Episode 1078 Scott Adams: Defund the Police a Smart Way, Fauci Misdirection, How to do a Convention

Date: 2020-08-01 | Duration: 1:00:56

Topics

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com

Rough Transcript

This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

Transcript

---

• Native American cold cases and Othram DNA crime lab

• Drive-in theaters for convention events

• Vote-by-mail fraud

• Teacher Unions are a national security concern

• Dexamethasone cuts death rate in half for COVID19?

• Ad in Spanish targets Biden for not considering Hispanic VP

If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
[0:14]

well i was asked the other day why do i always do this three times
and it's because i do this first on live stream a lot of people will see it in replay but those of you on live stream will feel a sense of it's almost like on your computer when you're you're watching a progress you know the little progress monitor don't you feel better when you can see progress that your computer program is working well that's what this is i do this the same routine so that as soon as you get on you say to yourself oh i got in about the paper shuffling time or he's taking a simultaneous sip speaking of which i've got a special guest in a moment but first first it's a simultaneous sip and it's the thing you do before a great day happens and today is gonna be a great day you don't know it yet and maybe not for everybody but it's going to be a great day and

[1:16]

but it's going to be a great day and all you need to get this day going is a copper bugger glass attacker chalice or steiner canteen sugar flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the
the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better traffic pandemics fleas you name it everything go
sublime now if technology serves me we'll have a quick guest here and it looks like this is going to work so very excited
it's always fun when it works david middleburn are you there
from othram now um those those of you who have been watching my periscopes you are familiar i think you've heard of other or t-h-r-a-m and can you explain what

[2:19]

or t-h-r-a-m and can you explain what other does for those who have it or just the the quick summary of what the company does yeah what we do at author is we're a forensics laboratory that develops uh identities for people uh that are either victims or perpetrators of crimes and we can analyze a crime scene sample look at the dna figure out who is involved in the crime even if they're not in the uh you know fbi codis system or the traditional forensic database so the basic idea is that the regular police have a database of people who have been arrested or convicted generally you end up in the coda system if you've been convicted and um you know it varies from state to state sometimes you're convicted but you still don't make it into the database and sometimes there's ways to get the database um upon arrest so uh so the police the police have this very small limited database and if they get lucky they get some dna at a crime scene

[3:19]

they get some dna at a crime scene and by chance it's somebody who already committed a crime already was convicted and they had their dna
dna and they got in the database and they checked it but with your company um you you have a broader net and describe just as quickly why you can get more dna samples than the police why do you have access to more stuff we use a different process the the police as you noted though the fbi system indexes you on a few markers and then tracks uh folks that commit uh repeat crime what we're able to do is we're able to get all the genomic information from a crime scene sample and then use that to do related testing and look even for distant relatives that might be connected and help us figure out where the unknown person might fit on a family tree so you can imagine that even the smallest scrap of information can be useful in finding someone that is even remotely connected to you and any of those relationships can help us essentially triangulate or reverse engineer an identity or at

[4:19]

or reverse engineer an identity or at least a nearest relative all right now now let me tie this into the headlines to make this relevant to all of you the big conversation in the news is defunding the police and that sounds crazy right who wants less police when you have just as much crime but i think that actually there there is a smart way to do it and the smart way to do it is to create situations in which getting away with a crime is effectively impossible so as you drive toward it's impossible to get away with it in theory the number of people who try a crime that they know they'll get caught for
for should go down and therefore the number of police you need should go down so this is one of they're probably a dozen technologies and private companies that police do not have direct access to everything from facial recognition to you know drone things and and now dna technologies but there are a number of technologies that could drive the ability to get away with a crime really close to zero and i don't i don't

[5:22]

really close to zero and i don't i don't think you'd have to get all the way to big brother so i see some comments saying that and this is relevant because in the news ivanka trump is spearheading a
a uh i guess an effort to try to solve a bunch of cold cases specifically for the native american community and the alaskan alaska natives because i guess it's an underserved community and they have all this these dna and cold cold case samples that they can't solve so how many of these cold cases in the sense of if they have some dna from the case what percentage of all these cases that ivanka is targeting to get some resolution to what percentage of those do you think otherum could solve if you were brought into this i think that on the upfront side you would you'd probably solve you know somewhere close to 75 percent and then it'll converge very closely at over 90 percent and that's that's in contrast to what

