Episode 815 Scott Adams: Odds of Coronavirus Being a Bio Weapon, AOC Primaries Schumer?

Date: 2020-02-10 | Duration: 57:45

Topics

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Biden’s “lying dog-faced pony soldier” reply The contrast play, a President Trump favorite Will AOC primary Chuck Schumer? Would she win? AOC mixes up names of two famous economists Chinese Ambassador doesn’t deny coronavirus is bio-weapon Whiteboard: Coronavirus facts and suspicions

If you would like my channel to have a wider audience and higher production quality, please donate via my startup (Whenhub.com) at this link: https://interface.my/ScottAdamsSays

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:05]

mm oh what a day what a day what an amazing Monday it is will we have laughs yes we will will we enjoy our time here will we learn something yes we will but most importantly we will be enjoying the simultaneous separately it doesn't take much to participate it does not really merely have a cup or a mug or a glass so take your chelators time in the canteen juggler flash a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine the end of the day the thing that makes everything better simultaneous it go now you might note that I am sipping from the deplorable University cup and that is your signal that there will be some learning today yeah that's my whiteboard over there there will be learning and let's get to

[1:11]

there will be learning and let's get to it
it so lots of fun stories lots of important stories apparently a critic of landed Mir Putin has been found with his throat slit and what police are calling a quote politically motivated to sassa nation in a French hotel so it seems like Putin has a free hand to assassinate anybody wants apparently now I can't say that that has no connection to the fact that he gets away with it and apparently Saudi Arabia got away with it too so we're taking out you know we took out Solomon a you know what some would say was more of an assassination than a than an act of war that's debatable I would call it just typical typical killing of terrorists but I

[2:12]

typical killing of terrorists but I think we live in a world now where people are just gonna get rubbed out for being critics I plan to do some criticizing of China today I would like to remind all of you or tell you for the first time I am not feeling suicidal so if I die in mysterious circumstances you're all my witness then I was not planning to end it myself in fact I would resist resist dying with all of my powers Elon Musk tweeted out some photos of the new Tesla solar panels for root roofs and I think Elon Musk did it again and I did it again I mean I think he's made a product that probably has a lot of potential he is worth forty six billion dollars already maybe this will give him a little boost but what I liked about it is that when

[3:16]

but what I liked about it is that when Tesla made a car you know the electric car they didn't just make it functional and hey this saves you some money or it's good for the environment they made it as sexy so if you did not look at a Tesla and say that's a pretty good-looking car if you didn't have that visceral feeling about it it wouldn't be nearly as successful it would just be a boring you know GM Volt Chevy Volt or whatever it is but he makes it sexy so that's the the secret sauce it's sort of what Apple does Apple makes a phone other people make phones but you still like your Apple phone because it's sexy you know the design is so powerful and apparently Tesla's done that with their solar panels that look like roofing materials because he showed some pictures and my immediate the thought was that looks better than a roof it wasn't just something that looks

[4:16]

roof it wasn't just something that looks like a roof but also gives you electricity that would be pretty good but that would just be a functional product and I don't know would be so successful I mean maybe the economics of it would make it successful but he took it to the next level and when I looked at those houses I immediately said if I build another house which I'd like to do someday it's gonna have those panels if only because they look great so you know I don't know the details but I think he might have done it again based on the the magnificence of the design element the part that's always left out of solar the Oscars were last night I don't care do you I didn't watch it did not watch a single movie and beyond that I don't even know how anybody can watch a movie how does anybody watch an entire movie you have one of these right you've got a phone hasn't your life taken the same arc as

[5:17]

hasn't your life taken the same arc as mine that your attention span is getting smaller and smaller and smaller for me watching a half-hour sitcom on television is it's so hard now it's like I can't put my whole day into this even though it's just half an hour so I don't think movies even have a purpose anymore there's just nothing I can get out of a movie that I need or want now there used to be a time when it was a shared experience and there wasn't much else going on so I went to the movies like everybody else did but I would say that I only liked one in 10 maybe one in 20 were even worth the time I put into them so it was a pretty low yield activity so I just don't know why movies or even a thing anymore I would think I would expect them to become obsolete based on our our our ever shrinking attention spans plus the fact that there's so much you

