Coffee with Scott Adams 2025-09-23
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It’s called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you’ve never had a better time. But if you’d like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup, or a mug, or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid—I like coffee. Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It’s called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now. Go.
AI and Nuclear Reactors
OpenAI and Nvidia, the two giants in the AI business, are planning a combined 100 billion into it—and that’s probably not even counting the nuclear power plants—do they just sort of know that there’s no way that could be anything but a good deal for them? Makes me wonder. We’ll see.
Robotic Massage
Retired football quarterback Tom Brady and his business partners are investing in a robotic massage robot. It’s a robot; you lie on the table like a regular massage, and it massages you. It learns about you and figures out your body and where it would feel best. You’re probably saying to yourself, “I’m not going to enjoy it if a machine does it. Isn’t the human touch the whole point of it?”
Right on the other side of my computer, I have a high-end massage chair. It’s really high-end, very expensive. I have to tell you, every time I use that, it just floods me with whatever happiness chemicals you get when you get a massage. It is really effective. You’ll want to just sleep it off for an hour after that thing. So, if they made a better one that’s like a big arm that massages you, would I like it even more? I don’t know. The one I’ve got is pretty darn good. I don’t know how it could be better, actually.
AI Matchmaking
Meta has introduced an AI-based dating app, but it won’t work like regular dating apps. It’s chat-based, and you can tell it exactly what you’re looking for. It will go off into the internet, probably just on Facebook, and look for somebody who meets all those qualifications. Wouldn’t that be amazing? You’d have AI being like a real matchmaker. It wouldn’t be like Tinder, or Hinge, or OKCupid; it would be more like a person that just happens to be AI and knows a lot about a lot of people.
My suggestion is to cut out the middleman and just date the AI directly. It sounds funny, but let me ask you this: if you had to compare spending time with whoever the AI decided you should spend time with, or spending time with the AI, which one would you do? It’s a pretty close toss-up at the moment. I think the real win for AI would be to cut out the middleman and become the date.
Jimmy Kimmel and Free Speech
You’ve probably already heard that ABC and Jimmy Kimmel have agreed he will be coming back on the air tonight. Now, not all of the affiliates, the local stations, are going to automatically run it, although that could change by tonight. The Sinclair Group and Nexstar may not, but they are also not the majority of the stations. They would still have plenty of stations, but they would lose maybe 20% if Sinclair doesn’t participate.
It doesn’t seem to me that there’s any possibility they could make money on Kimmel, since they weren’t making money anyway. If they lose another 20% of their local affiliates, I don’t think there’s any chance they could make money. I don’t know what they’re up to.
Here is my final take on it. I’m glad that he’s going to be back on the air. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know what I’m saying, and I know you don’t like it. But this was uncomfortably close to something in the free speech domain. It wasn’t. It was never a question of free speech because the FCC has a mandate to police the speech of the three networks. It’s actually their lawful, legal job to make sure that the three broadcast networks don’t do something that would be bad for the public. That means it’s their job to censor them. You can’t say, “The government censored me,” when that’s specifically their job for those three limited resources that not everybody can have at the same time. It was never really a free speech question.
But it was uncomfortably similar to one, or reminded you of one, or made you feel like you were living in one. Anytime there’s a gray area, I would default to free speech. Remember, it was a business decision ultimately, so my opinion about it doesn’t matter, and your opinion doesn’t matter. But I’m going to give you the kill shot on this topic.
What would Charlie Kirk have wanted? If he could tell you what he wanted, would he want Jimmy Kimmel to be off the air because of what he said? I don’t know for sure, but I would say a 99% chance that Charlie Kirk would have said, “I forgive him. It was one little slip. I think he took enough heat that he learned his lesson. Maybe I should go on his show.” I think if Charlie Kirk were here, he would say, “Can I go on your show and we’ll talk about it?” Because that’s who he was.
Does it make sense that you or I should be opposed to it when you’re probably pretty sure he would not have been? In many ways, he’s better than us. The reason he’s so beloved, Charlie Kirk, is he’s just better than us in a whole bunch of ways. That’s probably one of them. If you can tell me that you honestly believe Charlie Kirk would be happier if Jimmy Kimmel got destroyed career-wise and all the people who work on his show lose their jobs, I don’t think that was Charlie Kirk. Was it? If you disagree with me, I’d love to hear the counter-argument. But I feel that if you believe Charlie would have handled it differently—kept him on the air and engaged him in conversation, which is what I think he would have done—if you don’t disagree, then I think the respectful play, the way you could most respect the memory and legacy of Charlie, is to do what you think he would have done.
