Episode 1123 Scott Adams: Google Mischief, Biden on the Roof, Taiwan Analysis, Statues of Criminals

Date: 2020-09-14 | Duration: 55:34

Topics

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

Rough Transcript

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

Transcript

---

• The Atlantic says vote for Biden, or else

• The ultimate power of AI and the weapons of persuasion

• Statues of criminals who die resisting arrest?

• Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo…testing “fine people HOAX”

• Taiwan force-jailed people with COVID19 symptoms

• Hospital grade vitamin D, massive reduction in COVID death rate

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.
---
[0:09]

hey everybody come on in come on in it's going to be a fun week yeah it's going to be one of the better weeks wait till you see the news that's coming at you this week i don't know what it is yet but i think you'd all agree it's going to be interesting might be terrible might be good but it's going to be interesting and in order to prep yourself to enjoy this week all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chelsea's tie the canteen joker flask vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day the
the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now go
ah delightful so i was just before i got on i was reading an article by uh joel pollock

[1:11]

reading an article by uh joel pollock and breitbart about how the atlantic you know the atlantic the the dumbest publication in the world uh has some kind of a uh editorial or opinion piece this says that unless joe biden gets elected there'll be all kinds of civil unrest and therefore if you're a republican and you don't want civil unrest you should vote for biden because it's the only way you can avoid it what does that make you want to do well if i have those two choices which is to be blackmailed into voting for somebody i don't want to be president in order to avoid civil unrest i'll take the civil unrest i don't i don't think they're reading the room right because those are not even close to being similar choices let me put it this way on a scale of one to ten

[2:11]

put it this way on a scale of one to ten my desire to avoid civil unrest is pretty high it's pretty high it's like a maybe an eight out of ten but my desire to not be blackmailed is a 25.
25. they're they're not really close you know if you give me that choice you guarantee i'm voting like any thought i had about sitting on the couch is like nope if if you want the uh if you want the riots you want the civil unrest let's do it let's let's bring it on let's get it over with because i'm definitely not choosing the safe path and anybody who thinks that republicans would choose the safe path with those two choices definitely reading the room wrong i just saw a story that says that china has collected massive personal information about australians i assume they're doing the same thing for every other country but we i guess they got caught more or

[3:12]

but we i guess they got caught more or less red handed with the australian data now here's the thing i i feel like the days of um kinetic warfare among the big countries the countries that have you know nukes and stuff it might be over but not war because i think that that ai and persuasion and dirty tricks and cyber stuff is now so powerful that you could take down a country and you could you could destroy an economy you could you could cause civil unrest it's happening right now so i think the reason we don't have to worry too much about getting into a shooting war with some of the other big countries that you know are the the classic ones you worry about is that shooting is the least effective weapon the one thing you can count on is that if you're up against another military they're going to use their good weapons

[4:12]

going to use their good weapons as opposed to their bad weapons and bad weapons would be anything that got them killed in return so if they were to you know say bomb the homeland here well their homeland would get bombed but if all that happens is there's lots of unrest in the united states and it looks like it's domestic but we don't know why but it's actually because of ai and persuasion and propaganda coming in from another country we wouldn't even necessarily know we were under attack i mean maybe the government would know but the people wouldn't really quite get it
it and we just think well we're not so gullible that a few memes on facebook are going to change our minds but ai and the weapons of persuasion are now so powerful that i would say legitimately they're they're more powerful than physical weapons because you could you could wipe out a country without being attacked in return or even

[5:14]

without being attacked in return or even identified as the attacker so way more powerful so that's that's something to worry about i would argue that the ai is already destroying civilization and that unless we figure out some way to stop it there's there's somewhat of a obvious path here because as many people have noted the algorithms and the social networks and the you know i guess you can say algorithms driving the news in general are designed to make us fight with each other now that's not some great insight everybody smart says that at this point but what's going to stop that what would stop it if if you had said to me
me 20 years ago oh you know the fake news and the persuasion will get so strong that you know it'll be changing politics and changing the world and all that