[6:22]

and that's that's in contrast to what you would see with like a typical system right now where sex assault reveals identity through code is 15
15 of the time identified remains like one percent of the time all right now put yourself in the head of a criminal and you've got two possibilities the old way
way is that there was a 15 chance of getting caught for let's say some violent crime that would leave your dna but what happens if it goes to 90 or 100 are you exactly as likely to do the crime well if it's a crime of passion or you're crazy or it's revenge or something maybe yes but i gotta think that if there were a steady stream of reports of cold cases being solved what does that do to your mental uh your mental understanding of risk right so uh david would you imagine that there will be lots of stories coming out of the the kind you're describing where a really cold case that couldn't be solved suddenly is easy to solve and what's

[7:23]

suddenly is easy to solve and what's that going to do the the criminal mind is something like that coming yeah i mean there's been a steady flow of cases that are that are being solved we've got dozens that are that are going to be announced in the next month or two and i think uh i think what that does is you know people have argued do we have stricter punishment do we have uh you know what what demotivates people to commit crime and i think i think severity of punishment hasn't been very effective but i think knowing that you're going to get caught uh you know i think is a huge deterrent and and at this point if you're going to leave uh whether on purpose or accident dna somewhere there's there's almost a certainty that you'll be caught if not immediately very soon the technology continues to develop and so i think it's going to make people think twice certainly it's going to retire the idea of i think i think the repeat crime serial crimes will probably converge on extinction yeah um well that's interesting serial crimes will converge on extinction that that's that's a phrase that you couldn't even

[8:23]

that's a phrase that you couldn't even imagine before but that sounds entirely practical to me all right thank you i just wanted to get a quick hit on that and try to connect some things i've been trying to connect but just more generally i think that defunding the police if you change that into your mind into how do you make less crime happen in the first place then you get to defunding the police indirectly uh thank you david um david middlemen from other oth ram thank you for coming all right um you're gonna see more on that in the coming months in the news i think as cold cases get solved uh raul davis on twitter had a great idea i'll just put this out there probably i don't know if it's practical but you decide so rel davis ceo branding expert uh he's on twitter and he said any convention that's smart would make it a national event to rent out drive-in theaters across the country

[9:25]

out drive-in theaters across the country and project their candidate on the big screen so think of this idea you do a bunch of pop-up drive-ins you don't ha you don't have to use existing drive-ins there aren't that many but you could do a pop-up you know just put up a screen or a white project against a white wall or something and it would be pretty easy to live stream and project something that's really common and cheap and easy to do so you could have a drive-in theater situation where you've got a virtual convention that happens all over the country at the same time and imagine that you're you're sitting there you're watching the convention on tv it's streamed there's no live audience and you hear the heart the horns honking you know wherever you were you'd hear like honking for applause or whatever uh and it'd be fun it'd be really fun wouldn't it now i don't know if you can keep it safe enough with bathrooms and whatever you need to do but i believe there are there are drive-in theaters that are open

[10:25]

drive-in theaters that are open so i know they've figured out the the bathroom and whatever else they have to figure out so that would be the the thing i like about this idea almost has nothing to do with politics and i don't care who does it you know democrats or republicans it has more to do with the fact that americans just want to participate we just want to get in the car we just want to go somewhere we want to be at an event we want to see some other people we just need to get out of the house you know in some safe productive way so this that idea does both i love that um there's a lot of conversation and i haven't weighed into it much at all about mail-in votes and the reason that i haven't talked about it is i don't quite understand it meaning that there's something about the argument about why the um what are the two categories there's the absentee ballots which we've had forever and they seem to

[11:27]

which we've had forever and they seem to work fine but everybody voting by mail is more of a problem and i think that has to do with the fact that uh if everybody just gets a ballot whether they want it or not a lot of people will it'll be bailed to the wrong place it'll be mailed to a dead person somebody else will pick up the mail and fill it out for you you know so you can imagine a whole bunch of problems like that and i gotta say it's a tough one because i i certainly understand why states want to do it and i completely understand how open to fraud it would be but here's the question i have is there any way to test that ahead of time and i couldn't think of one but but i you can smell it before you can see it sometimes i feel as if there's somebody who would be smart enough to say well why don't we just test a thousand sample votes but i just don't know that you could design the test so it'd be good enough but i hope somebody is smart enough

[12:27]

somebody is smart enough because we have enough time so if you could do let me describe the the bad version of it so when you hear this idea and you say to yourself well scott there's an obvious flaw in your idea i know that i know that this is the bad version i'm just trying to inspire somebody else to say well i can fix that problem and maybe i can make this into something so the bad version would be this do you do a test of a thousand citizens i don't know are they random or do you have to tell them during the test i'm not sure which makes sense and you just see if the process can flow from actually receiving it to filling it out
out to mailing it but i guess you'd have the problem that nobody would be trying to cheat so if it's a test there's nobody trying to thwart the test so it may be impossible but i would put that out there to people who are smarter than i am about anything to see if there is a way to test that i just wonder now i saw the

