Oh good morning, everybody and welcome to the best thing that happened to you in twenty twenty two so far, and that's only because Ireland, under the additional life's dreams each time I do one that will be the new highlight of your ear audio, looks good ebony hearing some low audio complaints about Youtube. They gave a little a boost today see if it makes a difference and How would you like to kick up? The new year into the best possible situation you can never have. Oh, you know and all you need to do those a copper, mugger glass at Tankerville, stoic, anti drug flask of vessel of any kind and filling with your favorite beverage Well, I coffee enjoyably now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dope leading to the day the thing, the maid Everyone feel better is better than a vaccination boosted

Better than the amateur on is better than inflation is called the sun they need a and watch it do its business scope, I just realized how I should advertise, because you to do an advertisement as they dropped into the middle content, but I realized when I lifted my cup up. This could be the reveal that would be like the sponsor of the show. the only time I shall it would be like Ebay, like oh Ford, his speaking afford. What are they. Word. Executives locally gave some advice on twenty yesterday and he said that, if you're, if your dealer-

tells you a car or orders and car for you, but doesn't lockdown the price at the time the order it then you should carefully order and you're you're dealing with a bad dealership. I admit exactly that situations, so I too, into back. Should I cancel by Mustang order because the live more for dealers? told me. I can't negotiate the price until the cars on the lot, which I always suspected was just a way for them to get an extra car on the lot and then they wouldn't care. If I bought it or somebody else cuz, I can sell a hundred percent of that model. It's just hard to get one They just did the paperwork pretended they ordered a car. For me, I think I think that's what happened. I mean there's a real order, but the cars are really really for me. It would only be for me. I think, if I put if I pay the non negotiated sticker price

Because, as the estimate they gave me, but they said earlier, we negotiate when it gets here while much negotiating go, they gonna do when it gets here and ever but he walks it would by their car, would be. A popular model is hard to get so so I tweeted back you should. I cancel my Mustang order with live more Ford, keep in mind, I'm talking to a Ford executive in public and the Fort executive said yes, you shouldn't, you should cancel your order and I'll help. You find a better dealership. I thought that was That was the most bawler answer. I've ever seen from an executive Asia cancel your order and I'll find you. Somebody was a crook basically, basically, thus we set, I mean those of my own words and. I thought to myself- I was getting ready to be pretty matter forward, but others so transparent, first volley

Executive and watch out for this trick, and then, when he said, your own company is doing that trick to me right now. You're companies doing to me right now, but you're the dealers operate somewhat, as soon as he already said, acquiesce ladder I'll be fine and honest dealership within my own company, that is a very bawler answer. Given credit for that right, we're learning. Today, the honour crimes is like beyond dangerous in terms by a doctor. Just a doctor on sea and ends website, saying that you could transmit alma cron, just by taking your master for a moment to say something. That's it, whereas we used to think you know, sixty at a distance would protect you pretty. Well, basically, it sounds like if, if one dude with overcrowded walks through your party,

and if he is going to be a bad week for the people went to their party now yeah right, I'm not saying it's bad or is it gets here's the problem? If you get too many people who have to quarantine at the same time, the economy is gonna, get really slow really fast, but you know it's really difference different about this. One I feel, like I said I feel like, is entirely possible that will have an organic, too weak shut down of the economy. Now, maybe not the most critical things, but I can easily imagine that bill this is just will have enough employs all have anything to do with a mandate. Businesses will just say: three quarters of employees have infections and they have to stay home, so

there's no mandate, but we can't stay open with just can serve people at this level of staffing. So He might have something like a two week: voluntary shutdown of lot of places now voluntary because they wouldn't have the staff, but the armor crown passes through so quickly, the two weeks can I just heard immunity now I don't want to be the one believe me. I don't want to be the one who says two weeks to flattened the curve, but we might tweets to flooding the curve livestock might be real, and only because the rapidity of the spread of endocrine plus being low danger relative Lee

