Episode 1595 Scott Adams - A Deal With Russia, and Evaluating a Rogue Doctor's Credibility

good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you yep it's cold coffee with scott adams and it's gonna be lit today off the hook it'll be provocative entertaining possibly change your life all of that in the period of just minutes it's amazing really do you think we could do even better than that i do i do and all you need is a copper mug or a glass a tanker chalice or stein a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind filling with your favorite liquid and i know you like coffee some of you and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better including the pandemic it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now ago yeah powering up it's like a battery that just got fully charged wow it's amazing well while i was waiting to go live here today i was getting catfished got some messages from a nice woman named um christina basham christina basham and uh this uh nice woman named christina basham who doesn't seem to know who i am is interested in maybe a relationship uh i look at her picture and she's very beautiful very beautiful and so i texted back and i said uh you think i will believe you were my wife and the catfisher said yes baby i missed you this is not your best catfisher and i said i am standing next to my wife right now catfisher says you are married oh no and i said i'm married to christina basham who is with me now cat fisher says oh lol lol that's right my last message was nice try where are you based nigeria i'm actually curious i want to find out where the where this catfisher is based and you know and since i got a an olol you know obviously he knows whoever it is knows that uh i know it's a it's a scam i wonder if he'll just tell me say oh yeah i'm over here in detroit or someplace but anyway um if you didn't know it my wife's photo from social media is widely used on on social media by catfishers cat fishers yeah uh and you know about once every two weeks ago or so we get these disturbed messages from people who say but i've been sending you money for years no you've been sending money to a photograph with somebody else well here's the story of the day do you know entertainer cher she was walking out of a movie theater and saw this beautiful young couple and asked if she could take their picture just because they were such a good looking young couple so she takes her picture posted on social media and became a big viral sensation and here's what she tweeted she said when we were coming out of a movie i saw a beautiful couple he was taking her picture she had flowers i said can i take your picture i had my mask on so they didn't know who i was maybe just a crazy woman that be um it could be it could be that they didn't recognize her this 20-something beautiful young couple it could be they didn't recognize cher because she had her mask on that's one of the possibilities the other possibility is that they're a young couple who have never heard of cher how many people in their 20s even would recognize cher right am i right and you know i i feel i can speak to this phenomenon because there aren't too many people you know in high school who could name dilbert as a comic strip either but i like her little blind spot that the reason they didn't recognize her is because she had a mask on i'm going to start using that you've never heard of the dilbert comic strip youngster is it because i'm wearing a mask i think it'll work well cnn is all at twitter all at twitter not on twitter but they're all a twitter their hearts are fluttering because there's some news that is oh it's just like candy for their hearts uh and it is that uh the lawsuit brought by dominion the voting election voting company they're bringing a lawsuit alleging that fox news personalities including tucker carlson janine pereiro sean hannity and their on-air guests spread lies about fraud in the 2020 election the hurt dominion's business it's one of several lawsuits that they're doing against right-wing or right right-leaning entities i guess now um there are two essential claims one is that the opinion people uh brought brought experts on and and talked in a way that suggested there was a problem and hurt their business the other is that the news people or at least producers or you know people in the decision-making uh chain were probably aware of information they did not report that would have been more complementary to dominion so two claims one is that the opinion people said things that they feel are untrue and number two that there may have been extra information that fox news collectively or individually was aware of that would have been important to give you context to the story that was left out so does anyone anybody want to make a prediction how this lawsuit goes i'm feeling i'm feeling pretty confident about this prediction i mean the total amount i know about the law could be put in a thimble within a thimble but i feel like i could get this one no i don't know that it'll be dismissed or thrown out but we have seen that the rachel maddow defense is that it's just an opinion and it worked right the defense that opinion people giving opinions can't be wrong in a libelous way has already passed muster beyond that facebook's lawsuit they're claiming that even their fact checkers are opinions so not only are opinions opinions but fact checkers are just opinions so in that world where those two things seem to be somewhat established ish is there any way that opinion people are gonna you know somehow be found guilty now um i don't know what the standard is for this this is a civil suit right so that means they don't need a full majority do they they just need to or the standard is lower than a criminal case let's just put it that way so i suppose anything can happen but i would say the precedent has largely been set that opinions are opinions and facts or opinions now what if it's true suppose uh they can come up with a an email or set of emails just hypothetically that would suggest that fox news was aware of more information than they reported and that information could have been good for dominion's side of things do you think that the courts will set a standard as a precedent that if you leave out some relevant facts to your reporting you can be sued just think about it that's all of the news the entire news landscape is is the left leaving out stuff you know that would be good for the right and the right leaving out stuff that would be good for left there's nothing but that if you create that standard it will destroy the entire news industry there wouldn't be anything left yeah how would the fine people hoax play do you think that if trump sued cnn for the fine people hoax you wouldn't find any internal communication saying that they knew that they'd clipped off part of the the video to turn it into a hoax you don't think anybody knew that yeah they did yeah you might even find a you might even find a digital communication from me to somebody at cnn telling them that very thing so uh i don't think they can win on that right i mean i don't know how precedent works exactly in this domain but i don't see how you could possibly have a standard that if you left something out you're guilty you know just for that even if you knew it even if you totally knew you were doing it and why you did it i would just it would destroy the entire news industry there would be nothing left which would be funny all right now here's the other uh scary thing about it apparently there is some point in this process in which dominion would get access to fox news's communications like private communications which i assume would include from outside people now aside people who are communicating with fox news hosts which includes me my private communications just got released i think i think because i do have a history that i have communicated with more than one fox host by by digital means so my private communications are now in play let me give you some advice do any of you use encrypted apps so you can stay out of trouble how many of you use some kind of an encrypted app for communicating stop it stop it don't do it if you're using an encrypted app because you think it's safe oh my god you're a sucker you are a sucker they are the least safe thing you could ever do do you know why because that's where all the good stuff is where are you going to look for where are you going to look for stuff there here are the ways your encrypted communications can be corrupted number one the government always had a back door how would you know company tells you they don't government says no we don't do that but that's what they would say right how do you know the government doesn't have a back door why wouldn't they if they could why wouldn't they it's crazy not to it would almost be um an abdication of responsibility if they didn't have back doors to all the encrypted apps now i don't know that they do i'm just saying i'd be deeply surprised if they or some other a foreign entity doesn't have access to at least one of them at least one of them now i'm not worried about the encryption being broken at the moment that's probably your smallest risk the next risk is that the message you send can be captured on your device before it gets encrypted because anything that you're typing could be captured by a virus am i right a hacker could install something on your phone or device it would capture your message before it even got to the encrypted part right a key logger yeah and i imagine they could take a screenshot or something you know you would have those options how about when it reaches the destination and then it's on the destination phone and it's on the screen could a a hacker get it if it's if it's on the screen i assume so it's just a screenshot how hard would that be so it's definitely hackable and it's definitely corruptable by some government entity and they would lie to you because that's their job in this in this instance it would be their job to lie to you so if they're doing their job you wouldn't know but here's the biggest part anything you send to somebody they can show to somebody else that's it anything that you show to another human that human can just show it to somebody else right and no matter how much trust you put in the encryption you're just looking in the wrong place it's not the encryption you have to worry about it's all the people so um never send a message over digital means that you would um be in serious trouble if it were outed just don't ever do it no matter how private you think it is just don't ever do it ever not once i wouldn't do it under any condition ever once and it doesn't matter if you're running for office or not because you see in these cases you could be a completely you know unrelated to any kind of crime and somebody can open up your messages you've seen my messages in the news haven't you i'll bet you've seen a private message of mine in the news i have and i don't know how that happened anyway here's some good news on uh fusion now of course you have to take all fusion good news with grain of salt because you know for 30 years we've had fusion breakthroughs that never reached any conclusion but apparently the industry has been chugging along and they are making incremental breakthroughs all the time you know there it's it seems to be as sam altman told me a few years ago it's now an engineering problem where they just have to figure out how to iterate quickly well apparently this big breakthrough uh and i don't know the science behind this i'll just read this so for the first time a fusion reaction has achieved a record blah blah you know energy output exceeding the energy absorbed oh sorry come on so so they're saying that they've you know achieved some fusion breakthrough but i think what they really achieved if you read the article if you read the article what they really achieved is a way to um view it or to actually measure it which apparently was something they couldn't do before because all these you know super hot reactions you know how do you how do you know what's happening in there so you can adjust it so they have some kind of mechanism now that they they can see what they're doing and they can know if they're adding more or subtracting more and apparently that uh just opens up a big you know a highway toward getting it done so i think this is further evidence that it's an engineering problem we're down to iteration and testing and that's it it's just it's just innovation and testing why are you saying something about cernovich is there some cernovich news today that i don't know about anyway this breakthrough was uh just down the road from where i am right now at lawrence livermore lab practically walking distance someplace i've i've been i've i've given a speech at lawrence livermore lab it feels it feels kind of real to me because it's it's literally you know i know people work there it's just like right down there and they've just right down the road have created maybe the most important technology of all time all right i heard from a german high school teacher today connor widmeyer connor might be watching today so hi connor and he tweeted this he said i taught the user interface for reality this is a micro lesson that i did on locals i can't remember if i did it publicly too but i talked about how to use different uh filters or frames to view reality and how to potentially interact with reality and connor says he taught that lesson to his german high school today and and he quoted part of it he said first you must accept that the frame at least as a filter meaning you don't have to accept it as truth just accept it as a way to predict the world uh and then he said he gave examples about religion and they were blown away now the thing that blows me away is that something i was doing here is being taught in high school in germany in one class but it turns out that a lot of things that i do get taught in in schools so a lot of the dilbert material has been packaged up to teach in business schools so there are lots of business school classes that i think there are some some psychology related classes they use dilbert as a lot of examples so dilbert is used in schools and then you know the systems versus goals the the talent stacking and now the user interface for reality i know my book god's debris is assigned often in college courses so weirdly i have all these connections to education that i wasn't expecting so the salvation army is uh took a real big hit on their donations uh because they had some kind of a guide they put out within the salvation army that said that white culture has challenges and needs to overcome among other things this was just something that was within it uh including they have to get over their denial of racism and their defensiveness about race it states that white americans need to quote stop trying to be colorblind so how did that work out for the donations to the salvation army yeah down by about a third so who was it who said everything woke turns to was that trump is trump the first one who said that it's sort of a it was trump right everything woke turns to there will never be a more accurate predictive rule i mean i thought i was good at predicting but you can't beat this everything woke turns to you just see it over and over and over again every time you see it it's just destroying something our schools or our government so um here's what uh here's what i think must be done well i won't say must but could be done i've told you about malicious compliance right the idea that you can destroy something by embracing it and acting like it's real and important if you think it's not how would you do that in the case of uh this wokeness and uh and the the the idea that we should stop denying racism and stop being defensiveness about race and and that white people need to stop being colorblind suppose we embraced that but even embraced it more than it is stated i would go so far as to say we should also put out guides about ugly people short people old people and especially white people who also are discriminated against i believe that we should increase our list until everybody who is being discriminated for any reason is uh included now if those reasons are things they can't change such as being unattractive uh ugly old or white and so i think the best way to deal with the fact that wokeness turns everything to is to embrace it harder than it exists and say wait a way why are you stopping this with people of color that's a big problem but it's only one of them why would you stop there why would you allow the world to be so unwoke when there were easy ways to wake it up even more why would you stop at half woke i don't want your half woke give me full woke full woke or nothing so i would call this a half woke attempt i've told you before that the solution to all the wokeness is do you know what the solution is to embrace it fully so that if somebody says hey i think something's happening because i'm black instead of saying no that's not happening there's no racism that's a dumb approach right it might be true in that in a specific situation it might be more true than false but it's a dumb dumb approach that doesn't work you want to you want to embrace it and take it further and say absolutely you were being discriminated in so many ways because it's true you know systemic racism totally true if you're arguing that it doesn't exist that's just a bad argument it certainly exists in the sense of the teachers unions uh that's the worst systemic racism as long as that's an obvious example i don't think you can say it doesn't exist and surely it exists in other ways throughout society in all the ways that they that they describe but you know what else exists all the other stuff all the other stuff really exists it's true that short people don't get promoted as much it's true that if you have a you know any kind of a difference you're ugly you're overweight you're whatever you're going to be discriminated against so let's uh let's get all that in there and i think that the best way we should deal with each other is to acknowledge instead of ignoring the color or ignoring the difference we should just go right at it just go right at it we should be able to have like a conversation like every minute i wonder if that happened because you're black you should be able to bring that up anytime without any any kind of provocative pushback it should be a legitimate question i wonder if that happened because you're short also legitimate i wonder if that would have been the same outcome if you were more attractive also totally legitimate why not just put it all out there put it all out there and say yep i lost two careers for being white and male some of you don't believe that but there's a whole back story there in my corporate days i was told that directly by the way that's that's not me reading between the lines my bosses told me directly they couldn't promote me because i was white and male now that's just true so that puts me on the side of you know black americans who have been discriminated in employment why can't i be on their side if i had the same experience in one of the most important elements of society which is economics so embrace it until there's nothing left and then we'll all be better off i think well there's another blockbuster report coming out of the january 6 hearings congressional hearings you may not have heard this so this this will be breaking news to all of you um someone took a lunch out of the refrigerator in the congressional break room and that lunch was labeled with the name of the person who is planning to eat it but someone unnamed we don't know took that lunch from the congressional break room and therefore president trump is guilty of insurrection if you haven't been following the story you know that the blockbusters don't have to have any connection to the point could be just some emails somebody found could be somebody just testified they don't have to have any connection to the insurrection but everything that they come up with we have learned from cnn is connected to proof that trump is an insurrectionist so until that missing lunch is uh found i'm gonna have to say he's an insurrectionist because logic logic um you all know about the elf on the shelf if you're coming to us from a non-american country i don't know if you have that tradition where a little elf doll is put on the shelf during christmas well in breaking news the elf on the shelf uh got a roommate uh it's biden's legislative agenda rasmussen has a poll uh says the house of representatives uh people asked what they thought of their uh how well they're doing their job and the public 30 of them said that's either excellent or good the house of representatives that feels high doesn't it doesn't that seem high um and then uh in the senate uh 21 of them were were rated 21 percent of the public said that the senate was excellent or good that also seems high because isn't the approval of congress in general like in the teens so this is the weird way that people answer poll questions if you ask them to approve of congress in general it'd be like 18 but if you say you know how are they doing 30 said excellent or good so i don't know which number is closer to reality here um and then rasmussen asked about buildback better do people support it or oppose it 38 support it that's actually more than i thought does that sound high um a 38 support it i'm not sure if rasmussen is going to ask how many people know what's in it how many people do you think know what's in it well that didn't take long for a meme um i don't know what's in it do you um i know individual things that are in it and i i sort of recall i've read a number of articles where things are mentioned but i don't have a comprehensive sense if you said write down all of the main items in it you know just a high level i don't think i could do that could you so i mean we just hear about individual stuff hey jonathan that that's a real good comment uh jonathan giglio wants to share this with the rest of you that clown scott is a clown good one i'm glad you uh spent your energy on that because you know um all the other problems in the world are are solved but the thing we didn't know about is if clown scott was a clown so thanks for doing that instead of exercising or teaching your kids something valuable we're all we're all the better for it i appreciate that all right 17 said they weren't sure if if they could support the buildback better i would say that 17 usually usually i mock the uncertain because most of the questions you really should have an opinion on but this is one i don't know 17 said i don't know i feel like that's the right opinion i don't know i mean if you just focus on what it would do to inflation then i guess it would be easy to have a coherent opinion which is no that's too much you know sort of the joe manchin approach just it's just too much that's a reasonable opinion could be true could be false but it's reasonable um 45 percent oppose build back better yeah i really thought it was more i would say you a reasonable person could throw the 17 unsure into the opposed because if somebody said to you we're planning to spend it two trillion dollars and uh we don't know if it'll be a good idea or not what do you say you don't even know what it's about you spend 2 trillion we don't really know i mean some people say yes some people say it'd be good some say bad well if you don't know good decision making usually is biased or don't do it right you don't put two trillion dollars into something you're just guessing about um so the the unsures i think they're slightly opposed dish especially if they don't feel well informed anyway uh jay and jay do me a fact check on this didn't j who said they're not recommending the j j shot anymore because of side effects that's true right oh the fda yeah so the fda said they're not recommending the j and j shots so they would recommend the pfizer and the moderna first over the j j so what does this tell us that we didn't know before number one it validates my strategy does anybody remember what my vaccination strategy was what was my vaccination strategy anybody wait as long as you can wait as long as you can if you can socially isolate right i have the advantage that i can isolate better than most people so in those in that specific condition which you know might be unique to me uh waiting until we know as much as possible makes sense you know you sort of have to game at you know what is waiting too long and what is not but i waited i haven't gotten the booster um at this at the moment i'm leaning against it but i'll still wait for more information but i'm glad i didn't run out and say give me whatever you got because remember the fda wasn't the fda saying it doesn't matter which booster you get doesn't matter which ones you got you can get any one of the three and what did i tell you i'm still waiting for uh is are there any doctors on here if you're a doctor you probably have a better view on this i don't i don't have a confident opinion but i'll tell you my opinion so this is sort of leaning in that direction opinion it goes like this if you did not have a bad reaction to whatever vaccination you got and you don't really have any tests to tell you the you know what to do next is it smarter to get a different vaccination that could have different level of side effects or is it versus you know getting the same that you had you had no side effects or could that put you over the limit of how much of that one kind of vaccine you've got um which would you say would be just commonsensically if you did not have the benefit of data because we don't what commonsensically would be safer doctors only please if you're a doctor tell me if you're a doctor in the comments please yeah i don't know stick with the devil you know uh oh so your doctor says pfizer is a smaller dose than moderna but that's also why it works less right wasn't modern of the highest efficacy uh uh dr matt wayne says go with what you had before dr johnson i'm not sure if you're a real doctor you're a troll um i'm a doctor don't know all right yeah there's another dr johnson's all over this one uh doctor modern is the best highest amount of antigen don't mix and match all right so um here's here's another one of those sort of edge questions the fda with all their experts said go ahead and get whichever of the shots you want scott said if you don't have better information get the one you already had who had better advice because because you know the a lot of the a lot of the decisions we're making there's a big question of you know should you trust the experts or or trust somebody who's just good at decision making because it's different right i don't know i i feel like i feel like the edge is for me because i don't think that we have um especially if you had the pfizer if you had the pfizer shot which is a lower dose than moderna that's like that's like a slam dunk isn't it that you would get the pfizer shot again but if you had the modernist shot twice um now maybe just a little extra pfizer similar platforms technology is that better i don't know i think my my bias would be to stick with whatever i got but know that if you stuck with the moderna your first two doses would be the highest you know dose of that type and then by the time you got the booster you would be you know well into highest ever of that technology so that's that's a risk all right um let's talk about pfizer and their 55 years to release data everything you knew about that was okay let's start there what was it even i believed i think i hope i showed enough skepticism in this story because i should have in retrospect but do you know why the 55 years does anybody or it was 75 but it got lowered to 55.

