on stage

and they they interspersed her

with her extended arm with nazi imagery

and when you see them trying to make the

case very strongly they were making the

case that republicans are basically just

nazis

with no you know there's no subtlety to

it

republicans are nazis that's the whole

deal

and i say to myself why does twitter

allow that

because that's the most hate speech

you'll ever see

that literally a group of people are

nazis

now do the social networks have some

kind of a exception for nazi

illusions or comparisons

because it seems to me that anything

that was somewhat

this bad would be banned

in any other context this would be

banned

why is it okay to call the gop nazis

but they can't question the legitimacy

of an election

they can't talk about other medical

hypotheses just because they're unproven

they can't but you can do you can run

this on twitter

comparing uh people to nazis

who just don't have just aren't

uh

so richard who i'll call dick

scott has no readability he said trump

did not mock

a crippled man well dick

let me tell you dick uh you've never

seen the compilation

videos that show that trump uses that

same

mocking impression for lots of different

people

were you aware of that dick

dick did you know that almost everybody

who's watching this except you

for some reason dick you're the only

person who hasn't seen the compilation

video where he commonly uses that

gesture

you're the only one and the problem is

that i have a readability problem

that that's why you concluded because

you're ignorance

because your opinion was assigned to you

by

and you just adopted it oh i

think that's true

some told me that's true i

guess it's true

so dick

um i would ban you but it's too much

work to go find your comment

so but thank you for the entertainment

dick

um is it just a coincidence that all the

people who

who are by trolls named richard that's

weird

there's a story about jake tapper of cnn

he says he

won't book anyone on his show who has

pushed

the quote big lie about election fraud

to which many people asked including me

is that a standard you're willing to

use on everything because

shouldn't you then ban people who told

other big lies

is there only one big lie that matters

there were no

other big lies can you think of anything

anything in the last several years that

cnn has said

that's not true

well they did say that the president

called neo-nazis in charlottesville

fine people over and over again

and we know that didn't happen it was a

rupaur video that made it look like it

did

we know that cnn has said that the

president suggested drinking bleach

and we know that didn't happen because

again that was a rupaur video not a real

one

they took out the context um

what about the koi fish hoax what about

the russia collusion hoax

where do you draw the line where do you

draw the line

how could you have the standard that

liars can't be on the show

if you have the standard that liars

can't be on the show

it's just an empty set there's nothing

but liars

on tv i mean there's just nothing about

liars

so it's a weird standing standard and it

takes a lot of guts

i mean you have to have guts to say that

out loud

or you have to think it's true which

would be something else

no thanks okay

my devices just talk to me sometimes um

how about this apparently in london

this is one of the best ideas you want

to hear a good idea

and one that could change the world have

you ever worried about fake news

of course you have and what it's doing

to us

it turns out that there's a solution to

fake news

potentially i don't want to get ahead of

myself

but there might be a solution and it's

not fact-checking

and i'll tell you this story and then

we'll tie it into the fake news

a london-based people's tribute tribunal

so in other words there's no government

involvement this is just people who

organized

and they're organizing a public trial

or a tribunal i guess called the uyghur

tribunal

there's no state backing and any

judgment they make would not be binding

on anybody

but they'll basically have a public

trial

on whether china is committing genocide

with the uyghurs you see where i'm going

with this

the only way i can imagine we will ever

get past

fake news is to have public trials

for facts have a public trial

on any anything that's in the news

that's accused of being a hoax let's

have a trial

let's have both sides show their should

make their case

we're putting on trial this fact

and now individuals can organize

and they could turn it into

entertainment

would you watch a youtube channel

in which you saw major questions put on

trial

and they made it nice and tight and

entertaining so it doesn't you know drag

on for days and years like a real trial

but it's just tight and it gives both

sides

and there's some back and forth and

there's some kind of a judge

let's say a moderator judge who is more

of a judge judy

like a badass i just said no that's not

true or

nope if you don't have a link or a

source for that it's not admitted

just somebody you know really staying on

top of the people because right now the

model is

a tv host lets two people who disagree

talk and make lies until time runs out

right good how good is that they can

talk until time runs out and you don't

know who is right nobody checks their

sources

nothing that's our current model it

seems to me the only way

around the stranglehold that the fake

news

organizations have is for the people to

self-organize

and self-organize around topics so for

example if somebody wanted to do the

topic of is

israel a an apartheid state or

just defending themselves and just

organize it put it out there make it

content i'd buy it

you know keep it tight maybe you want to

keep it 45 minutes

no longer because that's all it would

take but

well somebody said i should do it but

i'm thinking now it should be organized

by topic

rather than a person organizing a bunch

of them because i don't know that

anybody cares enough

to organize a bunch of stuff but you

might find somebody who cares enough to

organize about a topic like the uyghurs

so i'm going to be watching this this

uyghur tribunal

to see if this is maybe a model to beat

the fake news

um do you remember speaking of experts

here's an expert opinion i haven't heard

criticized yet do you remember early on

in the pandemic

when trump said we're going to work on a

vaccination

what did all the smart people say didn't

all the smart people say first of all

it would take you know too long but

there's another thing the smart people

said

and they all said it and i have to admit

i was fooled by it so i'm going to admit

i was wrong about this

those of you who say scott you never

admit when you're wrong

well here's one okay so add this to your

list