I am often criticized we're talking too much about the pandemic, and that is a correct criticism. However, I give you this this one clarification when I'm talking about the pandemic, I'm usually talking about the mental part like the. How do we make decisions, and why do we have different decisions? Why do you see one thing? Why don't I see something else, and there are some amazing false memory is that are being generated right now about what has already happened. So when historians going to write the story of the pandemic, which of these two movies, are they going to right? Are they going to write this movie this, as the vaccinations came out? Originally the Dana made it look like it was a pretty good deal. It was look like it was stopping transmission as well as

can people healthier both of those things and for the alpha version of the virus that look like it was effective, but as Delta came in and it was sort of a sort of broke the mold and as we found out that the vaccinations themselves, unfortunately somewhat rapidly. efficacy, the very things that were working before stopped working, so that Exsudations did have initially good data. Very good data very quickly turned to negative data, because a delta and because of a fall off of efficacy and that's one of the movies- Don't don't here that I said ass, the true and weaker because today I'm gonna talk about what I've seen or what what I think is true and what other people remember to be true, but I thought it would be unproductive to tell you which one is true: because all you do is argue that mine was the false one now

so you know somebody else's is a false one It wouldn't be a settlement. But here is what I wanted to instead, I want to say how the two movies formed. So I won't be a question of who is right because I don't think we can settle it, but it will be like a fascinating tour. I hope of housing. Nothing could happen now. Here's the first false memory and I'm dealing with this every day is a false memory of what I have predicted or said verses. What the reality is- and probably some of you know, there's a man ass, a bunch of hallucinations about what I have said. All of that false now I can say that for sure, because in this one case I know my own opinion- and I know what I have said so I can tell that their hallucinating or or they have a false idea, completely false.

The opposite of what I think. Now, here's how that are formed. I spheres the first, the first clue about how illusions get form. If I talk about a lot of stuff about the pandemic and somebody Dipson and finds a little bit of my content, It would be as if there were looking through one window of a house and that's all they knew about the house, So our line you here lots of people who say I looked into that Scott items is house metaphorically, the pandemic conference and I looked through that one window and his whole houses bathroom. I'll say: let's grab true and they'll say those aren't of myself. I saw myself I near the house through one window, and there is a bathroom there's, nothing else to say here,

then somebody else will say the opposite, because they were looking in, they saw the living room or some other room. So a huge amount of the hallucination. They literally or hallucinations, like actual hallucinations about my opinions are because somebody, Now here's the weirdest part. People are saying that year, Jaska you may have, you may have met and all of the topics for you, you kind of focus on one thing and you don't. Let's say you focus on the vaccines weather. The work that you don't talk about, say the the cost of the shutdown? Would it would you say that's true that I have underestimate or less aid under emphasised. Whenever I talk about have I under emphasised the social cost of shutting down.

A local sub single mix, some yeses in some knows yes, yes, you So a lot of people would say: that's true. I've underestimated or are under emphasised, not estimated. I've under emphasised the cost of the social shut down in the mandates. Now here's my defence to that you're ready for those of you who think I've under emphasize that use my defence. Why would I have to tell you that all on the same page. literally, all of us are living. Those costs is obvious. Do I have to tell you that teens don't like zoom school, What do you didn't know that until I told you or did you imagine Everybody knew about me you imagine that it was obvious to everyone, but because I didn't it as much as you say.

there. I was the one who didn't know the zoom school was bad for kids. Did you think that. Because, if I think that you know it and obviously you know, I know it, I'm not going to talk about it, a lot, because what would you say about it? I can't estimate it. I don't know how big the damage is. I talked about the suicides, So the scissors the reasons why people that false memories, isn't it now here's inches important, if If either my memory of events or my critics, memory of the pandemic events is correct, one of us would be triggered into cognitive dissonance

and here I'm not going to tell you which one it is. I just tell you to look for the trigger of whoever is wrong, but here's the part part. My critics think that I have been proving unambiguously wrong and the data shows in that clearly and they ever anybody can look at it. You can just google it. You can see what, You could see was true and you can see I'm wrong and that I asked for examples in the exam, Almost entirely are things I didn't say or just crazy enough or people misinterpret the question answered the wrong question, etc. So, let's go onto but we don't know where the cognitive dissonance by years boil down to one specific question to see it, I guess I'm insight on this. And the question was: was it?

very true, the vaccinations stopped the transmission or spread of the virus. This seems to be one of the biggest issues that people have with me is that this I believed or or sad based on my belief that the nations are one point or Leon: stop the would stop the spread now when somebody says stop the spread. How do you interpret that if somebody said I think this vaccination will stop the spread. Would you interpret that as every single person is vaccinated, could not get the virus and or spending? What would you ever interpret? This will give you immunity as a hundred percent. Does any of anybody just automatically say? Well that means everybody.