[13:28]

test that i just wonder now i saw the there was a news report of a local a local correspondent i think he did a local test of mailing some ballots and and and he discovered that there were some problems in the post office i think three out of 100 ballots didn't make the whole process which is way too many imagi imagine an election in which you were pretty sure three percent of the votes got lost and that wouldn't be much of an election if you know given how close our elections are so uh i would say my opinion on all of this is i'm just as concerned as other people but i think we have the weirdest situation in the world here in which i don't know that we have an opportunity to have a credible vote this time because there's so much going on and so many accusations on both sides of irregularities and voter suppression and mail-in votes and every other thing that i don't even know

[14:31]

every other thing that i don't even know if we have the option of a fair election it just might not even be an option so what do you do if you can't have a fair election for president what do you do so here's what i think we would do in a normal year it doesn't make that much difference who is president right yeah if you looked in the past that was the thing that um pundit said all the time well it doesn't matter who you elect they just raise your taxes anyway well democrat republican doesn't matter you still end up in a war but i don't know that that's true in 2020. the difference between biden and trump that might be the biggest difference we've ever seen you know the difference between hillary clinton and trump you could argue was well that's a pretty big difference but it's not gigantic right the country would still look like the united states if hillary clinton had been elected you might not like

[15:31]

might not like elements of it but still the united states if biden gets elected you know he would be the most progressive candidate and i'm not going to have an opinion on whether that's good or bad i'm just saying it's the most different from what trump offers so this time the result really could change the fate of the country in my opinion given that it's such a big difference trump is probably the safest in terms of risk management simply because you know what the last four years look like and even if you didn't like those last four years you'd have to admit that if you subtracted the pandemic it looked pretty good looked pretty good we didn't start any start any big wars we ended some wars we wound down that the economy was good so if you were even a little bit objective and you said to yourself you know i don't know what's going on here biden could be a big problem and we wouldn't even know who got elected really

[16:33]

even know who got elected really and then the progressive stuff is sufficiently big enough changes you know i'm not going to say radical because that's just politicizing the speech it's a big enough change that any big change introduces a new set of risks so there is a different risk profile and i would argue that the biden risk is far bigger because it's an unknown and also a big change trump is closer to a known if he gets reelected you're gonna see some tweets you don't like they're gonna be some fact checking that doesn't look good there you know he there will be uh world leaders who say some bad things about trump you just guaranteed what that looks like 90 right always some surprises but you kind of know what a trump president's gonna look like so if you have this much uncertainty about the result you have basically one way to get a safe outcome that

[17:34]

to get a safe outcome that doesn't drive the country apart and it's a landslide election for trump now that might happen anyway but the republic is going to be a little bit at risk if we go the other way it's impossible to know exactly risk but i would say that doing you know the what's the saying the uh
uh the evil that you know is better than the evil you don't know so even if you don't like trump as president you got to know what you're getting that's my point apparently trump said on air force one that he's planning to ban tick-tock in the united states how about that so tick tock as you know is the app that is owned by a chinese company and therefore the assumption is and it's been determined that the code actually does this it's collecting a lot of information on americans and kids in particular and so
so that will be banned the uh the

[18:34]

that will be banned the uh the decoupling of the united states from china i think is just it's a thing now meaning that you don't have to wonder if it's happening and i don't think it was this was hard to imagine a year ago wasn't it imagine a year ago that we would be sitting here saying that we are actively decoupling our economy from china it was hard to imagine i was asking for it a year ago and i was pretty pretty early on the banned tick tock train so things are going the way that i want them to go um have you ever noticed that almost everything in the united states goes the way i want it to go in the long run
it's the weirdest coincidence it's something i noticed in my 20s so when i was in my twenties uh i wasn't talking publicly about politics or big big events but i would have preferences and then i would watch and i'd say oh that's interesting

[19:35]

that's interesting the very thing i was hoping would happen it happened uh it happened so often that it's sort of freaky i mean seriously a year ago i was lobbying as hard as you possibly could to decouple from china and you know and and then the banning the tick tock but even i didn't think it was necessarily going to happen right it felt a it felt like quite a reach here we are um what about opening schools i continue to say that education is a national security uh matter especially if you're doing it wrong if you're doing it wrong the the federal government has to fix it because it's national security you can let the states experiment and let the states do the thing and let the states take the lead on education in normal times as long as as long as they're getting the job done let the states educate the kids take the

