ence.

So there's that. All right. So some of you in the comments are saying survival of the fittest. How many of you in the comments think that survival of the fittest can explain why the big variants get out past the vaccines and the weaker ones don't? Is it survival of the fittest? Because that's the thing, right? You've all studied evolution, survival of the fittest. How many of you know that survival of the fittest is not science and that it's not evolution and that survival of the fittest doesn't exist? How many of you know that? How many of you know that the theory of evolution does not include survival of the fittest? That's completely debunked. How many of you knew that?

Somebody was about to say that. And do you know who debunked it? Stephen Jay Gould, I think probably the top evolutionary biologist in the country. I think he's passed away now. But it's debunked by the top evolution scientist and agreed by all of science. There's nobody in the evolution field who thinks survival of the fittest is a thing. Did you know that? Because so many of you said we have survival of the fittest. You just apply it to the virus. But it doesn't exist anywhere. It's not a thing. Most people think it is. It's sort of like people believe that Trump said you know the Nazis were fine people. People think that Trump said drink bleach. It just didn't happen. None of those things happened and there's no such thing as survival of the fittest. It doesn't exist.

Do you know what does exist instead? Survival of things that didn't die. It's a big difference, right? So if you had a species that was just perfectly well suited but then let's say a tsunami kills everybody, was that group unfit? No, they just had bad luck. There was a tsunami, they got them all. Right? So there's luck and there's survival of things that survive. But that's it. There's just survival of things that survived. So in the world of survival of things that survive, which is the whole explanation, just some things survive. They get lucky. That's it.

No it's not semantics. It's not even close to just being semantics. If you don't see the difference between survival of the fittest and survival of the random you're missing a really big point. I'm saying that the way we evolve is survival of the random. It's not the fittest. Sometimes it is but it's coincidence.

All right. So it's not so much natural selection. It's just chance would be a better way to say it. It's just chance. So I don't see how chance can be part of the explanation.

But we are warned by Ian Martis that there's a bigger risk called original antigenic sin. How many of you have heard of that? Raise your hands if you've ever heard of original antigenic sin. I'm going to try to explain it but forgive me because I don't understand this field well enough. So I'll give you the dumb person's, you know, the idiot's definition.

It goes like this. If your immune system has been trained against a particular attacker, let's say a virus, you have a kind of immunity memory and that immunity memory could work against you as well as for you. And the way it could work against you is that when a new virus comes in, a variant let's say, your immune system says I know, I know exactly what to do and it ramps up to fight the virus but it's a different virus. It's just one that's like it. Now your immune system is all ramped up to fight the wrong thing. It's actually working overtime on the wrong thing because it said I think that virus is a lot like that other one. So it goes to work on the wrong virus and then the right one just has a clear channel. Now that apparently that's a real thing which has happened in the past in different situations. So just know that that's out there.

All right. I don't know what the size of that risk