Because you should never do that. So here's another reason that the movies diverged alot of people here. This will give you immunity. This will rate work really well. This will stop the spread. and what they hear is this will one hundred percent the effective and then they look at the data is not a hundred percent effective under benefactor, so they say well, this was a lie, told us would be effective and now not only preserve effective. So that's a lie. whereas other people like me, would say you should assume that they didn't mean a hundred percent now is way lesson than one hundred percent a big problem, but. Joe Blower, saying that they litter, but you said Otto Percent, so

video calculation as part of this research here, if you can call it that on twitter and people, suddenly a video compilation of people say it. One hundred percent stop and I watched the compilation of all the experts fouche YE the CDC saying that it would be a hundred percent stopping of the virus right. I believe you saw them how many views of the compilation of video of the experts actually saying something we know not to be true, which is one hundred percent, is going to stop the virus and look at the comments or a lot of people thought I saw it this morning. It doesn't exist. I saw it this morning. And it doesn't exist, so all of you sought needed I saw too and there's nothing on their. That would suggest a hundred percent. It is your interpretation of what they meant.

My interpretation as a writer, because I I write myself into this trap. All the time If you re writer, you are continuously dealing with people. Hearing absolutes in your right. It when you didn't mean Absolute and the way that you didn't mean there is, nobody should think this was an absolute suppose I say guns, stop a crime. Private gun ownership stops crime. Would you interpret that as it stops all crime without your natural interpretation? Oh you're, saying guns: stop all crime. Where would you, children thou it. That would be a silly interpretation but was axioms. We do they because his medical, our brains, were hearing hundred percent.

Where nobody ever talks like that see what I just did, that was accidental. I just said nobody ever talks like that. So I gave you an absolute and. should have understood it could never be an absolute. The very trap that I said people easily fall into. Is it just easier to talk up absolutes? We all do it. So the very thing that you saw with your own eyes as them saying is a hundred percent. I watched with my own eyes just minutes ago. I did it, I saw people talking the way people talk, they talk in absolute, but you as the audience should of course understand they don't be. An absolute is, of course, not. straw, man gaslight, so some of you can have some difficulty with this topic global. There will be some squirming,

Then I asked this question to see if I can get a percentage Actually, let me give you a little test. Suppose the vaccines came out, and here's the only thing you knew about the farmer industry. This is untrue. But suppose, just as mental exercise, suppose you knew that a hundred per cent of the FDA approved medicines. They came out. A big farmer worked in the past different ones. I'm not talking about vaccines.

but every kind of medicine the FDA had approved. Suppose you knew and again this is not true. I'm just saying I suppose you do that they all work every one of them for decades. In decades they all work, meaning that they work better than the cost of the side effects. Now, let's say in that context, big former comes up with a new vaccinations. Every single thing they ve ever done as work. What would you think is the likelihood that the vaccinations would work even given that they didn't have enough time to do a longterm study. What what would be your natural gas as to whether it is likely that they work pretty high right if everything and work before, even if they had a compressed schedule for testing which they did

but the vaccines you think? Well, this is more risky because they don't have the long term effects. But if you look at their track record is a hundred percent so That's a good bet. Right now say it was the opposite. Let's go extreme opposite suppose. You knew that a hundred per cent of every kind of pharmaceutical drug than ever been created and approved by the FDA was later found to be ineffective and then they in that context, somebody comes up with a new drug or a new vaccine. What would be your reasonable protection about whether the new one would work if hundred percent of the old ones didn't work and you'd probably say well, not so good. So I ask this pole on Twitter, obviously very unscientific. I said why

percentage of FDA approved drugs of any kind. Do you believe work in that in terms of benefit over risk? And I gave people ranges from zero to twenty five, twenty five, two hundred and fifty one thousand five hundred and seventy five etc. And it turns out that your opinions, you being the public who answered this phone. Are very evenly spread? Surprisingly, so so here that the number of people who answered my pull on scientifically, who thought that the total number of FDA approved drugs that have ever worked is below twenty five, percent of all the FDA approve drugs. A quarter of the people who answered a quarter of the people think that fewer than a quarter of the drugs have ever work. Are they wrong? How would I know how do you know

all right- how many people thought that between twenty five and fifty percent of those drugs never worked like his highest half of all the drugs, so twenty eight percent said that the between twenty five and fifty percent of the drugs I've ever worked. so that's about even right: twenty four twenty eight and then the number of figures between fifty and seventy five is about thirty one percent, and only Eighteen percent, as is the smallest number, think that the drugs work between seventy five and a hundred percent of the time. Now this explains our two movies, because would you have a different opinion of how likely big form, allied if they were only right, twenty five percent of the time or less