I’ll bet you hate how much that convinced you. Also, I don’t want to see the staff lose their jobs. The staff didn’t do anything. There are a few dozen people on the staff. I have an empathy problem sometimes, like too much of it. I was imagining how Jimmy Kimmel felt when he knew that he wouldn’t personally be that affected by it because he’s made his money by now, but the staff would be struggling. Imagine knowing that you’re the reason your own stubbornness or stupidity cost dozens of people that you really like their jobs. Imagine how that would hurt if you were a normal person who cared about other people. I wouldn’t discount the fact that that must have been really painful, not for himself, but for the staff.
You might say, “But would he grant you the same grace?” To which I say, that’s not my standard. My standard is to be better than him. My standard is not to be as good as him. It’s to be better than him. The Charlie Kirk way is to be the better person; it’s not to compete with the ugliness.
The Homan Allegations
There’s a story that allegedly Tom Homan took $50,000 in cash in a bag for potential services later, should he become his current job and should Trump have gotten elected. This was before Trump got elected and before he was in his job. Do you know what the White House’s response to that story is? It never happened. The response is not that he took the money but he was a consultant and didn’t do anything illegal. They say it just didn’t happen. There was no transfer of money.
Do you believe that? That’s a pretty bold claim if the allegation is allegedly on video. The allegation is that it was a sting operation, which would mean that somebody in the FBI literally has the video of the transfer of money in a bag. Do you think that if that exists and there’s any chance that somebody would have access to the video and got a copy, they would just say, “No, never happened. There was no transfer of money whatsoever”? They must be pretty confident that nobody can prove them wrong because it’s a binary: it either exists or doesn’t exist.
I am willing to believe that the White House is correct and maybe it doesn’t exist. It could be that they offered him the money and he didn’t give a hard no nor did he give a hard yes. Maybe somehow that got turned into, “He sort of took it even though he didn’t take it.”
California Mask Bans
California is the first state to require masks on law enforcement and the Border Patrol enforcement people. I feel like they made a little mistake with that law. So, let me see if I understand this. It would be illegal for these border enforcement people to wear masks, but there’s no law against wearing makeup, right? Can the women wear makeup? I think they can. No law against that. Would there be a law against somebody wearing a fake beard? A fake beard is not a mask. How about somebody who put a fake nose and glasses on so you couldn’t see their eyes or their nose? I don’t think that’s really a mask, is it?
What about fake boobs? Suppose all the guys put in fake boobs and makeup and eyelashes, and then they said, “No, we’re not doing border enforcement; we’re running a trans event.” It’s a trans event because they’d be wearing boobs and fake eyelashes and makeup. But then they’d say, “Trans-portation,” wink-wink. I’m just saying that the ICE could find a workaround. Just turn it into a dress-up trans event. Trans-portation. I’m being silly.
Autism, Tylenol, and Vaccines
Trump and RFK Jr. had a big announcement yesterday about what they found out so far or believe they know about autism. This is getting interesting. There are several things. First of all, they said that Tylenol is not as proven safe as they would like it to be. Some studies say that if a pregnant woman takes Tylenol or the acetaminophen, there’s a bunch of studies that suggest that it’s correlated and therefore causation.
But there are other studies that say, “Nope, there’s no correlation at all.” I think a Harvard group looked at all the studies and found out that, at least in their opinion, there was more evidence that there is a connection than that there isn’t. Do you know what it’s called when you look at a whole bunch of studies instead of just one? That’s called a meta-study. Meta-studies are not science. A meta-study has too much opinion baked into it. The way the opinion is baked into a meta-study is that you have to make a decision about which studies to include.
For example, if there was one study that was much bigger than the others—they sort of weight all the studies by the number of participants—then you don’t really need to look at all the other studies because the one would bias the total so much. Then let’s say there was one that went one direction and another study that pointed the other direction, but you as the researcher said, “I don’t think this one study was done with high enough quality, so in my opinion, it should be left out of the bunch.” Because you left it out, it biased it in the other direction. So was that science, or was there something about your opinion that decided what was in the studies? Really you’re measuring your own opinion of what should be in the studies and you’re not actually measuring any kind of average of the studies.
