Loading summary
Transcript10 lines
- [00:00]
Scott Adams
Here. Stock market is a little bit down, but we're a little bit up, so that will totally compensate. We seem to have nobody from the other platforms. Oh, there we go. Come on, rumble. Nobody from rumble today. There we go. We're all here. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and it's the best thing that ever happened to you. But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one could even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass attacker chalice with sty in a canteen jugger flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Go. Oh. If you have not experienced the the benefit of the simultaneous sip, well, you're missing out. I wonder if there's any science that could have been skipped if they just asked me. Well, here's some. Eric Dolan is writing in Psy Post that psychologists have found out that if you're a politician running for office, you're more likely to get elected if you're an optimist who has specific ideas for solving problems. That's right. If you're an optimist who has specific solutions to problems and you're running against a pessimist or someone who has no solutions for problems, you're more likely to win. Well, I think they could have asked me or any of you. What do you think is better, saying that you have solutions to problems or acting like all the problems are permanent? Yep. Somebody took some time to find out if there was a difference there. There is. Turns out there is. Well, if you're following the saga of the Tesla restaurant supercharger stations, it's probably more interesting than you think. So on the surface, it's a story about Elon Musk and Tesla building these cool 50s looking diners. They're kind of ultra modern. They've got some movie screens outside and you can buy some comfort food. And it just looks like, oh, that's kind of a nice thing. But the part that makes me curious is that Elon Musk doesn't get involved in things to keep things the way they they've always been. So when he invents a restaurant that, you know, although it's specific to be paired with his supercharger stuff, don't you think he's Going to fix restaurants, because how can he avoid it? If you're going to have a restaurant, you're not going to want it to be inefficient or any of that. So probably just the fact that Elon Musk is in the restaurant business now, indirectly, probably we're going to see some big improvements, I guess. He already sources the ingredients from local farms, so that's a good start. But have you seen Travis Kelly Kalanick, who used to be the CEO of Uber, but now he's running a startup called Cloud Kitchen. And it's literally robots that make your food. So instead of having a staff of people in the back room, you could just fill it with ingredients, the robots. And it's like a big industrial. It's more like a assembly line, an automated assembly line for food. And there are different robots for different kinds of foods, etc. But Travis is trying to reinvent the entire food distribution concept. He's looking to make a major change in how we get food and pay for it and all that. Now, at the same time, Kimball Musk, the brother of Elon, had been involved in indoor farms. I don't think that worked out. I'm not sure if he's still in that business or not, but I think there were some issues. But he put it all together and I would not be surprised to see some robots making food for people at the, at the future Tesla restaurants. It might be, maybe it'll be humanoid robots, which is different than what Travis Kalanick is doing. His is more like an assembly line robot situation. But big changes might be coming. And now you get your food. Well, according to Scientific American, the first hormone free male birth control maybe getting closer to approval. They still have to go through some human testing, but it got through a early human trial to show safety. So what would that do to our reproduction if men could take birth control and it didn't hurt them? Now I'm skeptical that this will ever work because if you turn off a man's sexual function, it's hard for me to imagine that everything else stays the same. You know, I know it's hormone free, but I don't know, it just seems like something that would have side effects. But we'll see. We'll see. And that should doom the rest of the planet to no more babies. Because if you allow men to have control over whether they can enjoy the sex and not have a risk of a baby, there's going to be a lot of accidental births that don't happen. And right now, since we have A reproduction crisis. We're not making enough babies. Imagine if you didn't have any accidental babies because the men just took a pill and they're like, I don't have to wear a condom. I'll enjoy this sex and I don't have to worry about a baby. A lot of, a lot of accidental babies are going to stop being born. So there's that. Jamath Pella Habitia is pointing out on X that mostly the value of cable news assets is sports. If you took away sports events from cable tv, they would have no audience whatsoever. It turns out that their viewership of cable TV is really heavily driven by sports. I didn't know that. But as Chamath points out, as YouTube and other online things start competing for sports content, there's a good chance that what you think of as cable TV will just go away. We might be a few years away from everything looking like Stephen Colbert, meaning that it just doesn't work in the modern era. So that might happen. Well, Hunter Biden did an interview that was laced with the F word. Did a lot of swearing, but he made a little news because he said that the problem with his dad at that debate that kicked Joe Biden out of the contest completely, Hunter believes it was because the dad was flying around to Europe and they'd been giving him Ambien for his sleep and he had basically Ambien brain. And that was his problem at the debate. Now, that's not impossible. It's not impossible that he had a little Ambien problem on top of whatever, you know, his natural problem was. But I don't think it explains everything. I feel like unless Joe was on Ambien every day in office, I don't think that's the whole story. Anyway.