If you thought they were right, seventy five percent of the time or more ok, dammit, that's too good dammit! I just go linguistically kill, shouted. This is, oh god, I'm gonna tell it all. Regret is forever, but does the crag seven seven seven just give me a nickname, Claw Adams. Damn you that's good. That is so good now, of course, is based on a hallucination right. The hallucination is that you believe I was pushed vaccines. Now, none of this happened my movie, but if your movie, where that stuff happened, that is really good.

Can I give you credit for that? It'll probably ruin my whole career, the set aside good, I mean that I mean that that they nickname could actually ruin my whole rest of my reputation in life, and none of us would be baseline into thus how powerful a goodly name is, but damn that's good. Then I have to appreciate the technique. Even if I don't like the outcome so. here is a so. If you ve got different assumptions about how bad big form has been in the past, how can you possibly end up with the same assumption about whether the vaccines so here's the other reason that we ve got two movies on one screen. If you believe the big farmer almost always cells. You, fake drugs, you and assume that this next week is fake and that there are lying about it lying about it, working or even lying about them being certainly were

But if you thought that they were right, seventy five and one hundred times you'd, probably think it I'll probably got this one too. So it's not so much that any of you are dumb or smart you starting with different assumptions how would you ever know which of these assumptions is correct?. I mean these are wildly different to imagine that the past drugs that I've ever been approved, that seventy five. percent or more of them worked verses only less than twenty five percent. Those are completely different worlds. So you say: I'm just an trying to resist blocking a user here whose, like right on the edge you're right on the edge of just like barely containing a string of profanity, is that are about to come out of my mouth.

But I will do my best so so those are some reason: the false memories. But I got item exchanges with some people online who have a completely different memory of the beginning of the vaccination phase, and I thought to myself: How can we have completely different memories? And how would I know if mine is the right one so tested it on twitter here's the the single question that I think a lot of this turns on my memory. The earlier. The early roll out is. This now remember. claiming my memory is the correct one right and you get to say to me scar, why don't you just Google, it I'll tell you why there won't work, So my memory is the following there. When the van,

since first came out that the early data, the early data which later changed that the early data show that it improved the survivability but also reduced the spread. And then after the delta came out and after and after all, Mccrone came out that was no longer as true and maybe so untrue. This just completely to untrue at this point about the transmission, but still true about to survive Adobe according to the data. Now that was my memory. My memory is There was data and that one delta and omicron piano came the did the change and also the efficacy dropped off, and we couldn't know that until the long term right. Nobody knew the long term efficacy, because you can study the long term in the short term, So what I saw was

people who were optimistic but wrong, optimistic thereon- But I didn't see ally in terms of direct lie that there's a specific person who told a lie. Now that was my view of what happened now on Twitter. I found out that there is a whole bunch of other people. Ok drew you're going to go away. Our so all the people on Youtube or maki me about boosters number one. It's not funny snuck creative. If it were clever like Claw Adams at least give you some credit for the clever but If, if I can lock you with a funny face- and I don't need to do anything else- Then, why you're saying is probably pretty stupid, less test, it I'm just going to say what you said, but I'll do it with a funny mocking face

and see if you sell stupid, using exactly what you said, but with the addition of my funny mocking face, Scott, what are you gonna get the the booster? Do you get closer loser about the wizard habit loser Belgium to bolster give your freedom. Story, I hope that maybe you could stop saying the same dumb ass comment. Message received some people guy shots, Considering the boaster there's, not a fucking point, lay your make so you're boring us stop doing criticisms are allowed. boring ones or not. So it is a question. So a lot of

people said no Scott. You have a complete false memory and the early- data, never showed that transmissions could be reduced by vaccination. and I said to myself seriously- and I thought the kept me more than one person who thinks that because my memory was so so clear that it was based on data, and I thought multiple studies etc. So I thought Oh do other people have the same view. Editors are a lot of people have the view that the date never showed that any point, that's a vaccines worked in any way. Now. Does I blow your at all if you're in my movie, because some of you were in my movie, but so a view and that of the movie. It does a blow your mind at all.