[6:15]

changing the world and all that i don't know if i would have completely believed how good it could get i would have i would have worried about it but i don't know if i would have been convinced but now we're here and we can see that half of the country believes and literally hoaxes that they believe our reality they actually can't tell the difference between an obvious hoax you know did the president say we should drink bleach no how hard would it be to find out that's not true well if you if you follow conservative media it's easy because you see the debunks all the time if you follow the other silo of news you've never seen it and you never will so if you had told me we could ever get to a point where you could sell somebody literally a hoax that could be debunked as quickly as you can google it and yet is still worked it could be debunked with one google search and yet it still stands i don't know if i would have believed

[7:15]

i don't know if i would have believed that so how good how good can this type of weapon get well that's the scary part we don't really know here's what's scary right now the persuasion that most of us are receiving from the social media companies and from foreign actors to the extent that they're trying to interfere
most of that is sort of sprayed into the environment in other words the the meme that you see might not be that different than the meme i see maybe it looked for things like you know your gender or your age you know who you voted for some basic stuff but what happens when let's say china knows everything about you about you
you you specifically they know the names of your children they know your hobbies they know where you've traveled they know all your social media posts when they know all that stuff

[8:15]

that stuff the the form of persuasion that they can send to you specifically is a whole different level as a trained hypnotist let me give you a really a perfect example of this if i tried to hypnotize all of you right now it would sort of work you know i could influence a number of you maybe 20 of you would be moved 80 would not
not but the the limit there is that i would have to use the same method for all of you
you and the same method doesn't work for everybody it's not it's not really a one-size-fits-all situation but suppose i had infinite time and i could take each of you individually learn all about you how you you know how you're wired what what makes you tick what you care about and then i design a specific persuasion package just for you and then i stay on it would i be able to get more people brainwashed yeah it would reverse from maybe twenty

[9:18]

yeah it would reverse from maybe twenty percent of the people getting influenced to
to closer to any percent if i had time to you know work on it individually so it's it's that big and going from you know maybe 20 percent getting influence to 80 influenced that's the next step and all they need to do is collect enough information and have something like a tick tock or some some other kind of social you know social connection they can get a guess something going virally so that's where things are going there's news today that oracle is going to do some kind of a deal with tick tock not buy them but do some kind of a deal now i'm very curious what that deal would look like because i can't see any scenario in which the code of tick doc is being programmed by chinese programmers and somehow we feel safe because

[10:19]

and somehow we feel safe because oracle also has a piece of the business i need to hear details but nothing i've heard so far suggests that would solve any problems but
but obviously the the magic is in the details
so i'll give you an update on my ongoing attempt to de-program one i call him my my smartest uh anti-trump democrat friend because he's legitimately very smart but he has tds like you've never seen and one one of the things i told you about was that he believes that trump's campaign ads are lies and the biden campaign ads are not
and this is this is a sophisticated very well informed person who cares about politics and follows it and actually believed that the biden campaign ads were pretty straight and the trump ones were lies now

[11:19]

and the trump ones were lies now i don't know what world you live in where you think that any campaign ad is true if you think anybody is putting out true campaign ads you should just stop right there because you should never you shouldn't even vote i mean literally you should just say oh if i believe the campaign ads i probably shouldn't even vote i'm pretty gullible because they're not even designed to be true nobody starts with it nobody starts with the goal of all right let's put some truth in this ad
ad said nobody because the truth simply doesn't work as well as a you know a let's say a managed truth so i said to my friend who thinks that biden doesn't lie
lie a link to fact factcheck.org and and the biden part of it so you can see an entire list where you know smart people who know what's going on have fact checked his

[12:21]

what's going on have fact checked his claims as false now here's the thing my smart friend's initial when we first started talking about biden his initial claim was that biden was not a gigantic liar like president trump and and that alone that alone tells the whole story yeah you could get into other issues the other things he look he wants but that number one thing was that you can't have a liar as a president and then i send them really convincing proof because every every lie from biden is explained and the source is shown so you can see that he's massively lied what happens to somebody who said that was their number one reason for voting for him is that he didn't do the thing which is so clearly documented he does a lot of doesn't change anything and you know a few years ago when i started telling you the facts don't