[6:18]

plus the fact that there's so much you know other stuff to entertain us so I don't care about the Oscars don't care about Brad Pitt don't care about anybody's political statements let's talk about Biden in a somewhat I guess we could call it typical Biden situation he said something so weird at a little town hall event in I guess New Hampshire that everybody is yakking about it but of course they're leaving out critical parts to make you understand the story so what happened was somebody in the audience asked him a question and he in responding to the question he asked a question back have you ever been to a caucus and the person in the audience was asked a good question said yes I think it was the same person who asked the question that was unclear and Biden looks up the audience member who said yes and says he goes you're a lying dog face Pony soldier

[7:23]

now it took a while for social media to figure out whoa what the heck is a lying dog faced Pony soldier and why would you say that to somebody you want to vote for you in public what is up with that but turns out it's not crazy it's just suboptimal because apparently this is a sort of famous quote but not famous enough that I had ever heard it before but it comes from John Wayne in the John Wayne movie I don't know which one and apparently John Wayne called somebody a lying dog faced pony soldier when Biden said it people laughed and it was sort of a sort of a gentle ribbing because he just didn't believe that she had never been to a caucus so my first statement about it is it's a big nothing it wasn't a sign of him being senile and randomly spouting off things it wasn't that he was making a joke based on a reference that not everybody

[8:24]

based on a reference that not everybody got but as people pointed out do you want a president whose references are old John Wayne movies I mean just by itself if you didn't know anything else about him and and he's speaking in public and he's making John Wayne references that automatically is a little bit of a red flag right yeah baby he's not of this generation or of this world so anyway one of the patterns that we're seeing is the Biden is getting in the face of citizens now the people he gets in their face are mostly people who have asked critical questions people who will probably aren't going to vote for him anyway but have you ever seen the Trump go after a citizen like that now he does block people who make disturbances at his rallies but I would say that's people who have started the problem and

[9:26]

people who have started the problem and he's just having fun with it etc but you don't see trouble going after people for just their opinion going after somebody for disrupting a rally is going after somebody for bad behavior that seems fair going after somebody for a differing political opinion and insulting them in public feels like not your best play and and I'm noticing this pattern let me run this by you and see if you see this pattern Democrats as a as a group and as a philosophy blame other people for problems if you listen to Bernie talk he says it's the billionaires it's the bankers it's the rich people Americans so Bernie yes the entire thrust is blaming people who have money people who are making the rules etc but it's blaming people and I think

[10:28]

etc but it's blaming people and I think you would see that with all of identity politics the whole point of identity politics is that one group of Americans usually Democrats or blaming another group of Americans so again there's sort of an enemy and it's always Americans it's the Americans you don't like but when Republicans talk now of course there's a little bit of overlap so what I'm going to say doesn't have some universal perfect truth I'm talking about in general and you know on average but on average and in general Republicans usually criticize systems so a Republican is going to say taxes are too high that's about the system a Republican is going to say we have too many regulations that's something wrong with the system a Republican is going to say we need stronger and law enforcement that's just about the system a Republican might say we need more market market influence on

[11:32]

we need more market market influence on pharmaceuticals that's a system so look for this pattern it seems to be the Republicans tend to criticize systems when they think there's something wrong with them and Democrats tend to criticize other Americans it's fairly consistent now in both cases they're they're blaming something everybody likes to blame something but it feels a lot more productive to Britain to blame your system don't blame the people for being evil and defective now I know I know I know there are plenty of Republicans who blame people and you know and accuse snowflakes of being snowflakes but mostly it's about their opinions you know it's mostly about their opinions it's not really too personal but the Democrats really feel personal it's about people and it seems that their the the Democratic philosophies seem to grow out of the concepts of fear and jealousy

[12:33]

concepts of fear and jealousy wouldn't you say if you look at you know the top Democrats what they're talking about is fear and jealousy mostly Republicans tend to focus on freedom and efficiency you know having a good system being free to to enjoy no Democrats also use fear but it usually is more of a campaign thing all right so the president fired two of the people who testified in the appeasement process sunland and the two vindens defendants were fired they were just reassigned back to their back to where they came from and Soglin I don't think D did the job if I understand he was a rich guy yeah he wasn't a career politician so it probably doesn't that much so nobody really lost out you know the vindens didn't lose any money and and Sunland had had as much money as they needed I think so it wasn't like there was some real victims here in any

[13:33]

there was some real victims here in any kind of a serious lasting way and everybody agrees that that Trump had the right to do it and he has to be comfortable with his staff so so it's sort of a big nothing but I wanted to call it up the contrast play because there are people saying it's bad for him to do this it's a bad look it's it's unnecessary blah blah blah but I would argue that Trump consistently uses the concept of contrast and the contrast that he consistently uses is if you do good things for him you say nice things about him he's gonna say nice things about you but if you're a critic or you're a problem for him he is gonna go at you hard because he what's the distance to be as far as possible between being on his team and being opposed to him that's really good basic leadership now the people saying hey you don't go so hard on your critics and you