both of these memories are held by the public, one that the vaccinations used to work, but things changed. The other that the data never showed they weren't. Even in the beginning, the dust freaky is Because that would be the easiest thing in the world to check what Saddam You say to yourself Scott spend five seconds on doktor go and find out. Did the data exist or did not? So do you think that was easy, just google it nope turns out has really hard. Even the search engine can't tell you what happened is crazy. How are the historians gonna write this story because you can't even research now? Here's why? I think I have the answer erases. So this is likely the key.

to unlock how these two boom is formed? How can I ever many of you by the way Bunny Billy? The Cubans have supported my view of what happened. There's not so we know, the two movies are verified that they both exist. Here's what happened, I believe- and this kind of interesting and in a martini, has had the best for he unlocked the swarming. Apparently people are using different definitions for a lot of important stuff here and have a kid: give you an idea how bad it was here. The various terms have been used by experts as well as upon his talking about it. does the vaccination prevent infection or provide immunity? Does a boost, your immune response, or does it provide protection?

The prevention of disease, or does it vaccinated against an apparently we don't have the same definition of what you say. By way of what those words me for example, I was informed that the definition of a vaccination has changed. How many of you of her that that the actual word vaccination suddenly magically changed to a different definition than twenty twenty one. You are there Obscene, yes, yes, yes, as I I saw the evidence of that. So, with my own eyes, I looked at the direct evidence, read it with my own eyes how the definition that changed from one thing to this brand new deaf, and twenty twenty one. So I saw with my own eyes and it didn't happen. I saw it with my own eyes. It didn't happen.

maybe I mean I didn't see it. I looked at what you look that not as it Does that mean you didn't happen? What happened in your movie I'm just say that I guess it anyone here's what happened when I asked us. So a number of people sent me studies to confirm this. My view was correct, so the right I've tweeted out the links. If you want to see them, I've got a couple and legs. They show that the the initial data show that was very effective against transmission and then very quickly things changed and then it wasn't now. How can you not see it? Oh, let me give you yet when we finish the point, their How could I not see it in the answer? Is. The definition changed from

complain that gives you immunity to something that gives you protection so there. Right. So what I read that why was directed to read was its definition changed for vaccination from something that gives you immunity does something that gives you protection and there it s right. I don't see it now, you're all saying I just read it there. It is not us here. Let me read it again because arrows it The definition changed from immunity to protection. two words and made about the same thing to me. So I hey tours and mean the same thing, which means that the definition didn't change. They use different words, But I see the same thing now. I believe this gets back to the hundred percent thing. If somebody said a vaccine gives you immunity

so mean to you. What what would it me there's? Somebody says it gives you a merely to mere sounds like protection. They changed the world But what does a merely mean to you. When you see immunity, do you think a hundred per cent of people won't get it or honour percentage of people work is so here. It is nervous, ok, so that their somebody answered and on locals. Somebody said directly. The word immunity implies on two percent. How many of you would agree with that that the word immunity implies a hundred percent nothin's, getting it? Ok, so, why you looked right at it and you can see it does when you the word immunity, you read a hundred percent when you, read the word protection you like. Oh, that does not mean a hundred percent right right

Immunity is on two percent, but protection obviously doesn't mean a hundred per cent. So that's what all of you saw now. I am a writer by trade? and my interpretation of the words are that it means a saving. That's my interpretation! because, if you said to me Scott, this will give you immunity. I would never think a hundred percent in a medical in a medical context. When do you ever think one hundred percent, except maybe if somebody's dead, they're not coming back? Well, it's supposed to been so long. They've been dead, but in the medical world, what is on anything is, are anything ever banana percent. So if you're in the medical context, and somebody says something gives you a merely. Why were you ever think that mental represent? Why