[13:23]

started telling you the facts don't matter i think you probably thought that was an exaggeration and until you see enough examples where facts literally don't matter they don't have any they don't have any impact at all uh it's hard to believe all right there's a story that iran is a i guess from politico or something that iran is allegedly mulling over an attempt to assassinate the united states ambassador to south africa and this would be some kind of retaliation for our droning of solomon a and here's my here's my reaction to that number one it's anonymous anonymous sources so is it should you believe it if that's the only thing you know is that this story exists and the sources are unnamed because they're anonymous what credibility should you put on this i'd recommend zero zero credibility

[14:23]

i'd recommend zero zero credibility would be the amount right amount and again that doesn't mean it's not true credibility is different from whether it's true or false credible means is this a source that you should believe to be true and the answer is no not even close you should not believe it's true but suppose this let's talk about it what would be iran's point of taking out an ambassador to south africa what and and how would that be in any way equal to us taking out the the most important strategic asset in iran was the general and they would take out our ambassador to south africa now i get that we'd be unhappy about it and maybe it would look like oh we're you can't take advantage of us we'll we'll attack you back and i get that but wouldn't we attack them if they did that i mean wouldn't we have to respond i'm

[15:24]

i mean wouldn't we have to respond i'm trying to understand how iran could possibly command ahead with this plan can does your brain come up with any reason that this would work for iran now i don't doubt that they mold it because a lot of things get mulled over in fact trump gets in trouble all the time for mulling things behind closed doors and then when it gets reported you say my god what a bad idea but that's not the way you should look at it the way you should look at it is that lots of bad ideas get mold and then rejected if you heard one of the mold and rejected ideas as if it were more serious than it was behind closed doors you would come away with the wrong idea so maybe they're mulling it but i don't find it credible actually um the university of edinburgh they've renamed what was the

[16:24]

edinburgh they've renamed what was the david hume tower i guess david hume might have had some issues might have been racist i don't know but they've named it after george floyd so the university of edinburgh is honoring george floyd who may or may not have died of a fentanyl overdose resisting arrest and had a criminal record and i thought to myself well if people if people are happy with that i i'm generally in favor of letting people have what they want if it doesn't hurt me personally would you agree with that if somebody wants something and it doesn't hurt you it doesn't hurt anybody else why not so if the university of edinburgh and the
the you know the administration and the students are happy with naming their building after george floyd i don't have any problem with that

[17:25]

i don't have any problem with that because that's what they want to do and it doesn't make me unhappy doesn't have any effect on me at all so i'm cool with that but i thought why not do more of that and so i suggested by tweet this morning that maybe we should replace all of the confederate statues and any of the statues of slave owners with with statues of citizens who had criminal records and that died while resisting arrest sort of the the george floyd model anybody who died while resisting arrest and had also a criminal record will just replace all the confederate statues with those citizens now again just like just like the edinburgh thing if people are happy with it i say why not now oh some people think that's a bad idea

[18:26]

i'm being corrected that the pronunciation of edinburgh is edinburgh burra edinburgh so everything i said about edinburgh you can change that to edinburgh if that's right who knows yeah other people are saying is edinburgh all right let's call it edinburgh even though it's looks like edinburgh all right
and here's the thinking behind that what what is the rational way that we're dealing with the the riots and the unhappiness and the police killing of black citizens what are what are the actual rational things we're doing to fix that um none right correct me if i'm wrong there are no rational plans you know defunding the police isn't really a plan because even if you imagine that it's just changing resources to something else you've got to see the details um so in the in the case where all there

[19:28]

so in the in the case where all there are no rational plans that look like they would work what do you do if you don't have any rational plans if you're in a situation where all of the things that you could possibly do to get out of your bad situation are all crazy what do you do if they're all crazy well i would recommend the mr spock technique if you remember from star trek commander spock was once i think he was granted in space and
and his ship was losing power and he was going to die pretty soon and he did something to cause an explosion to blow up the remaining amount of his oxygen i think and so he only had a little bit left but he got lucky somebody saw the explosion and saved him and when he was asked about that and they said um blowing up all of your oxygen when you don't have much oxygen isn't that like the craziest thing you could do and spock