[14:35]

don't go so hard on your critics and you know don't go so hard on the people who are who are fighting against you are missing the fact that the larger you could make that contrast the more effective you are as leader so you see Trump do the contrast play all the time this is just another one but you could say hey he really did it because he's mad at them and it's just personal and he didn't need to do it and maybe maybe you know things don't get done for one reason whenever you say there's only one reason something happened you're probably wrong because there's usually complicated you know multi-part motives so Trump probably liked it for revenge just guessing I can't read his mind so I don't know what he's thinking but if you were in that situation you'd like a little revenge probably probably also did it because he couldn't trust them and that's fair for any employer but I think he also did it to establish that big gap between being on his team and not being on his team if there are people in the middle trying

[15:35]

if there are people in the middle trying to figure out do I speak up do I become a critic he just makes it harder for them to do that so it's good persuasion even if you don't like it Trump of course is the greatest Twitter troll of all time and so he did his Monday trick of saying something so provocative that you can't ignore it and and it will start to dominate the headlines so here's his tweet from this morning and this is just this is just delicious trolling I mean it's hilarious by Aaron is he says because of how badly they did with the impeachment hoax which he capitalizes now impeachment hoaxes capitalized that he says AOC will primary cry and Chuck Schumer and win and Jerry Nadler has a good chance of losing to his far-left primary opponent it is all getting quite interesting Pelosi will lose the house again my poll

[16:36]

Pelosi will lose the house again my poll numbers are great now the active part of this and the the hilarious part is that AOC we assume based on what we've observed again I'm not mind reading I'm just making an assumption based on what we observe AOC seems to be ambitious would you would you all agree that that's true it's not an insult it's just an objective statement would you say that AOC is ambitious I think you'd agree with that right so you've got ambitious AOC who has just hugely successful in in dominating the the thought process and even the policies and the candidates and everything else with the green new deal and anything else she says it turns out so does she want to get a promotion and it would be a promotion from being in the house there are lots of people in the house and it's an important job but it's not

[17:39]

and it's an important job but it's not like being a senator senator is one step closer to president if you know what I mean so does AOC anytime in the future have thoughts of becoming a senator because apparently the only way she could do that is to wait for cry and Chuck Schumer to retire I don't think that's gonna happen right away or two primary him and she might have a reason to primary him because he's not radical enough according to her now what would happen if AOC primary to Chuck Schumer who would win that well Chuck Schumer has you know he's got the the base he's probably you know got plenty of funding he's got tons of connections he's got history he has lots of advantages then there's a aoc a or say he has so much more skill than Schumer it's very much

[18:40]

more skill than Schumer it's very much like Trump going up on against Hillary Hillary had every advantage a politician could have you know money connections experience everything you could have except she wasn't nearly as good at persuading and communicating at least in the way that Trump was so hypothetically if AOC ran against Schumer could she win I'm gonna say yes which is different from say she would win but it's entirely within the realm of a sort of a coin flip I think it would be I think it would be interesting but I wouldn't I wouldn't assume that Schumer could keep his job and what a what a baller play that would be for AOC to take out the leader of her own party because he wasn't radical enough it would be a real strong play now I have no idea none of us do if AFC has ever considered this play but because the president put it

[19:41]

play but because the president put it out there we're all going to be chewing on it and it's gonna it's going to sort of think it into reality because the first step of making something happened is you have to imagine it if the people involves can't imagine a thing happening they don't act on it because you can't even imagine it well now we're all imagining I imagine I imagine that AMC has already thought of it but but so that was fun so the president's churn in water now also a or C news I'll give you two pieces of AOC news the other one was I had a chance to ask a teenager yesterday I said a teenager can you name the vice president of the United States I just wondered do teenagers pay attention to any of this stuff and the teenager is said to be Mike Pence knew it like that I thought I was pretty good and then said teenager said to me but I can't name anybody else

[20:44]

said to me but I can't name anybody else in the government those are the only two names I know just Trump and Mike Pence and then teenager said well there's also that one who's that one who they were making fun of his religion because of the vote and I said Romney Romney the teenagers said yes yes that's the one but the teenager didn't know any of the details and just sort of heard this story passing through and that I thought I was done with the conversation and said teenager said to me well I remember one other politician and I said do you know who AOC is and teenager said no I'd never heard of AOC there's only one politician other one that I can think of and sad teenager said the name of the politician is Alexandria and I said you mean they ever see and said teenager said yes that's it

