his you would disagree with. Number one, this is what I call a category problem. If you tried to figure out what's true or not, the first thing I do is say what category is it. I'll give you an example. Your neighbor says he saw a UFO and it abducted his family and took them away and then returned them intact the next day. That's a category that you can reasonably assume most of the things that are not true. Does it mean that your neighbor was not abducted by an alien? Nope, nope, does not mean that. This might be the one time it's true. But your starting point if you hear somebody was abducted by an alien is I'm going to say 95 percent chance that didn't happen. How often would you be right if you just went into it with a 95 percent chance that did not happen? Well so far you'd be right every time. Every time, right?

How about if you heard that your neighbor had built a fusion reactor in his garage, which by the way actually things that have happened. I think somebody actually did build a, I think it more than once somebody thinks they built a fusion reactor in their garage. That category, how often is that category turning out to be true? Well zero so far. But there might actually someday be somebody who made a fusion reactor in their garage. Could happen.

How about the inventor who invented a cure for cancer and it's going to trial and man does it look good. Worked in the animals, it worked in the test tube. It's going to cure most cancers. That's a category. How often does an individual claim in the cancer curing category turn out to be true? Rarely, five percent. Now we get to keep all the five percents that are true and so actually cancer cures are building up and actually getting pretty substantial at this point. But they're all the exceptions. It's just the exceptions we keep. We sort of forget about the ones that didn't work.

So those are three categories and there are lots more where as soon as you hear the category your brain should automatically go into the probably not mode. But still it could be the five percent, right?

Somebody said to me, Scott, wouldn't that describe you in 2016? Weren't you in the five percent who said Trump was going to win that election even though almost all the experts said no? So Scott, aren't you being a hypocrite because you are exactly what you describe as non-credible? To which I say good point. Exactly. If you believed me in 2016 you might have made a bad decision because I was a category that should have been wrong 95 percent of the time. But my five percent came through. Now I think it's true because I could see he had, I had some extra information, right? So it wasn't so much that I was a rogue. It was I just had the information you didn't have. If you had trained as a persuader and other people who would also have that training could see it too. So that was the special case. But I agree totally that if you were going to bet money on it, the smart money was betting against me. You get that right? I got that one right but the smart money would have been against me. And even I would have bet against me. You know if I were looking at me from the outside I would have bet against me because I was a category that's usually wrong.

All right, so I say also that the rogue doctor category, the doctor who is saying things that are quite different than the mainstream, is a category that is 95 percent wrong. So if you're going to bet against it every time, five percent of the time you'll lose your bet. Now is Dr. McCullough in the five percent or the 95? I don't know. I don't know. How would I know? How do you know? How could anybody know? It's unknowable.

I'll tell you what people said to me. They said, Scott, listen to the whole thing. If you listen to the whole thing it's way more credible. Do I agree? Absolutely. If you listen to the entire presentation of anybody who's wrong it will look really credible by the time you're done. Also anybody who's right. Those two will look the same to you because you can't really judge this rogue doctor. If he makes a claim I'm not going to look it up. I mean I could but I'm not. So be very, very careful.

Now let me give you a couple of hints that are by no means the end of the story. I'll tell you one thing that is biasing me terribly. And I'm going to give you a little persuasion lesson here. All right, now I want to be clear and this is a very subtle point but it's so important. This doesn't mean he's not credible. I'm going to play you a clip of Dr. McCullough's voice. I'm going to put it in the context of persuasion and I'm going to tell you that the voice technique he uses is non-persuasive. But that doesn't mean wrong. Okay, let me be clear. I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm saying he's choosing a style of communication which instantly smacks as non-credible to me. And I've described this before. I think, did I describe this only on locals or did I tell the YouTube people too? Have I described the pleading voice?

There are two ways to talk when you're persuading. One is the matter-of-fact voice where you're just laying out the facts and here they are, nothing to talk about. That's persuasive. But if you're saying this, look at the data, look at the data, that's the pleading voice. That's begging the viewer to believe you because you don't believe yourself. That's why it's non-persuasive. You sound like a person who hasn't convinced themselves because why are you talking that way?

Right now if you want to see an example of the best persuasive voice it's just really good. There's a series on Hulu I think called Dopesick. It's the story of the OxyContin and the Purdue company and the Sackler family. Now I've just watched the first part of it but there's a scene in there if you watch that. There's a salesperson who was played by an actor and then the actor is giving his pitch to a doctor. Listen to that. You want to see how to modulate your voice to be persuasive. I don't know if that was the actor's, what the actor brought to the role or if it was directed that way or written that way. It's a little unclear but some combination of the writing and the acting and the directing gives you perfect persuasion voice.