[20:29]

could do and spock i'm paraphrasing because i might remember some of this wrong if anybody wants to correct me later in the in the comments and then spock's comment was paraphrasing that once you've used up or or once you've run out of rational paths but you have to do something all that's left is irrational paths so you have to do something so you take an irrational one and just hope you get lucky and that's what he did and he got lucky so the the logic of it says that sometimes if all the rational paths are either unavailable or there's a problem you've got to take an irrational path now
now when i say we should build statues to people with criminal records who died while resisting rest what is your first take on that that's irrational it's irrational to build a statue to honor somebody who's you know died in such circumstances but a lot of people want to honor these

[21:31]

but a lot of people want to honor these very people suppose you just agreed with them what would happen this is actually a persuasion technique that i'm getting to the persuasion technique is if somebody's asking for something that seems irrational instead of debating it and saying no you don't want that no that's a bad idea if you've tried that and it didn't work and all it did was harden their resistance you can sometimes try the spock effect which is to go the irrational direction which is to amplify it if somebody has a bad idea and you can't convince them it's bad embrace it and amplify it and they will talk themselves out of it because if you just imagine this this will never happen by the way but it's it's fun to understand how persuasion works if i were in charge of the you know country and i could do anything i wanted you know i could get a law passed

[22:32]

you know i could get a law passed through congress i would actually literally really no kidding authorize a law to replace confederate statues with statues of citizens who had criminal records and and died in police resisting rest what would happen well some people would say that's a good idea and the other people would say um i'm not sure i want that and they would talk themselves out of it so you want to create a situation where people can talk themselves out of it because they're not going to listen to you
you you're the other team you know they just have an automatic reflex to not like what you said so agree and amplify when it's all you have if it's your only option that's the way i would go literally i would do that if i were in charge um i made a comment i guess yesterday on periscope that google was it looked like they were filtering

[23:33]

was it looked like they were filtering things in favor of biden over trump but uh andres backhouse noted that if you put in trump and the the beginning of the story is that if you try to search for does biden have dementia the non-google search engines will autofill that question because it says so often we'll autofill it right away but google will never autofill it you have to type out the entire word you know then then it'll do the search and so i pointed out that that seemed like an obvious thumb on the scales of the election but andre's pointed out that they may just be suppressing anything that's let's say a little extreme and maybe a little unproven about either candidate so for example if you do a search on trump it doesn't autofill with anything about racism but you think maybe it would right because there might be enough

[24:34]

right because there might be enough democrats searching for that stuff then maybe you would so there's some thought that they might be just trying to suppress things that are not true as far as they're concerned so they might say to themselves it's not true that trump is a racist it's only true he's being accused while at the same time they might say it's not true at least proven that biden has dementia is just something that people accuse him of so if they were treating those as similar you'd say all right okay that's both cases they de-emphasize something that doesn't have you know valid evidence for it but would that be an absence of election interference nope because you can't make that kind of a change without affecting the election it can't be done let me give you an example let's say with my example of

[25:35]

with my example of searching for trump is trump a racist versus does biden have dementia let's say everybody in the country had already made up their mind about trump and racism they'd already made up their mind so no matter what you searched for it wasn't going to change your mind but let's say that the biden dementia question was sort of fresher in other words there were people who legitimately wanted to search it and find out what the argument is who are not yet exposed to it that's very different if you stop both of them one of them is a mature argument one of them is fresh that's not equal now even if your intentions are just to give the best information and maybe google has those intentions it's possible but you couldn't do it so if you don't let the algorithm just do what the algorithm does you're putting your finger on the scale and it's definitely affecting something it may not be affecting it the way you want it

[26:36]

want it but it's affecting something so i thought to myself i wonder if there are cleaner examples of this search autofill thing so i did a search on the three on three big search engines uh bing duckduckgo and google and i tried to google find people hoax and how long did it take for autofill to fill in the hoax part well on duckduckgo pretty quickly you just start typing in find peep and hoax and you get a whole page of hoaxes and my my debunking of the hoax is actually the top result you go to bing it fills it in autofills it
it shows your whole page of the pokes being debunked you go to google never never autofills it
it it doesn't autofill it at all and it gives different search results so if