In general, meta-studies are, in my opinion, not terribly reliable. But to the credit of the administration, they are not saying we have proven the connection. They are saying it’s a sort of scary indication of what we’re seeing, and if I were you, I wouldn’t be taking Tylenol if I were pregnant. Although the doctors disagree—a lot of them. Some doctors say the risk of not taking a painkiller might turn out to be worse than the risk of the painkiller. If your only option to beat back the inflammation and the pain is Tylenol, then you’ve got this tough choice. The inflammation and the pain might cause its own set of problems that could cause autism, some people speculate. It could be, some say, that what you’re measuring is not so much the Tylenol, but that they had an underlying condition that required Tylenol. Suppose there’s some fever or inflammation problem that’s common enough and that people would normally take Tylenol for; wouldn’t it look like the Tylenol was the problem? But really it was the underlying inflammation because the people who didn’t need the Tylenol also didn’t have that underlying inflammation thing.
There’s all kinds of uncertainty, but Trump, in his Trumpian way, is basically saying, “Don’t take Tylenol. Don’t take it.” He admits that his administration does not say that. He’s just telling you as your leader, as your president, which I kind of like. As long as it’s clear that this is me saying this, this is not the medical people. The medical people are saying to use your judgment, use it when you need it, use it at the lowest amount, and talk to your doctor. Those are all the responsible, right things. Trump’s giving you the common sense: don’t do it. But your doctor might say that in your specific case, it’s worth a little risk. At least they’re honest about leaving it to your doctor.
There’s also a new drug being rolled out for some kinds of autism called Leucovorin. We don’t know if that will work yet, but it’s approved. It looks like it could help some, if not all, patients.
Then Trump suggested spacing out and delaying some common vaccinations that typically everybody gets. The science behind the spacing of it, so you don’t get them all at once, also I believe is not proven. But Trump, again, is being commonsensical and saying if you don’t have to give them all at the same time, can’t you reduce one risk by not doing it at the same time?
There is a counter to that. The counter-argument is if you have four vaccinations that are really good ideas, if you don’t give them at the same time, the odds that they don’t get the second dose go way up. You could get a higher rate of people getting the shots if you combined them, but you have a higher risk because they’re combined. Now, the higher risk—I mean the higher unknown. But there is science that shows that even combining the shots doesn’t make a difference. Of course, there’s some study that showed it made no difference for autism. Is that study valid? We cannot trust any of the studies in this domain. I wouldn’t trust any of them. That’s why you have to look at 46 of them and use magic to try to figure out which ones are real.
Hepatitis B, they would wait and ideally not give it to kids until they’re about 12 because it’s a sexually transmitted disease and unless you got it from your mom at birth, which can happen, you don’t need to be protected. It’s routine to screen the pregnant mother for Hepatitis B, so you could know in advance whether that newborn needs a shot or not. All those things are generally in the right direction.
The Autism Diagnosis Data
I’m going to give you an alternative view from an X user named Crémieu. I’ve mentioned him before because his analytical abilities are incredible. When he has an alternative point of view on something in the news, it’s definitely worth listening to. Doesn’t mean he’s right.
Here’s his argument for why it might be that there is no increase in autism but we only think there is. Before I give you the wonky, nerdy explanation, I will acknowledge that if you talk to any school teacher today, they would say there’s at least one autistic kid in every class now—every class of 30 people. When people like me were children, we believed that was not the case. We believed that was rare. The lived experience of the people who are closest to this world—teachers—are 100% sure there’s a gigantic increase. And I feel like you see it in your own life, right? Don’t we observe it directly?
So, even though I’m going to give you a wonky argument that maybe it’s not a big increase, there’s a very compelling case that it is. It’s not like RFK Jr. didn’t look into this. I fed all of these reasons why maybe it’s not a real increase into Grok, so that when I talk to you today, I could go down the list and see if Grok says this is BS. Do you know what Grok said? It said “true” or “mostly true” or “partly true” for every one of these.