um does any yeah the 75 i think got lower to 55 it got revised but does anybody know why all right well so um andreas backhouse was tweeting about this and uh even the fda criticized you know the fda for its you know data sharing stuff so nobody's happy that it would take so long but here's my best take on it apparently the foyer requests the requests where i guess any citizen of standing can request government information that shouldn't be secret so there are so many of them now like even private companies are doing these all the time for competitive reasons etc trying to figure out what the competition is doing there's so many foia requests that the fda couldn't possibly do them all all right so the first thing you need to know is that the amount of requests is this big and the staff for all of those requests not just for vaccinations but for everything the fda does for everything that the staff is like a pinprick so the the amount of staffing they have is nowhere in the neighborhood of what they would need to get the job done competently all right so that's the first thing second thing is that i guess there's a lot of stuff that has to be redacted which means you have to pour over it and you probably have to show it to three people to make sure you redacted the right stuff and i can imagine that if you've got a gazillion pages of stuff you'd you just couldn't even staff up to do that there would be no way to staff up enough because you'd have to have people who are trained and know what they're talking about i mean i don't think you can get there from here and so i've got a few comments on this number one i think what's happening is malicious compliance imagine you're the fda and it is your requirement it's just a legal requirement that if people ask for this information about anything the fda is doing that's you know non-non-private um that they have to give it to them so you imagine you have this incredibly understaffed group of people who do these requests at the fda totally understaffed what's their attitude it's your job to do this impossible thing and you've been given a spec of a budget i mean it's actually i think it's hundreds of millions of dollars but compared to how much it actually would cost it's just a spec what would you do if that was your job and you said boss i need 10 times the budget to even put a dent in this your boss says nope can't get it to you you come back next time it's the budget you still i need now i need 20 times the budget because things are just getting worse and your boss says we don't have the budget do it you can you know that's the real situation right you don't even have to be there to know that that's true there's something like that anyway so what does the average employee whose job it is to do the impossible their boss has given them no budget and a job that's literally impossible what does that employee say do they say nope i quit i'm just not even going to do that for you no not in any world as the employee said that not in any world here's what the employee says absolutely that'll take based on the budget we have uh the the resources that you my boss have allowed me let's see with the resources you my boss have given me calculate calculate 75 years so let's do that i'm all in your boss says wait a minute what yes 75 years with the resources that you've given me to do this job uh i'm i'm all on board let's start this today can i get going why are we talking i should get going on this you must wait wait a minute 75 years that would be like it's worthless it's not even worth doing and your employee would say no this is totally worth doing these are very valuable requests and i want to put all the resources i have that you've given me into this request very important i think we need to do this for the public should take 75 years can i get going on that and then what does your boss say well the boss either has to say oh i gotta admit it's my fault i couldn't get you properly funded or does boss just take that number to his boss and say oh it i'm just going to take this boss to my boss i'll just take this to my boss they said 75 years what would it take to get it done faster um three billion dollars of extra funding on top of the 300 million a year or whatever it is it's pretty high and a staff of 15 000 and then we could put a dent in it never going to happen right so i think this is a malicious compliance story about a bureaucratic situation within the fda has nothing to do with pfizer now here's the second question how much of that information is the important stuff suppose you just said all right all right i see how that could take 75 years but how about you just give us all of the the data results with you know maybe some underlying data don't you think they have that in a packaged form are you telling me that these randomized controlled trials weren't packaged up already no nobody thought to put all the data in one place maybe put it on a spreadsheet of course they did so how long does it take you to get all the data that's already packaged up it shouldn't take too long now suppose you wanted more than that and you wanted all the emails about it well that would just be the emails since the pandemic started right and you would just do a search where for keywords do a search and say you know give me every coronavirus covid or related term and you just send them over if you had all of their digital communication internally and all of their trial data how much extra are you going to get from all the other 74 years probably not a lot right there's got to be some kind of 80 20 rule here but i feel like it's more like a 99 one like the one percent of the data is really 99 of what you need feels like i don't know i could be wrong about that very easily very easily could be wrong about that but that's what we know about it if you thought the 75-year thing was some indication that pfizer had knowledge that there were problems with the data i believe that is thoroughly debunked at this point i think it's really an fda problem scott's grasping at straws tyrone you're an goodbye do you know what you could say could say what i got wrong you could add context all right so russia i'm going to talk about uh dr mccullough on joe rogan after i do this next segment are you ready for that how many of you want to know my full opinion on dr mccullough and what he said on joe rogan oh i know you're going to stay for that but first let's talk about russia who has offered a clean sheet deal framework with the west huh almost as if russia finds it in their interest to be our almost ally because in my opinion the arc of history is unmistakably bending in that direction meaning that in the long run russia will be our ally we should just get over it and make it happen it's going to happen because it has to because you know we're going to need each other in space basically uh and with china's rise so if you know what's going to happen and i think russia does and i think we do uh i find russia's offer productive now i don't think we're going to make a deal based on these terms but let me read the terms and then you tell me how far off this is from something that we might be able to do now i think we would have to add more to it so so this is their offer it's it's not something that's you know needs to be evaluated as an actual deal it's just their first offer but this is a pretty strong first offer there is one part of it that's an instant deal killer but they know that and i would say that maybe we could work with it all right here it is so here's what russia wants relative to ukraine and the situation over there they want to rule out further nato expansion in general around their border and ukraine's uh any any path to it so they don't want ukraine to be part of nato reasonable or unreasonable reasonable or unreasonable now we would like to treat that as unreasonable because that would be the proper negotiating stance nope nope no way because if you have to give that up at some point in any form you want to get something really big in return right here's what i would ask for in return no cyber attacks on each other now is that something we could actually get or determine that we had gotten would we even know who's attacking us i don't know is there is there a cyber security expert on here who could tell me could we ever make a cyber deal that we could verify was holding can anybody tell is that even possible i might yeah my my assumption is probably not but we keep acting like we know when russia has hacked us right with hillary's email and such so part of this you know maybe if we tried to make a no cyber hacking deal we probably couldn't get that deal could we dr robert johnson says i'm shocked scott fell for the 75 years excuse sad such a sheep well we'll block you today all right i feel if we could if there was any way to make a cyber attack you know truce i think you'd have to throw that in there i would say that blocking nato's expansion without that is a non-starter what do you think i think any discussion of limiting nato anywhere can't go forward as long as russia is cyber attacking us on the regular who would agree with that so the first thing is don't assume that their list is list you negotiate from we can add our own stuff and it could be that we get more benefit from hacking them than they get from hacking us so maybe we don't even want to offer it it's possible we don't want to offer that i think you'd have to be pretty deep into that world to know if that makes sense how much do we learn from russia hacks good question wrong scott doesn't understand that russia ought to be our la i'm just saying russia ought to be our ally what are you talking about uh yeah cyber attacks our status quo but i feel like we should be at least trying to negotiate some way out of that i don't know um then they're asking uh not to deploy additional troops uh outside any country which they were in before some date blah blah before any eastern european countries joined the alliance blah blah blah so they don't want you know extra troops that would threaten them they want to abandon a nato military activities in the ukraine so don't do any military training there don't put intermediate and short-range missiles there not to conduct any exercises with more than one military brigade that's in the engine i'll tell you this one is the one that signals they're serious if if russia gave us a list of things that you just looked at and you said no this is all crap then it would mean that they don't really even mean to have any kind of a deal but this one this one really signals some seriousness not to conduct exercises with more than one military brigade the fact that they would allow that there you know could be military exercises but they should be small enough that they don't look like an attack that actually feels kind of reasonable doesn't it i mean if it were part of the larger deal not not if it's on his own um here's the next one this is what russia is asking to confirm that the parties do not consider each other as adversaries and agree to resolve all disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of force what would be another way to phrase that to confirm that parties do not consider themselves to confirm that you're not the opposite of an ally let's see if i confirm that i'm not the opposite of an ally what am i this is it what do you what have i been telling you for actually years now i've been telling you this russia needs to be an ally with us it's totally in their best interest and probably ours too if we couldn't work out you know all these little cyber things and other stuff i they're saying it directly um i feel like that's something you don't put in a document unless you mean it because you don't really see people talk this way do you when you see companies that are sort of at each other and they've got a conflict they don't say directly why not be friends that's what putin just said basically this is as directly as you can state why don't we just say we'll get along because we don't really have a reason not to right i've been telling you the whole time we don't have a reason to be at each other but we have plenty of reasons to be allies i mean the the risk the list of good reason to be allies is almost infinite i mean you would you would die before you you know finish the list the list of reasons to be enemies zero zero none not one not and i don't think russia sees one i don't think the united states is one and to me this looks like it just sort of uh what do you call it inertia it's just some kind of leftover inertia from the cold war or something anyway i think the russian situation is going to go the way we want it in the long run the way they wanted to apparently china is offering to pay our social media influencers to say that the olympics are awesome and they've hired a public relations firm in new jersey to get social media influencers to say good things about the olympics in china at this point us australia and canada have all uh they're all going to boycott with their diplomatic stuff the athletes will still participate and um why are we letting china pay influencers how would you like to be an influencer that somebody finds out was paid by china what what would happen to your influence isn't this a a death sentence i i can't think of any influencer who would have the clout or the let's say the anti-fragility if you will to survive knowing that china paid them to say good things about the olympics who could survive that i'm so curious if this company that took their money the three hundred thousand dollars to get these influencers i'm so curious if they can find any now it doesn't take much money to influence an influencer because there are a lot of them who don't have much money but have big platforms so maybe yeah maybe you can find somebody who'll take money for anything and they might not even if it's young enough people they might not even know they're doing anything wrong you know you get a you get a 19 year old influencer and you say i'll give you a thousand dollars to say some good things i don't think they're thinking in terms of you know international relations i think they're thinking in terms of twenty thousand dollars that's real money all right so uh that's disgusting um even cnn has an article in which uh or was it cnn but there is talk among experts that the omicron might act like a vaccination so we still have reason to be worried just because it will be so spready but listen to this data that i don't believe will necessarily hold up but here's some data about omicron remember it's still fog of war all these numbers could be wrong but it's coming from you know experts and the experts say that it affects people about 70 times faster than earlier strains what 70 times faster than the thing that just took out the world 70 times faster than the pandemic itself what does that sound right i mean i don't believe it do you you know if they said five times i'd be like well maybe five times but 70 times if it said 70 faster i'd say oh that's that's a lot but 70 times do you believe that if it's 70 times it's going to be over in a month right can somebody do the math but off the off the top of my head we're 30 days to total infection if it's 70 times as spready am i wrong about that i mean just just off the top of your head if anybody's just sort of good at good at math you know this is one you don't have time to do the math but on the top of your head if it's 70 times more spready we're done in 30 days aren't we somebody says 10 days you might not be wrong all right well and i feel like if it were really that fast uh it would have been more spread already but i guess it starts slow sort of like the grade of rice on the checkerboard if you know that story but here and it's also uh 10 times or the infection is about 10 times lower in lung tissue so it's 70 times more spready but 10 times less infection in your lung tissue which is where the problem would be 10 times how many people are going to die with a virus that's 10 times less effective than the ones that isn't killing hardly anybody it's a terrible sentence but you know what i mean um you know the news is having a tough time dealing with this because all early indications are that this will solve the pandemic it will create extra hospital impact even even in mild form just because of the rapidity of it it'll hit so many people at once so i doubt that the risk is zero i'm sure people will die of omicron just like they die of you know every other medicine they take basically somebody does but damn damn this i i i think we're 30 days away from uh the entire you know traditional way to handle this pandemic just won't make any sense as if it ever did well remember i told you that michael schellenberger keeps making things happen uh first in the nuclear domain and then you saw that san francisco's mayor completely changed her viewpoint that was another thing that he and his group were working on and today yet again yet again so it turns out that that uh the netherlands has now joined the uk and france and announcing a major expansion of nuclear and uh michael has a article on sub stack and uh tweet thread talking about uh how did this happen like how did we so quickly go from nuclear is bad to let's build nuclear as fast as we can and the answer is that one of the people over in the netherlands telling them what they should have done is michael shellenberger every place something is changing he's there he's the best persuader i've ever seen i think you know because and i've been trying to figure out exactly what makes him so effective one is that he argues from data the other is that you actually can't tell what his political affiliation is i mean i i know him pretty well you know from you know this this sort of stuff uh and i don't know i don't know does he lean left or right i know on social stuff he had traditionally leaned left but when it comes to hard analytics of what works and what doesn't that's not left or right you know the hard analytics of it are just numbers and so he just does the numbers where they come out and he doesn't give anybody a reason to be against him which is different isn't it have you noticed that everybody who's a proponent of just about anything is also toxic have you noticed that including me right so i'm somewhat toxic because i'm sort of in the fight you know you get slimed with every related thing but somehow schellenberger i think mostly by staying out of the the true political parts of the questions you know he's not backing any candidate or anything so i think that may be the brilliant part of what he did everybody thinks everybody thinks that he's on their side and guess what they're all right everybody who thinks that michael schellenberger is on their side they're all right because he's on all of their sides he's just telling you what works and what doesn't that's it there's nothing else there he's just this works this doesn't based on the data you know debunk this debunk that but if you take his impeccable persuasion skills you add it with probably a a better ability to analyze things than anybody else who's in this conversation my god he is cutting a swath through bad opinions like nothing i've ever seen now interestingly he picks the he picks the domains in which if you believed the correct information you get a better result which is interesting that they even exist why does it exist that anybody thought that say removing you know defunding the police was going to help like why was that ever even the conversation so he can get into conversations where people are completely irrationally blocked and somehow break break the log jam it's really remarkable so keep watching him um i asked this uh question here's a primer for you if if you saw that a medical expert disagreed with a person who was an expert in data analysis and the disagreement was about the validity of a study so that's the only question the validity of some study and there was a expert who had every medical qualification and you know just really deep medical qualifications that are exact to this domain the data analyst doesn't have any of that but is just good at looking at studies and they disagree on whether the study is good or bad which one do you believe who do you trust the expert or the other expert yeah the the correct answer is the data analyst