[27:36]

it gives different search results so if you do if you do a duckduckgo or bing you'll get
get pretty much i mean this may not be 100 true but you get mostly the debunks because you searched for hoax doesn't that make sense if you search for something with the word hoax in it it would probably give you the debunks that prove it's a hoax not google google shows you sort of a mix of people saying the hoax is a hoax and people saying that the debunk of the hoax is the hoax so google actually tries to balance it like maybe the hoax is true that is not even close to being an appropriate way to handle that question so two out of three search engines give you something useful and google google does not so i i reject the idea that they're just trying to be good citizens

[28:37]

trying to be good citizens and to prevent you from seeing things that maybe aren't that uh validated or credible but so then then you do a search on uh i think if you just do a search on trump or biden and you see what news sources come up if you look on some you'll get you know fox news maybe breitbart if you go on google it's nothing but enemies of the president that come up first so the first three searches are business insider a bezos property washington post a bezos property cnn those are the top three results when you search for trump i think if i remember right but not on the other search engines they'll give you
you like a better mix of pro and con all right um i would say that ai already already controls humans

[29:39]

already controls humans so if you're wondering oh i i hope we don't get to that point where the ai is determining you know how civilization runs we're past that we're well past that because i don't believe there's any single individual who knows exactly what the algorithms do there are definitely individuals who might be able to tweak it to get a certain result in a specific case but i don't think there's anybody who understands the entirety of the algorithm and how it acts i think the algorithm is effectively making its own decisions because it's doing things you don't anticipate and you're just getting a result it's for all practical purposes ai already is running the show and you might say to yourself but scott humans could reprogram it they could just turn it off they could delete the program so really really it's the humans because if the humans were not getting the results they wanted

[30:40]

results they wanted they would just turn it off or they would reprogram it so logically the humans are still in charge wrong completely wrong if you believe that model that the humans are in charge because they can reprogram the ai then you don't understand what the ai is doing they the ai was built to be indispensable the way it is if they reprogrammed it their profits would go down and and you know companies are hooked on profits so
so the ai knows how to addict humans to control them let's say a a heroin addict does a heroin addict have the option of not doing heroin if if you hand them heroin here's some heroin and you're a heroin addict and you're jonesing for your next fix technically technically speaking does the addict have free will and they

[31:42]

does the addict have free will and they can just decide ah you know maybe not i think i will not take that heroin even though i'm an addict and even though i'm going into withdrawal and even though there's no police here nothing to stop me it doesn't happen ever the addict takes the heroin in that situation so if you think that the addict has something that you think is free will and therefore is in charge of this process you don't understand how people work the the person is controlled by the drug the drugs in charge the drug makes the decision and it made the decision that this guy is going to do some more heroin in effect the ai does the same thing it addicts the creators they're addicted to the money the the reward the promotions and then the people use it you know the customers so to speak they're addicted in a different way but no there's no free will free will has
has already been removed if it ever existed

[32:45]

already been removed if it ever existed free will has been removed from civilization for the big stuff we are now already responding just to addiction and the addiction is coming through the the ai all right
and if you were to predict the long run uh
uh like where it all goes this is different than most situations because in most situations the adam's law of slow moving disasters would kick in and the adam's law of slow moving disasters says for those of you who might be new to it that if we can see a problem developing from you know years in advance we we always fix it so it looked like we wouldn't have enough food in the future but we figured out how to grow more food it looked like we'd run out of fossil fuels but we figured out how to frack and on and on and on if we can see it coming we're pretty darn good ozone there's a hole in the ozone

[33:46]

hole in the ozone we got time we fixed it year 2000 bug in the computers we didn't have much time but we had enough so if you got time you can fix it this is an exception you can't fix the complete takeover by artificial intelligence just because you see it coming for years in advance which we have we've seen this coming forever and the reason is that the humans are not in charge of decisions with the year 2000 bug the human said hey we don't like that bug we better get together and do something about it so humans could make a decision then they could act on it with fossil fuels humans could say hey it looks like we're not gonna have enough fuel let's do something about it and fracking is one of the things that came out of it but with ai the humans can say hey there's a problem

