rms of what this could mean for the planet. It's a 10 and a 10.

Did you know that this news is a 10 out of 10 for the health of the planet? I mean this is so big it's almost incalculable if it works. Right now even if it doesn't work, like I said, it probably moves us closer to the one that does. You know, they might have to tweak it or whatever. But this is amazing news. Is it the top headline? No, no. Is there anything more important happening in the world than this? Yeah, you know, the pandemic and you know China is rising and we've got genocide, and those things. But this is right up there. This is one of the biggest stories on the planet. Golden age.

What do you think? I think the golden age is coming.

There's more on this too. Jobs report came out. It's a little less than people expected. Is that bad news? The jobs report came out and there are fewer people going back to work than people hoped. Is that good news or bad news? Nothing. It's nothing news, because there's so many jobs that are unfilled. We don't have anything like an employment problem. So you can actually just stop talking about employment. It actually doesn't matter.

Have you ever seen a time in the history of, well, your life, have you ever seen a time when the employment rate didn't even matter? It was like the one statistic that we all thought was the most important. Your employment levels basically tell you how the entire economy is going to go. How the entire economy goes tells you everything normally. But we've reached this bizarre situation where there are open jobs and there are people without those jobs, and they're not especially hurrying to get them because they have the benefits from the government largesse. So the jobs report means nothing.

But I imagine the stock market will move anyway. You know, it'll — well, let me check. Did the stock market move on the jobs report? Because it shouldn't. And the answer is the market went up. All right. So as I predicted, the fact that the jobs report is not excellent didn't change the market at all. And it shouldn't. So that's actually irrational for once it's rational.

All right, let's put the Dilbert filter on this question about the Wuhan lab and the Fauci stuff. So here's some little background and new things that we're learning about it. I guess Dr. Fauci gave a wide-ranging interview recently in which he said he was asked if he believed his own National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases could have any responsibility for the global pandemic.

Now the reasoning here is that maybe he approved — it was part of approving some funding that made its way through the Wuhan lab that may have been involved in some way in gain of function, may have contributed to the outbreak, is at least the allegation and or question. And here's how Dr. Fauci answered it. He said, quote, "Are you really saying that we are implicated because we gave a multi-billion dollar institution 120,000 a year for bat surveillance?" Now this is according to the Financial Times, and they didn't publish the question he was asked, but the answer is pretty interesting without the question. I hope we're not losing any context here. So just put a little check mark in that box in your brain that says might be some missing context. But for now I'm going to treat it like it's true.

So here's the first Dilbert filter. You're going to talk to your boss and you want to ask him for a lot of money. All right, so you go to your boss, you say, I need a lot of money. What's the best way to express it? Well, if you want it to sound like it's a small amount of money, you say it's 120,000 per year. Not that much. If you want to make it sound like a large amount of money, you say it's 600,000, because that's what five years of 120,000 dollars gets you. So Fauci calls it 120,000 a year. His critics call it 600,000. So the first thing is the Dilbert principle is beware of the weasel numbers. So weasel numbers comes right out of Dilbert, right? Every big organization does weasel numbers where they may be accurate, but where you focus and whether you say it's one year or multiple years is really just persuasion. It's just corporate organizational, right? So that's the first thing.

Number two, how do you know that any specific money got spent in a way that has nothing to do with gain of function? It's a multi-billion dollar operation, presumably with lots of shared and overlapping functions and equipment. Probably the spaces that they use probably overlap with whoever may or may not be doing gain of function, with people doing other things. So if you pump a little bit of money into this big organization full of Dilberty scientists, how do you know if the money was spent on anything? What if there was a lab that they needed to build for gain of function but they also needed it for other reasons? Did the money fund the gain of function or was it going to happen anyway because they needed to build a lab that does a number of things?

I'm not entirely sure you can even determine what is gain of function even if they're doing it right now. I believe Fauci actually said, you know, we don't have control of what happens after the money goes over there, and we don't even have a lot of visibility. We were just sort of trusting that things were going well. So there are certainly some big questions about oversight and ability to know what's happening over there. So that's a very Dilberty situation. You give a bunch of money to somebody and you don't exactly know why they're spending it, right?

The Dilbert filter works on every part of this. If you just assume that it works like every other big corporation, every other big organization, everything makes sense. Like suddenly you go, oh, okay, so it makes sense.

Here's some other Dilberty examples. Weasel words. In any big corporation, in any Dilberty situation, people are going to use weasel words. Here's an example. Fauci refers to funding, quote, "bat surveillance." Does funding bat surveillance include or not include gain of function? Do you know? I don't know. I don't know if the big category that you funded is bat surveillance. What's in that? Is part of your bat surveillance maybe tweaking a little bit? I don't know. Do you know? So this is classic weasel wording. I don't know why would you talk about gain of function? We just got some bat surveillance here.

