feels like that's just a serial killer vibe, doesn't it? I don't know. But she's pretty happy with herself.

All right. I also wonder if she owns a pet. Imagine if you had killed 500 mammals for fun. Does she have a dog? Does she have a dog? Because that dog would be really nervous. I mean would she ever look at her dog and think to herself I love my dog but oh man it would be fun to kill it. I'd love to just shoot my dog. If you've killed 500 mammals you don't think she fantasizes about shooting her own dog if she has one anyway.

Biden is allegedly, I think we need some confirmation on this story because I saw it in an Asian publication, but apparently he's, Biden is considering an executive order to push alternate supply chains to go around China specifically for tech stuff like chips and batteries and rare earth stuff. Now if that's true that Biden has an EO coming in which we're going to build out a separate supply chain that doesn't involve China I would be giving Biden a lot of credit for that.

Now I would think that he wouldn't do it if Trump had not gotten the ball rolling in turning the opinion of the United States citizens against China. If Trump had not made it possible for Biden to do this I don't think he could have. So I'm good. So if this happens I will give Biden credit because it, you know that's the rule, right? If something good happens under his administration I'm going to give him credit. But we can put an asterisk next to it and say you know it wouldn't have happened without Trump. But still Biden has to do it so he gets credit if he does. And this would be very important but I don't know if it's true yet.

Apparently Biden has not declared yet that the Uyghur situation in China is a genocide. I guess Trump made that declaration just before he left to sort of leave it with Biden as a problem. And Biden he has not decided to do that. Canada however, the parliament voted Monday to pass a non-binding motion classifying China as being involved in a genocide. So Canada, good work. United States look at Canada. Come on Biden. Canada did it. You can do it. Do it. Do it Joe. Do it.

All right. And I remind you that we are in a war with China and they're killing 70,000 people a year with fentanyl which they easily could stop because there's one guy in charge of it. We've already told them who his name is. They know where he is. He's still doing it. So China has decided explicitly to send us fentanyl and kill us and to not stop it. If we sent them some fentanyl their way it would not be inappropriate. Probably not a good idea but it would not be morally wrong to fight fire with fire. That's just my opinion. That's just my opinion.

Somebody says where is Jack Ma? I don't know. He's got a problem.

All right. My next segment called experts are dumb. And I've been having an online conversation with a number of doctors and ER doctors and pediatricians who are very mad at me for having opinions. Oh they're very mad at me because if you've noticed I am not a doctor and apparently you can't have doctor-related opinions if you're not one because they'll be pretty mad at you. Pretty bad.

But here's what I've learned. The whole question about the seasonal flu, the regular flu killing 50,000 people a year which I am skeptical of, I've been learning more about that. And when I hear that children were dying from it I had some questions. And here's what I've learned. That even if you don't have an underlying problem that has a name to it the regular flu can kill you if you're a child under specific conditions. And I guess the specific condition is a high viral load with some kind of difference in the architecture of your lungs that would make you somewhat unique. And maybe something about the immune system not being developed. I don't know about that. But that there's something different about the children who die from the flu. Both an exposure level and architecture of the lungs.

Now that sort of opens up the question of what it means to be healthy. What's the definition? Would that be a definition of a healthy child dying from the virus when 99.9 percent of children don't and don't even get close to death? So would you say that that's a healthy child when they can't survive the environment that they are meant to be in?

So if you say yes that kid is completely healthy because if they didn't have access to this virus they'd be fine. But what would you say about a bubble boy? Somebody who if they left their bubble almost any kind of infection would kill them. When they're inside the bubble do you call them healthy? Because they can live out their whole life without a physical problem if they don't get infected. So is that person healthy?

See you can see how the definition of what healthy means is driving the discussion. It's not about what's happening. It's about what you insist is the word you're going to use. That's word thinking I call it. It's people who think they're arguing but they're really trying to hold on to a definition or win by defining the word the way that works for them.

Here's my definition of healthy. It's different from the medical definition. It's more of a common sense definition. It goes like this. If you are not capable of surviving the environment for which you are naturally born into such as just living in the atmosphere I don't know that I would call that healthy. I would call that somebody who has a major health problem because the normal environment operating just the way you think it will will kill them but it wouldn't kill 99.9 percent of people who had exactly the same exposure. I would call that unhealthy by definition.

But in a medical sense if they have not been exposed to the thing that's going to hurt them doctors are going to say no that's perfectly healthy. It's the virus that killed them. That's kind of a definitional problem, isn't it? Aren't we both talking about the same thing that you need the virus but you also need the person to have a specific situation going on? And if you call that specific situation perfectly healthy it just happens to cause you to die if it comes in contact with something that is commonly in your environment. I'm not sure I would call that healthy.

So I'm not, I don't know that there's a disagreement about that other than what word you want to use for it. But on top of that is the question of why we don't hear about people dying of the regular flu when they're allegedly dying in the same numbers as people who die from car accidents and overdoses and we hear about them all the time. We personally know people have died from those other things. Almost every adult does. But I don't know anybody who died in regular flu.

So then somebody on social media said Scott you know you're finally on our side now. We've been saying the same thing about coronavirus that the way it's counted is probably wrong. To which I say wait a minute no. I am making the opposite point. Completely opposite point. If you think that me questioning the statistics of regular seasonal flu is sort of the same argument as the people who are questioning the number of people dying from coronavirus you have it a hundred percent backwards. They're opposites.