Just remember, when I read these off to you, I’m not saying they’re true because this is a domain in which there’s just no way to know what’s real. I don’t claim that I know. Here are the claims:
Autism is being diagnosed more and more each year. Grok said yes. Autistic traits are not any more common than when the DSM-3 first introduced modern diagnostic criteria in 1980. Grok said true. Older prevalence estimates are based on inconsistent diagnostic criteria, so we can’t really compare the past to the present because they didn’t measure the same things.
Here’s the one that stopped me cold: when researchers go out and attempt to diagnose everyone who has autism, they find equal prevalence estimates for youth and adults. Now, if that’s true, there is no increase in autism. If you simply went out and said I’m going to get a random sample of people—some were 70 years old, some were 8 years old—and you just looked for symptoms of autism, you would find that the 70-year-olds and the 8-year-olds have roughly the same amount of symptoms. If that’s true, then the only thing that’s different is diagnosis because there’s no way that the 70-year-olds and the 8-year-olds would have roughly the same autism symptoms unless it had always been here. They’re not getting it at 70.
Familial control studies show us that no vaccination has any causal relationship with autism. So, Crémieu believes that vaccinations have not been correlated with autism, which would go to the point that there’s not an increase because of vaccinations, if this is true.
The rise in autism has overwhelmingly been due to non-severe varieties. If you had a little bit of it, you could probably function in the world and get along. In the old days, life was simple. Let’s go way back to the farming days. If you were a farmhand, how hard would it be for someone with a minor, non-severe version of autism to simply spend a lot of time alone, not make a lot of conversation, do their job, get paid, and nobody would think anything of it? You’d just say it’s a different personality. It seems to me that in the modern, complicated world, if you had a little bit of autism, it might really trip you up and people would really spot it. But back when everything was simple and all you did was milk a cow and toss some grass, nobody even noticed, would they?
The rise is driven by classifying people with other conditions as autism. If you add a monetary incentive to schools if they have people who are autistic, suddenly the number of autistic people at the school jumps by 25% in a single year because the funding follows the autistic kids. If you say you have more autistic kids, you get more funding. Follow the money.
Adoption studies indicate that there’s no apparent parental influence on kids’ autistic traits, but there is parental influence on a child’s likelihood of receiving a diagnosis. So, who your parents are will not make a difference about whether you have it, but it will make a difference about whether you get diagnosed. What’s that tell you?
That’s the basic idea. Do those explanations sound compelling to you? Does the alternate explanation that you’re just measuring it wrong sound compelling? It would sound compelling to me if there weren’t so many teachers and parents who can tell you there’s no way there’s not more of this. It’s just everywhere, all the time now. So, I’m inclined to think that there is something real that’s happening. But I have to admit, that’s a pretty strong argument and it’s coming from somebody who’s not wrong a lot. I just put that out there to show you that all data is fake. All data is unreliable.
The National Institute of Health is going to launch a big autism data science initiative so they can learn more, and that sounds good. You can argue all day long about whether what Trump and RFK Jr. have done so far is the right answer, but at least they’re moving in a direction.
Trump Assassination Attempt Updates
I have an update and correction on the “magic bullet” question. Yesterday I told you with great confidence, incorrectly, that he probably had a metal chest plate and the bullet probably hit it and ricocheted up and hit his neck. Turns out I have much better information today: there definitely was no vest, there was no metal plate. That comes from the people closest to him.
I’ve also learned from now three different sources that I consider highly reliable that if you’re trying to figure out the path of a bullet when it enters a body, it could be anything. People are advising me—the people who actually know, they’ve shot things and they’ve seen a lot of wounds and they’ve killed a lot of wild boars like Alex Jones has—Corey’s widow, Erica, has talked to people and gotten the real story.
The obvious conclusion is that he died immediately because the internal damage was extraordinary. Probably bones were hit, so the bullet or the shards bounced around. I believe that answers every question except why would the entry wound be so large? That doesn’t make sense. I guess I still have to ask that question, but it does seem to be an inside story.
Kamala Harris on Maddow
Kamala Harris, trying to sell her book, was on the Maddow show. I forgot how much fun it was to play “is she stupid or drunk?” Once again, I couldn’t tell. She was either being extra stupid or she was drunk. It could be both.
