Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 10, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

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 myocardi…

← Previous segment →

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 him full respect because you don't want to shut him down or make it into some kind of a fight. So I don't know if anybody really realizes how good Joe Rogan is at this stuff right? I mean who's better really? It's hard to think of anybody especially because he gives them enough time to say whatever they want. My only problem with that model is that there should be an expert there or an expert on the other side. Why? Let me give you an example. When Dr. McCullough said one of the reasons that we know — in fact check me on this because I don't want to say a claim that he didn't make so just correct me in real time if I say something wrong — when Joe Rogan was asking him effectively why haven't other countries — why is it if there's something going on with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine why is it it's happening everywhere at the same time? It's exactly the right question right? I've asked that question a number of times which is if these things work wouldn't there be somewhere on earth where they're working? Because even though you can imagine an American conspiracy and even a global conspiracy easy to imagine but would it get every country? Because every country had a pandemic. Every one. You tell me there's not one little country that couldn't just say all right we're going to use ivermectin because we don't have vaccinations we'll just get rid of it.

So in order for the doctor's opinion that the signal is very strong — we don't have a randomized controlled trial everybody would like that but it's impractical within the time frame — he's saying that the signal of the benefits of these drugs is so high from studies that are not perfect and the risk is so low that clearly it makes sense. And then Joe kept pushing on that question about why are these other countries not having the big result. And then here's the payoff. And so then the doctor proved his thesis by giving you several examples where ivermectin had completely squashed the pandemic in their country. So are you good? So examples were Peru, Mexico, I think he said it's a first level thing in Japan but the Asian — none of the Asian countries had trouble with it so I think that's a special case. So let's just take two of them: Mexico and I think India. India might have been on his list.

What would happen if you spend five minutes googling Peru and ivermectin? Well you would find out that it did not change anything in Peru. So the claim that it worked in Peru there's no data to support that. In fact the data says the opposite. You can see the introduction of it and you don't see an effect. Mexico, no data to support it. India, no data to support it. And there is that speculation that ivermectin might take care of worms so well that's what it's for. So if it did that it might help some people who would have had one extra challenge. To get rid of that challenge maybe they can survive the COVID better but it wouldn't be a direct effect on the COVID under that theory.

So if you believe that the doctor's hypothesis is correct that these drugs have a signal they're working then you must explain to yourself why his biggest examples are clearly debunked. Now how do I know the debunk isn't wrong right? Well as Peru don't you think if Peru had used ivermectin and just squashed the pandemic you don't think more people would be taking ivermectin really? Yeah if that really happened this would be over. If that was true clearly it's not true. It's not true anywhere. In fact every example he gave where people are using it with success just doesn't exist. Yeah and you can check for yourself. Just google it. Google his name or google Peru and ivermectin. Just google it up. You see for yourself. Five minutes. None of his examples are real.

Now given the Andreas Backhaus example where we saw that at least in that one example app

Context —

arently we're not — I can't read his mind right but from the outside looking in it looks like he misjudged a data analysis or at least mischaracterized it. Secondly the examples he used as the main things that prove his point. And here's my problem with the Joe Rogan model. If Andreas Backhaus was sitting in the chair next to him Andreas would take out his laptop and say here you go that example i…

Next segment → →