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

Context —

ds of witnesses to back up my story because they were there at the same time and they were also discriminated against for the same reasons, also directly. So yeah, I could produce presumably thousands. Actually I could probably produce a thousand witnesses with one tweet to back up my version of events. So I wondered what would happen if somebody that woke heard something so counter to their wor…

← Previous segment →

atisfy their shareholders, presumably they should do what's good for the share price, within reason of course, not doing anything illegal. But what is the argument that they will make more money by doing this?

You could easily make an argument that they'll make less money because you're going to get fewer guests of the conservative types going to Disney. So why would Disney, a corporate entity who has an obligation to the shareholders, why would they do something that feels like it can only reduce their business but it can never increase it? Why would they do that?

I guess individuals are afraid for their jobs and their reputations, so it's not for the shareholders. And you could argue whether it's for the good of society, I guess. I don't know. I just don't care that much about this story. I guess I should. I don't know why, but I don't. I guess I don't care because it's too easy to talk about. You just say I don't like that and you're done. That's about it.

All right. You remember that big Ivermectin study I talked about a few days ago? And it was the big gold standard, you know, randomized controlled, lots of people in it, to find out if Ivermectin worked or not. And of course that totally settled the question once and for all. No, it didn't.

And then I was asked today to tweet or comment on the fact that there is criticism of the study. And the criticism is actually kind of hilarious by itself. That the categories don't even add up. You know, when they say we're testing X number of people of this type, and then you look at the subcategories and you add them up and it doesn't equal the number of people they're testing. So it's not even internally consistent. Meaning you can't even look at their own numbers and say, well why does this column not match what they said they were doing? You know, that sort of thing.

Now is the person doing the debunk the correct one, or could somebody come along and debunk the debunker and get you right back to, hey, well maybe this study's good? Probably so. I just want you to know that there's no such thing as a reliable study whenever there's any political or pharma profit thing involved. There's no such thing as a study you could trust.

So there is an Ivermectin study that says it doesn't work. I would give its credibi

Context —

lity, I don't know, 10 or something. That's about it. So if you think I'm saying that Ivermectin definitely doesn't work in any scenario whatsoever because there's a study that says that, I guess I just can't do that anymore. I just can't tell you because there's a high-quality study that it's true. It just doesn't work in 2022. But let me say this, and this is not based on analysis. It's based o…

Next segment → →