Maddow, who is famously in the LGBTQ community, wasn’t happy. She said to Harris, talking about Buttigieg not being picked because he was gay, “To say that he couldn’t be on the ticket effectively because he was gay is hard to hear.” Now imagine you’re Maddow and you’ve been massively supporting Harris and then you find out Harris wouldn’t put Pete Buttigieg on the team because she thought the gay guy couldn’t win. Harris goes, “No, no, no, that’s not what I said. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad, but I also realized it would be a real risk.” She denied that she kept him off because he was gay, and then she confirmed in her denial that she kept him off because he was gay. Drunk or stupid? Or both. Who answers that way? “No, it didn’t happen,” and it totally happened.
She also described Trump as a dictator and a tyrant, and then she said they got to fight fire with fire. What exactly would it mean to fight fire with fire if you’re saying Trump is a dictator and a tyrant? Is that not a call for violence? Because what exactly is the fire that you’re going to fight the fire with if you’re fighting a dictator and a tyrant? That sounds a little violent-y to me. She also claimed that she had a “certain responsibility” to tell Biden not to run, but she admits she engaged in what she calls recklessness because she didn’t want to be seen as self-serving. Everything about that is wrong.
Antifa and Foreign Terror Designation
Andy Ngo is reporting in the Post Millennial that Antifa could soon be branded a foreign terror group. They’re already designated a domestic terror group or something, but that doesn’t have any teeth. If they’re branded a foreign terrorist group, which looks like that’s imminent, then I think that opens up a number of tools that can be used against them that otherwise wouldn’t. It would allow sanctions overseas against networks and individuals.
I saw a post by somebody called WarClandestine. Clandestine says, “Do you see it? Trump is neutralizing the deep state’s playbook. First, he cut off their money supply via USAID and foreign aid and going after the funding of Soros.” Those would be like the Democrats’ piggy banks. Now Clandestine says he’s shutting down their “Brownshirts,” Antifa. The reference there is to color revolutions—the idea that Soros and the NGOs and other dark funding mechanisms fund people to protest so that it can look like whatever it is they want looks like the public might want it too. They basically organize protesters with money. But if you take away the Soros money and you defang Antifa, you take away the fake protesters in the street and you take away the money. That goes a long way toward getting rid of the people trying to overthrow the government on a regular basis.
Recognition of Palestine
Trump has spoken out against the UK for the UK deciding to recognize Palestine as its own state. Trump says that Britain’s recognition of Palestine is nothing more than a “reward for Hamas.” It does nothing to free hostages or anything like that. Now the countries or allies that have accepted Palestine as a state include Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and Portugal. Five is a lot. Trump’s going to talk to the UN General Assembly today, and some say that he’s sort of boxed in by that stuff.
Hamas’s Offer to Trump
Hamas has cleverly made an offer directly to Trump, not through Israel, to if he can get a 60-day pause in fighting—a 60-day pause in fighting—then Hamas will release half of the hostages. We believe there are something like 20 hostages still alive. They would offer to release 10, I guess, if he gets a 60-day pause. Do you think Trump’s going to take that deal? No, I don’t think Israel will let him take that deal even if he wanted to. But it’s very clever from Hamas because it puts a wedge between Israel and the United States because Trump really, really likes releasing hostages. Not just these hostages, but he’s got this great track record of being able to get hostages out and he brags about it. Hamas cleverly thinks there’s no way Trump is going to say no to a sure thing.
Erdogan and Gaza
Turkish President Erdogan was asked in an interview, “Do you consider what’s happening in Gaza a genocide?” Erdogan says, “There’s no other explanation. This is a full-fledged genocide, and Netanyahu is responsible.” The question that I ask is: what would it be if Hamas were the dominant military and Israel was just hiding in tunnels? Would there be a genocide in that direction? Yes, of course there would. Hamas has been very clear that it would be a genocide as soon as they have the ability to do it. My take is genocide is bad, with the single exception that if the other team is saying directly and consistently and for years, “If we get a chance, we are going to genocide you so hard,” what else are you going to do? It might still be a genocide, but you have to genocide a genocide. How else would you stop it? Because if the only thing that will stop them from killing you is completely taking them off the field, what are you going to do?
Drone Warfare in Russia
Russia has been shooting down Ukrainian incoming drones like crazy, including a number of them that were heading toward Moscow. How would you feel if you lived in a major city anywhere and on a regular basis your government had to shoot down incoming exploding death drones? Even if they got them all, would you ever feel comfortable going outdoors? It feels like it would be really uncomfortable. So, it makes me wonder if the population in Moscow is starting to feel the war in a way that they hadn’t felt it before. I think Moscow is most of the opinion that matters. Their anti-aircraft destroyed 81 Ukrainian drones in one night. That’s a lot.
