e it. Have you met any private doctors who agree with him but just don't want to say it? There must be some of those, right? But we don't live in a world where anybody can shut down an entire profession. I don't think that can happen.

You just Google it Scott. Google what? You've got to be a little more specific than just Google it. Now if you say there are in fact many doctors who publicly agree with Dr. Malone I'd like to see them on interviews. Get a few more of them. You know it'd be great. Get like three of those doctors, bring them in and say here's some claims made, what do you think? I'd like, I'd watch that.

All right. But I believe it is not really a good understanding of the world if you believe an entire profession can be hive-minded that easily. Pick any category of debate in this country. Do we have any category of debate on any topic from climate change to whatever? Do we have any topic that you can get this many people on one side? Not really. You can't get that many people on one side over anything. And people will take wild risks that you wouldn't take. Would any of you take the risks that I take with your careers? I guess I'm a good test case. You've seen how many risks I take with my career. Would you do that? Well somebody says you're rich but I did it before I was rich. I did get fired from my day job before my Dilbert job took off because I took a big risk. Yeah no but even before I had the fuck you money. You're right about that.

Oh here we go. Nathan says, now I haven't read Nathan's whole comment but I'm going to make a prediction that there's something not specific here. Here we go. Nathan says people are mad at you meaning me because you say things that are not true. Okay can you give me an example? There won't be one. And give yourself outs. Okay that's generic. So so far this would be a sign of cognitive dissonance because it's that generic thing. But let's see if he goes further. He says Malone is head of organization consisting of sixteen thousand doctors that agree with him on COVID issues. It's called the Unity Project. That is a claim which could easily be checked.

So let's take the specific data that Dr. Malone got kicked off of Twitter. Would anybody like to take a bet that his 16,000 people in his Unity Project disagree with the data? How many of you think that his 16,000 people who agree with him in general also agree that the data he promoted on Twitter was accurate? Would anybody want to take a bet with me? I'll bet that the majority of the people that you say agree with him would say that the specific data that he got kicked off of Twitter for was not reliable or it had been misinterpreted. Anybody want to take the bet? You don't have to agree with every single subject. Yes but the only things we're talking about with Malone are what he got kicked off of social media for. And I'm going to make a prediction that the people who are on his side don't agree with him on the stuff he got kicked off of Twitter for. Anybody want to take the bet? You'd only need to find one person. Just find one other person who thinks that data was accurate. I don't think you can.

So the problem with Malone is, and somebody also said that they said I was not giving Dr. Malone the credit he deserves for his qualifications. In other words I was underselling his credentials. I did the opposite of that. I basically drooled all over his credentials as some of the most impressive credentials I've ever seen. That's unambiguous. Nobody is questioning his credentials. That's the one place we're all starting with. Okay we all agree has lots of credentials.

Now let's talk. So you can see that the complaints about me are just actually crazy. Yeah all right. But here's what happens when you separate the expert from the criticisms. So Dr. Malone went on Joe Rogan. Sam Harris tweeted a criticism of Dr. Malone by ZDogg. Anybody watching ZDogg? You can see him on Locals and elsewhere. And ZDogg is also an MD, criticized Dr. Malone on a number of specific points and went through them.

So now you know something, right? So now if you've seen Dr. Malone's full interview and then you looked at ZDogg's criticism of him, which didn't happen at the same time, right? They happened in different places and times, you would have a pretty good idea because now you've got the pros, you've got the cons, right? How many would agree with that? Because now you've seen both sides. And ZDogg, remember ZDogg is a very good communicator and a doctor so he knows what he's talking about.

Well that didn't work out at all because after ZDogg did his criticisms Twitter user Paul Collider, I mentioned him often, went in and criticized the criticisms. And here's the criticisms of the criticisms is that in each case, I don't know if it was every case but in the ones noted, ZDogg had misinterpreted Dr. Malone and had criticized a misinterpretation. So in other words if I hadn't seen Paul Collider's criticism of the criticisms I would have been much more persuaded that ZDogg was saying something that it was an actual debunk.