because there's only one expert in the story see it's a trick question i gave you a setup where there was only one expert because if you're looking at data that other stuff isn't going to help you it's does the data look right did they do it right did they have proper controls that sort of thing so um as uh as andres beckhaus points out uh one of the things that dr mccullough who we'll talk about who was on joe rogan's uh podcast one of the things that he tweeted the doctor did is a study about people with young people with myocardial artists and they found that like 98 of them had myocarditis and these are people who had been vaccinated so he tweeted that now that's pretty yeah look at this scott is waking up right so the doctor who's and a very highly qualified expert both in cardiology and i believe via virology if i'm correct right the two most relevant expertise and he he says that these these uh uh that these vaccinated people 98 of them and their young had had in fact myocarditis so that's what the expert said and he sent that around um am i am i woke enough yet does anybody think i'm woke enough now on youtube there's somebody here say oh now you're getting it aren't you okay but as we mentioned the the good doctor is an expert in cardiology and virology but not data analysis not data analysis i'll tell you somebody who's good at data analysis uh andres backhouse who looked at that tweet and informs us that the 98 people who had myocarditis are selected from a group of people who had myocardials does it sound like i said that wrong no they found out that 98 of the people with myocarditis have myocardial carditis that's what they found out because they only study people who had clear symptoms of myocarditis if you study people that the doctors say well that's definitely myocarditis and then they look into it and they do the imaging they go yep sure enough there's some myocarditis there what would you expect all it says is doctors are pretty good at spotting myocarditis but uh so that's what andres points out that it was a completely misleading headline uh but this is something that you're your doctor who is very qualified as far as i can tell in all the relevant fields except data analysis so i did as you requested and listened to dr mccullough on joe rogan and here are some of my thoughts he said a bunch of things i agree with first of all so for a long time i was listening and i was thinking where's the provocative part because i agree with that i agree with that i agree with that but as things went it got a little more interesting um so he did not see doc the doctor did not see some obvious conspiracy theory to prevent um hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin so it didn't sound like he was saying there was some organized conspiracy would you agree those who watched it he was not claiming that he was claiming incompetence now do i disagree with the notion that there was incompetence especially about early treatment options i do not disagree does anybody it was a fog of war everybody trying as hard as they could bureaucracies blah blah you would expect massive amounts of incompetence as we you know struggle to get the right answers so i think that's a fair characterization of what happened a lot of incompetence but that's to be expected not not appreciated not expected now here are some claims uh and by the way joe rogan i thought did a really good job in in the interview uh i don't know for those of you watched it i thought joe took just the right tone of letting the doctor speak but pushing really hard on some questions that the doctor wasn't quite answering to my satisfaction i i thought he did a really good job on that and and it's really hard to hit that exact tone where you're clearly being skeptical about what he's saying but you're still showing him full respect because you don't want to shut him down or make it into some kind of a fight so i don't know if anybody really realizes how good joe rogan is at this stuff right i mean who's better really it's hard to think of anybody especially because he gives them enough time to say whatever they want my only problem with that model is that there should be an expert there or an expert on the other side why let me give you an example when dr mccullough said one of the reasons that we know uh in fact checkman this because i don't wanna i don't want to say a claim that he didn't make so just correct me in real time if i say something wrong um when joe rogan was asking him effectively why haven't other countries why is it if there's something going on with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine why is it it's happening everywhere at the same time it's exactly the right question right i've asked that question a number of times which is if these things work wouldn't there be somewhere on earth where they're working because even though you can imagine an american conspiracy and even a global conspiracy easy to imagine but would it get every country because every country had a pandemic every one you you tell me there's not one little country that couldn't just say all right we're going to use ivermectin because we don't have vaccinations we'll just get rid of it so in order for the good the doctor's opinion that the signal is very strong we don't have a randomized controlled trial everybody would like that but it's impractical uh within the time frame um he's saying that the signal of the benefits of these drugs is so high from studies that are not perfect uh and the risk is so low that clearly it makes sense and then joe kept pushing on that question about why are these other countries not having the big result and then here's the payoff and so then the doctor proved his thesis by giving you several examples where ivermectin had completely squashed the pandemic in their country so are you good so examples were peru mexico i think he said it's a first level thing in japan but the asian none of the asian countries had trouble with it so i think that's a special case so let's just take two of them mexico and i think india india might have been on his list um what would happen if you spend five minutes googling peru and ivormecten well you would find out that it did not change anything in peru so the claim that it worked in peru there's no data to support that in fact the data says the opposite you can see the introduction of it and you don't see an effect mexico no data to support it uh india no data to support it and there is that speculation that ivermectin might take care of worms so well that's what it's for so if it did that it might help some people who would have had one extra challenge to get rid of that challenge maybe they can survive the coven better but it wouldn't be a direct effect on on the covet under that theory so if you believe that the doctor's hypothesis is correct that these drugs have a signal they're working then you must explain to yourself why his biggest examples are clearly debunked now how do i know the debunk isn't wrong right well as peru don't you think if peru had used ivermectin and just squashed squashed the pandemic you don't think more people would be taking ivermectin really yeah if that really happened this would be over if that was true clearly it's not true it's not true anywhere in fact every example he gave where people are using it with success just doesn't exist yeah and and you can check for yourself just google it google his name or google peru and ivormectin just google it up you see for yourself five minutes no any of his examples are real now um given uh the andres backhouse example where we saw that at least in that one example apparently we're not i can't read his mind right but from the outside looking in it looks like he misjudged a data analysis or at least mischaracterized it secondly the examples he used as the main things that prove his point and here's my problem with the the joe rogan model if andre's back house was sitting in the chair next to him andres would take on his laptop and say here you go that example is debunked what else she got now that would be useful that's the show i want to see in fact if joe rogan is listening could you bring back on one any one of the doctors who have the you know non-traditional views and bring on a fact checker it doesn't have to be andres you know he's in germany that might be hard but just bring in a fact checker doesn't even have to be in in studio it could be i think you could do it remotely right but that's my request to not do the rogue doctors unless you bring in a fact checker now i don't want somebody who just has the opposite opinion because that's just a fight you want somebody who doesn't have a any dog any uh what is it any dog in the race bring on daniel dale bring on cnn's fact checker daniel dale just have them sit there as an advertisement for cnn and say look here's my fact checker here's my expert and just have him work it on his laptop because it's a three hour show right if you've got a three hour show you can just check all the facts right there you don't have to wonder um scott am i going to take the pfizer pill i will give you the same answer i gave for the vaccinations i'm going to wait as long as possible i might but i'm going to wait as long as possible before i do so let's say what else did happen for that i do think that the doctor was right about the no early treatment protocols but i feel like he has a data problem about monoclonal antibodies my understanding at the beginning of the pandemic is that we knew from pretty much the beginning at least i did i did have some information that you didn't have a long time before you had it that regeneron works i can't tell you how i knew that but i knew it you know months before it was public and but the problem i understood is to make enough of it can anybody give me a fact check on that my understanding is that the monoclonal antibodies were mostly a problem of how fast you could make it um because i think that what uh dr mccullough may be interpreting as part of that problem of you know bad early treatment protocols is that some of it just wasn't available like even if you knew it worked you couldn't get it right um but i would uh i think he's spot on by saying we should have released the doctors to you know maybe be a little more creative with their solutions because i don't know what does or does not work but if if doctors were experimenting with their custom with their people and giving them hydroxychloroquine or something i feel like the doctor should have been able to do that so i agree with them on on the big picture so here's my bottom line um i'm gonna i hate to do this but i just feel like it's important because we're all trying to understand who's credible and who's not and i have an impression of the good dr mccullough that i'm going to share with you now that i'm going to tell you in advance feels unfair even even though i'm going to say it right this feels unfair but i also think it's important and i just want you to have this filter you've heard the phrase it takes one to no one well when i watch i watch dr mccullough he's one of me think all right so that's the part that's the provocative part and by one of me i mean a uh grandiose narcissist now there are several versions of narcissists and i put myself in the category of a grandiose narcissist it's a specific kind there some of the narcissists are just toxic and bad for the world it's not that kind the grandiose narcissist is trying to build up their own image self-image and reputation but by doing something useful for the world and making sure that you knew it right i do that every day i don't think you could have a better example of a grandiose narcissist than me i literally tell you that's my business model all the time you know it's more like my psychological model than my business model but i combined them and i literally want to help as many people as i can that's you know the books that's why the topics of the books i write or that that's why i do the micro lessons that's why i do most of this but i'm also self-aware that i do it because that feeds something in me right that you know maybe i'm not proud of but it's sort of like capitalism you know nobody would say greed is a positive element of life but if you don't have greed as part of your capitalism model it doesn't work so i would say that narcissism is just one of those double-edged things that's obnoxious can have a downside but in some cases the the person who wants to change the world and get credit for it is contributing is uh let's say uh bill gates or uh elon musk you know are they grandiose narcissists i don't know i mean i think i think musk is his brain just doesn't work like other people's so you can't make any assumptions there but if they are i hope so i hope they are because they talk like it they talk like you know i'm doing the best i can to help the world in the biggest way that i can so we don't know how they internally process it so when when i hear dr mccullough talk um the the way he talks you know about his own qualifications etc and how he's you know the the only one who knows the right answer and he's the lone voice in the wilderness and going on all the big talk shows and stuff like that he strikes me as someone who needs this to be to work for him i i feel like i don't feel his motivation is monetary because some of you are going to say oh who's paying him or you know is there some way he thinks he's going to make money off of lecturing or something giving speeches i doubt it i didn't pick that up at all now again right nobody's a mind reader right so anything i say about another person's internal thoughts you should automatically say well you know how do you know that that's the right stance to take but it's just my impression that his motivation looks like he really wants to help i think that's real by the way so you know if you could pick a personal doctor pick this one he looks like he's a really good doctor because i think he really really wants to help people but it's because it feeds him as well and there's nothing wrong with that nothing wrong with that that's not a criticism but i think he has that personality and having that personality myself i'll tell you there's a risk to it if if my hypothesis is right that we have that in common which is you can easily blind yourself that you found the thing that will change the world do you know how many times i thought to myself i think i found it i might be the only one who found this i just found something that changes the world do you know how many times i've had that thought and then i have to use every every power of rationality to like squeeze it down and say okay maybe you're being a little too gullible maybe you're being a little too optimistic about you know omicron being a vaccination you know maybe you're a little too optimistic about this fusion technology you know that sort of thing so the blind spot that uh a grandiose narcissist would have and i'm putting myself in this category is a little too much optimism about weak what we can do you feel that have you ever seen me do that to have too much optimism about what i can do just personally to make the world a better place right yeah and uh reed gfk junior all right jfk jr is probably uh i'm sorry uh rfk right it's uh rfk um his credibility is really low you know that right which is not to say he didn't get this one right but here's what doesn't help reading one person's book i want rfk to be on joe rogan's show sitting right next to daniel dale or some fact checker you know could be andres or anybody else and then we'll have a conversation about rfk okay but if you're saying read rfk's book you're telling me to do something that i know to be psychologically crippling because you would get one person's opinion and no counterpoint that is like that's like you telling me hey i'd like you to run a marathon but could you start to start the marathon by cutting off one of your legs that's what it feels like thank you torah i appreciate that is rfk still alive yes so just know this every time you tell me to read a book or listen to one expert i automatically think you're not good at uh analysis right nothing personal because as i often say nobody's good at anything unless they practice it right or if they've been trained or if they have skills so people have been trained in data analysis are good at it and people who have not been trained think they're good at it but they don't know the difference uh read all the books you're right uh what about the elon musk tweet well we talked about his tweet about me the other day um all right scott's uh peru debunking need your own comparisons um well i'm not sure if the point you're making is that the debunks themselves get debunked but i would tell you this if you look at say who is it is it factcheck.org who sometimes debunks things that are true but when you see somebody debunk something that's true there's a way that they do it which is sort of avoiding the question or or modifying the question as they go until you're not really even on the same topic by the end of the fact check have you noticed that but a fact check that i usually depend on is one that says the claim is x here's the data that shows us wrong usually i'm going to go with a fact check on that one usually because if the person who made the claim wasn't even aware that there was data that debunked it that's a problem now if the person said i'm aware of the data that looks like it debunks it but there's a problem with that debunk then i'd be oh okay now it's a tie but if the person making the claim is not aware of the argument against it or doesn't include it in their presentation just so you know that they know it i go with a debunk in those cases so look for the debunks on the on the question of peru and ivermectins make your own decisions uh dismissing japan is a mistake just watch dr john campbell huh is dr john campbell somebody who might have appeared on the show without a fact checker sitting next to him i'm just guessing i'm just guessing how many times can i tell you the same thing and you'll just say what about this expert let's do it again let's do it let's practice this i'm going to tell you clearly as possible that the last thing i'm gonna take as credible is one rogue expert talking to an interview who doesn't know what the he's talking about no that's not joe rogan he's great at interviewing um so now you're supposed to say oh but what about this expert who doesn't have a fact checker go ahead see how that goes can we just do this over and over again until you give up will you give up to tell me to read this one book or this one expert it never ever is a good idea not ever ever ever there will no it will not be an exception there will not be but if there's an objective source that shows the you know the plus and the minuses and the whole picture i would definitely like to see that all right uh ah all right just looking at your comments and i think i'm just about done yeah the new the the thing that's missing from a live stream technology is i would like to live stream and have a split screen with you know two remote or one remote person and we're not there now you think we are because you're thinking of you know these um streaming things that combine things but they don't work well enough to be a commercial item so we're almost there if somebody like google or something could create a zoom alternative where i can do immediate split screens and and amazingly zoom doesn't do that either um yeah multi-stream that's what we need we're only we're only just at the point where our wi-fi can handle that sort of thing but we can do it now doesn't instagram do that i don't know i haven't used the instagram live did they do that uh it's in locals no it isn't it should be in locals but it's not built in yet uh are you still taking down att i think they're gonna take down themselves all right yeah fact yeah restream none of those solutions work if it runs through a third-party software it's a it's a non-starter you need one software that does the whole thing as soon as you add the other software you don't have a stable solution with the cats doing great stream yards same problem yeah no third-party software it's got to be one piece of software that does it all all right that's all i got for now and i will talk to you tomorrow