You assume that now my guess is that there is no change. That is because people misinterpreted the word immunity. That looks like the obvious reason if I thought that people were misinterpreting immunity to be in a hundred per cent, Because member, even the best initial dated and say under president does everybody grew that the even the initial data that all the experts were referring to never sent a hundred percent. It was always ninety seven, ninety five, the sort of thing right, so salami? Let me ask you again: no just hearing my explanation, if you ever it and immunity, as a hundred percent, does it make? says now the other people, then can you see can you say why other people would interpret it

within a medical context to mean yeah works, pretty good for you. Some people might be immunity. Some people might kill now. So I think mostly there's a definition problem here. And is really hard to suss, which of the experts, said something that really looked like a lie and which which of them said something there Was at one time true and then new data come out and it was different and well they're, just talkin sloppy they're using words. That means something a little differently you. So I think that a lot of the people who think that that we clearly were lie to have these fall. Being illusions. So this would be be supporting the the theory that my worldview is correct, which doesn't mean it is. It would just be the

theory that would explain why one would be true, you can't prove it, so the other world view could be true if I'm misreading everything. So if I'm misreading everything which can happen right, that's what cognitive does. I can, I can be absolutely be miss remembering misreading everything and by the way my critics are saying and laudable. A lot of re here are saying: I'm doing exactly that that I'm actually misreading. Basically everything And not just one thing, just just everything so you're here is what causes the two movies number one if you assumed that the farmer companies are all must always lie and all most always giving you fake drugs that don't work. you would assume quite reasonably that this was probably another one of those situations if you believe that

They probably usually big jugs at work, but not all the time you might be in the movie. If you think that these definitions are different, if you stated immunity, mental two percent, which I would say would be a. I don't want to use the word. The sounds like an insulting you will say out. I can't leave a word that doesn't sound insulting because I don't don't mean this business. It's just an interpretation thing. If you thought immunity bent on two percent, you may not have the baby. The writers experience the people often misinterpret year, Stephen says as absolutes. So if you have that continuing problem like I do of always being, did it again see what I did. I just said, I'm always being misinterpreted,

should you and you should. You have interpreted that statement, I'm always being misinterpreted to mean every single person misinterprets me every time. Of course, now you would use the context of courses. here's a covered- both things are true. Many facts are unchanged many interpreted and being fed by media So it's it's. A soup of being wrong, people interpreting words differently, people not knowing that the data changed but can I can send you the links that say that the vaccines did stop everything early, but then they became less effective overtime. So if you don't believe that ever happened, I can show links as you also get going on here. And also there is the question of whether.

The vaccine is like stopping the the virus from getting a hold or is it just up your natural immunity. So it does. It always gets a whole, but it doesn't take root or something to use common language. So as long as we're disagreeing, all these things will see two movies forever. And, as a said, Brian Martinez you don't agree on what words means like at the very beginning. We now have common definitions, then one can later claim any history of what they said. That's exactly what's happening so because, don't agree on this. Oceans of how likely a farm accompany will lie to you in any given situation. We don't agree what any of the words meant and we

Apparently some number of us have completely false memories. Maybe me right, I can't rule about my baby, but maybe you complete false memories of whether the vaccines ever worked so There is absolutely nothing else, interesting happening, so how many of you just heard this and sounded to like ours, promoting vaccinations? How many would interpret this morning's live stream as promoting vaccinations? Thankfully, mostly knows right now- and I have I have given you my updated opinion on getting a booster myself

Don't think I have is a sort of subject to to change, but wait as long as possible. I think there's the extra risk that you know that level of boosty boosting us, I can't be tested, so it's sort of a even more of a gas. the other gases at the moment on leading towards awaiting it out and getting some of those sweet. We are withdrawn in my system. Instead So that's where I'm leaving? If I had suddenly travel and it was a mandate, I might make a practical. This is But you want to real mind is wrong to leave you with a final mind. Teaser suppose you are trying to decide whether to give vaccinated, and you wanted me you wanted as much for me. This possible. Let's say you knew, which you can't now. bless you knew the history of how accurate vaccine all medications from big farmer had been in the past.

Unless you knew you, don't let's say you did you knew that fewer than twenty five percent of the time the drugs even work? Would it be rational to take the vaccination with? all the other stuff, that we know that you may or may not trust, but would it be rational if you knew the fewer than a quarter of the people of fewer than a quarter of any medication that everyone the market ever were? The answer is you can tell. Do you know why? Because none of the risks can be measured, you can't measure the risk of side effects in the longer you can't.

