Back to episode — Episode 1595 Scott Adams - A Deal With Russia, and Evaluating a Rogue Doctor's Credibility
Context —
ght because he's on all of their sides. He's just telling you what works and what doesn't. That's it. There's nothing else there. He's just this works, this doesn't, based on the data. You know debunk this, debunk that. But if you take his impeccable persuasion skills you add it with probably a better ability to analyze things than anybody else who's in this conversation, my God he is cutting a sw…
← Previous segment →them had myocarditis and these are people who had been vaccinated. So he tweeted that. Now that's pretty — yeah look at this Scott is waking up right. So the doctor who's a very highly qualified expert both in cardiology and I believe virology if I'm correct, right, the two most relevant expertise. And he says that these vaccinated people, 98 percent of them and they're young, had in fact myocarditis. So that's what the expert said and he sent that around. Am I woke enough yet? Does anybody think I'm woke enough now?
On YouTube there's somebody here say, "Oh now you're getting it aren't you." Okay but as we mentioned the good doctor is an expert in cardiology and virology but not data analysis. Not data analysis. I'll tell you somebody who's good at data analysis: Andreas Backhaus who looked at that tweet and informs us that the 98 people who had myocarditis are selected from a group of people who had myocarditis. Does it sound like I said that wrong? No they found out that 98 percent of the people with myocarditis have myocarditis. That's what they found out because they only study people who had clear symptoms of myocarditis. If you study people that the doctors say well that's definitely myocarditis and then they look into it and they do the imaging they go yep sure enough there's some myocarditis there. What would you expect? All it says is doctors are pretty good at spotting myocarditis. But so that's what Andreas points out that it was a completely misleading headline. But this is something that your doctor who is very qualified as far as I can tell in all the relevant fields except data analysis.
So I did as you requested and listened to Dr. McCullough on Joe Rogan and here are some of my thoughts. He said a bunch of things I agree with first of all. So for a long time I was listening and I was thinking where's the provocative part because I agree with that, I agree with that, I agree with that. But as things went it got a little more interesting. So he did not see — the doctor did not see some obvious conspiracy theory to prevent hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. So it didn't sound like he was saying there was some organized conspiracy. Would you agree those who watched it? He was not claiming that. He was claiming incompetence. Now do I disagree with the notion that there was incompetence especially about early treatment options? I do not disagree. Does anybody? It was a fog of war. Everybody trying as hard as they could. Bureaucracies blah blah. You would expect massive amounts of incompetence as we struggle to get the right answers. So I think that's a fair characterization of what happened. A lot of incompetence but that's to be expected. Not appreciated, not expected.
Now here are some claims. And by the way Joe Rogan I thought did a really good job in
Context —
the interview. I don't know for those of you who watched it I thought Joe took just the right tone of letting the doctor speak but pushing really hard on some questions that the doctor wasn't quite answering to my satisfaction. I thought he did a really good job on that and it's really hard to hit that exact tone where you're clearly being skeptical about what he's saying but you're still showing…
Next segment → →