good morning everybody and welcome to

the best thing that ever happened to you

yep it's cold coffee with scott adams

and it's gonna be lit today

off the hook

it'll be

provocative

entertaining

possibly change your life

all of that in the period of just

minutes it's amazing really do you think

we could do even better than that i do i

do and all you need is a copper mug or a

glass a tanker chalice or stein a

canteen jugger flask a vessel of any

kind filling with your favorite liquid

and

i know you like coffee some of you

and join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure the dopamine hit of the day

the thing that makes everything better

including the pandemic it's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now ago

yeah powering up

it's like a battery that just got fully

charged wow

it's amazing

well while i was waiting to go live here

today i was getting catfished

got some messages from a

nice woman named um

christina basham christina basham

and uh

this uh nice woman named christina

basham who doesn't seem to know who i am

is interested in maybe a relationship

uh i look at her picture and she's very

beautiful

very beautiful

and so

i texted back and i said uh

you think i will believe you were my

wife

and the catfisher said yes baby i missed

you

this is not your best catfisher

and i said

i am standing next to my wife right now

catfisher says

you are married

oh no

and i said i'm married to christina

basham who is with me now

cat fisher says

oh lol

[Laughter]

lol

that's right my last message was

nice try where are you based nigeria

i'm actually curious

i want to find out

where the where this catfisher is based

and you know and since i got a an olol

you know obviously he knows whoever it

is knows that uh i know it's a it's a

scam i wonder if he'll just tell me

say oh yeah i'm over here in

detroit or

someplace

but anyway um if you didn't know it my

wife's

photo from social media is widely used

on

on

social media by catfishers cat fishers

yeah

uh and you know about once every two

weeks ago or so we get these

disturbed messages from people who say

but i've been sending you money for

years

no you've been sending money to a

photograph

with somebody else well here's the story

of the day do you know entertainer cher

she was walking out of a movie theater

and saw this beautiful young couple and

asked if she could take their picture

just because they were such a

good looking young couple so she takes

her picture

posted on

social media and

became a big viral sensation

and here's what she tweeted

she said when we were coming out of a

movie i saw a beautiful couple

he was taking her picture she had

flowers i said can i take your picture

i had my mask on so they didn't know who

i was

maybe just a crazy woman that be

um

it could be

it could be that they didn't recognize

her

this 20-something beautiful young couple

it could be they didn't recognize cher

because she had her mask on

that's one of the possibilities

the other possibility

is that they're a young couple who have

never heard of cher

[Laughter]