[20:37]

let the states educate the kids take the lead but if the states stop educating the kids it's a national security problem because educated kids create a good economy a good economy allows you to have a good military and protect yourself in a variety of ways so certainly we're reaching a point where the federal government might need to
to take control uh in some fashion i would certainly like to see an executive order that limited the power of the teacher unions that would be one thing that might be productive and uh because the teachers unions apparently are the i would say they're they're the base problem for every problem in the united states right now and that's a big claim right that the teachers unions are the base problem for every big problem in the united states but it's true because if you educated children better

[21:38]

because if you educated children better uh if there were more options and it's the teachers unions that limit the options so you can't have competition and a free market for teaching therefore it can't evolve in the way that it naturally would to its best form and and kids who are in bad school systems are just trapped don't have an option so as long as that situation exists there's a national security issue there and
and uh that needs to get resolved now at the same time i'm completely on board with the notion that teachers did not sign up to be front line health care workers or they didn't volunteer to be on the front line of a war
war now can we force them to do it just because it's a national security concern well maybe sort of kind of but we do have a volunteer military so we should have and we have a voluntary medical community we should have a voluntary

[22:38]

voluntary teacher situation if the danger goes you know is high like it is well it's not high but if there's a danger it just has to be voluntary in my opinion so how can you best open schools and keep everybody safe let me give you this suggestion the kids themselves seem pretty safe if it's the teachers who are worried i would offer this option that teachers could have a an in-class physical body who is either a young person or somebody who has recovered from coronavirus and therefore has presumably some protection and that you could have you could have the regular teacher on video all the time and you know they do the class plans and and the decision making but you have a physical human being in the classroom just to make sure that anything physical gets taken care of et cetera so that would be one model i don't know if anybody's

[23:39]

don't know if anybody's considered that i do also like the pod teaching model where the kids will get together in little groups and do some stuff at home i i do like the pod idea but as i've often said and let me put it in this context i think the pandemic as horrible and tragic as it is and the the lines for people in my town who are lining up just to give food you know food that's uh delivered by some form of government it's getting pretty long all right i live in i live in a high-end neighborhood and there was a pretty long line for food yesterday for food so let's not forget that's still top priority uh but that said there's a saying in business that if you don't cannibalize your own products your competition will so if you don't make your next version of your product so

[24:39]

your next version of your product so good that all of your customers don't want the last version that's what your competitor will do they'll make the version your customers go to and you need to continually destroy what you have in regular business to build the new thing so for a company like apple destruction and creation happen at the same time they're destroying their old products by creating the new products school isn't like that school is just sort of ossified and it is what it is and it's hard to change and there's not much competition if you could change that so that schools could destroy themselves while they're creating something better in other words free market free competition best one survives the the bad one doesn't that situation how much better could school be how much better probably a lot what is your guess of how much better in of course is like a conceptual number

[25:40]

of course is like a conceptual number but do you think that the free market would make education 10 better because 10 percent would be quite a big impact you know on the size of the economy it'd be quite quite big a 10 improvement but is it more than 10 and maybe it's 50 percent maybe it's 400 percent all right because imagine if you had a better learning experience somehow you got rid of the bullies you never had a bad teacher and you learned the right things in the right way i feel like it's a it's a 4x benefit it doesn't feel like a 10 benefit to me to me it feels like a like a 400 kind of situation and again we're talking about national security you know we're talking about the economy in the future because the kids drive the economy in the future i i think this is one of the biggest

[26:40]

i i think this is one of the biggest opportunities this country's ever had and this will be maybe a contrary and no no i think it's not a contrarian a lot of people are coming around to this that the pandemic nobody would have asked for it but it might fix the tree yeah yeah and i say this all the time that the schools are even in my opinion and therefore the the teachers unions are the cause of systemic racism in this country now i'm playing a little loose with the wording here when i say the cause i mean the cause of it being a problem so systemic racism it really is built into the fabric of everything you know there's there's a ripple from slavery that's real but is it bothering oprah no because if you're successful and you have money and you know your life is working well
systemic racism isn't hurting you much so if you can simply improve education prove the economics of anybody who's a

[27:41]

prove the economics of anybody who's a person of color isn't that going to change their situation and how they feel about systemic racism even if it's still there it'll be it'll be kind of like background noise all right
i've decided i want to see if i can reclaim some of my humanity by being less of a jerk on twitter
um if you follow me on twitter most of you do i think you know that i could be a jerk sometimes and i'm not proud of it i was reading an article yesterday about how social media um sort of takes our humanity into a conceptual place where when i'm i'm singing somebody on twitter the sensation i get is as if it's a video game and that is really dangerous that's really dangerous i mean think about that and let me put