Now is Paul Collider correct that ZDogg misinterpreted Malone? I don't know. You would need yet another fact-checker to fact-check Paul Collider who fact-checked ZDogg who fact-checked Malone. None of this is useful information it turns out. That as soon as you separate the claim from the criticism everything goes to shit.

So my problem with the Joe Rogan one-on-one interview is that it removes the criticism. And once it's removed then you're not really sure if you're even talking about the same thing anymore. And then you get into word thinking and who said what and it's just useless. Yeah fact checking is dumb because you usually don't have a reply to the fact check, right? That's the problem with fact checking. So fact checking is a bad model. Better than nothing but it's a bad model because it separates in time and space the claim from the debunk. They have to happen at the same time otherwise you don't know anything, right?

You need somebody to say oh no no you're misinterpreting me. I can't defend that because I never said it. So get back on my point and now what's your criticism? So that that's why it needs to happen at the same time. You need the person who makes the claim to continuously pull the person back into the actual claim. Because if you know anything when people criticize they make up their own hallucination of what you claimed and then they're off on that. You've got to have the claimer say nope stop never said that. Now let's talk about what I did say. Right? That could work.

All right. So and then I also tweeted one other critique of Dr. Malone and smart people said but Scott that that fact check is like generic and off the point and it looks like the fact check the way it's written is weasel words like with no credibility whatsoever. And that was actually a reasonable criticism. Now keep in mind I didn't tell you the fact check was right. I told you you need to see it. You need to see the claim, you need to see the fact check. But I will say that the doctors who did not agree with Dr. Malone, they did seem to be weaseling about maybe related topics. Like they weren't answering as directly as you think you wanted them to.

But here was my interpretation. One interpretation is you can't trust the fact checkers and that's a fair interpretation. The other interpretation is that the doctors were aware of all of Malone's claims and if they thought he was saying something that was true I think they would have addressed it or were false. In other words the fact that the doctors weren't seeing what Malone saw does tell you something even if they didn't address it because it's hard to be specific about that stuff.

All right. Weird comments going on today. All right, here's your next trick for determining who is hallucinating and who is not. You've heard it before but every time I apply it to a specific situation it helps. More examples you see the better. Generally speaking, generally speaking, right, I will allow that there will be exceptions.

Addison says do you suppose people are tired of you attacking experts without doing the work to understand the issues? Yes I believe that that people believe I'm doing that but I don't think it's happening. In other words I've asked for a specific claim and then I say what have I said about that claim and I don't have any examples. So it's what you're saying would be right if we were talking about something specific but nobody can even tell me why they're mad like what do they disagree with. I don't think it's only because I don't think I've dismissed any experts. I've said give me a specific claim and we'll look at it. I don't think that that's unreasonable.

All right, here's your tip. General tip but I'm going to apply it to this one. If you have four people in a room, one of them says there's an elephant standing right in front of us. The other three who are just as smart, just as capable of spotting elephants, are looking in the same room, a little room, and they say wait what I don't see an elephant. There is an elephant right there, right there, I'm looking at it. And the other three people are like um we don't see the elephant. Who's right?

It's a generic situation. We're not talking about the pandemic. It's a generic situation. One person sees an elephant, three do not. They're all equally trained in spotting elephants and it's a little room. It's not I'm not talking about a forest or a jungle. It's like a little room and you're in there with it. Who's right? Somebody says all of them. You get extra credit for saying all of them. I know what you're going for there. Yeah I always bet on the three. And here's why.

Hallucinations are additions to scenes usually. There could be exceptions but a hallucination is something added to the scene. You don't have hallucinations of somebody sitting in a room with an elephant who doesn't see it, right? That hallucination just doesn't happen. The hallucination that does happen is somebody adding something to a scene. First of all will you accept that as a good generalization? If somebody sees a conspiracy theory let's say a false one and the other people can't see it, who's probably right? Assuming that they can see all the same information, right? There's no difference in information. Who's probably right? The ones who can't see it, right? Because hallucinations are positive additions.