[34:47]

hey there's a problem and they can't work on it because the ai won't let them the ai controls their thoughts it controls their priorities it controls what they think is important so even if we humans said hey that's a problem we better work on it the ai would talk you out of it already that's not the future that's that's already the past you were already at the point where the ai will change your mind so effectively that you cannot independently decide to rewrite the ai the ai already programs us by its design in the in the beginning the very let's say the first ones i'll use a phrase from babylon 5. the first ones the programmers who initially came up with the ideas for how to create algorithms that and services that addict you they had free will and had they chosen to do something different

[35:48]

different we wouldn't be here but they did they built a system that now controls them and also controls us
us once it's built humans don't have the ability to unbuild it we don't have the ability to work against our addiction any better than the
the heroin addict who's having withdrawal and you're handling handing them some heroin all right what is the real story of coved testing in the united states it feels like the election might come down to do you believe that trump did or did not do the right things in testing and handling coronavirus in general but when they talk about the president's uh what he did or did not do it usually comes down to testing doesn't it you know there'll be some other criticisms but mostly if you had to pick one thing that people will really focus on mostly it's the thought that if he'd done more aggressive testing early

[36:49]

done more aggressive testing early we could be like taiwan that sort of tested its way out of it is that reasonable sorry is that reasonable here's my problem with this why don't i know the following question i tweeted this to see if anybody else could help me was there ever a time this year after we knew the coronavirus was a problem was there ever a time where in which these three conditions were met at the same time because this is the only way we could have tested our way out of it is if all three conditions were ever true at the same time and i don't know the answer so i'm asking you were these three conditions all simultaneously ever true at the same time number one we had the right kind and quantity of test kits to to test for contact tracing so that's the first condition did we have enough of them to do what we needed to do and they worked in the early stages at

[37:50]

and they worked in the early stages at the same time
was it before there were too many infections because i believe it's true that if if you have a massive infection in your country they're trying to do contact tracing basically just doesn't work because the numbers don't work it's growing faster than you can contact trace but if you had like three three three people who have it maybe like taiwan or new zealand then maybe then yes
yes contact tracing is just what you need
so so has that been true and at the same time trump ignoring the experts so was there ever these three things that we had the tests and we had plenty of them that the number of infections were low so low that the testing could get on top of it and also that the experts that trump had advising him were saying hey hey get on top of this with these tests i

[38:51]

get on top of this with these tests i believe we've never had those three conditions if those three conditions never existed is it trump's fault that we didn't do enough testing because could he do enough testing if his experts didn't tell him to because we didn't want him to do something that the experts didn't advise could he have done it if they didn't have the tests they just didn't exist or they didn't work could he have done that testing if by the time you know we knew about it there were so many infections that didn't make any difference you couldn't test anyway so why is it that i'm sitting here in september and i don't know the answer to this question that should alarm you because you think you're reading the news but all you're reading is the left-leaning news saying um we're not going to give you the details but he sure botched the testing and then i say to myself botch did exactly how what was the thing

[39:53]

botch did exactly how what was the thing he could have done could have done that was actually possible that he was advised to do that he didn't do and i'm like well okay if the people on the left won't give me the details they're just going to say it was all botched at least i can get the rest of the details from the right so you go to the right and say did the president botch testing and they'll say some dumb ass thing like no there was plenty of testing for people who had symptoms it's not even the same topic right so i'm thinking okay i can't get the story from the left because they're only going to say it's botched and give me no details and i can't get the full story from the right because they won't even talk about the same topic how do you get the news anymore honest question there's no hyperbole in this how do people get news in this situation the single most important thing i need

[40:53]

the single most important thing i need to know to vote in the biggest election this country has ever had i would say the most important fact completely discoverable meaning it wouldn't it wouldn't be a lot of work for a reported to say oh let me answer those questions for you yeah what were the experts telling trump and could he have done it was it possible
that story isn't out there remember i said that you're already being manipulated by the algorithm if the algorithm were not already running the country you would know the answer to this question because people who were just reporters and wanted to write stories that people would find interesting and read and meaningful those reporters would say huh that's exactly the story the public needs to see
see i guess i'll go write that story never happened why because nobody gets paid for that story