- [09:49]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.
- [10:12]
Ashley Graham
Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. C mint mobile.com.
- [10:23]
Scott Adams
Hey, stop that. There we go. There's a. There's now a legal attack on the restaurant called the Cracker Barrel. Apparently the Cracker Barrel was still doing DEI in violation of federal and federal law mostly. But the America first legal has noticed and they're going after them. So what are the odds that a restaurant chain that's being accused of too much DEI is named Cracker Barrel? I feel like they have to change the name. What are the odds that it would be named Cracker? And they're too much. They're going too hard at dei. Oh, well, we live in a simulation. Well, let's talk about all the things that President Trump is doing to force the government or somebody else to just stop doing what they're doing. It turns out that one of the things that Trump is best at is stopping other people from doing things they shouldn't have been doing, such as crossing the border. Stop it. Okay? Stop it. Such as the DEI programs. Stop it. Just stop it. Don't do that anymore. It's illegal. But he keeps racking up the winds with making people stop doing things. So now the US Is going to pull out of the UNESCO. What is UNESCO? Well, it's a UN backed entity that's supposed to do things. What does it do? But apparently it's not doing much good. But UNESCO has got a little bit too much DEI and it's pro Palestinian and pro China bias. The White House told the Post. I'm not sure that saying that something is pro Palestinian is how you should say that you're pulling out of something. Shouldn't you say they're mo pro Palestinian? That shouldn't be bad, right? If you were describing this, would you say, well, no, we got to drop support for them because they're pro Palestinian. It's not the Palestinian part that's the problem, is it, isn't it the terrorists and Hamas, it's not just being Palestinian. All right, so we'll probably save some money or save some trouble by pulling out of that. And then the Trump administration, According to the Daily Color News foundation, the Trump administration is on the precipice of entering something called the endangerment finding, a rule that Democrats use to push climate change. So I guess the rule was, the rule was that if Democrats could say that something was endangering the planet or the people, then they could block projects, which had the effect of blocking a lot of energy projects and other things we wanted to do, but probably didn't make the world that much safer. So Trump is looking at getting out of it and just saying, nope, you can't use that endangerment finding to block us from progress. So that would be another thing that Trump is just discontinuing for our benefit. Are there any more things like that? Yes. According to Kerry Pickett, writing for the Washington Times, the Trump administration is also looking to remove up to 2.8 million duplicative enrollees on federal health care plans. In other words, there are a whole bunch of people who are on more than one plan that the government pays for the state plan and a federal plan I think is part of it. So they're going to get rid of a whole bunch of duplication that were unnecessary expenses, apparently. So there again, Trump is getting rid of something that shouldn't have been there in the first place. Over on cnn, Harry Anton, the data analyst expert guy, he declared that Elon Musk's idea of a third party is, quote, pretty much dead on arrival. Now, I'm going to put you to the test, and if you're new to my podcast, watch how impressed you will be. All right, Answer the question before I ask it. Go watch the comments. Answer the question before you know what the question is. And that is the correct answer. Yes. If you're listening to it, you don't see the comments. But. But the comments are saying 25%. Now, I haven't even asked the question. How in the world did they get the right answer? Well, here's the question. What percentage of the people polled thought that Elon Musk's third party was a good idea? 25%. How did everybody know it would be 25% without even knowing what the question was? You didn't even hear the question. Well, it's because 25% of the public will get every poll question wrong no matter how simple it is. Yeah, a third party would just screw up everything and most people don't want it. So I have a. I'm skeptical that Elon will go ahead with the third party because he's seeing what we see. That would be hugely unpopular and probably would be bad for his stock price and everything else. So I don't think it's going to happen. But even Harry Enton acknowledges that although it wouldn't win races, flat out, it's unlikely to do that if somebody ran under that platform. But it might be a spoiler. I'm not sure that Elon Musk wants more than a spoiler. It might be that all he needs is a spoiler. And whoever has a spoiler has a lot of power. So maybe. But doesn't look like it'd be very popular and probably wouldn't be good for Tesla stock, which I own some. So I'm not objective there at all.