[28:41]

i mean think about that and let me put this in context when i started out on twitter i had zero followers and i made it sort of my mission not to cheat too much and use the dilbert thing to grow my twitter account i wanted to see if i could grow it by doing things that you do on twitter and i wanted to talk about politics and i wanted to see if i could grow users followers not users but followers because i was doing the right things and giving them something they wanted so i sort of made a point of it to grow organically and so now i've got over half a million half a million followers and the thing that i'm cautioning myself about is that uh the thing i'm cautioning myself about is that when i had a hundred followers if i weighed in on a twitter thread and insulted somebody or said something you know about them no impact right

[29:42]

you know about them no impact right 100 followers no impact but i lost sight of the fact that my impact is fairly enormous now because it happened gradually you know you could just lose sight of it and i realized a few times that i've uh i saw something i didn't like on twitter from somebody somebody i don't know and i would just you know throw a throw a little slap out there you know like a little twitter slap and i'd realize it had much bigger impact than i wanted because a lot of followers will pile on and then suddenly there's some poor person i've never even met whose only offense is that they said something i didn't like and now they're being dumped on by half a million people or thousands and i'm gonna pull back a little bit now i'm gonna go just as hard against the professionals all right so the professionals still get the full treatment and i would expect that i would also receive

[30:42]

receive the full dehumanizing treatment because i'm a professional you know i'm doing this in a professional sense so i'm not asking anybody to lighten up on me because the people who go into battle knowing that that's what they're doing that you know you know what you're getting but i'm gonna i'm gonna make an effort and i don't think this is gonna be 100 successful i don't think so but i'm going to try to be
be a little kinder to civilians right so a little kinder to civilians we'll see if that works out and and let me tell you that the the reason that i'm doing this is as much i'll tell you the insight i had about this not just the insight that we're dehumanizing ourselves on social media but the insight is that i get continuous flow of of messages from people who tell me that i've changed their life in some positive

[31:42]

i've changed their life in some positive way
way because you know a lot of my books are about how to live your life better how to think better how to be more persuasive how to get what you want and so a lot of people have read my books and actually got what they want i tweeted one this morning of somebody who whose life was completely changed just by a brief appearance on my periscope and when i see how much i can change people's lives in the positive with the smallest amount of effort the smallest amount of effort and changes people's lives completely i say to myself what have i done accidentally that actually damaged somebody's life because i just wasn't thinking i was just careless and so i'm going to be less careless about that well that's my intention we'll see if i can do it
um this morning i sent off a very angry tweet that i later deleted man did it make me angry and i'll tell you what made me angry about it and then why it was wrong it was a it was a video clip about dr

[32:44]

it was a it was a video clip about dr fauci he was responding to a member of congress who was asking about the the henry ford study on the henry ford whatever medical facility study about hydroc hydroxychloroquine and zinc and the congress men said that the study showed that it was effective yeah and therefore the implication is why don't we use it and
and dr fauci said that uh that that was not a valid study for a few reasons number one it was not a uh was what they call it a randomized placebo trial it did not have a control group with the placebo it was not studied in the
the you know the way that you would get a gold standard result so the first thing you said was it did not meet that standard now i'm going to tell you in a moment why that's i think that's what triggered me because

[33:44]

i think that's what triggered me because uh it turns out that the study actually is garbage so here's the first thing and the reason i deleted the tweet is that as soon as i looked at what he said he is right
so i i did this scathing you know insulting tweet to fouchy because of the first thing i read and then i looked at his claim and i thought ah okay this is a little more than i thought so the reason he said that the that the uh
uh he gave two reasons to not believe the study one of them is that it wasn't the gold standard type of study which i'm going to argue in a minute he's misleading you but the other is that it was it was combined with a another drug that we know works so if you combine hydroxychloroquine with the drug that we already know works and you get a good result

[34:46]

good result you've literally found out nothing because it was the other drug that made it work now i didn't know that and i feel a little bit stupid you know i feel like it's a little bit my fault but a little bit the media fault because this is a really big point so apparently the other drug was uh what was it some kind of steroid i guess that they give you if you're hospitalized it's some kind of anti-inflammatory steroid i forget what the name of it is but here's what triggered me so fauci says that you don't know if the hydroxychloroquine worked in that study because it was given in combination with a drug that you do know works and and the result the outcome uh oh thank you in the comments i'm being reminded that the drug that was with the hydroxychloroquine was a

[35:47]

was with the hydroxychloroquine was a dexamethasone and apparently that is as i'm learning already a common treatment so it's a common treatment and it works so if you know it works and you get effectively the same result with hydroxychloroquine added to it as you would have gotten without it and i think that's actually what happened um then there is no evidence that the hydroxychloroquine worked so dr fauci okay you you win this this round this round goes to fouchy but this raises some questions were you aware that there was a drug that would cut death rates in half because that's what we learned that this dexamethasone is widely in use and cuts the death rate in half how come i didn't know that did you know that because we've heard about rem deserve here we've heard about everything else