Now question: Why was it done in Wuhan? Was it because they were closer to the bats and the wet markets and so they could do a little more direct research because they're right there where things happen? Maybe. Do you know what would be another good reason to fund the Wuhan lab instead of doing it in the United States? Anybody? Anybody? What would be a perfectly smart reason to fund this research in China instead of Boston? What would be a good reason to do that besides the fact that they have access to more of the wildlife implicated in this? Somebody says no snitches. Maybe in case of escape.

Let me ask you this. If you knew that Dr. Fauci had some money to look into being more cautious about bat viruses, if you knew he had some money and it was going to be spent for that, would you want him to build that lab or fund a lab to do this where you live? Or would you like to fund this lab in the middle of a Chinese population center? I feel as if maybe that wasn't the worst idea in the world.

Now I don't know if this research, we could trust what they learned from it to all come our way, or maybe they're doing stuff that only goes to the Chinese government. That's a big problem. That's a big problem. And the lack of transparency, it's a big problem. But I don't think you could ignore the fact that you're happy it wasn't in Boston. Anybody? Anybody? You're still happy it was over there, right? And I can't imagine that wasn't part of the decision. Let's get that over there. We don't want it around here.

And if Wuhan had closed down a little more effectively, if China had closed down more effectively, as effective as they were, maybe that wouldn't have gotten out. So it wasn't a bad idea to put that away from us.

All right, here's some more Dilbert filter on this. Does it seem to you that the entire reason that we're so confused about what got funded over there and who funded what to do what, it seems like a cover your ass situation, right? There is a report that even people in the State Department were saying no, don't push this Wuhan lab leak because then people are going to ask questions about our stuff. Is that reasonable? Would you think it were reasonable that the United States, anybody associated with this kind of work, is it reasonable for them to say, you know, if we start asking questions about the Wuhan lab, there's no way you can contain that. They're going to be asking questions about us next because you just can't separate it. You just can't.

So would it be reasonable to say that the United States knew they were doing something wrong and that's why they wanted to cover their ass? In the comments, answer this question. This will test your worldliness, how much do you understand about reality and the way things work. I forgot how I asked the question now. I don't know what the yes means, but the question should be, do you think that the U.S., the people who were in the know, do you think that they would try to stop the questions about the Wuhan lab unless they were guilty of something themselves? Unless they were guilty of something themselves. Why else would they do it, right?

Well, let me ask you this. Let me give you a hypothetical, and this might help you a little bit. Let's say you're married and you're going to go golfing, and one member of the foursome that you're going to go with happens to be the brother of your ex-girlfriend. Would you want your wife to be asking a lot of questions about your golf game? And if you said, yeah, I just went, we golfed and just had a foursome. It was a good time. And you didn't mention that one of the foursome was the brother of your ex-girlfriend. And then your wife finds out, wait a minute, you golfed with the brother of your ex-girlfriend. Well now there's a fight, right? Is that because you're guilty? Were you trying to find out some more about her because you're interested? In the real world, the fact that you're guilty or innocent has nothing to do with whether you want people to look into your stuff.

Take your phone. You live a completely clean life. Everything that you've ever done since your marriage and before is clean, and your conscience is free. There's nothing on your phone. No flirting, no messages, no anything. Hand it to your spouse and say, spouse, I'm totally free of any guilt. Just take a look through my phone. Go ahead. Will your spouse find something to be really mad at you about? Remember, there's nothing on your phone incriminating. Nothing. What will your spouse find? Well, you'll be divorced in about an hour. You'll be divorced because your spouse will find plenty of things that you thought were innocent and were but look pretty sketchy if you're looking at it out of context, right? Pretty sketchy.

So in the real world, you should try like hell not to get people to look into your stuff no matter if you're guilty or not. It's the most basic hygiene of safety you could ever practice. Don't look into my stuff unless you've got a warrant, right?

So what do you make of the fact that there were Americans who were also pushing to not look into the lab as the main cause of the thing? To me that's just normal Dilbert behavior. It doesn't mean they knew they were guilty. It could mean that. I'm not ruling it out. I'm just saying it could go either way, and you would always get the same result. They would always resist that, and should.

Next, here's the other Dilberty filter. Find a scapegoat. Everybody wants a scapegoat, right? Dr. Fauci, he'll be our scapegoat, or China. China will be our scapegoat, or Trump, mean old orange man. He'll be our scapegoat. But we need scapegoats. It's the most Dilberty thing you can do. It doesn't matter what happened or who did what. We just need to find who's to blame. Blame.

Do you think it'll make any difference if we confirm that China knew it came from the lab and it did? What difference will that make? Seriously, we're not going to change our security protocols in any way because we already suspect it could have come from there, or if even if it didn't come from there, we're still going to beef up security because of the worry. So it won't have any effect on security because presumably we're already doing everything we can to increase that.

China is not going to admit culpability, so it's just going to be, hey, you did this. Look at all our proof. And then China's saying, hey, you made that up. No, we didn't make it up. Look, here's all our evidence. Here's the video. Here's the scientist talking about it. Here's our 15 witnesses. It's proof. Nobody could doubt this. Absolute total proof. Here you go. What would China say? Nope, nope, no, that's not