[21:47]

see and said teenager said yes that's it at the Alexandria you know Octavia Cortes or whatever it is I could never remember her name so I always use agency so think about that a teenager with the smallest understanding of American politics I mean just the most miniscule understanding had four data points and AOC was one of them right okay okay Acacio not Octavio I'm sorry there's a reason she has a nickname speaking of mixing up names that's the story I was gonna tell so the first point is do not underestimate how good a or C is at getting the attention of people so even though a teenager knows who she is and doesn't know anybody else so there's a big story because a or C was talking on some kind of video stream and mixed up the names of two famous

[22:49]

and mixed up the names of two famous economists so instead of saying Milton Friedman and instead of saying John Maynard Keynes she she said Milton Keynes so she put you know the wrong first name with the wrong last name now of course all the anti a over C people said well there she is again being dumped in public how dumb can you be mixing up these two names you know to which I said I don't know have you listened to anything that I've said or written for the last three years because here's what I think happened everybody in the country just learned the AOC has a background in economics now in my tweet I said a degree I think it's a minor a minor in economics do you call that a degree if somebody has a minor in something is that a degree I sort of I don't know which words to word use of that but the point is how many people in the general public have a background to

[23:52]

the general public have a background to studying economics not too many so everybody in the country just learned because of this little you know minor mixing up of dames which we all do in fact I just in it I literally just in it with a ever see his name most common thing in the world doesn't mean I'm stupid it doesn't mean you're stupid doesn't mean anybody stupid it's just a common thing but what did she get out of it
it the whole world just found out she has a background in economics because most people wouldn't know either one of those Alice she knew it and mixed them up but that puts her away out of most of the people so she came out ahead I tweeted that and she liked my tweet within about 60 seconds so I think she enjoyed that all right let's talk about a few things that I'm gonna go to the whiteboard oh here's some potentially exciting news now when you hear these new scientific and technical discoveries most of the

[24:52]

and technical discoveries most of the time they don't turn into into anything but they're still fun to think about because they do they do show the potential and they do show that we're a world that's inventing like crazies some of those inventions work but it turns out that researchers at ben-gurion University and so Israel they have a new technology in which they superheat water until the water becomes sort of in a strange state it's so hot and then they can take the garbage and put it in that water I'm simplifying of course and there's something about the highly pressurized hot water that turns the organic parts of your garbage into a gas that you can use for fuel and here's the cool part it only does that to the organic parts that can turn into fuel and all the rest becomes just garbage so apparently this works they've already done it you know it's not the theoretical they're actually doing it in the lab setting now imagine if this is

[25:54]

the lab setting now imagine if this is something that could scale up and again most of these technical things end up not being scalable and not really being what you think but this one might be because it seems like they've already tested it and there's not much to it in terms of how hard it would be to scale it up because it's basic industrial stuff there's nothing exotic that needs to be invented so it could be that you know our garbage and some part of our our energy problems just just add a big term don't know all right I'm having fun arguing with people about whether Trump was impeached or not impeached and I think you know I think you know that I'm doing this just for fun in my book loser think behind me in my book loser think I tell you that it's word thinking to argue about what label to put on something if everybody agrees what that something is

[26:55]

everybody agrees what that something is so with this impeachment situation we're all looking at the same set of facts so if you want to call it he's impeached and I want to say he's not impeached that's not a real argument that's just you like your word I like my word it doesn't change the facts that we all agree on so I do this just for fun it's a complete long term prank to make Democrats go crazy now the argument that I heard Dershowitz make is that there's an analogy to a criminal trial and as as Dershowitz said if it were a criminal trial and you got indicted and then you had your trial and let's say you were found not guilty at the moment you're found not guilty you're also no longer indicted right the indictment doesn't mean anything you know the trial is over so he would use that analogy to say well if you get impeached by the house but the Senate doesn't vote to remove him from office it's like the impeachment has been

[27:57]

it's like the impeachment has been nullified and went away of course Democrats don't like that interpretation at all and in a way it's just word thinking but it's worse than that it's analogy thinking so saying that impeachment is analogous to a criminal trial just makes people say no it's not because of these differences now there are some differences so I'm gonna add this thought to it and again this is just for fun it makes no difference what you call it it just will drive people crazy the argument goes like this if you wanted to compare it to a criminal trial you're doing it wrong because in the criminal trial you have the indictment which is like a mini trial where some evidence is presented but it's not the full thing and it's not until you have the real trial that everybody sees all of the evidence and all of the arguments so in that case it makes sense that the only real trial is the trial and the other one sort of didn't count so if the