- [18:02]
Ryan Reynolds
This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off terms apply.
- [18:32]
Scott Adams
So how many of you have ever said to yourself, what does the Federal Reserve really do? Have you ever asked that question and tried to look it up? And it's just all so confusing, like, what do they do? But apparently Scott Besant was asking the same question I've been asking, and why they need those people. So Bessant said, quote, what we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful. All of these PhDs over there, I don't know what they do. This is like universal basic income for academic economists. Now, given that Trump and a lot of us have done no economic modeling whatsoever and yet have strong opinions about whether interest rates should be going up or down. So could you replace the entire Federal Reserve with Trump's opinion? I think interest rates should be lower. Well, you would lose your independent opinion and it would be sort of a bad system to have the government totally in charge of that. But how many people do you think work at the Federal Reserve if the only thing you knew about them is that they determine if the interest rates should go up or down? How many staff should that take? What's your guess? Guess how many people work at the Federal Reserve? The answer is about 24,000 people. 24,000. And I asked Grok what they all do. So besides setting interest rates, which apparently takes thousands of people. Thousand. According to Grok, it estimated that thousands of people were involved in setting interest rates. Really? Do you really need thousands of people to guess whether inflation is going up or down? They don't even know. It would be one thing if those thousands of people made them get the right answer. But there's no indication they get the right answer. It looks like guessing, doesn't it? So they said interest rates, but they also regulate banks. That does feel like that would take a lot of people to regulate banks. But how much regulating are they doing? Are you telling me that AI couldn't do that? Because the only regulations that they probably do is they look at things, that data is surfacing. And if you can tell by Looking at the data and you didn't need a lot of instinct or anything like that. I feel like you don't need thousands of people to do it. Probably you just need a good AI and half a dozen people to keep it working. They also manage the money supply. How many thousands of people does it take to manage the money supply? What are they like goat herders? And they're all like, well, stay in these lines, money. Doesn't it seem like one or two people could manage the manage the entire money supply? Why do you need so many people? They also maintain financial stability. Well, that sort of sounds like it's wrapped up with the other stuff. So should that be its own category? I don't know. And they oversee payment systems which should probably go away. Don't you think we should just use Bitcoin or stable coins or some crypto so that you can send money whenever you want with no fee. The banks are just a obstacle to send money, basically. So I agree with Scott Besant that it does look like they could trim a little bit. A little bit. Like probably 80% of their staff could be Lego. That's my guess. 80%. We will never see that. I'm guessing. According to Rasmussen Polling, Democrats are expanding their lead for the midterms 2026. So did you know that? So the Democrats were already up a little bit over Republicans in terms of voting for the midterms, but they've increased that gap. So 42% would vote for the Republican and 46 would vote for the Democrat. Now these are generic candidates, not specific ones. So there's been a net three point gain by Democrats since May, according to Rasmussen. So how many of you think the midterms are going to go Trump's way? I'll tell you, if the midterms don't go Trump's way, then I think you could conclude that there's no time in the future that the incumbent will get the midterms going their way. You know, there's this well understood natural impulse for the public to want a, essentially a constipated government where the President is one party and the Congress is another. So I don't have confidence that the Trump accomplishments will be permanent. They might. A lot of things might get reversed in, in 2026. We'll see. Well, how many of you are, would recognize the name Peter Zion? Zion. You might see him on social media a lot. He's a ponytailed geopolitical strategist who does a lot of social media and he's got a Very bearish outlook on China's future. Now, I don't think that I agree with this, but it's very interesting, his point of view. I'll tell it. He says that China looks like it's this big, powerful country that's going to eat our lunch. But it might be the opposite. It might be that China's demographic collapse is going to essentially cripple them forever and that China is heading for a fall. So, as you know, China is not producing enough people to replace the ones they have and their existing people are getting older. Now, we have the same problem and a lot of countries have that problem, but probably China has it the worst and the US might be able to find a way past it, but it's a problem everywhere. But