[41:54]

for that story the algorithm pays you to write the story that says it was botched and the algorithm will pay you on the other side to say it was all brilliant and everything went well there's no the algorithm doesn't have a payday for somebody who tells useful information to the public we don't have that it just doesn't exist so
so and i i'll bet you'll never see that actually uh here's case in point so chris wallace was talking to a biden advisor and was challenging him on this so chris wallace asked the question very clearly he said you know why did biden take until april to agree with the travel ban if the travel ban was put on at the end of january what happened between the end of january and april before biden said that the travel ban was a good idea why did it take so long good question right and his assistant answers the question of why it took so long by saying well you have to understand

[42:57]

by saying well you have to understand the virus was already in the country that's not even the same question so in other words you can't even get a simple answer to a question why did it take so long you can't get any information about testing banning we we're in complete darkness we the citizens in complete darkness about whether our government did a good or bad job we don't know oh we think we know we're positive we know because the algorithm told us what to think it told some of us to think he botched it meaning trump and told other people to think he didn't and that's what we think that's what the algorithm told us to think all right um
what and so fried zakaria who's who shall i really recommend uh fareed can be a little tds at times you know a little

[43:57]

tds at times you know a little anti-trump but you know if you're being objective he puts on a good product you know if i can just talk about the the quality of the topics and the guests and just the job fareed does he's just really good i've always appreciated his show even sometimes if i don't you know like the bias on but he had on uh i think it was the was it the president of taiwan who coincidentally seemed to be an epidemiologist i don't know if it was a president or one of the one of the top executives but it doesn't matter for this point and fareed was asking him how they were so
so successful in taiwan and others were not and this is what this the leader of taiwan said that one of the things they did is very aggressive testing and contact tracing so here's my first question is there something that taiwan could do in those early days because they had the right kind of tests

[44:58]

right kind of tests that we couldn't do i don't know the answer to that question and it didn't come out of this did they have the right kind of tests and we had the wrong kind did they have the right number of them and we had the wrong kind was it that when they had a few tests or a few cases they got on it quickly was that what made the difference but here's the part that doesn't get emphasized in order to make the taiwan thing worked you basically went to jail if you had symptoms now when i say jail i just got a glitch on my computer a low battery message so that might glitch for some of you
when we talk about the success of taiwan and how good they did and then we say well why can't we be like taiwan taiwan put you in jail for two weeks if you had symptoms and when i say jail i mean a room with i

[45:58]

and when i say jail i mean a room with i don't know a television and wi-fi and a bed so it wasn't technically a jail but you couldn't leave so what do you call it if you can't leave if you can't leave it's a jail because if you tried to leave they'd put you in the real jail i think um so is there any scenario in which the citizens of the united states would have put up with oh you had a cough so i guess you're going to be in jail for two weeks i don't think so i don't think so so um
anytime we anytime you see anybody compare what happened in the united states to any other country it is a lie it's either an intentional lie
lie because they do know how to compare things and they're choosing to do it incorrectly or they don't know how to compare things because if you didn't know how to compare things you'd say what are they doing with vitamin d how

[46:59]

what are they doing with vitamin d how many african americans or how many black people live in those countries because they have greater comorbidity what is the obesity rate in those other countries when did they start how many international you know airports do they have you know when did they find their first thing did they have tests that work were they prepared if you don't if you don't compare countries on all of those gigantic variables you're not really comparing anything you're just being an advocate all right and then the other thing of course is you don't know if those other countries are going to have you know new symptoms etc now we talked about this like i think last week that there was a apparently a high quality study that showed that the vitamin d the the the hospital grade vitamin d not the stuff you get in your your health store but the the hospital grade vitamin d basically eliminated icu visits so it was a smallish test

[48:02]

visits so it was a smallish test but it was big enough to make me think uh have we already beaten this thing because imagine if you got the same result as the tested for 50 people of which many of them would have been in the icu it was almost none almost none so now that we know that and we know correct me if i'm wrong i saw dr drew join here so i know there's at least one person who knows the answer to this question if you simply gave everybody who had coronavirus symptoms covet symptoms if you just gave them all vitamin d you know the hospital grade vitamin d the the name brand stuff would anybody have a bad outcome and aren't we already doing it you know in other words the risk reward of the vitamin d now that we have a high quality study saying it's amazing don't we know that it also pretty much couldn't hurt you so that's the the part i have the