[36:49]

here we've heard about everything else but did you know that if you get this particular drug which is widely available you know standard kind of a drug then it cuts your death rate in half so some of you are saying saying you heard of it some of you not the the fact that the fact that as much as i've studied this stuff you know as a lay person not as a scientist but as much as i've looked into this why is today the first time i'm hearing about this which which should be a wake-up call about how uninformed we are about all of it
it this is such a big missing piece in what i knew about the whole situation that it was sort of mind-blowing and also very humbling it also reminds me that i'm a jerk because i went after fauci in public on twitter being wrong you know i tried to correct it but i was wrong now here's a but i do have some fouchy criticisms

[37:50]

criticisms and i think what actually triggered me is that it was obvious he was lying but it wasn't about this so what he said about the dexamethasone i think he's completely right but it also tells you that the henry ford study was with hospitalized patients which again is not the point right it wouldn't matter if the study he said was debunked was a good study or not because i wouldn't have believed it anyway because the whole point of it is to use it early and the henry ford study was hospitalized people and into hospitalized people that other drug we know works and have you seen any national reporting on who doesn't use the drug because what i was wondering who was the control group if we know that this drug that was in combination of hydroxychloroquine

[38:51]

combination of hydroxychloroquine cuts the death rate in half who was the group that didn't get it right can you how do we know that this drug cuts the death rate in half unless there's somebody not getting it and
and if we know it works why would anybody not get it so uh maybe we have a history of people who didn't get it before but i would be really suspicious of any data before we were really looking into it did it come from another country my guess is that in this country people were probably getting it from day one and was there a point where the death rate went from you know way high to half as much when that drug started being widely used or was it always widely used anyway i have lots of questions here's my fouchy criticism you do want as dr fauci continuously reminds us if you really want to be certain

[39:51]

if you really want to be certain at least as certain as you can be about a drug you have to do the uh the rpt trial the uh you know the one with the placebo and
and um randomized so does that apply in every case here's the problem if you had a drug that was brand new let's say a vaccine something that never existed before you would need to know three things about it you would need to know the cost because that makes a difference you would need to know if it hurts people in the short run and the long run and you would need to know if it was beneficial at all to the thing you're trying to treat under those conditions when you're trying to learn all three things what's it gonna cost which is separate from the trial but it's part of a decision you're trying to find out harm and benefit under those conditions you absolutely need what dr fauci says you need you need the double

[40:54]

fauci says you need you need the double blind you need the gold standard or don't put that in anybody's body it's just a bad idea if you haven't tested but that's not our situation is it our situation is that hydroxychloroquine in
in low doses which is the only thing that's recommended for the the early early symptoms people that that actually doesn't have a risk because let me not speak in absolutes rather it's one of the safest drugs of all time has been around 65 years as you all know it's been tested to death so given that the drug exists and has been tested percent of what you're trying to learn in one of these gold standard trials is unnecessary all right so you don't need uh the gold standard to find out half of what you're trying to find out you already know under those conditions when the hydroxychloroquine is very cheap i mean so cheap it's like candy and you know it's safe

[41:56]

it's like candy and you know it's safe enough right nothing's 100 but better than advil if you know it's that safe and that cheap and you know it might work because there's lots of indication that it will work short of proof this is a no-brainer dr fauci all right so
so when i saw dr fauci insist on the you know the gold standard um the gold standard to test it looked like lying lying by omission and what i mean by that is if he wasn't willing to express the view that i just gave and either debunk it or embrace it i feel like that's lying meaning that if he can't give this to the public the same way that i told it to you or to tell you why the way i told it to you is clearly wrong which could be the case he's lying because every one of you listens to him

[42:58]

because every one of you listens to him talking and says but it's really cheap we know it's safe and i i hear what you're saying that it might not work because it hasn't passed all these high levels of standards that we'd all like to see but there's a whole lot of suggestive evidence so the risk management clearly is weighted in one direction i mean overwhelmingly so dr fauci unless you can tell me why the risk management as i described it is wrong i don't want to hear you say that you need a gold standard test because that feels to me like a lie it's a lie by omission and when i heard him do that it triggered me and
and then i you know i i over tweeted so i apologize to dr fauci for the the tweet that i think was uh

[43:59]

the tweet that i think was uh was over the line in my case all right um i think the election is largely over and i think biden is a dead man walking and i say that because of a political ad i saw yesterday now you may say to yourself scott scott scott political ads don't really move the ball that much you know not that much but it's not so much the ad which was actually very good but the idea so the the ad carried an idea that i hadn't seen exactly expressed and when i saw it i said oh i think it's over and the ad was in it was in spanish so it was a campaign ad for the united states in spanish in which you showed a number of uh hispanic famous people like aoc and there's so there's some people on the left some people on the right