how many people in their 20s even would

recognize cher

right

am i right

and you know i i feel i can speak to

this phenomenon

because there aren't too many people you

know in high school who could name

dilbert as a comic strip either

but

i like her little blind spot that the

reason they didn't recognize her is

because she had a mask on i'm going to

start using that

you've never heard of the dilbert comic

strip youngster

is it because i'm wearing a mask

i think it'll work

well cnn is all at twitter all at

twitter not on twitter

but they're all a twitter their hearts

are fluttering

because there's some news that is

oh it's just like candy for their hearts

uh and it is that uh the lawsuit

brought by dominion the voting election

voting company

they're bringing a lawsuit alleging that

fox news personalities including tucker

carlson janine

pereiro

sean hannity and their on-air guests

spread lies about fraud in the 2020

election the hurt dominion's business

it's one of several lawsuits

that they're doing against right-wing or

right right-leaning entities i guess

now um

there are two essential claims one is

that the opinion people

uh brought brought experts on and and

talked in a way that suggested there was

a problem and hurt their business

the other is that the news people or at

least producers or you know

people in the decision-making uh

chain

were probably aware of information they

did not report

that would have been more complementary

to dominion

so two claims one is that the opinion

people

said things that they feel are untrue

and number two that there may have been

extra information that fox news

collectively or individually

was aware of

that would have been important to give

you context to the story that was left

out

so does anyone anybody want to make a

prediction how this lawsuit goes

i'm feeling i'm feeling pretty confident

about this prediction i mean

the total amount i know about the law

could be put in a

thimble within a thimble

but i feel like i could get this one

no i don't know that it'll be dismissed

or thrown out

but we have seen that

the rachel maddow defense

is that it's just an opinion

and it worked right

the defense that opinion people giving

opinions

can't be wrong in a libelous way has

already passed

muster

beyond that

facebook's lawsuit

they're claiming that even their fact

checkers are opinions

so not only are opinions opinions but

fact checkers

are just opinions

so in that world where those two things

seem to be

somewhat established ish

is there any way that opinion people

are gonna

you know somehow be found guilty now

um

i don't know what the standard is for

this this is a

civil suit

right

so that means they don't need a

full majority do they

they just need to or the standard is

lower than a criminal case let's just

put it that way

so i suppose anything can happen but i

would say the precedent has largely been

set that opinions are opinions and facts

or opinions

now what if it's true

suppose uh they can come up with a an

email or set of emails just

hypothetically

that would suggest that fox news was

aware

of more information than they reported

and that information could have been

good for dominion's

side of things

do you think that the courts will set a

standard

as a precedent

that if you leave out some relevant

facts to your reporting

you can be sued

just think about it

that's all of the news

the entire news landscape is is the left

leaving out stuff you know that would be

good for the right and the right leaving

out stuff that would be good for left

there's nothing but that

if you create that standard it will

destroy the entire news industry there

wouldn't be anything left

yeah how would the fine people hoax play

do you think that if trump sued cnn

for the fine people hoax you wouldn't

find any internal communication

saying that they knew that they'd

clipped off part of the the video to

turn it into a hoax you don't think

anybody knew that

yeah they did

yeah you might even find a you might

even find a digital communication from

me

to somebody at cnn

telling them that very thing

[Laughter]

so

uh i don't think they can win on that

right i mean i don't know how precedent

works exactly in this domain but i don't

see how you could possibly have a

standard that if you left something out

you're guilty

you know just for that even if you knew

it even if you totally knew you were

doing it and why you did it

i would just it would destroy the entire

news industry there would be nothing

left

which would be funny

all right

now here's the other uh scary thing

about it apparently

there is some point in this process in

which dominion would get access to fox

news's

communications

like private communications

which i assume would include from

outside people

now aside people who are communicating

with fox news hosts

which includes me

my private communications

just got released

i think

i think

because i do have a history that i have

communicated with

more than one fox host by

by digital means

so my private communications are now in

play

let me give you some advice

do any of you use encrypted apps

so you can stay out of trouble

how many of you use some kind of an

encrypted app

for communicating

stop it

stop it

don't do it

if you're using an encrypted app because

you think it's safe oh my god you're a

sucker

you are a sucker

they are the least safe thing you could

ever do do you know why

because that's where all the good stuff

is

where are you going to look for where

are you going to look for stuff

there

here are the ways your encrypted

communications can be corrupted number

one

the government always had a back door

how would you know

company tells you they don't government

says no we don't do that

but that's what they would say

right how do you know the government

doesn't have a back door

why wouldn't they

if they could

why wouldn't they

it's crazy not to it would almost be

um an abdication of responsibility

if they didn't have back doors to all

the encrypted apps now i don't know that

they do

i'm just saying i'd be deeply surprised

if they or some other a foreign entity

doesn't have access to at least one of

them

at least one of them

now i'm not worried about the encryption

being broken at the moment that's

probably your smallest risk

the next risk is that the message you

send can be captured on your device

before it gets encrypted

because anything that you're typing

could be captured by

a virus

am i right

a hacker could install something on your

phone or device

it would capture your message before it

even got to the encrypted part

right

a key logger yeah and i imagine they

could take a screenshot or something

you know you would have those options

how about when it reaches the

destination

and then it's on the destination phone

and it's on the screen

could a a hacker get it if it's if it's

on the screen

i assume so it's just a screenshot

how hard would that be

so

it's definitely hackable

and it's definitely corruptable by some

government entity and they would lie to

you because that's their job in this in

this instance it would be their job to

lie to you so if they're doing their job

you wouldn't know

but here's the biggest part

anything you send to somebody

they can show to somebody else

that's it

anything that you show to another human

that human can just show it to somebody

else

right

and no matter how much trust you put in

the encryption you're just looking in

the wrong place

it's not the encryption you have to

worry about it's all the people

so

um

never send a message over digital means

that you would

um

be in serious trouble if it were outed

just don't ever do it

no matter how private you think it is

just don't ever do it ever not once i

wouldn't do it under any condition ever

once

and it doesn't matter if you're running

for office or not

because you see in these cases you could

be a completely

you know unrelated to any kind of crime

and somebody can open up your messages

you've seen my messages in the news

haven't you

i'll bet you've seen a private message

of mine in the news i have

and i don't know how that happened

anyway

here's some good news on uh

fusion

now of course you have to take all

fusion good news with grain of salt

because you know for 30 years we've had

fusion breakthroughs that never reached

any

conclusion

but apparently the

industry has been chugging along and

they are making incremental

breakthroughs

all the time

you know there it's it seems to be

as sam altman told me a few years ago

it's now an engineering problem where

they just have to figure out how to

iterate quickly

well apparently this big

breakthrough

uh and i don't know the science behind

this i'll just read this so for the

first time a fusion

reaction has achieved a record blah blah

you know energy output

exceeding the energy absorbed

oh sorry

come on

so

so they're saying that they've you know

achieved some fusion breakthrough but i

think what they really achieved if you

read the article

if you read the article what they really

achieved is a way to um

view it

or to actually measure it

which apparently was something they

couldn't do before because all these you

know super hot

reactions you know how do you how do you

know what's happening in there so you

can adjust it so they have some kind of

mechanism now that they they can see

what they're doing and they can know if

they're adding more or subtracting more

and apparently that uh just opens up a

big

you know a highway toward getting it

done

so i think this is further evidence that

it's an engineering problem

we're down to iteration

and testing

and that's it

it's just it's just innovation and

testing

why are you saying something about

cernovich is there some cernovich news

today

that i don't know about

anyway this breakthrough was uh just

down the road from where i am right now

at lawrence livermore lab

practically walking distance someplace

i've i've been

i've

i've given a speech at lawrence

livermore lab it feels it feels kind of

real to me because it's it's literally

you know i know people work there it's

just like right down there

and they've

just right down the road

have created

maybe the most important technology of

all time

all right

i heard from a

german high school teacher today

connor widmeyer

connor might be watching today so hi

connor

and he tweeted this he said i taught the

user interface for reality this is a

micro lesson that i did on locals i

can't remember if i did it publicly too

but

i talked about how to use different uh

filters or frames

to view reality and how to potentially

interact with reality

and connor says he taught that lesson to

his german high school today

and

and he quoted part of it he said first

you must accept that the frame at least

as a filter meaning you don't have to

accept it as truth

just

accept it as a way to predict the world

uh and then he said he gave examples

about religion and they were blown away

now the thing that blows me away

is that something i was doing here is

being taught in high school in germany

in one class

but

it turns out that

a lot of things that i do get taught in

in

schools

so a lot of the dilbert material has

been packaged up to teach in business

schools

so there are lots of business school

classes that i think there are some

some psychology related classes they use

dilbert as a lot of examples

so dilbert is used in schools and then

you know the systems versus

goals the the talent stacking

and now the user interface for reality

i know my book god's debris

is assigned often in college courses so

weirdly i have all these connections to

education

that i wasn't expecting

so the salvation army is uh

took a real big hit on their donations

uh because they had some kind of a guide

they put out

within the salvation army that said that

white culture

has challenges and needs to overcome

among other things this was just

something that was within it

uh including they have to get over their

denial of racism

and their defensiveness about race

it states that white americans need to

quote stop trying to be colorblind

so how did that work out for the

donations to the salvation army

yeah down by about a third

so who was it who said everything woke

turns to was that trump

is trump the first one who said that

it's sort of a

it was trump right everything woke turns

to

there will never be a more accurate

predictive

rule

i mean i thought i was good at

predicting but you can't beat this

everything woke turns to

[Laughter]