of something i'm telling you i got wrong

so the next time you come and say give

that back so you never saw you're wrong

the list is growing because everybody

gets stuff wrong right

like i would never claim i don't get

things wrong i get

plenty of stuff wrong i'm just trying to

get more right than wrong that's the

best you can do

but here's the thing in the beginning

the experts said

we've never made a coronavirus

vaccination that worked

and therefore there's probably a reason

we probably don't know how

and probably can't make a coronavirus

vaccination that works we can make other

kinds of vaccinations work

do you remember that that was considered

common knowledge

and so the experts were telling us we

couldn't do this

at the same time it was that literally

being done right

now obviously modernity didn't say this

so the people who knew how to do it

knew they could do it apparently or had

a strong suspicion

so um i believed that when i heard it

and i

bought into that and although i thought

i did predict

that our therapeutics and our science

would rise to the challenge i did not

believe

that the vaccinations would be the magic

bullet

so if you're if you're predicting you

know who got that prediction right

i got that one wrong so add that to my

wrong list

but here's some freaking incredible news

do you like good news with your coffee

sure you do sure you do i hear somebody

say therapeutics is a better

better answer you know

it's still an open question whether we

had the therapeutics that's all i can

say without getting banned

i don't want to be banned by social

media so i'll just say

it's still an open question whether i

was right-ish

that a therapeutic would be the big

answer

it could have been we just don't know

i'd say it's an open question

but the golden age is coming not only

with nuclear energy as i mentioned

but did you know that this mrna

vaccination stuff has way more potential

than just the coronavirus how many of

you knew that

that we're on the cusp of something

really big

really really big here's an example keep

in mind

that the people who are telling you this

what i'm going to tell you

the same people who are telling you this

told you

they could make a coronavirus

vaccination

in six months or whatever it took

moderna

moderna told you they could make a

vaccination

that nobody's ever made before for a

coronavirus

and they did it okay so these are

credible people

they're also trying to do a vaccination

with the

with the same platform of technology to

target enough

number of other uh problems including

and and this is already happening right

so this is in the pipeline this is not

hypothetical

it's happening now they're using this

technology to come up with

vaccinations against hiv

nepa whatever that is nipah

zika herpes

deng deng fever hepatitis

and malaria those are just the ones who

are announced

that's not even just the ones they might

be able to do those are just the ones

they announced

and apparently what's so special about

this mrna

platform if i can call it that is that

it is

designed specifically that once you get

it working

you can quickly make vaccinations now

could it be the end of humankind because

the technology is bad and kills us

all yeah i suppose so it's always

possible

but i i feel as though

this field is going to be just gigantic

just gigantic

and we we may have through completely

just completely inadvertently this might

be one of the greatest boons to humanity

of all time

meaning the coronavirus that nobody

wanted

might be the best thing that ever

happened to humanity

isn't that weird it could be the best

thing that ever happened

because the number of people that would

be saved by

you turning this technology into a

common platform

to solve other problems it's

incalculable

i mean you were talking millions and

millions and millions

uh i've been asked to rate nick fuente's

persuasion skills high very high

now nick fuentes is very controversial

uh

i'm i'm not going to be the one to uh uh

to endorse anything he says that's for

him you know he he can defend himself

and then

as much as he wants but on the on the

narrow question of whether he's capable

yes yes he is and

he's very capable so if you think that

he's a bad force in the world you should

be afraid

because he's very capable and if you

think he's entertaining and useful

well good for you all right

that is my

live stream for today i dare say it was

one of the best of all times um

and now i'm going to go do some other

things and

oh catherine is asking how i'm feeling

yeah so an update i got my second

vaccination

uh the moderna the the the 24 hours

after it were

rugged you know it was pretty

uncomfortable i will say

for about 24 hours but when it was over

here's the weird thing

other people have said this that you can

feel like your whole body

is fighting something or evolving or

something you actually feel like your

whole body is involved

it doesn't it doesn't just feel like

there's a part of your body or something

you feel like your whole body

has something new in it like i had goose

bumps all day

and you really there's something

happening right

it's definitely not a placebo i can tell

you that

well i guess i wouldn't know but

here's the fun part the second day

when i woke up 100 percent better

but and here's the part i'm wondering

about and let me ask this question

for those of you who got the modern shot

the madurana shot you've had the second

shot

and you also had a little discomfort or

you had a bad day after

how many of you had the following

experience

that when it went away maybe when you

woke up it was 100 go on

all the symptoms and you felt

great see that's the part i didn't see

coming

i didn't just feel a lack of symptoms

i felt great like great

i didn't have a stiffness anywhere in my

body

i exercised more than i have in a long

time

it was great and i can't tell

i can't tell if it's only just because i

felt so bad the other day

that it was the contrast so that's why

i'm asking the question

how many of you felt great after the

symptoms were away like way beyond

normal grade

and a number of you are saying yes i

said somebody says it was the

marijuana no that's every day so i

couldn't tell the difference

um somebody says

felt great somebody said that's crazy

uh felt no symptoms psychological

might be perfectly possible

i felt relieved somebody says okay yeah

it's probably just contrast

so it may just be that you know my brain

was relieved and my body was relieved

and that's all so we won't we will not

assume that that is a common experience

but it was my experience

and man do i feel good now

uh sparky had no noticeable effects from

the modernity shot

well i hope you're not taking any

immunosuppressants

and that is all i've got now and i'll

talk to you tomorrow