he thinks that China is going to go hard, go down hard, and that they have a fragile financial system. Now, I don't know about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if that whole communist situation didn't distort their financial situation to the point where we're just waiting for it to all blow up. Totally possible. Totally possible. He compares their financial system to Enron. So they've got lots of debt and they have inefficient industries. Do they? Are their industries inefficient? I don't know. Depends which ones. And then this part of the opinion from Zan is really interesting. He thinks that China's dependence on global trade was protected by the US Navy up until this point, meaning that whether you were China or anyone else, it felt reasonably safe to put things on a boat, a ship and ship it somewhere. And you didn't worry too much about pirates. And the reason, apparently, according to Zan, the reason you didn't have to worry about pirates is that the US Navy would blast those pirates into bits if they got in the way of international trade. I don't know if that's true, but so, but it makes China look like it's sort of isolated. And then a lot of. A lot of countries are trying to bring their manufacturing internally and find other sources for things. So a lot of people who depended on China and bought a lot of stuff from them might be looking for alternatives and might be able to find them in, you know, say the next 10 years. And then controversially, you know, China is doing this Belt and Road initiative. They're trying to build this, you know, immense highway from China to other parts of the connected world so that China becomes the dominant trading, you know, trading geography. But Zion thinks that they might be over. What do you call it over extended, overstretched and unsustainable. So I would say I don't agree with Peter Zahn's predictions about China. I do believe that they're lying to us about their finances and about their population. That wouldn't surprise me. And I do think that they have really big challenges. But China is a, I hate to say it, but it's a well managed country relative to other countries. I feel like they could figure their way through it. So I'm not as negative about China, China's future. Unfortunately, I'd like them to be a little less strong than they are, but I feel like they got a lot going for them.
- [29:12]
Ashley Graham
Ten years from today, Lisa Schneider will trade in her office job to become the leader of a pack of dogs as the owner of her own dog rescue. That is a second act made possible by the reskilling courses Lisa's taking now with AARP to help make sure her income lives as as long as she does. And she can finally run with the big dogs and the small dogs who just think they're big dogs. That's why the younger you are, the more you need AARP. Learn more at aarp.org skills Laura Luber.
- [29:43]
Scott Adams
Has another scoop, an exclusive. She has determined that John Brennan's ex director of operations from for when John Brennan was head of the CIA under a different president, is currently working at the Department of Defense in the Trump administration and he's a senior advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Now, as Laura Luber points out, she doesn't say this exactly, but I'm reading between the lines. It would be a really, really bad idea to have anybody who was loyal to John Brennan, you know, deep within your administration, probably a really bad idea. And so Laura Loomer is recommending that he be fired immediately. I don't know if that'll happen, but I think I would bet on Loomer for this one. I think, I think once she has surfaced it as a problem and it's something you could verify, oh, this, this guy does work there. He used to be Brendan Sky. That probably is enough for something to happen to him. So if it does, Laura Loomer gets another scalp. Matt Gates was talking to Mike Benz on a recent podcast and they were talking about how John Brennan lied to Congress under oath. But as you know, most people do not go to jail for lying under oath to Congress. But it's possible. And Brendan asked, I'm sorry, Gates asked Ben's if John Brennan should be prosecuted. And Mike, Ben says absolutely. But my question Is this. Is lying to Congress the worst thing that you could prosecute Brennan for? There are a number of things he did or may have done or is accused of doing that the statute of limitations may have already run out on. And so I would be very surprised if Brennan ever got, you know, arrested and convicted of anything. I don't know. But DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard has apparently urged the Justice Department to investigate and maybe prosecute Obama, John Kerry, John Brennan, Susan rice, and Andrew McCabe for fabricating the Russia interference slash collusion hoax. But I would ask again, what law got broken? I don't know if they broke any laws with the worst stuff that they did, but I'm no lawyer, so I'm sure they can always find some law that got broken. I'm going to say I've said it before, but I'm going to. I'll reiterate, for most of my adult life, I would have said, no, no, you don't want to go prosecuting the last administration, because once you start doing