into cognitive dissonance. And when you look at my tweet and you see the comments you'll see there's all word salad but it'll be word salad you think makes sense because the person who wrote it thinks it makes sense.

Let me give you some. I know you're skeptical. I'm going to read you some of the explanations of people who are very smart by the way. So everybody who gave these explanations of how evolution would cause the variants to be dominant, they're smart people but they're showing all the tells of cognitive dissonance. I'll give you some examples.

Well so far let's start with this whiteboard. Let's say there are two situations. There's a person with no vaccination and a person who's vaccinated. Let's say the non-vaccinated person gets the regular alpha virus but it mutates inside them and the mutation is a new variant and then it spreads. Everybody agrees that can happen, right? That it can happen that you can get the regular virus but it mutates inside the person and then what comes out the other end is a new variant and then that variant could spread. That's if you don't have a vaccination.

But what if you do have a vaccination? Well in that case the alpha virus goes in, it mutates, and then a new variant comes out and it spreads. What was the difference between the vaccinated person and the non-vaccinated person? Nothing. Because both of them have the virus in them. Both of them can spread it. There's no difference.

So now everybody who is positive there's a difference has to explain this and that triggers cognitive dissonance.

Now let me say as clearly as possible I don't know if vaccinations cause more variants. I don't know. I mean I legitimately don't know and I'm not sure I even am biased in one direction. All I do know is that when people try to explain it they're spinning into cognitive dissonance. That I do know. So I can say that with great confidence. You know it's something I study.

So let me give some examples again. These are smart people with smart explanations. A vaccine which targets a specific part of a virus will mean the small mutations in the virus can survive while the targeted virus cannot. Since viruses are mutating all the time eventually one of these mutants aka variants will become dominant. How'd that happen? How did one of them become dominant? Just by being more viral, right?

In my example the vaccinated or the unvaccinated person, which of these cases is there going to be more variants? Well I would say that the vaccinated person has less virus to begin with and less chance of spreading it. So I would think there would be fewer variants if you got vaccinated. I don't know that that's true. I'm just saying that's where the logic takes it with the limited information I have.

So here's my question. What would make the variant survive? And I'm hearing things like well the old virus and the new variant are fighting it out and one is compelled. Nothing compels a virus. If you have two viruses in you they both would spread. If you have the delta it spreads. If you have the other one it spreads. So I can see why there would be more. Well actually there's just no mechanism described here.

Now then other people use analogies but the analogies fall apart. I'll give you one analogy that was used. If you're trying to breed small dogs let's say you kill all the big dogs and then you breed the small ones and then you do the same round again. Whatever the largest puppies are you kill all of them and then only small puppies grow up and then they have babies and they're small, right? So that's the analogy. So the virus would be like that? No it wouldn't because the virus doesn't kill all puppies. The virus doesn't kill all anything. It just reduces it. So the analogy would be if you're trying to breed small puppies you take all puppies and kill 10% of them. How does that help? So the analogy just falls apart because there's always some difference in the analogy from the original. It's a big differ