[45:00]

people on the right so basically famous successful hispanic americans and then it said joe biden uh why why did you say that you were going to pick a black vice president and they and they they say hispanics are 18 more than 18 percent of the country the black population is 13ish and so the hispanics are saying in the ad
ad what's wrong with us yeah why would you not
not consider uh latin latino latin is it latinx what's what's the woke way to say it you know i've never figured out by the way the difference between hispanic and latino latina latinx uh i always think i'm going to know the difference so i'm going to say hispanic we're not insulting anybody today um but so forget about the fact that it was in

[46:02]

so forget about the fact that it was in spanish forget about the fact that it was a campaign ad and people don't get too influenced by them in my opinion but that idea that joe biden is flat-out racist is really strong because can you think of any time that trump has ever made a government decision based on entirely race you know i suppose you could say you know helping the funding of the of the traditional what is it the historically black colleges but you know i think people are mostly on board with that that's pretty popular i would guess uh but biden saying that he would he would definitely pick a black vice president when 18 of the country is hispanic we just had not not just but not too recently we had you know two terms of obama and you're not even going to consider for a vice president

[47:03]

for a vice president somebody who is in 18 of the population and here's the thing that blew my head off right and i think uh i i think you're you might have the same impression if you're a white person in america you've sort of come to accept maybe you don't like it but you've come to accept that it can't be racist against white people now of course in your private thoughts you're thinking of course it can be racist against white people anything that discriminates against anybody by race is racist by definition but we also understand that if you're if you're a white person in america you're part of a traditional class that had some advantages not all of you of course but many had advantages and so you you sort of understand the thinking even if you don't like it right you're like ah i think i think racism should be about everybody but i get it that if you're if you're at the

[48:03]

the lower end of the economic poll it's different right it's just not really the same to say that uh to use my my very own example i've lost several jobs for being a white male many of you know my stories about that but
but it's not the end of the world for me because i had plenty of opportunities things went fine so when when people say that anybody is being racist against white people i have some thoughts about it but it's not the end of the world
but i'm also not hispanic imagine if you were hispanic and you were not traditionally the the dominant ethnic group of the united states in terms of economics and the vice president just said or the president the candidate for president joe biden you're president of your country

[49:04]

you're president of your country you know you're a citizen of the united states just like everybody else and the the guy who wants to run for president of your country just told you that you're not good enough to be vice president and that's what the ad said that's the way they phrased it why why why are we not good enough to be a vice president because we have the numbers we have the numbers and we we are not an historically advantaged population now you know obviously did not come through the you know the pathway of slavery so that's a whole other story but you know so you can make the argument but here's the only thing i'm going to add if that point if that point gets emphasized i think it will that's really strong and i would be curious to hear from anybody who's a hispanic american who saw that ad or just hears the argument how do you feel about it

[50:04]

feel about it because maybe you don't care it could be that the people who made the ad hoped other people would care and they just don't um and here's something else to blow your mind a little bit i feel as though the hispanic americans have been the quietest about systemic racism it feels that way to me right it feels like the lead is being taken by both black and white activists that's what i see anyway i'm not sure if that's true but that's what i see and uh somebody said to me yesterday that the reason is that the hispanic community just just cares less they're just sort of not invested as much in the whole racism racism racism thing they're not siding with anybody they're just trying to get their work done and have their life you know just stay out of the way and and not get into a fight that's not their fight don't have as much you know investment

[51:05]

don't have as much you know investment in it for some reason so the thing i don't know and i'd be real curious to learn this in the next week or so if anybody wants to anybody wants to tweet at me or send me a message if you are hispanic american how does it make you feel to know that you anybody like you can't be vice president under joe biden how does that make you feel because as a white person i say well you know if biden's there and there's been plenty of white presidents i don't care you know fine with me but i wouldn't feel the same if i were hispanic i think i just don't know
dr fauci says that the reason that europe has been able to contain the virus better than the united states is that they closed down 95 percent of their economies while the us
us only shut down 50 percent so who who's the idiot there um so trump

[52:05]

who who's the idiot there um so trump closed the economy only 50 and then had more deaths per capita but but in europe those smart europeans they went all the way to 95 to shut down and and got a better death rate so they're the smart ones right yay europe they won i don't think so here's my take on this from the beginning trump described the pandemic as a war in wars you take casualties in battle with the hope that you'll you'll win the larger war trump's approach and he said it directly and he said a lot of times is that it's a war
at the end of the war who won let's say let's say that both europe and the united states get to the end of the pandemic whenever that is and our death rate is higher but our economy is better