The question is why does my observation as just living in the world not agree with the science in the case of the normal flu? There's a disagreement. My observation is I haven't seen anybody die of regular flu. Now I'm not saying the children haven't died. There are enough reports that that's obviously true. But how come I have so many examples of COVID? I observe people I know who know other people etc. who have really died of COVID and there are half a million of them.

In the case of COVID the science says a whole bunch of people are dying. My observation is that a whole bunch of people are dying. Completely compatible. Observation and scientific opinion totally match. Now that doesn't mean they're both right but at least they match. In the regular flu deaths my observation is nowhere near the scientific opinion. That's the problem.

I'm not making a statement about what the answer is to unravel that. It's a question. It's a legitimate question meaning I don't have the answer and I'm not telling you that the question tells you what to think about the answer. If you jump to a conclusion because I ask a question that's sort of on you because I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I actually don't know why this mystery endures that the observation and the science don't match.

All right. So let's see what else we got here. Let me ask you this question just to make it more provocative. If somebody has an allergy to peanuts, allergy to peanuts, and they go forth in the world and they encounter some peanuts and they die what does the death certificate say? If you are allergic to peanuts you're exposed to them and then you die would the death certificate say killed by peanuts? What do you think? Would the death certificate say that? Killed by peanuts. Cause of death: peanuts? No.

But if you get exposed to the virus let's say the regular seasonal virus the cause of death would be the virus. But why isn't the cause of death with the peanut the peanut? And the answer to what the death certificate says is anaphylactic shock, right? That's what the death certificate would say. Now you need both. The person to have a biological genetic propensity and then you also need the peanut. If you only have one or the other the person is alive. Both situations. Gotta have a peanut. Gotta have a natural reaction to it.

How's that different from the virus? If you only have the virus and 99.9 percent of the people let's say the seasonal virus not the coronavirus if you only have the seasonal virus and your body is like 99.9 percent of all other bodies no problem. It's only when you have both situations. A virus plus a body that by its design or nature can't handle it. So in one case you say the cause of death is the virus. In the other case you say it's the reaction to the virus based on peanut plus whatever you naturally have going on. You see that they're handled differently, right?

Now my only point is we're talking about definitions of words. It's not maybe not a real argument.

All right. Analogy. Now an analogy can help you understand a concept which is what I just did. It doesn't help you win an argument. So it would not be true that therefore peanuts are handled this way therefore I'm right about viruses. That would be irrational because it's just two different situations. But if the peanut thing makes you ask the question hey if you need two things the peanut and the person being in a special situation it helps you think differently about the other one. So helping you think differently is what it does. It doesn't, it's not like a reason. So that's the difference.

Why doesn't pointing out hypocrisy work? I don't know the answer to that except I'll speculate. And I've said forever that pointing out somebody's hypocrisy never makes them change their mind. And the reason is they know they're doing it. So the people who are being hypocritical they know they're being hypocritical. They're doing it because they're taking a side. They're on a team.

So if you point out to somebody hey you're being hypocritical you're not telling them something they don't know. You have not introduced new information. They never meant to be serious. They're just making an argument because they think it might work. That's all. That's all. So yeah hypocrisy, pointing it out will never change anybody's opinion. I've never seen it. Have you? Have you ever seen anybody change their opinion because somebody said hey you're a hypocrite and then the person says oh yeah yeah I hadn't really looked at it that way but now that you mention it I'm a hypocrite. I change my mind. I think I'll not be a hypocrite. No. They will immediately tell you the situations are different. That's it. They'll just say that's a different situation. I'm not a hypocrite.

Did the butter kill the man with a heart attack? Butter is good for you. You have to use a better example. We used to think butter was bad but we learned it is not. I believe that's the current science is that butter is not bad for you. All right. Like eating meat but being against killing giraffes is hypocrisy. Yeah so I don't need meat so I can say anything I want about giraffes. But I don't think that the game hunting and big game hunting and killing animals for food that is not the same thing. Yeah I could certainly understand that you have to kill something to eat. That's different.

No meat for you. The only reason I don't eat meat is because I don't digest it well. I do eat some fish but I don't love it. I just do it for the health.

All right. Somebody says big game hunting supports big game. Well the experts based on reading about it this morning a lot of experts are saying that that is a ridiculous argument and that big game hunting does not support big game. There's an argument that it does but smart people say that's a ridiculous argument. I don't know who's right but it doesn't sound like a good argument to me.

Somebody says let's see. Robo Steve says Scott tying himself in knots trying to defend his nonsense. Is that a reason? Is that a good comment right there? Tying myself in knots trying to defend my reasons. Let me tell you if you think, let me ask the rest of you here. Many of you disagree with me on lots of different things which is part of the fun of coming here, right? If you agreed with me all the time I don't know it would be as much fun. But would you say for the benefit of Steve here that even when you disagree with me am I irrational often? Are my arguments unreasonable even when you disagree with me? Don't you think that at least the arguments got some merit? I mean you might think I have a fact wrong or maybe you think I haven't considered everything but do you think my arguments are twisted in pretzels?

It's hard to know based on the comments whether people just agree with me and so therefore I look brilliant. If you agree with somebody they look brilliant in general. Yeah I would like to suggest that whoever says I'm tying myself in pretzels with my argument I'm not saying I'm right all the time or anything like that but I don't think you'll find the arguments are too irrational. And when they are people point it out and sometimes I adjust.

All right. Somebody says sometimes you can say maybe I got that wrong though. That flu thing was like a pretzel. Well give me an example. See here's my contention that those of you who are having the and whoever says sophistry as well. Those of you who say that