you just see it over and over and over

again

every time you see it it's just

destroying something our schools or

our government

so um

here's what uh

here's what i think must be done

well i won't say must but could be done

i've told you about malicious compliance

right

the idea that you can destroy something

by embracing it

and acting like it's real and

important if you think it's not

how would you do that in the case of uh

this wokeness and uh

and the

the the idea that we should

stop denying racism and stop being

defensiveness about race and

and that white people need to stop being

colorblind suppose we embraced that

but

even embraced it more than it is stated

i would go so far as to say we should

also put out guides about ugly people

short people old people and especially

white people who also are discriminated

against i believe that we should

increase our list until everybody who is

being discriminated for any reason

is uh included now if those reasons are

things they can't change such as being

unattractive uh ugly old or white

and so i think the best way to deal with

the fact that

wokeness turns everything to is to

embrace it harder than it exists

and say wait a way why are you stopping

this with

people of color

that's a big problem

but it's only one of them why would you

stop there why would you allow the world

to be so unwoke when there were easy

ways to wake it up even more why would

you stop at half woke

i don't want your half woke

give me full woke

full woke or nothing

so i would call this a half woke attempt

i've told you before that the solution

to all the wokeness is

do you know what the solution is

to embrace it fully

so that if somebody says hey i think

something's happening because i'm black

instead of saying no that's not

happening there's no racism that's a

dumb approach

right it might be true in that in a

specific situation it might be more true

than false but it's a dumb dumb approach

that doesn't work

you want to you want to embrace it and

take it further and say absolutely you

were being discriminated in so many ways

because it's true

you know systemic racism totally true

if you're arguing that it doesn't exist

that's just a bad argument it certainly

exists in the sense of the

teachers unions

uh that's the worst systemic racism as

long as that's an obvious example i

don't think you can say it doesn't exist

and surely it exists in other ways

throughout society in all the ways that

they that they describe but you know

what else exists

all the other stuff

all the other stuff really exists

it's true that short people don't get

promoted as much

it's true that if you have a you know

any kind of a difference you're ugly

you're overweight you're whatever

you're going to be discriminated against

so let's uh let's get all that in there

and i think that the best way we should

deal with each other

is to acknowledge

instead of ignoring the color or

ignoring the difference we should just

go right at it

just go right at it

we should be able to have like a

conversation like every minute i wonder

if that happened because you're black

you should be able to bring that up

anytime without any any kind of

provocative pushback it should be a

legitimate question

i wonder if that happened because you're

short

also legitimate i wonder if that would

have been the same outcome if you were

more attractive

also totally legitimate why not just put

it all out there

put it all out there and say yep

i lost two careers for being white and

male some of you don't believe that but

there's a whole back story there in my

corporate days i was told that directly

by the way that's that's not me reading

between the lines

my bosses told me directly they couldn't

promote me because i was white and male

now that's just true

so that puts me on the side of you know

black americans who have been

discriminated in employment

why can't i be on their side

if i had the same experience

in one of the most important elements of

society which is economics

so

embrace it until there's nothing left

and then we'll all be better off i think

well

there's another

blockbuster report coming out of the

january 6

hearings congressional hearings

you may not have heard this so this this

will be breaking news to all of you

um

someone took a lunch

out of the refrigerator in the

congressional break room and that lunch

was labeled

with the name of the person who is

planning to eat it but someone unnamed

we don't know

took that lunch from the congressional

break room and therefore

president trump is guilty of

insurrection

if you haven't been following the story

you know that the blockbusters don't

have to have any connection to the point

could be just some emails somebody found

could be somebody just testified

they don't have to have any connection

to the insurrection but everything that

they come up with

we have learned from cnn is connected to

proof

that trump is an insurrectionist so

until that missing lunch is uh

found i'm gonna have to say he's an

insurrectionist because logic logic

um

you all know about the elf on the shelf

if you're

coming to us from a non-american country

i don't know if you have that tradition

where a little elf doll is put on the

shelf during christmas

well in breaking news the elf on the

shelf uh got a roommate

uh it's biden's legislative agenda

rasmussen has a poll

uh says the house of representatives uh

people asked what they thought of their

uh how well they're doing their job and

the public

30 of them said that's either excellent

or good the house of representatives

that feels high doesn't it

doesn't that seem high

um

and then uh in the senate uh 21 of them

were

were rated 21 percent of the public said

that the senate was excellent or good

that also seems high because isn't the

approval of congress in general like in

the teens

so this is the weird way that people

answer poll questions

if you ask them to approve of congress

in general

it'd be like 18

but if you say you know how are they

doing

30 said excellent or good

so

i don't know which number is closer to

reality here

um

and then rasmussen asked

about buildback better do people support

it or oppose it

38 support it

that's actually more than i thought

does that sound high

um a 38

support it

i'm not sure if rasmussen is going to

ask how many people know what's in it

how many people do you think know what's

in it

well that didn't take long for a meme

um

i don't know what's in it do you

um i know individual things that are in

it

and i i sort of recall i've read a

number of articles where things are

mentioned

but i don't have a comprehensive sense

if you said write down all of the main

items in it you know just a high level

i don't think i could do that could you

so i mean we just hear about individual

stuff

hey jonathan that that's a real good

comment uh jonathan giglio wants to

share this with the rest of you that

clown scott is a clown

good one i'm glad you uh spent your

energy on that because you know um all

the other problems in the world are

are solved

but the thing we didn't know about is if

clown scott was a clown

so

thanks for doing that instead of

exercising or

teaching your kids something valuable

we're all we're all the better for it

i appreciate that

all right

17 said they weren't sure if if they

could support the buildback better i

would say that 17

usually usually i mock the uncertain

because most of the questions you really

should have an opinion on

but this is one i don't know

17

said i don't know

i feel like that's the right opinion i

don't know

i mean if you just focus on what it

would do to inflation then i guess it

would be easy to have a coherent opinion

which is no that's too much you know

sort of the

joe manchin approach

just it's just too much

that's a reasonable opinion could be

true could be false

but it's reasonable

um

45 percent oppose build back better

yeah i really thought it was more

i would say you a reasonable person

could throw the 17

unsure

into the opposed

because

if somebody said to you we're planning

to spend it two trillion dollars

and uh we don't know if it'll be a good

idea or not what do you say you don't

even know what it's about

you spend 2 trillion we don't really

know

i mean some people say yes some people

say it'd be good some say bad well if

you don't know

good decision making usually is biased

or don't do it right

you don't put two trillion dollars into

something you're just guessing about

um so the the unsures i think they're

slightly opposed dish

especially if they don't feel well

informed

anyway uh jay and jay

do me a fact check on this didn't j

who said they're not recommending the j

j shot anymore because of side effects

that's true right oh the fda yeah so the

fda said they're not recommending the j

and j shots so they would recommend the

pfizer and the moderna

first

over the j j

so

what does this tell us that we didn't

know before number one it validates my

strategy

does anybody remember what my

vaccination strategy was

what was my vaccination strategy anybody

wait as long as you can

[Laughter]

wait as long as you can if you can

socially isolate

right i have the advantage that i can

isolate better than most people

so in those in that specific condition

which you know might be unique to me

uh waiting until we know as much as

possible

makes sense

you know you sort of have to game at you

know what is waiting too long and

what is not but i waited i haven't

gotten the booster um at this at the

moment i'm leaning against it but i'll

still wait for more information

but i'm glad i didn't run out and say

give me whatever you got because

remember the fda wasn't the fda saying

it doesn't matter which booster you get

doesn't matter which ones you got you

can get any one of the three

and what did i tell you

i'm still waiting for uh is are there

any doctors on here

if you're a doctor you probably have a

better

view on this i don't i don't have a

confident opinion but i'll tell you my

opinion so this is sort of leaning in

that direction opinion

it goes like this

if you did not have a bad reaction to

whatever vaccination you got

and you don't really have any tests to

tell you the you know what to do next

is it smarter to get a different

vaccination that could have different

level of side effects

or

is it

versus you know getting the same that

you had you had no side effects or

could that

put you over the limit

of how much of that one kind of vaccine

you've got

um

which would you say would be just

commonsensically if you did not have the

benefit of data because we don't

what commonsensically would be safer

doctors only please

if you're a doctor

tell me if you're a doctor in the

comments please

yeah i don't know stick with the devil

you know

uh

oh so your doctor says pfizer is a

smaller dose than moderna but that's

also why it works less right wasn't

modern of the highest

efficacy

uh

uh dr matt wayne says go with what you

had before

dr johnson i'm not sure if you're a real

doctor you're a troll

um

i'm a doctor don't know all right yeah

there's another

dr johnson's all over this one

uh

doctor modern is the best highest amount

of antigen

don't mix and match

all right so

um here's here's another one of those

sort of edge questions

the fda with all their experts said go

ahead and get whichever of the shots you

want

scott said

if you don't have better information

get the one you already had

who had better advice

because because you know the a lot of

the

a lot of the

decisions we're making there's a big

question of you know should you trust

the experts or or trust somebody who's

just good at decision making

because it's different right

i don't know i i feel like i feel like

the edge is for me

because i don't think that we have um

especially if you had the pfizer

if you had the pfizer shot which is a

lower dose than moderna

that's like that's like a slam dunk

isn't it that you would get the pfizer

shot again

but if you had the modernist shot twice

um

now maybe just a little extra pfizer

similar platforms technology

is that better i don't know

i think my my bias would be to stick

with whatever i got but know that if you

stuck with the moderna

your first two doses would be the

highest you know dose of that type

and then by the time you got the booster

you would be you know well into

highest ever of that technology so

that's that's a risk

all right

um

let's talk about pfizer and their 55

years to release data everything you

knew about that was okay let's

start there

what was it even i believed

i think i hope i showed enough

skepticism in this story because i

should have in retrospect

but

do you know why

the 55 years does anybody or it was 75

but it got lowered to 55.