that, everybody's going to be trying to prosecute the last administration. Except that's what the Democrats did to Trump when he was out of office. They went after him and. To which I say, well, they took the gloves off. They changed the rules. So I believe that they have given Trump a free punch, meaning that if he aggressively tried to jail the people from a prior administration, I feel like he's totally, ethically, morally, legally, politically, he's exactly where he needs to be. Would it be a gigantic problem to put Barack Obama in jail? Yeah. Yeah. It would almost certainly cause something close to a civil war, wouldn't you think? I mean, first of all, I don't think it'll happen. But if you can imagine that there was something illegal about trying to overthrow the government, which is what they apparently did, according to the documents we have. If, if you saw a perp walk in which Brennan and, I don't know, Kerry and Obama were all taken away in handcuffs and then tried and convicted and put in jail, you don't think that would cause an actual civil war? It would. And here's what I would say about that. Trump didn't start the war. Trump did not start this war. The war is happening with or without Trump doing anything. The war is raging because they would jail Trump and any of his supporters in a heartbeat. And they're probably just waiting to get power back so they can try it again. So given that all the gloves are off, all the rules have already been broken, and the precedent has been set. I'm 1% in favor of jailing any of these named people. If the justice system decides that that's the right answer, you know, only if. Only if there's a, you know, the case is made. But, yeah, I'll. I'll take whatever blowback. I will accept the high risk of a civil war. Absolutely. Yeah. We. We can't live in a country where. Where you can just make up a hoax and put somebody in jail and take them out of the race. Nope. Nope. If. If there's a gigantic blowback, it just seems like we're ready to take that blowback. We almost have to. All right. Probably to distract us from other things like the Epstein story, or maybe a coincidence, but a whole bunch of MLK files have been released from the FBI, etc. 230,000 documents about MLK's assassination. Do you think that we're going to learn anything we didn't know? I doubt it. I don't think so. But it's a, you know, step in the right direction, so maybe it'll be fun. Maybe it's just that distraction. Speaker Mike Johnson says there will be no House vote on releasing the Epstein files before the August recess. Now, I don't understand that story because. Are you telling me that there are documents that somehow the Congress could vote to release that have somehow not been released to this point, that would somehow tell us something we didn't already know? Why is this even a thing? What exactly is the thing that Congress can vote that we'll see some files that we had never seen before and that that's where the good stuff will be? I don't know. I don't even understand what it is that we might look at that's extra. So no rush there. Apparently, according to Pam Bondi and her. One of her underlings, the Department of Justice is going to try to interview Ghislaine Maxwell to find out what she knows about other offenders. To which I say, wait a minute. Are you telling me that the Department of Justice and the FBI have not already asked Ghislaine Maxwell to tell them everything that she could tell? What? How does that make sense? But apparently that's the case because the effort to interview her and talk to her is now like a national story. But seriously, we didn't already have the Department of Justice and the FBI asking her for what she could tell us about Epstein? No. And if you were Ghislaine Maxwell, would you take that meeting? I mean, at this point, when you're already in jail? I Would not unless they offer me a deal. So if I were Ghislaine, I would say, so you want to find out everything I know about Epstein? Yes, we do. All right, here's the deal. You release me from prison, and I know you might have to serve another year or something, but I'll tell you everything I know, but you have to let me out of prison. Would you take that deal if you didn't know what she was going to tell you? So you don't know how valuable it is, but she says, I'm not going to tell you anything unless you pardon me and I get out of jail. Would you take that deal? Because she would be insane to do it for nothing when she has this, you know, leverage she can negotiate with. And then what happens? If they agree, she is pardoned, she's released from jail. She does in fact, do the interviews as long as they want answers, every question. But you don't really find out anything new because maybe she doesn't know anything that. That you don't already know. Maybe I would think she would, but she could lie and say, yeah, all these important people came through, but I wasn't there when anything bad happened. So, you know, I. Yeah, I do know Prince Andrew. Yeah, they. They did hang out together, but I was not in the room when anything illegal happened, so I can't tell you anything happened or not I wasn't in the room. So maybe we'll find out something through that path. But maybe she found a way out of jail.