[28:57]

other one sort of didn't count so if the trial doesn't work it makes perfect sense that the indictment goes away as well but in the appeasement you've got two votes instead of one jury trial you've got the house votes to send it to the Senate and then the Senate has to vote again to remove now let me ask you this what is the point of impeaching the only point of impeaching at least in terms of constitutional reasons is to remove somebody from office so if you have an impeachment without the removing from office have you impeached or is it simply an attempted impeachment that failed and I would add this to it I would say that you were if you're going to use the analogy to a jury trial which again is completely irrational this is just for fun analogies are not or no way to argue but if you wanted to for fun to drive a Democrat crazy you would say you know if you want to make that analogy to a criminal trial I would say that an

[29:58]

criminal trial I would say that an impeachment the jury is the combined house the votes plus the Senate in other words they're all looking at the same trial which happens in the house because the Senate doesn't have a separate trial the Senate is just voting on what they see which is the same thing but the house saw so it says if the house plus the Senate or just one jury trial they just voted in two parts so if you have a one jury trial and the the some of that is that they find him acquitted would it not make sense that the impeachment which only had one purpose to remove somebody from office if it didn't happen I would say the impeachment didn't happen so I'm adding that to the mix I don't think that makes much difference all right let's talk about the coronavirus ambassador Chinese ambassador to the United States was on

[30:59]

ambassador to the United States was on Face the Nation and was asked if the coronavirus could have come from a bio lab in China now have I taught you how to detect line let me give you an example of a liar versus an honest person I would like to call him my assistant Dale I'm going to accuse Dale of something he did not do and I want you to show how somebody answers a question honestly this example Dale is completely innocent Dale are you a serial killer who just killed 15 people yesterday no what the hell are you talking about get out of here with that I'll kill you I'm gonna sue you if you tell anybody like that that's ridiculous if the person says no and gets a little angry and wonders what the hell is wrong with you for even asking the question

[32:00]

with you for even asking the question probably telling you the truth now I'm going to give you a second example in which Dale is guilty all right and this is this example he's actually guilty Dale are you a serial killer and do you kill somebody yesterday why would you ask that question I think there's not really much evidence of who did the killing that's kind of ambiguous people are looking at the evidence or trying to figure that out what have you heard that's guilty innocent people say no what the hell are you talking about guilty people say well I'm gonna leave the door open I'm not sure I'll give you an exact answer what do you know what do you know now I'm going to play for you the ambassador to the United States his name I don't know if I can pronounce it right I hope I do ambassador I think it's cui Tiankai may be sweet or cui I

[33:03]

it's cui Tiankai may be sweet or cui I think it's cui Tiankai so you'll be asked on Face the Nation I'll play it for you they'll listen to his answer after this setup there's a lot of unknown and a lot of suspicion because of that and in fact this week Senator Tom cotton who sits on the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committee suggested that the virus may have come from China's biological warfare program that's an extraordinary charm yes what do you say no I think it's true that a lot is to unknown what in our scientists Chinese scientists American scientists scientists of other country are doing their best to learn more about the virus what but it's a very harmful it's very dangerous to stop suspicion rumors and spread them among the people for one thing this will create panic for another say that it will send up racial discrimination xenophobia all this in that were really harm our joint efforts

[34:05]

that were really harm our joint efforts to combat the virus of course there are all kinds of a speculation rumors there are people who are saying that these virus are coming from some military lab not of China maybe in the United States yeah maybe the United States how can you believe all these places it's crazy it's probably accordance with some initial outcome of the research probably coming from some animals but we have to to discover more so that's not like a no now I would add this if seems unlikely to me that the Ambassador would actually know the truth because let's say hypothetically it was a bio weapon would would the people who know it's a bio weapon again hypothetically would they tell their ambassador no no they would