um does any yeah the 75 i think got

lower to 55 it got revised

but does anybody know why

all right well so um

andreas backhouse was tweeting about

this

and

uh even the fda criticized you know the

fda for its you know data sharing

stuff so nobody's happy that it would

take so long but here's my best take on

it

apparently the foyer requests the

requests where i guess any citizen of

standing can request government

information that shouldn't be secret

so there are so many of them now like

even private companies are doing these

all the time for competitive reasons etc

trying to figure out what the

competition is doing there's so many

foia requests that the fda couldn't

possibly do them all

all right so the first thing you need to

know is that the amount of requests is

this big

and the staff for all of those requests

not just for vaccinations but for

everything the fda does for everything

that the staff is like a pinprick

so the the amount of staffing they have

is

nowhere in the neighborhood

of what they would need to get the job

done competently all right so that's the

first thing

second thing is that i guess there's a

lot of stuff that has to be redacted

which means you have to pour over it and

you probably have to show it to three

people to make sure you redacted the

right stuff and i can imagine that if

you've got a gazillion pages of stuff

you'd

you just couldn't even staff up to do

that

there would be no way to staff up enough

because you'd have to have people who

are trained and know what they're

talking about i mean i don't think you

can get there from here

and

so i've got a few comments on this

number one i think what's happening is

malicious compliance

imagine you're the fda

and it is your requirement it's just a

legal requirement that if people ask for

this information

about anything the fda is doing that's

you know non-non-private

um that they have to give it to them

so you imagine you have this incredibly

understaffed

group of people who do these requests

at the fda

totally understaffed what's their

attitude

it's your job to do this impossible

thing

and you've been given

a spec of a budget i mean it's actually

i think it's hundreds of millions of

dollars but compared to how much it

actually would cost it's just a spec

what would you do if that was your job

and you said boss i need 10 times the

budget to even put a dent in this

your boss says nope can't get it to you

you come back next time it's the budget

you still

i need now i need 20 times the budget

because things are just getting worse

and your boss says we don't have the

budget do it you can

you know that's the real situation right

you don't even have to be there to know

that that's true there's something like

that anyway so what does the average

employee whose job it is to do the

impossible their boss has given them no

budget and a job that's literally

impossible what does that employee say

do they say nope i quit

i'm just not even going to do that for

you

no not in any world as the employee said

that not in any world here's what the

employee says absolutely

that'll take based on the budget we have

uh the the resources that you my boss

have allowed me let's see with the

resources you my boss have given me

calculate calculate

75 years

so let's do that i'm all in

your boss says

wait a minute what

yes 75 years with the resources that

you've given me to do this job

uh i'm i'm all on board let's start this

today can i get going why are we talking

i should get going on this you must wait

wait a minute

75 years

that would be like it's worthless it's

not even worth doing

and your employee would say no this is

totally worth doing these are very

valuable requests

and i want to put all the resources i

have that you've given me

into this request very important i think

we need to do this for the public should

take

75 years

can i get going on that

and then what does your boss say

well the boss either has to say oh i

gotta admit it's my fault i couldn't get

you properly funded or does boss just

take that number to his boss and say oh

it i'm just going to take this boss

to my boss i'll just take this to my

boss they said 75 years

what would it take

to get it done faster

um three billion dollars of extra

funding

on top of the 300 million a year or

whatever it is it's pretty high

and a staff of 15 000

and then we could put a dent in it

never going to happen right

so i think this is a malicious

compliance story about a bureaucratic

situation within the fda has nothing to

do with pfizer

now here's the second question

how much of that information is the

important stuff

suppose you just said all right all

right i see how that could take 75 years

but how about you just give us

all of the the data

results

with you know maybe some underlying data

don't you think they have that in a

packaged form

are you telling me that these randomized

controlled trials

weren't packaged up already

no nobody thought to put all the data in

one place maybe put it on a spreadsheet

of course they did

so how long does it take you to get all

the data that's already packaged up

it shouldn't take too long

now suppose you wanted more than that

and you wanted all the emails about it

well that would just be the emails since

the pandemic started

right

and you would just do a search where for

keywords

do a search and say you know give me

every coronavirus covid or related term

and you just send them over

if you had all of their digital

communication internally and all of

their trial data

how much extra are you going to get from

all the other 74 years

probably not a lot right there's got to

be some kind of 80 20 rule here but i

feel like it's more like a 99 one

like the one percent of the data is

really

99 of what you need

feels like

i don't know i could be wrong about that

very easily very easily could be wrong

about that

but that's what we know about it if you

thought the 75-year thing was some

indication

that pfizer had

knowledge that there were problems with

the data i believe that is thoroughly

debunked at this point

i think it's really an fda problem

scott's grasping at straws

tyrone you're an

goodbye do you know what you could say

could say what i got wrong

you could add context

all right so russia i'm going to talk

about uh dr mccullough on joe rogan

after i do this next segment are you

ready for that

how many of you want to know my full

opinion on dr mccullough

and what he said on joe rogan oh i know

you're going to stay for that but first

let's talk about russia

who has offered a

clean sheet

deal framework with the west

huh

almost as if

russia finds it in their interest to be

our

almost ally

because in my opinion

the arc of history is unmistakably

bending in that direction

meaning that in the long run russia will

be our ally we should just get over it

and make it happen

it's going to happen

because it has to

because you know we're going to need

each other in space basically uh and

with china's rise

so if you know what's going to happen

and i think russia does and i think we

do

uh i find russia's offer

productive

now i don't think we're going to make a

deal based on these terms but let me

read the terms

and then you tell me how far off this is

from something that we might be able to

do

now i think we would have to add

more to it so so this is their offer

it's it's not something that's

you know needs to be evaluated as an

actual deal it's just their first offer

but this is a pretty strong first offer

there is one part of it that's an

instant deal killer but they know that

and i would say that maybe we could work

with it all right here it is

so here's what russia wants

relative to ukraine and the situation

over there they want to rule out further

nato expansion

in general

around their border and ukraine's uh

any any path to it so they don't want

ukraine to be part of nato reasonable or

unreasonable

reasonable or unreasonable

now we would like to treat that as

unreasonable because that would be the

proper negotiating stance nope nope no

way

because if you have to give that up at

some point in any form you want to get

something really big in return right

here's what i would ask for in return

no cyber attacks on each other

now

is that something we could actually get

or determine that we had gotten would we

even know who's attacking us i don't

know

is there is there a

cyber security expert on here who could

tell me

could we ever make a cyber deal

that we could verify was holding

can anybody tell is that even possible i

might

yeah my

my assumption is probably not

but we keep acting like we know when

russia has hacked us right with

hillary's email and such

so part of this you know maybe if we

tried to make a no cyber hacking deal

we probably

couldn't get that deal could we

dr robert johnson says i'm shocked scott

fell for the 75 years excuse

sad such a sheep

well we'll block you today

all right

i feel if we could if there was any way

to make a cyber attack

you know truce

i think you'd have to throw that in

there i would say that blocking nato's

expansion

without that is a non-starter

what do you think

i think any discussion of limiting nato

anywhere

can't go forward as long as

russia is cyber attacking us on the

regular who would agree with

that so the first thing is don't assume

that their list is list you negotiate

from we can add our own stuff

and it could be that we get more benefit

from hacking them than they get from

hacking us so maybe we don't even want

to offer it

it's possible we don't want to offer

that i think you'd have to be pretty

deep into that world to know

if that makes sense

how much do we learn from russia hacks

good question

wrong scott doesn't understand that

russia ought to be our la i'm just

saying russia ought to be our ally what

are you talking about

uh yeah cyber attacks our status quo but

i feel like

we should be at least trying to

negotiate some way out of that i don't

know

um then they're asking uh not to deploy

additional troops

uh

outside any country which they were in

before some date blah blah before any

eastern european countries joined the

alliance blah blah blah so they don't

want you know extra troops that would

threaten them they want to abandon a

nato military activities in the ukraine

so don't do any military

training there

don't put intermediate and short-range

missiles there

not to conduct any exercises with more

than one military brigade

that's in the engine

i'll tell you this one is the one that

signals they're serious

if if russia gave us a list of things

that you just looked at and you said no

this is all crap

then it would mean that they don't

really even mean to have any kind of a

deal but this one this one really

signals some seriousness

not to conduct

exercises with more than one military

brigade the fact that they would allow

that there you know could be military

exercises

but they should be small enough that

they don't look like an attack that

actually feels kind of reasonable

doesn't it

i mean if it were part of the larger

deal not not if it's on his own

um

here's the next one

this is what russia is asking

to confirm that the parties do not

consider each other as adversaries

and agree to resolve all disputes

peacefully and refrain from the use of

force

what would be another way to phrase that

to confirm that parties do not consider

themselves

to confirm that you're not

the opposite

of an ally

let's see if i confirm that i'm not the

opposite of an ally

what am i

this is it

[Laughter]

what do you what have i been telling you

for actually years now i've been telling

you this

russia needs to be an ally with us

it's totally in their best interest

and probably ours too if we couldn't

work out you know all these little cyber

things and

other stuff

i they're saying it directly

um

i feel like that's something you don't

put in a document unless you mean it

because you don't really see people talk

this way do you

when you see companies that are sort of

at each other and they've got a conflict

they don't say directly

why not be friends

that's what putin just said basically

this is as directly as you can state

why don't we just say we'll get along

because we don't really have a reason

not to

right

i've been telling you the whole time we

don't have a reason to be at each other

but we have plenty of reasons to be

allies i mean the the risk

the list of good reason to be allies is

almost infinite

i mean

you would you would die before you

you know finish the list

the list of reasons to be enemies

zero

zero

none

not one not and i don't think russia

sees one i don't think the united states

is one and to me this looks like it

just sort of uh what do you call it

inertia

it's just some kind of leftover inertia

from the cold war or something

anyway i think the russian situation is

going to go the way we want it in the

long run the way they wanted to

apparently china is offering to pay our

social media influencers to say that the

olympics are awesome

and they've hired a public relations

firm in new jersey

to get social media influencers to say

good things about the olympics

in

china at this point us australia and

canada have all

uh they're all going to boycott with

their

diplomatic stuff

the athletes will still participate

and

um

why are we letting

china pay influencers

how would you like to be an influencer

that somebody finds out was paid by

china

what what would happen to

your influence

isn't this a

a death sentence

i i can't think of any influencer who

would have the clout

or the let's say the anti-fragility if

you will

to survive

knowing that china paid them to say good

things about the olympics who could

survive that

i'm so curious if this company that took

their money

the three hundred thousand dollars to

get these influencers i'm so curious if

they can find any now it doesn't take

much money

to influence an influencer because there

are a lot of them who don't have much

money but have big platforms

so maybe yeah maybe you can find

somebody who'll take money for anything

and they might not even if it's young

enough people they might not even know

they're doing anything wrong

you know you get a

you get a 19 year old influencer and you

say i'll give you a

thousand dollars to say some good things

i don't think they're thinking in terms

of

you know international relations i think

they're thinking in terms of twenty

thousand dollars

that's real money

all right so

uh that's disgusting

um

even cnn has an article in which uh or

was it cnn but there is talk among

experts that the omicron might act like

a vaccination so we still have reason to

be worried just because it will be so

spready but listen to this data that i

don't believe will necessarily hold up

but here's some data about omicron

remember it's still fog of war

all these numbers could be wrong

but it's coming from

you know experts

and the experts say that it affects

people about 70 times faster than

earlier strains

what

70 times faster than the thing that just

took out the world

70 times faster than the pandemic itself

what

does that sound right

i mean i don't believe it do you you

know if they said five times i'd be like

well maybe five times but 70 times

if it said 70

faster i'd say oh that's that's a lot

but 70 times do you believe that

if it's 70 times it's going to be over

in a month

right

can somebody do the math but off the off

the top of my head

we're 30 days to total infection if it's

70 times as spready

am i wrong about that

i mean just just off the top of your

head if anybody's just sort of good at

good at math

you know this is one you don't have time

to do the math but on the top of your

head

if it's 70 times more spready we're done

in 30 days aren't we

somebody says 10 days you might not be

wrong

all right well

and i feel like if it were really that

fast

uh it would have

been more spread already but i guess it

starts slow sort of like the grade of

rice on the checkerboard if you know

that story

but here and it's also

uh

10 times

or the infection is

about 10 times lower in lung tissue

so it's 70 times more spready

but 10 times less infection in your lung

tissue which is where the problem would

be 10 times

how many people are going to die

with a virus that's 10 times less

effective than the ones that isn't

killing hardly anybody

it's a terrible sentence but you know

what i mean

um

you know the news is having a tough time

dealing with this because

all early indications are that this will

solve the pandemic

it will create

extra hospital impact even even in mild

form just because of the rapidity of it

it'll hit so many people at once

so

i doubt that the risk is zero i'm sure

people will die of omicron just like

they die of you know every other

medicine they take basically somebody

does

but damn

damn this

i i i think we're 30 days away from

uh the entire

you know

traditional way to handle this pandemic

just won't make any sense

as if it ever did

well remember i told you

that michael schellenberger keeps making

things happen

uh first in the nuclear domain and then

you saw that san francisco's mayor

completely changed her viewpoint that

was another thing that he and his group

were working on

and today

yet again

yet again so it turns out that

that uh the netherlands has now joined

the uk and france and announcing a major

expansion of nuclear

and uh

michael has a article on sub stack and

uh tweet thread

talking about uh how did this happen

like how did we so quickly

go from

nuclear is bad to let's build nuclear as

fast as we can

and the answer is that one of the people

over in the netherlands telling them

what they should have done is

michael shellenberger

[Laughter]

every place something is changing

he's there

he's the best persuader i've ever seen i

think

you know because and i've been trying to

figure out exactly what makes him so

effective one is that he argues from

data the other is that you actually

can't tell what his political

affiliation is

i mean i i know him pretty well

you know from you know this this sort of

stuff

uh and i don't know

i don't know

does he lean left or right

i know on social stuff

he had traditionally leaned left

but when it comes to hard analytics of

what works and what doesn't that's not

left or right

you know the hard analytics of it are

just numbers

and so he just does the numbers where

they come out

and

he doesn't give anybody a reason to be

against him

which is different isn't it have you

noticed that everybody who's a proponent

of just about anything

is also toxic

have you noticed that including me right

so i'm somewhat toxic because i'm sort

of in the fight you know you get slimed

with

every related thing

but somehow

schellenberger i think mostly by staying

out of the the true political parts of

the questions you know he's not backing

any candidate or anything

so i think

that may be the brilliant part of what

he did everybody thinks

everybody thinks

that he's on their side

and guess what

they're all right

everybody who thinks that michael

schellenberger is on their side

they're all right because he's on all of

their sides he's just telling you what

works and what doesn't that's it

there's nothing else there he's just

this works this doesn't based on the

data

you know debunk this debunk that

but

if you take his impeccable persuasion

skills

you add it with probably a

a better ability to analyze things than

anybody else who's in this conversation

my god

he is cutting a swath

through

bad opinions like nothing i've ever seen

now interestingly he picks the he picks

the domains

in which if you believed the correct

information

you get a better result

which is interesting that they even

exist

why does it exist that anybody thought

that say removing

you know defunding the police was going

to help

like why was that ever even the

conversation so he can get into

conversations where people are

completely irrationally blocked

and somehow break break the log jam it's

really remarkable so keep watching him

um

i asked this uh question

here's a primer for you if if you saw

that a

medical expert

disagreed with a

person who was an expert in data

analysis

and the disagreement was about the

validity of a study

so that's the only question the validity

of some study

and there was a expert who had every

medical qualification

and you know just really deep medical

qualifications that are exact to this

domain

the data analyst doesn't have any of

that

but is just good at looking at studies

and they disagree on whether the study

is good or bad which one do you believe

who do you trust

the expert

or the other expert

yeah the the correct answer is the data

analyst

because there's only one expert in the

story

see it's a trick question

i gave you a setup where there was only

one expert because if you're looking at

data that other stuff isn't going to

help you

it's

does the data look right did they do it

right did they have proper controls that

sort of thing

so

[Music]