Dr. Malone may be seeing things that people with the same amount of experience and vision are not seeing. If the other people saw it too I would say well they're all experts, you tell me. Four experts are in the room they all saw the elephant. There's an elephant in that room. But if four experts walk out of the same room with the same expertise, the same experience, and three of them say there is no elephant in that room and one of them says I see it clear as day, who do you bet on? The three who don't see it or the one who does?

Now keep in mind the one who does is showing his work so there's no like extra knowledge or anything like that. He's showing his work. It's completely transparent. And three of them don't see it but one of them does. Somebody says you'd believe the one. I do think that many of you would believe the one. However the reason that you might believe the one is that you have been fooled and primed by the following model of reality. The people who are the rogue and disagree with the mainstream sometimes they're right and then they become heroes. I'm an example. For example when I predicted that Trump would win in 2016 I was a weird rogue outlier. When I was right that he won in 2016 I got a lot of attention. Did that make you think that the rogue outlier is right more than wrong? It shouldn't. Because the reason I got a lot of attention is that the odds of the rogue person being right are really low. That's the entire reason that I did it. Because I knew that if I got it right you know it would boost my credibility.

Now I was pretty sure he would win for reasons but I have experience with this. The rogue person is almost always wrong. Almost always. And you have the opposite impression because when they are right it's all we talk about, right? The reason you know Sully did such a good job of landing that plane in the Hudson River is because it was rare, right? That's why you heard of it. So your mind imagines that rogues are often right. The reality is they're wrong 95 percent of the time. If you just looked at your whole life and all of the rogues who made a claim, five percent of the time not only are they right but it changes history. And then you can't get that in your head. My God that rogue was right and changed history. There was Wright brothers. There was rogue bicycle making Wright brothers. They made a plane that nobody said could happen. The rogue, the rogue is always right. Now the rogue is almost always wrong. So bet against it.

Should you have bet against me in 2016? What was the smart play? Was the smart play to bet on me or was the smart play to bet on all the experts in the world? The smart play was to bet on all the experts in the world. All right. Now I had a very specific angle into it. If you followed that maybe that would be different. But in general don't bet on the rogue. It's a bad bet. All right.

So that's your other trick. So here are your tricks for not being an expert yourself but deducing the quality of the experts. First follow the money of course. But I don't see any specific monetary incentive going on here, do you? Now you could argue I don't know some doctors are raising their profile or something but I don't know. I don't really see the monetary incentive of the rogues, of the rogue doctors. So I would discount that one in this case.

But I would definitely say why can't they convince people who were on their side? Now you say that they have and I say there isn't the slightest chance that the people who are even agreeing with them on the general stuff also think that the data that they got kicked off for Twitter for was real. Now I could be convinced. You just have to show me some other doctors who say this data looks real and Dr. Malone got kicked off for it. That could, you could do that. I mean you could convince me but right now if they can't convince other doctors and I don't see evidence of it, well I could, that could change.

And I'm also not aware of anything that I'm especially disagreeing with the doctor about except the things he tweeted about data. I'm not through the entire interview but I've gotten through a lot of the good stuff. I will finish it off. See my problem is that you see the problem, right? I guess I don't have to say it again.

And I would argue that I have never disagreed with Dr. Malone on his expertise. Would you accept that? I'm seeing these names Steve Kirsch, Brett Weinstein, Steve Kirsch, Brett Weinstein. Why are you saying that? Why are, Holden, Holden Lou keeps repeating these two names and why are you doing that?

Here is a here's mass formation here. So here's a yo-yo gamer just says in all caps Scott equals boomer equal disconnected. There's a good comment there. All right Holden I'm going to ban you for just repeating the same thing over and over again. You are now hidden. I thought you had something to say but apparently you didn't.

Whoops I'm looking at some. I watched it all. Why do you compare yourself to great men? What that's a weird comment.

Oh so here's my take on Malone. I don't believe I've ever challenged him on his expertise. Has anybody seen me do that? Has anybody s