[35:07]

tell their ambassador no no they would not tell their ambassador so the first thing you should know is the Ambassador doesn't know he doesn't know if it's a bio weapon because they would never tell him because you wouldn't want him talking to anybody else and saying you know hey Bob don't tell anybody but it was it was us it was a bio weapon because you know we've got you know that we have this guy bugged from top to bottom there's nothing he could ever say that we would are you saying you know I'm even on encrypted lines we probably can get to get into all of that so I doubt that if China knew it was a bio weapon if they know was there it's just hypothetically there's no way they're gonna tell their ambassador that would be crazy but let me ask you this if you're the ambassador if you're the ambassador and you know that you're going to be asked this question wouldn't you go to your bosses whether that's President Xi or somebody else I up wouldn't you go to your bosses and say something like this hey boss I'm gonna get this question they're gonna

[36:08]

gonna get this question they're gonna ask if it came from our bio lab can I deny it flatly apparently nobody told him to deny it flatly why would they not deny it when it would be such a bad thing if we were left to suspect it was true what recent history have we seen in which a government got caught doing something terrible that killed its own people and initially denied it where have we seen that recently Iran Iran denied that they shot down the Ukraine Airlines and then when they got cornered they had to come clean what did that do to the government of Iran destabilized a lot it was a gigantic mistake for Iran to try to cover up something that ultimately would certainly be discovered just a complete

[37:10]

certainly be discovered just a complete mistake China might not want to make the same mistake and one way that you could avoid making that mistake is to leave open the door that we just don't know what it is because then if it turns out that you know some I don't know hypothetically if we could somehow prove it came from their bioweapons lab and I don't know that that happened but if it happened there would still be a little bit cleaner than Iran's leadership was which flatly said it didn't happen China did not flatly say it and say that they were innocent they didn't say it worse I taught you that a hypnotist learned that people say exactly the truth but accidentally in other words their choice of words is a tip-off listen to the first word I think that it's true now

[38:29]

first word I think that it's true now the part the second part of that sentence is it's true that it's unknown which isn't even an answer to the question right it's true that it's unknown she didn't say she didn't say can you address the unknown she said did it come from your bio lab and his first words were it's true that we don't know where it came from so a hypnotist would say that is a you know Freudian type of slip in which he told you directly that it's true now I don't think he knows whether it's true or not but he's probably heard better rumors and we have if you know what I mean and that he sounds like he suspects is true now we can't read his mind but the choice of words leaves that open all right let us go through the the facts and the evidence and see if we can get closer to understanding something about this corona virus all right so

[39:33]

about this corona virus all right so here are some facts that seem relevant and you know important there's not every fact about the corona virus but they're the ones that matter if you're trying to decide was it an animal and an accident or a bioweapons thing so here are the some of the things is it super viral don't really know it seems that's difficult to find out if we're counting everything right so we actually don't know if it's more viral than let's say a normal virus would be that came from an animal does it only kill people who are ethnically Chinese or Asian we don't know but there's some indication that there's a difference and I'll get to these in a minute we know that's near the Luhan bio weapon lab is that a coincidence be a pretty big one we know that China is lying but they always lie so that doesn't tell you much and we know that the Ambassador was

[40:35]

and we know that the Ambassador was weirdly vague about this that's a red flag and we know that the u.s. is did not act as concerned as some people thought they should in other words they didn't immediately close the airport why did they know something about it that we don't so let's let's take these and decide whether it's more likely that it was an animal or a bioweapon now let's say the only things you knew is that there was a virus that acted a certain way and there there are two theories one is it's a bio weapon and one that it came from an animal if that's all you knew there were no other facts you didn't know any of this all you knew is it's another one of these coronavirus this things that usually come from animals which would be the more likely explanation well I hate to make this less interesting than it could be but by far the normal

[41:35]

could be but by far the normal explanation is far and away the most likely explanation because that's normal animal to human as normal happens all the time how often has a bio weapon escaped from a lab I know never so one of these is really exotic and it would be hard to believe the other one is completely normal but let's look at the facts and see if one of them fits better if it's super viral does that tell you it's a bio bio weapon maybe but we don't know that it's super viral and we also don't know what is the most viral that something could be coming from an animal so I say the super virality of it is first of all unknown and so it doesn't tell you anything how about the fact that it might only kill a certain kind of person well that would indicate it's a bio weapon right it turns out no no because

[42:36]

weapon right it turns out no no because we know that there's experience with other viruses that there are micro differences in ethnicities and sometimes that that micro difference and it could be just your some have said that the receptors a certain kind of you know what is it I don't know East to receptor or something in the lungs is different with Asian men than with anybody else and that those are the ones that stars and coronaviruses stick to so it's possible you could have a normally occurring virus that comes from an animal and actually seems to target one ethnicity more than others completely possible yeah it's the likely ace two receptors that's one hypothesis out there so the first two are ambiguous meaning it doesn't really tell you anything about which option is now how about the fact it was near by of the main bio weapon place what about that