So if I told you that there is some chance that the vaccination works, you might make it a calculation closer to your I've, remarked and calculation. I've told me before that. I predict I've, remarked and will be shown not to be terribly effective, maybe a little, but I think it will not be shown to be as effective as its proponents. Shell, at the same time that I predict it doesn't work. I would give the oz working less than twenty five percent, but would I take it if I got covered? Yes, I would assume my doctor said yes, I would take it now. Why would that be different from the vaccinations now? One way it could be different, as you say, Wall, Scott, the ivory mechanism so well known, we don't have, outside, but we also don't know anything about long covered. So since all of the all of the risks are completely unsuitable,.

Even if you knew the big farmer had a low track record of success, it could still be I've reflect an issue in terms of your class benefit. If you thought that the risk was gigantic of getting covered and you thought that the risk of the vaccine kill, you itself was relatively small, you will still take a twenty five. Son Chancellor, made a difference. I be arm or, let me say a better, you would never have the numbers to know if you're making the right decision. We wouldn't have the right data for that, but it wouldn't be irrational to get a shot if you knew that medicine in general only work twenty five per cent of time. It wouldn't be rational. It could be wrong, but it wouldn't be rushing because all the decisions we're irrational in the sense that we don't have enough data yeah. There are those who assume the government is guilty and assume that big farmers guilty

you have to know how often that assumption works. Thank you a scottish right about this. Yet assumes you compare dive. Romagna starts making sense, but you have to be careful because I've, a mechanism much safer long term. Well, actually, let me ask you this: do you think I've remains ever been studied in a way that can guarantee safe? Can any cause? There's no absolute right. There are no absolute, We have quite a few short term trials, yet we have lots of lower quality data. Listen my old philosophy. Teach you used to say that the food in the cafeteria was bad, but at least there's a lot of it.

Thus our data well are all of our data about the pandemic is bad, but we got a lot of it. So Leslie, Good NEWS, it's all bad, but hey, thank goodness, is not a shortage of nothing is absolute damage. Jordan! Stop it with your mind, games! Nothing is absolute Scott. How many boosters? Would you be willing to go up to I somewhat,

I just feel like answering that question is a is a dead end, because we, why would they matter to you how many boosters than I thought I would get and, first of all, why would you think I could answer that question? What would make you think I can answer the question: why? How could anybody s neck question? How many boosters. I have told you that I'm undecided between zero and one booster, but then Breathing heavily towards zero. Why, when you asked me how many Oda we get when that depend on what I learned between now they're them. So I finally learn anything new. I was certainly well. There will be some new powers will know what happens with democratic. So The first question is undecided. Waiters. What possible and I've been waited long enough? Yet so stop asking me if I'm gonna get boosted.

If you have made a decision about it, you need to defend your decision. I say there is insufficient data, but there might be better data later, though now, but there might be. even if the better data is only in the form of knowing more about the alternative which is getting infected by on. I ve. Have you seen Doktor Malone so here is. My problem well Doktor Malone on Joe Rogan and, unfortunately I am trying to avoid the same problem that my critics I have with me, which is, as they see a little bit of my opinion and then form a total opinion based on you. Looking at that one break and I don't want to do that with Doktor Malone because I think have been guilty of the same. Send myself. And I'm not gonna watch a three hour, anything even even those spent up.

so I will never be able to penetrate what Doctrine loan said and I just want to tell you I'm not gonna put in their work, because I just I couldn't do that much work to listen to what one I said so. Let me say it this way. If there is a statement, he said you re just a clean statements of opinion, or fact I'd love to hear it. If you think that that's that's like the important thing, so he says is a cop out, though, that I think for the because to comment on the internet is, as somebody else to do enough. Research Cosette assumes that if he did more research, it would make a difference and all evidence suggests that's not the case. We we just get more confirmation by us, but now. I am definitely lazy about things that don't make a difference. I try to be not least about things that do make a difference

Some says just watch the last half hour here, you're so close. Philip balloon. We tested, I know review of scene it by now stay in the comments? Were Just one sentence could be to it just says: you said that you think would be different from what I believe go assessed it for those of you seen it Give me one example of something he said and if I miss it just repeated please cuz too many things. Low so years that years ago, comets enormous S, discussion,