- [41:04]
Laura Loomer
I'm Ashley Graham, and as a parent, I know the back to school transition can be a lot when it comes to wellness. Ollie supports me and my family through it all. Kids multi is big in my house. It supports their immune system and they love to take it. A win win for everyone. Shop these products@ollie.com or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
- [41:34]
Scott Adams
I saw a post on X from Valerie Ann Smith talking about how bad the medical system in the United States is and how corrupt it is. And there were a number of claims, including that were in her thread, that orthopedic surgeons are the most corrupt because they have incentives for using certain devices. So apparently your orthopedic surgeon has a choice of what kind of artificial things they'll put in your body or what they use. And they will pick them based on the biggest payout and bonus and not necessarily on what's good for you. Did you know that do you believe that there are other parts of the healthcare system where some doctor or surgeon is making decisions based on their payout as opposed to your benefit as a patient? Of course there are. I know of a few, but I'm not going to mention them because I don't need the lawsuits. But is it true that our healthcare system is now completely corrupt by the big money people who can corrupt people? And the answer seems to be yes. And there's a suggestion that you should never go in a hospital unless you have an advocate with you, and that it's so bad, the claim is it's so bad that you should never leave somebody in the hospital alone. Just think about that. You should never leave them alone in the hospital because what happens if, if there's no family member there, then somebody comes in and talks to patient who's, you know, maybe medicated anyway, into some procedure they don't need, and if you had a family member there, they could say, oh, hold on, wait, what is it you're recommending and why do you think that's absolutely necessary and what does that cost? And if you're not doing that all the time, you might get killed by bad health care. Now, how many people do you think die every year from the category of medical error? Medical error per year? Well, in 2016, and I think through 2019, the number was about the same. 250,000 people die from medical errors every year, 250,000 from just medical errors every year. Now, some might say that I could have been one of those people, but so far, so good. And let me ask you this. It's going to sound like I'm changing the topic, but watch me tie it all together. Okay, so we'll come back to this, but through a different topic. Iran. I'm fascinated by the fact that there's excess mortality that's pretty big that's happening in the United States and maybe other places since the pandemic. Now, I ran a little, you know, unscientific polar necks and I asked people, did they think the excess mortality was coming from the COVID shots and some kind of bad reactions people have or from COVID infections that might have some ongoing problems or from, I threw in this category increased loneliness, because I don't know if you know this, but loneliness is very strongly correlated with early mortality, that lonely people just die faster. They die faster. So since we, I think we know anecdotally, if not with data, that a lot of people who got locked in during the pandemic never really recovered Their social circle, meaning that if they were lonely during the pandemic, they didn't always recover from that. So they may have just become loners and lost their social network. And then you throw in the political differences where you're not allowed to be friends with somebody who voted the other way. I would say that the loneliness epidemic is probably killing a lot of people. So I wondered. And then the other category in the poll was something else. 72% of the people who answered that unscientific poll said they thought the shots, the COVID shots, were the biggest explanation for excess mortality. Now, you know that I'm a bit skeptical on all things pandemic, but that's possible. Yeah. Let me say as clearly as I can, it's possible that the COVID shots are the reason for the excess mortality. But if you spend a little time trying to Google the answer and find out if there's any correlation, you will learn the following. There's no good data to tell you if the vaccinations are killing people or keeping them alive. They do have data about, you know, hospitalizations and, you know, people who died right away from it, et cetera. But. But there is no data that would be reliable that would say that several years after you got your vaccination, it may or may not make you less healthy. There's no data that you could rely on that would tell you that. So we don't know. But if you said, as somebody said in the comments to this, that the type of things that people are dying from are exactly the things that were predicted by the potential side effects of the COVID shots, do you believe that? Do you believe that the exact types of things people are dying from more than they ever did, are exactly the things we were worried about with the shots? Well, some of those categories would be, for example, heart disease. But, you know, there are lots of things that cause heart disease. Cancer, but there are lots of things that cause cancer and so on. But did you know that the number of people who died in accidents is way up? Since even if you look at the baseline from before the pandemic, car accidents are way up. And also hospital deaths, the medical errors. Remember I told you that 250,000 people a year were dying from medical problems before the pandemic? This is before the pandemic. Guess how many people are dying now after the pandemic from medical errors? It was 250,000 before the pandemic. And then we fast forward through the pandemic because that changes everything to after the pandemic. What do you think the medical errors did shot through the roof? The medical error deaths might be as high as 400,000 from 250. What now would that be have anything to do with vaccinations? I don't think so. Would car accidents have anything to do with vaccinations? I don't see how. So we have this weird mystery where if you said to me, Scott, is it consistent with our observations that the COVID shots might be the reason for the excess mortality? I would say to you, yes, yes, that would be consistent with what we're observing. Although what we're observing