[43:36]

main bio weapon place what about that what are the odds that this virus that's so scary would just naturally improve incidentally come out right next to a bioweapons lab what are the odds of that don't be fooled because here's what here's what the trick is you know we can easily be fooled to think coincidences mean something here's how you should see this there's one coincidence we know about that that bioweapons lab was nearby where it started but you could almost guarantee that there would be some coincidences in this story because coincidences are so common that you'd be surprised if they're worth one of that specific coincidence maybe one in several thousand very unlikely but the odds of some coincidence that is also unlikely was very good so the odds

[44:39]

also unlikely was very good so the odds of some coincidence was very high and that's what you should be looking at not the odds that this specific one was uncommon because something uncommon was likely to have happened if not this something else so you can't really rule out there was just an animal it's a coincidence all right what about the fact that China is obviously lying about this thing does that tell you that it's a bio weapon unfortunately no because China lies about anything that would make China look bad so whether it started with an animal arose a bio weapon you're probably going to suspect that they're lying even if they're not so this doesn't really tell you as much as you'd think what about the fact that we just talked about the Ambassador being vague and you know looking like he was lying about it well I don't think he knows you know common sense tells you he doesn't know so he can't tell you anything and it makes sense if you're an ambassador to

[45:40]

makes sense if you're an ambassador to leave open all your options so it could be that he's doing nothing but leaving his options open but he doesn't really know so you can't really determine from him what about the fact that the u.s. seemed a little under concerned could it be because we know it's a bio weapon that only kills people you know a certain ethnic group and it would be hard for that to take hold in this country because we're screening pretty well so maybe the u.s. knows more than you and I know in other words the government does and maybe they didn't think it was such a big risk to us but far more likely the government just acted slowly because they were competing interests probably there were people who said no people will lose a lot of money if you close down the airports other people saying no no we don't want to insult China it would look like a slap in the face that will cost us later when we're negotiating for the trade deal so you can't you can't rule out it was just the government being the government and having competing interests and

[46:41]

and having competing interests and acting too slowly so all of these facts support both hypotheses but one of them happens all the time at least we know what's happened before and one of them has never happened so so far I'd have to say by far the most likely explanation is it's an animal it's a coincidence where it was etc but those are not the only possibilities so just drawing this out if it were a bio weapon again I'm not saying it is I'm just walking through the the thinking here if it were a bio weapon it's either made by China or made by an enemy of China I think that's reasonable right if China made it I think you'd have to call it a mistake in other words something got out there shouldn't have gotten out now if it turns out that it's only killing you know mostly local Chinese ethnically Chinese folks whether they're American

[47:42]

Chinese folks whether they're American citizenship or not you'd have to say that's a really big mistake because why would they release something that only kills their own people that would be the biggest mistake you make and why would they be building why would trying to make a bio weapon that kills them faster than it kills their enemies doesn't make sense right well it is possible under the mistaken scenario that they have lots of let's say there are lots of viruses that they're working on and they haven't tested them all so they don't know exactly which ones do what so maybe maybe this was on the list hasn't been tested they didn't know it would affect one group more than another does they hadn't tested it and it got it so China made a mistake totally feasible fits every fact no problem at all it completely fixed the facts that doesn't mean that happened or even that it's likely it just fits the facts now let's say it was an enemy of China who would do such a thing

[48:43]

do such a thing is there any such thing as an enemy of China who's such an enemy that they would do this and when why this of all things well what kind of it I'm used to they have there's the weekers now if it turned out that the virus only kills ethnic Chinese and doesn't affect we Gers except maybe they get a cold you'd say to yourself that's kind of the perfect weapon if I were a Weger well let me ask you this if you were a Weger and you had were a sympathizer and you had access to a bio weapon they would kill the the Chinese people but not people who are ethnically we Gers would you use it yeah you would totally you would totally use it and I would argue that they would be justified now you say to yourself wait wait it's not justified to kill civilians by the

[49:45]

not justified to kill civilians by the thousands you know just because you've got this issue with the government in what world is it okay that kills citizens who have nothing to do with anything because you're mad at the government for putting you in concentration camps to which I say totally legitimate let me give you an analogy no analogy is of course will not persuade you but it'll make you think about it differently let's say you were Jewish in World War two you were living in Germany and you saw the Holocaust starting and you saw that the German citizens were supporting they of course they didn't have too much power to stop their government but the German citizens by being quiet about it and not protesting sort of quietly supported this Holocaust now let's say you invented a bio weapon that would kill only Germans it's not really possible but you know just for kicks let's say it only killed Germans but it would kill all of them it would kill every German it would kill every citizen