um as uh as andres beckhaus points out

uh one of the things that dr mccullough

who we'll talk about

who was on joe rogan's uh podcast one of

the things that he tweeted the doctor

did is a study about people with young

people with myocardial artists

and they found that like 98 of them

had myocarditis

and these are people who had been

vaccinated so he tweeted that

now that's pretty

yeah look at this scott is waking up

right

so the doctor who's and a very highly

qualified expert both in

cardiology and i believe via virology if

i'm correct right the two most relevant

expertise

and he he says that these these uh

uh

that these vaccinated people

98 of them and their young

had had in fact myocarditis

so that's what the expert said and he

sent that around

um am i am i woke enough yet

does anybody think i'm woke enough now

on youtube there's somebody here say oh

now you're getting it aren't you

okay

but as we mentioned the the good doctor

is an expert in

cardiology and virology but not data

analysis not data analysis i'll tell you

somebody who's good at data analysis uh

andres backhouse who looked at that

tweet and informs us that

the 98 people who had myocarditis are

selected from a group of people who had

myocardials

does it sound like i said that wrong

no they found out that 98 of the people

with myocarditis have myocardial

carditis

that's what they found out

because they only study people who had

clear symptoms of myocarditis

if you study people that the doctors say

well that's definitely myocarditis

and then they look into it and they do

the imaging they go yep sure enough

there's some myocarditis there

what would you expect

all it says is doctors are pretty good

at spotting myocarditis

but

uh so that's what andres points out that

it was a completely misleading headline

uh

but this is something that you're

your doctor who is very qualified as far

as i can tell in all the relevant fields

except

data analysis

so i did as you requested and listened

to

dr mccullough on joe rogan and

here are some of my thoughts

he said a bunch of things i agree with

first of all

so for a long time i was listening and i

was thinking where's the provocative

part

because i agree with that i agree with

that i agree with that but as things

went it got a little more interesting

um

so he did not see doc the doctor did not

see some obvious conspiracy theory

to prevent um

hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin so it

didn't sound like he was

saying there was some organized

conspiracy

would you agree those who watched it

he was not

claiming that he was claiming

incompetence

now do i disagree

with the notion that there was

incompetence especially about early

treatment options

i do not disagree does anybody it was a

fog of war everybody trying as hard as

they could bureaucracies

blah blah you would expect massive

amounts of incompetence

as we you know struggle to get the right

answers

so i think that's a fair

characterization of what happened a lot

of incompetence but that's to be

expected

not not appreciated not expected

now

here are some claims uh and by the way

joe rogan i thought did a really good

job in in the interview

uh i don't know for those of you watched

it i thought

joe took just the right tone

of

letting the doctor speak

but pushing really hard on some

questions that the doctor wasn't quite

answering to my satisfaction

i i thought he did a really good job on

that

and

and it's really hard to hit that exact

tone where you're clearly being

skeptical about what he's saying but

you're still showing him full respect

because you don't want to shut him down

or make it

into some kind of a fight

so

i don't know if anybody really realizes

how good joe rogan is at this stuff

right i mean

who's better really it's hard to think

of anybody

especially because he gives them enough

time to say whatever they want my only

problem with that model is that there

should be an expert there

or an expert on the other side why

let me give you an example

when dr mccullough said one of the

reasons that we know uh in fact checkman

this because i don't wanna i don't want

to say a claim that he didn't make

so just correct me in real time if i say

something wrong

um

when joe rogan was asking him

effectively why haven't other countries

why is it if there's something going on

with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

why is it it's happening everywhere at

the same time

it's exactly the right question right

i've asked that question a number of

times

which is

if these things work

wouldn't there be

somewhere

on earth

where they're working

because even though you can imagine an

american conspiracy and even a global

conspiracy easy to imagine

but would it get every country because

every country had a pandemic

every one you you tell me there's not

one little country

that couldn't just say all right we're

going to use ivermectin because we don't

have vaccinations we'll just get rid of

it

so in order for the good the doctor's

opinion that the signal is very strong

we don't have a randomized controlled

trial everybody would like that but it's

impractical

uh within the time frame

um

he's saying that the signal of the

benefits of these drugs is so high from

studies that are not perfect

uh

and the risk is so low

that clearly it makes sense

and then joe kept pushing on that

question about why are these other

countries not having the big result and

then here's the payoff

and so then the doctor proved his thesis

by giving you several examples

where

ivermectin had completely

squashed

the pandemic in their country

so

are you good

so examples were peru mexico

i think he said it's a first level thing

in japan but the asian none of the asian

countries had trouble with it so i think

that's a special case

so let's just take two of them mexico

and i think india india might have been

on his list

um what would happen if you spend five

minutes

googling peru

and ivormecten

well you would find out

that it did not change anything in peru

so the claim that it worked in peru

there's no data to support that

in fact

the data says the opposite you can see

the introduction of it and you don't see

an effect

mexico no data to support it

uh india no data to support it

and there is that speculation that

ivermectin might take care of worms

so well that's what it's for so if it

did that it might help some people who

would have had one extra challenge to

get rid of that challenge maybe they can

survive the coven better but it wouldn't

be a direct effect on on the covet under

that

theory

so

if you believe that the doctor's

hypothesis is correct that these drugs

have a signal they're working

then you must explain to yourself why

his biggest examples

are clearly debunked

now how do i know the debunk isn't wrong

right

well as peru

don't you think if peru had used

ivermectin and just squashed squashed

the pandemic

you don't think more people would be

taking ivermectin

really

yeah if that really happened

this would be over

if that was true

clearly it's not true it's not true

anywhere in fact every example he gave

where people are using it with success

just doesn't exist

yeah and and you can check for yourself

just google it google his name or google

peru and ivormectin

just google it up you see for yourself

five minutes no any of his examples are

real

now

um given uh the andres backhouse example

where we saw that

at least in that one example apparently

we're not i can't read his mind right

but from the outside looking in it looks

like he misjudged

a data analysis

or at least mischaracterized it

secondly

the examples he used as the main things

that prove his point and here's my

problem with the the joe rogan model

if andre's back house was sitting in the

chair next to him

andres would take on his laptop and say

here you go

that example is debunked

what else she got

now that would be useful that's the show

i want to see

in fact if joe rogan is listening

could you bring back on one any one of

the doctors who have the you know

non-traditional views and bring on a

fact checker it doesn't have to be

andres you know he's in germany that

might be hard but just bring in a fact

checker doesn't even have to be in in

studio it could be

i think you could do it remotely right

but that's my request to not do the

rogue doctors unless you bring in a fact

checker now i don't want somebody who

just has the opposite opinion

because that's just a fight

you want somebody who doesn't have a

any dog any uh what is it any dog in the

race

bring on daniel dale

bring on cnn's fact checker daniel dale

just have them sit there as an

advertisement for cnn and say look

here's my fact checker here's my expert

and just have him work it on his laptop

because it's a three hour show right if

you've got a three hour show

you can just check all the facts right

there you don't have to wonder

um scott am i going to take the pfizer

pill

i will give you the same

answer i gave for the vaccinations i'm

going to wait as long as possible

i might

but i'm going to wait as long as

possible before i do

so

let's say what else did happen for that

i do think that the doctor was right

about the no early treatment protocols

but i feel like he has a data problem

about monoclonal antibodies

my understanding at the beginning of the

pandemic is that we knew from

pretty much the beginning at least i did

i did have some information that you

didn't have a long time before you had

it that regeneron

works i can't tell you how i knew that

but i knew it you know months before it

was public and

but the problem i understood is to make

enough of it

can anybody give me a fact check on that

my understanding is that the monoclonal

antibodies were mostly a problem of how

fast you could make it

um because i think that what uh dr

mccullough

may be interpreting as part of that

problem of you know bad early treatment

protocols is that some of it just wasn't

available

like even if you knew it worked you

couldn't get it

right

um but i would uh i think he's spot on

by saying we should have released the

doctors to

you know maybe be a little more creative

with their solutions

because i don't know what does or does

not work but

if if doctors were experimenting with

their custom with their people and

giving them hydroxychloroquine or

something i feel like the doctor should

have been able to do that so i agree

with them on on the big picture

so

here's my bottom line

um i'm gonna

i hate to do this but i just feel like

it's important

because we're all trying to understand

who's credible and who's not

and i have an impression of the good dr

mccullough that i'm going to share with

you now that i'm going to tell you in

advance feels unfair even even though

i'm going to say it

right this feels unfair

but i also think it's important and i

just want you to have this filter

you've heard the phrase it takes one to

no one

well when i watch

i watch dr mccullough

he's one of me

think

all right so that's the part that's the

provocative part and by one of me i mean

a uh grandiose narcissist

now there are several versions of

narcissists and i put myself in the

category of a grandiose narcissist it's

a specific kind there some of the

narcissists are just toxic and bad for

the world

it's not that kind

the grandiose narcissist

is trying to

build up their own image

self-image and reputation

but by doing something useful for the

world

and making sure that you knew it

right i do that every day

i don't think you could have a better

example of a grandiose narcissist than

me

i literally tell you that's my business

model all the time you know it's more

like my psychological model than my

business model but i combined them

and

i literally want to help as many people

as i can that's you know the books

that's why the topics of the books i

write or that that's why i do the micro

lessons that's why i do most of this

but

i'm also self-aware

that i do it because that feeds

something in me right

that you know maybe i'm not proud of

but it's sort of like capitalism

you know nobody would say greed is

a positive element

of life but if you don't have greed as

part of your

capitalism model it doesn't work so i

would say that narcissism is just one of

those

double-edged things that's obnoxious can

have a downside but in some cases

the the person who wants to change the

world

and get credit for it

is contributing is uh let's say uh

bill gates or uh elon musk

you know are they grandiose narcissists

i don't know

i mean i think

i think musk is his brain just doesn't

work like other people's so you can't

make any assumptions there but if they

are i hope so

i hope they are

because they talk like it they talk like

you know i'm doing the best i can to

help the world

in the biggest way that i can

so we don't know how they internally

process it so when when i hear dr

mccullough talk

um the the way he talks you know about

his own qualifications etc and how he's

you know the the only one who knows the

right answer and he's the lone voice in

the wilderness and

going on all the big talk shows and

stuff like that he strikes me as someone

who needs this to be

to work for him

i i feel like

i don't feel his motivation is monetary

because some of you are going to say oh

who's paying him or you know is there

some way

he thinks he's going to make money off

of lecturing or something

giving speeches i doubt it

i didn't pick that up at all now again

right nobody's a mind reader right so

anything i say about another person's

internal thoughts you should

automatically say

well you know how do you know that

that's the right stance to take

but it's just my impression

that his motivation looks like he really

wants to help i think that's real

by the way

so you know if you could pick a personal

doctor

pick this one

he looks like he's a really good doctor

because i think he really really wants

to help people

but it's because it feeds him as well

and there's nothing wrong with that

nothing wrong with that that's not a

criticism

but i think he has that personality

and having that personality myself

i'll tell you there's a risk to it

if

if my hypothesis is right that we have

that in common

which is you can easily blind yourself

that you found the thing that will

change the world

do you know how many times i thought to

myself

i think i found it

i might be the only one who found this i

just found something that changes the

world

do you know how many times i've had that

thought

and then i have to use every every power

of rationality

to like

squeeze it down and say

okay

maybe you're being a little too gullible

maybe you're being a little too

optimistic about you know omicron being

a vaccination

you know maybe you're a little too

optimistic about this fusion technology

you know that sort of thing

so the blind spot that uh a grandiose

narcissist would have and i'm putting

myself in this category

is a little too much optimism about weak

what we can do

you feel that

have you ever seen me do that

to have too much optimism about what i

can do just personally to

make the world a better place

right

yeah and uh reed gfk junior

[Laughter]

[Music]

all right

jfk jr is probably

uh i'm sorry uh rfk right it's uh rfk

um

his credibility is really low you know

that right

which is not to say he didn't get this

one right

but here's what doesn't help

reading one person's book

i want rfk to be on joe rogan's show

sitting right next to daniel dale or

some fact checker you know could be

andres or anybody else

and then we'll have a conversation about

rfk okay

but if you're saying read rfk's book

you're telling me to do something that i

know

to be psychologically crippling

because you would get one person's

opinion and no counterpoint

that is like

that's like you telling me hey i'd like

you to run a marathon but could you

start to start the marathon by cutting

off one of your legs

that's what it feels like

thank you torah i appreciate that

is rfk still alive yes

so

just know this every time you tell me to

read a book or listen to one expert

i automatically think you're not good at

uh

analysis

right nothing personal because as i

often say

nobody's good at anything unless they

practice it right or if they've been

trained or if they have skills so people

have been trained

in data analysis are good at it

and people who have not been trained

think they're good at it but they don't

know the difference

uh read all the books

[Laughter]

you're right

uh what about the elon musk tweet well

we talked about his tweet about me the

other day

um

all right

scott's uh peru debunking need your own

comparisons um well i'm not sure if the

point you're making is that the debunks

themselves get debunked

but i would tell you this if you look at

say who is it is it factcheck.org

who sometimes debunks things that are

true

but when you see

somebody debunk something that's true

there's a way that they do it

which is sort of avoiding the question

or or modifying the question as they go

until you're not really even on the same

topic by the end of the fact check have

you noticed that

but a fact check

that i usually depend on

is one that says the claim is x

here's the data that shows us wrong

usually i'm going to go with a fact

check on that one usually

because if the person who made the claim

wasn't even aware

that there was data that debunked it

that's a problem

now if the person said i'm aware of the

data that looks like it debunks it but

there's a problem with that debunk then

i'd be oh okay now it's a tie

but if the person making the claim is

not aware

of the argument against it or doesn't

include it in their presentation just so

you know that they know it

i go with a debunk in those cases

so look for the debunks on the on the

question of peru and ivermectins make

your own decisions

uh

dismissing japan is a mistake just watch

dr john campbell huh is dr john campbell

somebody who might have appeared on the

show without a fact checker sitting next

to him

i'm just guessing

i'm just guessing

how many times can i tell you the same

thing

and you'll just say what about this

expert let's do it again

let's do it let's practice this

i'm going to tell you clearly as

possible that the last thing i'm

gonna take as credible is one rogue

expert talking to an interview who

doesn't know what the he's talking

about no that's not joe rogan he's great

at interviewing

um

so now you're supposed to say oh but

what about this expert who doesn't have

a fact checker

go ahead

see how that goes

can we just do this over and over again

until you give up

will you give up to tell me to

read this one book or this one expert it

never ever is a good idea not ever ever

ever

there will no it will not be an

exception

there will not be

but if there's an objective source that

shows the you know the plus and the

minuses and the whole picture i would

definitely like to see that

all right uh

ah

all right

just looking at your comments and i

think i'm just about done

yeah the new

the the thing that's missing from a live

stream

technology

is i would like to live stream and have

a split screen

with you know two remote or one remote

person and we're not there

now you think we are because you're

thinking of you know these um

streaming things that

combine things but they don't work

well enough to be a commercial item

so we're almost there if somebody like

google or something could create a zoom

alternative where i can do immediate

split screens and

and amazingly zoom doesn't do that

either

um

yeah multi-stream

that's what we need

we're only we're only just at the point

where

our wi-fi can handle that sort of thing

but we can do it now

doesn't instagram do that

i don't know i haven't used the

instagram live did they do that

uh it's in locals

no it isn't

it should be in locals but it's not

built in yet

uh are you still taking down att i think

they're gonna take down themselves

all right

yeah fact yeah restream none of those

solutions work if it runs through a

third-party software it's a

it's a non-starter you need one software

that does the whole thing as soon as you

add the other software you don't have a

stable solution

with the cats doing great stream yards

same problem yeah no third-party

software it's got to be

one piece of software that does it all

all right that's all i got for now and i

will talk to you

tomorrow