ccination that causes you to live longer? No. The thing that caused you to live longer is that the coronavirus doesn't kill you in the first place except less than one percent. So where the chicken virus kept chickens alive that would have otherwise not spread because they would have been dead, the coronavirus doesn't keep anybody alive as a percentage. Okay, I shouldn't put that in an absolute. As a percentage of people with coronavirus it's trivial because the people who die are less than one percent. Does that make sense? That the coronavirus doesn't change the number of people who have virus except reduce it because we know, we do know that if you get the vaccination you'll be spreading it for fewer days. So probably the vaccination creates, the coronavirus creates less infected people whereas the chicken virus created more infected chickens. Literally the opposite, right? So the chicken virus is opposite of what you should learn from coronavirus. Just remember this: More virus means more variants. Keeping chickens alive creates more virus. Keeping people alive doesn't change anything because they were going to be alive anyway except for the less than one percent.

How's my argument now? Remember I'm not a virologist. Most of you knew that. Most of you knew I'm not a virologist. But the person who first said this is a virologist, right? So the opinion I'm giving you has no credibility because it's coming from me. But now I'm going to drop the bomb on you. It came from somebody who actually knows the field. I'm just repeating it. Now I don't know what the general consensus is but I know that one expert said exactly what I just said. In a sense more virus means more variance and that's the end of it. More virus is more variance, period. So just look for wherever there's more virus, more variance.

So the Bret Weinstein, I'm seeing this in the comments, is that the virus forces evolution? No it doesn't. It doesn't force evolution. The virus is creating variants at exactly the same rate no matter what. It doesn't force any evolution. What it does is let things escape, right? It does let things escape but some things are going to escape anyway. So I think so. So let me just say this. Bret is also highly educated and I think in even in the correct fields largely speaking. Luke says now Scott knows more about biology than Bret Weinstein. Signed, who's biology expert? No I'm just telling you that somebody who does have the right expertise disagrees with him and I'm repeating that argument. Now what credibility should you put on my discussion of the variance? Low, low. You shouldn't put too much credibility in what I said. But I am trying to present the argument in a way that at least you can figure out what's wrong with it, right? So all I've added to it is the notion that more virus equals more variance with no exception. And that's something you can fact check. So now ask your experts, is that right? More virus just always means more variants. So just boil it down to that and let's get a fact check. Because could Bret Weinstein be right that the vaccinations are somehow promoting or causing variance? He could be. Definitely could be. I wouldn't know. But now you have a question. Does more virus cause more variants or does more blocking cause more variance? Good question.

All right. That is pretty much what I wanted to tell you today. Letter to God: Please give Scott a Jordan Peterson intervention and save boo. Why does Jordan Peterson need an intervention? What's the difference between observation and empirical evidence? Well I think level of rigor, you know. Empirical evidence suggests that you tried to collect it in an organized fashion whereas anecdotal just means you sort of ran into it. Well I don't know that Jordan Peterson needs any interventions. He seems to be, you know, I mean he has some medical problems but I can't help on that.

Itty bitty, thank you for that. Oh you liked my assist story yesterday. That's strange. Patrick Kerry says Bret agrees with your statement. You mean the statement that more virus means more variance? Is that right? So yeah I guess I should have been more careful with my response to that. I don't know exactly what Bret's opinion is on this so I shouldn't try to characterize it and then talk about it if I haven't seen the details. So just assume that everything I said about that is low credibility.

Why are we vertical today? Because so there's a weird Locals, I guess a bug or maybe a design flaw. It would be hard to explain why but it has to do with the fact that the only way I can see the comments and also have you in the right orientation is to have two screens. The only way I can see the comments is if I tweet and then I go to Twitter and open it and then it takes me to the right place. Otherwise I can't find it. I mean I could but I don't want to do it live while you're waiting. And so it's just an interface oddity that makes it difficult if you're pressed for time.

Yeah, the number of variants doesn't matter. It just matters if you get a bad one, right? Please read Steve Kirsch's analysis on the vaccines for balanced analysis. Mine's pretty balanced. Do you think that my take on the vaccines is not balanced? The reason you hate me, well those who do, is because it's balanced. I don't think anybody has a more balanced opinion than I do, do they? Somebody says I'm not balanced. What would be an example of that not being balanced on the vaccination? Be more specific. I'm open to that being true by the way. I'm not denying it. I'm asking for a specific so I can see if I can agree with you. Because I'm trying to be balanced. It seems to lean toward pro-vax for sure. Let me push back on that. So I think that's where this is coming from. People think that I speak more about things that are pro-vax. How many of you would agree with that? I think I would agree with it too. Do most of you see that, that I say more things that are pro-vax by their nature than anti-vax? Right, I agree with that too. That so that would be an observation that I think is just objectively true. Does that mean that I'm unbalanced? Does it mean that I'm unbalanced if I talk more about one side? Is that how that works? Is it by how much time you spend? Because that does matter. If you spend more time on something people do get the feeling that that means more to you. Well what if the information is biased in one direction? At least the official information is biased in one direction. If I talked about every claim on the internet that is not accepted by general science then there would be maybe even more content anti-vax. Would you agree with that? If I addressed every claim that's anti-vax I would be talking more about anti-vax stuff than pro-vax stuff. Do you think? Because there are a lot of claims on Twitter that are anti-vax. Now what is the reason that I don't talk about them? What is it about my approach that causes me to talk less about the many, many claims of vaccination? Somebody says lack of knowledge. I would argue that I see all of that because people want to send it to me. People are trying to change my mind or at least my approach and people are sending me the anti-vax stuff just all day long. I've seen it. I've seen a lot of it. So I think I'm well informed about what the anti-vax people are saying. Why do you think that I don't talk about it as much? How deep do you read it? Fairly deep. I mean as deep as I read other stuff. I don't think I skim it more than I skim anything else. Yeah, don't bring an allergy in yet because that just gets us off track.

Explain the agreement for ADE. Why don't you? ADE is what? Define ADE. Can somebody define ADE for me? What is that? The intervention is for you. All right. Scott, people