[49:02]

so that's the the part i have the question on because i think we're already past i think we're done right because if that one test was really meaningful and you know didn't have any errors in the test so we really know that the vitamin d just kicks kicks this virus in the gonads we should be massively rolling this out everywhere just because the doctors would have seen the reports too they probably would take the death count down to trivial and shouldn't that be done by the end of this week let me let me be as stark as possible
if it's true that the vitamin d given to you in the hospital doesn't have a downside and we have enough of it and it's true that it works according to this latest high quality study aren't we one week away from just being done because if you took it from

[50:02]

being done because if you took it from a hundred percent problem that it is now to two percent of that problem in terms of death rate we're kind of done are we am i wrong we're kind of done so i don't know what's going to happen to the stock market but i feel like when we start getting our stats let's let's give it two weeks just to have some time unless you hear there's a shortage of that vitamin d the the good stuff they use in the hospitals unless you hear there's a shortage of it or you hear that they're not using it for some reason that i can't that i haven't heard of um we might be two weeks away from effectively the end of it because i think in two weeks if you don't see the the death count in the united states drop to trivial levels then probably the vitamin d wasn't everything that the test said it was we'll find out but just think about that we could be two weeks away am i

[51:05]

we could be two weeks away am i am i being over optimistic because if that vitamin d thing is real two weeks right all right
those are the things i would like to leave you with ai is your biggest problem maybe you'll never know maybe you'll just go on with your life thinking that you're making your own decisions but you're not and maybe that's just as good as whatever you were doing before i see in the comments somebody's saying that fauci endorses vitamin d um remember who else uh oh is the stock market up today let me just take a look before i get off here the fouchy well it is
is well there we go bitcoins up apple's up oh hello everything's up looking good tesla
somebody says joe rogan is hosting a debate

[52:05]

debate is that an idea that you're suggesting or is that some kind of news if if joe rogan hosted a debate it would be a pretty good debate although i would recommend myself can you imagine a debate that i moder that i moderated
it would be pretty darn good if i do say so
so myself um anyway dr fauci does recommend vitamin d but there are two separate things one is that everybody should have enough vitamin d just in general because it's good for your health it's good for every kind of thing so yes dr fauci has is is on record with basically every other medical professional in the world plus one cartoonist plus most of you who said from day one of this virus those of you who have been with me since the beginning you know that the moment this virus looked like it was coming at us i told you guess some sun get some vitamin d get your you know get your health up do

[53:07]

get your you know get your health up do everything you can just to you know get your immune system up and vitamin d was a big part of that so the fact that fauci says vitamin d is good in general is a little bit of a different topic than the question of giving people massive amounts to prevent icu of the hospital grade vitamin d that's different than the health store stuff um so you can say you said it well yeah but it's a difference in the extent
all right um see trump tweeted rogan didn't all right apparently this is going to be good enough that it's worth waiting for so let's see trump trump trump trump let's see what he said
about rogan i see him he's dumping on drudge oh 51 approval rating in rasmussen

[54:07]

oh 51 approval rating in rasmussen looking good uh i don't see
anything about don't see anything yet how many tweets did he do this morning he's been tweeting like crazy all right i don't see it so somebody said there was a joe rogan debate related story i guess i'll have to look it up but i don't see it right now uh it wasn't proposed by rogan but he did accept uh oh joe rogan wanted a four-hour debate he will moderate and trump retweeted all right i'll take a look at that um don't you think i should still do an interview with the president trump and maybe one with biden they would never they would never let me interview biden but
but president trump is going to be i think in my neighborhood today actually yeah so if anybody's

[55:08]

today actually yeah so if anybody's watching from the trump campaign the best interview president trump could ever do would be with me because i'll ask some questions that haven't been asked before and you'll you really get a good idea what's going on if
if if if i did that interview so that's all i have for now and let's uh enjoy the week it's going to be off the hook