Now when you watch it don't be fooled by the fact that the actor also has a very pleasant voice, you know nice, a nice rich deep kind of voice. That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, right? That's not technique. That's just something he was born with. He may have a little technique but just listen to the matter-of-factness as he lays out the facts which you find out later or actually you find out soon are not facts. But the way that that salesperson lays it out, damn, you would think that was true. It is so persuasive even knowing it's not true. You think it sounds pretty good.

All right, now compare that with, I'm going to play just the clips and look for, this is Dr. McCullough on Joe Rogan's show. And listen to the voice and see if it sounds like matter of fact or pleading with you to believe.

"These books are basically non-fiction. They have a thousand citations in the Breaking Book showing how it was coordinated and planned. Now Bobby Kennedy has this book out, The Real Anthony Fauci. I'm the most mentioned physician in that book. I can tell you that if you want to find the evidence that Moderna was working on the vaccine before the virus ever emanated out of the lab, if you wanted to find the collusions and the operations between the Gates Foundation and GAVI and CEPI and Pfizer and Moderna and the vaccine manufacturers and the Wuhan lab and the National Institutes of Health and Ralph Baric, University of North Carolina engineering. Yes this is organized. If you want to see the Johns Hopkins planning seminar called the SPARS Pandemic in 2017 where they had a similar museum. People showed up. They wrote up their symposium findings. They published this. It says it's going to be a coronavirus. It's going to be related to MERS and SARS."

Now again I have to be really clear. The way he communicates biases me to think that it's not credible. But it could just be a technique problem. You get that right? It could be. Even in the not sped up playback. Yeah I think mine was sped up so don't be fooled by the rapidness of his talking. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the pleading quality which you could hear at that slow motion the same. It was also sounding pleading. But somebody's saying let's see if I can change the speed. I don't know if I have that option on the Twitter playback. I can't do that quickly. But if you'd like to do that yourself that's a fair comment. By the way that speeding it up changes how it's received. But I think you'll see that if you play it slowly you get the pleading. Just it's just slower. But you're right that wasn't fair to show it. So let me acknowledge that wasn't fair to show it at a higher speed. I didn't do that intentionally. I must have some setting in YouTube. But it doesn't mean he's wrong, right? You got to be really clear. Doesn't mean he's wrong. But he's using a communication style that screams not credible whether it is or not.

All right, so I hope you learned something. I hope you learned something from that. Let me tell you the other thing that gave me pause. Joe asked him about masks. Now what do you think a doctor should say about masks? Well he gave a very indirect answer which I felt was playing to the audience. It looked like his honest answer may have not been exactly what Joe Rogan's audience wanted to hear. That was just a feeling I got. Again I'm not a mind reader so I can't know what's in his head. That would be unfair. But I'll tell you the way I received it was he was tap dancing on masks. And the moment I heard him tap dance on masks I lost all belief in anything else he had to say. So as a general rule if somebody has a large message and there's only one part of it you understand and you know that part doesn't make sense, you are free to extend that lack of credibility to the whole. That would not be irrational if you knew there was just one part of it you could be certain about, right?

So I'm still seeing some complaints that the speeding it up changed everything. Let's look at it again tomorrow. I'll check it on lower speed. I don't think it changed everything. I think it did exacerbate it but the effect is still there. The pitch is not important except for how it's modulated, right? So it doesn't matter that he has a high-pitched voice or low-pitched voice. That's not part of persuasion. The low-pitched executive voice it can have a little persuasive value but you don't really need that. It's optional.

He has a great track record with his COVID patients. Do you know who else has a great track record with their COVID patients? Everybody. Because we've got really good treatments now plus most people get better.

By the way Dopesick, that is really well done. I thought that I wouldn't like it because it was just going to be sad and poorly made but it's actually made so well. Just the artistry of making it is really high. So it's really good to watch.

All right, so somebody asked if a cartoonist is credible. So I tweeted his question because he had a little graph there. The last I checked it 59 said I was credible, 22 say I'm a paid operative. 22 rounded up to 25. Yes that's exactly the number of people who answer every poll wrong no matter the question.

All right, here's a list of how to participate in a debate if you have nothing to say to me. You could use any of these phrases to show that you have put no thought whatsoever into your point of view and you just wanted to say something. So sometimes we just like to say something, you know, be part of it. So if you'd like to be part of a co