[53:06]

but our economy is better right so our death rate is higher but our economy is better who won the war the war is with china right the pandemic is just sort of you know part of the war but the long-term war is with china and whoever has the strongest economy is going to have the strongest defense and the the most ability to survive in the future so we don't know how
how europe and the us will come out of this but i would argue that if the u.s economy if the u.s economy goes up like a whole level something that's really you know obvious and measurable and and sustained if it goes up a level and europe let's say goes down or doesn't go up and it causes like a a permanent situation of more american economic power relative to europe who was smarter even if we had a pretty grotesquely higher death rate

[54:09]

a pretty grotesquely higher death rate let's say we lost i don't know 50 000 people that we didn't need to lose if we'd done it the european way how long would it take for us to recoup the 50 000 dead people obviously they don't pop back to life but a strong economy can keep other people alive who would have otherwise perished and can keep the country safe from external threats in a way that you can't if you don't have money so i feel as if trump told us it was a war told us there would be casualties
kept kept the economy you know open-ish and uh basically went to war and and as commander-in-chief he knew he would take casualties in the short term but the the point of it is to win the war not the individual battles every time and i feel as though when this is all

[55:10]

and i feel as though when this is all said and done and we're looking back at it in five years if the u.s economy got a permanent sustained bump from you know relative relative to europe i'm going to say trump won and i'm going to say europe lost the war but we don't know that that'll happen that's just i'm just setting that up right now um so of course republicans and democrats are
are arguing about the coronaville coronavirus relief bill which means the checks aren't going out which means that people will be unable to eat and pay the rent and here's what i would suggest given that the total amount of printed money and new debt if you will that we've already done uh
uh don't we owe something like 28 trillion dollars you know at this point the national debt the the difference between the smaller

[56:10]

the the difference between the smaller number or or even the difference in how they want to spend it i would recommend that you just give both the democrats and the republicans everything they've asked for because it's not going to make it's just not going to make much difference so in other words democrats and republicans they they have a different ideas of how much to spend on each category of thing i would say take the biggest number that either one of them have for every category and pick it just pick the biggest number that the republicans want for let's say tax cuts and the biggest number that uh the the democrats want for social services just take the biggest number and just freaking get it done so you can feed some people because that difference to our total national debt at this point at this point is sort of lost in the rounding unfortunately you know somebody says 100 trillion

[57:11]

you know somebody says 100 trillion what was 28 trillion was 28 trillion not this year right that that would be too big all right so i don't have any of my numbers right but the the basic idea is the way to solve this difference in congress is to give both sides everything give both sides everything and just feed the people because otherwise people die from starvation and stuff like i you know i'm not going to argue about another three percent on the um the national debt if people are starving so
uh the debt yeah i need to check my numbers i don't know enough about national debt
20 trillion i'm seeing people throwing some numbers out in the comments
somebody says you do 28 trillion is the current total debt current total debts all right so that's not annual that's

[58:13]

all right so that's not annual that's how much we've racked up over time all right so if you're going to add to your 28 trillion dollar total debt one more trillion than you wanted to i think if this is the time to do it just throw it in there throw it in there and see if that helps all right i think i've talked about everything that matters today
uh somebody says people should be able to sue their employers if they get sick
i don't know maybe i don't know i'd have to think about that one because that's that's got some real trade-offs
all right somebody says not hearing or seeing hunger reported other than here yeah um so far it's my understanding that nobody starved to death

[59:13]

starved to death and i think we have to pat ourselves in the back a little bit for that as as a america because remember early on um when we first we first were presented with the pandemic and i was trying to calm the fears of my audience and i said we're not going to run out of food so i i said that as hard as i possibly could that we're not going to run out of food and so far not so i i think that's really a credit to us you know you see everything we do wrong but you don't see the things we did right so you know let's give a standing ovation to the food supply chain in the united states you know just a tremendous number of people taking risks you know the the meatpackers i mean the the food industry in this country basically went to war you know if you think about it the the food workers especially the meat packers settler who were exposed they went to

[1:00:15]

settler who were exposed they went to war
war they didn't want to i'm sure it sure wasn't their first choice but the alternative was that their fellow citizens starved to death so it's a little different than teachers you know because you
you can you get a little bit more a little bit more flexibility with education but the the food workers of america heroes absolute heroes because they kept us fed so um so somebody asked about dershowitz i understand there's an interesting um interview with him that i haven't seen yet so i'm gonna look at that in a bit
bit and i will talk to you tomorrow