[50:46]

every German it would kill every citizen who had nothing to do with the Holocaust they were just minding their own business would you be morally justified in using it yes yes you would because all of the citizens of Germany were enablers for the Holocaust if you were if your family or you were part of the Holocaust meaning you are the victims would you have any qualms about wiping out with the entire civilization that supported it directly or indirectly personally no qualms I wouldn't lose a night of sleep under that situation not it not a night of sleep so here's a here's a question for you
you I doubt the we girls have access to this technology but you can imagine there's a maybe a Weger sympathizer who works in the bio weapons lab but that person would be killing probably his own people because I doubt they'd let anybody who's ethnically Weger work in a bioweapons

[51:49]

ethnically Weger work in a bioweapons lab right there are probably no leaders working in the bio weapons lab so I would say that's very unlikely they have a reason they have the best reason but very unlikely they had the access to do that what about never again errs you know this you know the phrase never again it refers to the Holocaust and it's a famous thing where people say you know it happened once because people turned their they turned their heads and you know they weren't fighting hard enough not talking about the government we're talking about the people the people let a holocaust happen the people of the world and never again well there are two versions of never again one is will never again let the Jewish people be rounded up into a holocaust perfectly reasonable interpretation here's another one do you mean it are you serious about

[52:52]

one do you mean it are you serious about never again because if you're serious about it it's not limited to the Jewish population if you really mean never again like you really mean it like you're not just doing it for your people if you really mean it you mean it what is never again mean it means never under no circumstances never not for the Jewish population not for the Muslim population not for any population never means never now if you were of that philosophy and I would imagine a lot of people are if you are of that philosophy and you have a chance to destroy a huge part of the Chinese population maybe destabilize the country destroy their government kill tens of thousands of people but at the end of it there might be a good chance that the the Uighur population was released would you do it

[53:57]

yeah you would would you have a moral qualms about destroying tens of thousands maybe millions of people in the country who had nothing personally to do with the wiggers being rounded up but there were enablers they are right now they are enablers they are allowing their government to do it would you have any moral qualms about that yeah look at the comments nope you would not so could you say that there's nobody in the world and any bio lab anywhere no scientist is there nobody who could have made a virus that would target the Asian population now I think well you know there's a good chance we'll find out that maybe it doesn't target anybody in particular those are unknowns so if it turns out it kills everybody equally well then I think you could eliminate these possibilities because nobody would build a bio weapon that kills their own people at the same rate as killing the enemy it doesn't kind of doesn't make sense would it be the u.s. I can't see any situation

[54:58]

it be the u.s. I can't see any situation in which the US would do this can you I do we don't even need to talk about it do we there's no situation in which the US government the government would do this but is there one scientist in any lab in any country who says that never again actually means never again does such a person exists who also has access to a bioweapon almost certainly almost certainly the odds of at least one person who has this kind of access in technology being a never again err which is a perfectly reasonable thing to be the odds of at least one person having this motive and the opportunity pretty good pretty good close to a hundred percent doesn't mean they did it but they're there a motive and their opportunity probably a hundred percent chance that that happened all right so if you're looking at the facts

[55:58]

right so if you're looking at the facts unfortunately the facts support every hypothesis if you're looking at the odds and you were gonna bet money if you were gonna bet money bet on the animal alright because given that all of these scenarios fit all of the facts that we know so far take the common one it takes the most common explanation the one that you would expect here's another one came from an animal it's a problem we're gonna take care of it if it turns out it's a bioweapon and I don't think we're gonna find that so that's my prediction my prediction is that the ordinary will win but if we found out it was a bioweapon what are the odds that China made a mistake pretty good pretty good I would say that the China made a mistake is higher than enemy of China so I think this is the the lowest odds is that it's some clever enemy of China doing a never again or situation alright looking at

[57:05]

again or situation alright looking at your comments all right so what I wanted to do was just lay this out so you can see how the thinking works and maybe not draw conclusions yet because I'm not sure if everybody knew that all of the facts we know fit the ordinary the ordinary story that it was an animal just like they say now what about the fact that it happened near the lab coincidences happen in fact coincidences are so common there was going to be a coincidence weather was that one or some other one that also made you suspicious well what's gonna happen all right that's all for now and I will talk to you later