I feel a system alone will not be able to hide the cognitive dissonance. Now, that's the mind reader problem right there, here's what I think would happen if I listen to Doktor Malone, I think I would agree with him unless there's a difference and data interpretation, in which case I would look to others. The safest data was right or do you think I would disagree with him? What would I disagree about blown up. Hypnosis, but what do you think I would disagree with him about right, nothing, so you're all shooting empties visage mass formations psychosis. I wouldn't disagree with about that. That's just one window on this, the somewhat incomplete.

but all the things that form ass, the massive noses formation thing, those those things do exist and they do matter, but Gimme consent. Nothing to disagree about that. You shooting blanks here. Nineties robbed. You disagree about him. Saying. Deaths are over accounting, No, I don't think I disagree, so if you can come up with any reason that you think I would disagree with him. Tell me what that disagreement is and if there's a place on the video to see the contacts, I'll, listen to it, But if you can't tell me anything that he says that I I'd say.

Why are you recommending? I listen to you to watch it just say: I'm postmen alone did when he talks about knowledge of corruption in the medical industry. The does I think there are now aware of deep corruption in the medical industry, thereby things I need to find out for the first time. So As far as somebody says, I'm being obtuse Andrew. the very easy task to tell me something. You said that you believe I would disagree with.

It is that it is that under unreasonable thing, if I'm being asked to consume three hours of content, even sped up, it might be two hours. If I'm being asked to do a whole bunch of homework would do you think that's fair for me to say name one thing. You says that I might disagree with. So he says this is boring, no matter what we give you, you just say you agree with it. Well, that's the point. My understanding is a doctor. Maloney is well informed. If I, Also well informed, or do we just agree. I see no reason why early treatment, what am I gonna disagree with it. So let me ask you this. Have I made my case

That you can see the the causes of the two movies. Did I make that case. I'm saying yes is mostly asses. Now question of who is right or wrong I'll leave that to you I'll leave that to do you think the next to pen pandemic will be handled better. I do. I do I mean I'd, be really surprised if this pandemic doesn't get us in much better shape you said deaths are under accounted. Yes, I said that But also over counted, so so here's that using hospitals were some people say, hospitals were incentive. to say that somebody died of covert, even if maybe it wishes with gold.

So everybody is on the same page that right. That would be an example of what over counting right. So I've ever heard. We disagree with the notion that some people are counted as covered s, when probably they just said something else going on they died. Have I ever disagreed with them so that live in that context? That would be an obvious case where you should assume there's over counting everybody on the same page. Now here's the other part of the equation. When people die at home who sermons, what they died of, and it turns out more people than anything die home. So the people died, a home may have data covered, but if there were less either ninety eight years old and had a coma Finally, if you're ninety eight year old grandmother dies and knew she had a bad Tucker

What are you gonna do again do a covid test now now, so the thought was in India of courses will be bigger effect, but the thought is the people who are dying there because they didn't goes the hospital system they died at, for example, that they wouldn't be counted. So I think that its true that there is both over accounting and under accounting. When I disagree that they in one way, there's almost certainly overcoming but In another sense, in another element of it be almost certainly undercoat me now. now my my estimate is always been that let's say we get to what do we have two deaths in the United States? Eight hundred thousand some like that, give me give me the current number, so it might take is as if the eight hundred thousand us was six hundred thousand.

Or maybe it was one point- two million there. We would act at about the same. so. I'm not sure matters, and I would imagine that you would find hospitals and of over counted and hospitals and of underground. Don't you think, It a big world and you also have the different standards for determining if somebody has covered. I can't Leave everybody used even the same standard, so I would say probably some places are under some places rover if he asked me. If I know what the net is, I don't I don't, but I dont know that it would have changed everything.

Yeah, rural, India, there are plenty of dust. The donkey accounted, my aunt Maud S, script Lou; those worst listen to write. Is this a positive discussion? Yeah, I think, is positive discussion only the sense of how to make decisions and what to believe a Muslim interested in the actual you, the medical, why you do then how we process these things and how is it? We have completely false memories of of things that just happened basically away.

Tomorrow will be a lot better than today is less national news by then today's commission, low Newsday and let's, let's go forth and have some fun. If you didn't see my special live stream yesterday that I did after my normal life story, you don't want to miss out on. That was the weird one, weird weird good, so I sound please and thank you so some people active in areas- and I will talk to you tomorrow-.