data wise is really sketchy. So the data is not great. The one thing we do seem to know for sure is that excess mortality is way high. So I don't think there's any real question about whether excess mortality exists. And I would agree with all of you that if you were looking at what changed, an obvious thing to look at would be the vaccination situation. Now, to add to the mystery, how many of you are aware of what RFK Jr. S opinion is on older adults? I'm limiting it to older adults. Older adults only getting the COVID vaccination today when we're not in the pandemic. How many of you would know RFK junior's preference on that? Well, I don't. I don't know. Wouldn't you assume that if it's obvious that the excess mortality is coming from the shots, that the one person who would definitely know that would be RFK Jr. Right. So. And then he's also famously, I don't want to say he's anti vaccination in general for other kinds of vaccinations as well. I would say that he's a maniac for having data. So that your whatever it is that you do is backed by data. I don't like. I don't like calling him just a skeptic or something. That seems too dismissive. So here's the answer. We don't know. So RFK Jr. The most important, and I would say the voice you could trust the most to not only dig into the correct data and know which data matters and what doesn't, and you also know that you wouldn't lie to protect the big pharma companies. So if there was one person you could look to to say, what about this excess mortality? Do you think this might be caused by the COVID vaccination? He's silent on it. Why? The only reason that I can imagine is that there's no data that Makes the case either way. I would think that if he was convinced that the COVID shots were helping older people, you know, not pregnant ladies, not young people, but just older people, if he were confident that it was helping more people than it was hurting, don't you think you'd know that by now? Don't you think he would have mentioned it? And likewise, if he thought that the shots most likely even not guaranteed, but if he thought they were most likely the cause of the problems, don't you think he would have mentioned it by now? So that's part of the mystery, is that he hasn't weighed in on it. I don't know why. I don't have the best idea why. Probably the data is bad, but I don't know that. All right, so what is it that would cause these unrelated things like hospital errors and automobile accidents? And for a while, the overdose deaths were up, I believe. I hate using this word, but the self harm category, I think, is up. What else has changed? Here's some more possibilities, because it might be a whole bunch of things have changed. One of the things that changed is, like I said, the loneliness epidemic. The loneliness epidemic is strong enough and is highly correlated with longevity that if you saw a spike in loneliness, you should see excess mortality. So that might be some of it. What about the number of people who got fatter? Well, it turns out that most people did not get fatter after the pandemic. People got a little fatter during the pandemic, but when it was over, there was a lot of return to the baseline. However, according to Grok, the people who were obese, like really obese, they got fatter, and they have since the pandemic. Now, given that we know that weight is highly correlated with medical outcomes, is it possible that some, not all of it, but some of the excess mortality is just people got fatter? Could it be that people got older? Could it be that they take more chances? I don't know. Maybe a little. So. And then I also asked Grok if people were more sedentary when they work at home, because I thought it could go either way. Right. And according to Grok, there is evidence and data that says that the people who used to go into the office, but then after the pandemic, fewer people went into the office, that the people who work at home take way less steps. And that does not surprise me. So if you look at the lack of activity that should kill people, the excess weight that should kill people, the excess loneliness that should kill people, there's also the thought that people delayed medical treatment, but I don't think that that would still be affecting us at the moment because people would have caught up by now. But I'm going to throw another idea into the idea bin. What if people stopped believing doctors? They might have the same amount of, you know, doctor visits, but what if they just stopped taking their advice? So sometimes not taking their advice might be what saved your life. Sometimes it could be the opposite, that taking the advice is what killed you. If you don't take the advice, could go either way. So the, the mystery remains. It's definitely possibility that it was the vaccination, but there are a lot of possibilities. Over in Ukraine, as you know, it's become a drone war, and the war is evolving fast, they say, and the drones are so dominant on the front lines, both the Russian drones and the Ukraine drones, that pretty much everybody who leaves their foxhole gets targeted by drone. Almost everybody. So if you, if you venture out of your bunker or wherever it is that you were hiding, the odds of being killed by a drone are, like, really, really high. So I'll say again, we might be three years away from an all robot war because it won't make any sense to have any humans there. Now, apparently it's gotten so bad that if you're on the front lines for Ukraine, the only way you can get food and the only way you can remove the wounded is with robots and drones. So they can't even resupply themselves because if they leave their bunker, they get killed by a Russian drone. So nobody can even go outdoors anywhere near the front line. They can't even go out in the direction of their own country. Just going outside is basically a death sentence. So I would think that one to three years, probably three, it will be just robot on robot. It wouldn't make any sense to have a human being on the front line. That's what I say. All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have to say for today, keeping it short. And I'm going to say some words to the local subscribers who I call Beloved. And that'll be private for the subscribers. The rest of you, thanks for joining and I hope you got something out of this. We'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place, for some more fun. All right, locals.