Sweden and Russian Jets
Sweden says that they’re prepared to shoot down any Russian jets that wander into their territory because, for reasons that I’m not entirely clear about the purpose, Russia has been quite consciously wandering into the airspace of other neighboring countries. Estonia, Poland, Romania—Russia just keeps “accidentally” flying into their airspace. Presumably putting pressure on or maybe testing defenses or both. But Sweden says if Russia flies over their space, they’re going to shoot it down. They say “no warnings and no excuses.” Do they mean it? We might find out.
AI-Driven Education
I saw a post by Alex Prompter who says that Google is right on the border of revolutionizing education. Apparently, Google has launched an AI program called “Learn Your Way.” What it does is it gives a very personalized lesson to each student based on what they need. If you have a different learning style—if you need a mind map or an audio lesson, a timeline that you could click around on, or quizzes that will change based on what you know and what you don’t know—they tested it on 60 high schoolers and it worked great. Every one of them said it made them more confident; scores were up.
If AI could adapt its teaching method for each person and maybe each day, the potential for how well you could learn things apparently is really good. In my opinion, the terrible school system is one of the biggest things that holds back people who are born into poverty—that they can’t necessarily use school to escape. If you could fix that by making it sort of universally possible that everybody can get this kind of education with AI, then you would solve one of the biggest problems in the country. Instead of regular classrooms, maybe you just go to a pod of a dozen people that decided to be in the same pod because none of them are troublemakers. You just sit there for two hours a day learning stuff. You could compress the entire school day into two hours if you knew how to do the two hours right. I totally believe that. There’s no way that you’re learning more than two hours’ worth of content in a school day.
Terrorism Threats and Cell Networks
Sarah Adams, former CIA intelligence expert, says the terrorists are already set up here in America and they’re planning on a major attack on the homeland. She’s been saying this for a while—long enough that you might say to yourself, “You don’t need to be a former CIA intelligence expert to say that terrorists will eventually do a big attack on the homeland.” As long as you’re not held to the date or the approximate date, that’s a pretty safe prediction.
However, you want to get really scared now? This seems like an unrelated story, but I’m not so sure. Apparently, the Secret Service has found that there was this massive site somewhere near New York City where there was a building with a whole bunch of equipment in it that was designed for no other purpose than to disrupt cell networks all over New York City. The thinking was that maybe it had to do with the United Nations meeting coming up, to which I say: would that really be worth it? If they built this expensive, complicated facility, do you think that the best use of that would be to make the cell phones not work at the UN?
I’ve got a better suggestion that will scare you: it could be that the plan to turn off the cell phones all over New York City could be related to that big terror attack. If you were going to do a big terror attack and you had the option, you would turn off the cell phones in that area so that the first responders couldn’t help and then nobody could figure out what’s going on to figure out how to get out of the city. Even if there was an escape, you wouldn’t know because your cell phone didn’t work. The oddest part of this story is that they’re not even speculating who put that facility there. Was it Al-Qaeda? If Al-Qaeda built that thing, then yes, it was part of a larger attack plan, which means that they’re really, really serious about whatever the next one is. They’re not going to mess around. But if it was maybe some black hat hacker group, maybe it’s something they were using to make money somehow, which would be bad, but not nearly as bad as a joint attack with Al-Qaeda that also takes down your phones.
Big Pharma Pricing
Trump is said to have a victory on Big Pharma because there’s a new drug coming out from Bristol Myers Squibb that will cost the same all over the world. The United States will not be paying ten times more than other places, and they’re saying it’s because of the president. But it’s only one drug. It’s a schizophrenia drug, KarXT. It’s going to launch in the UK, and I guess the list price will be the same as in the US. I don’t know what happens with all the other drugs. Aren’t they supposed to eventually be the same price everywhere, or are they only doing the new ones?
Detroit 2020 Election Documents
A New Jersey man has somehow succeeded in getting a million documents from Detroit’s 2020 election. He’d been doing this long FOIA request thing, but he finally got them. He got a million documents; that includes copies of absentee ballots and signed envelopes. Detroit is considered by some as one of the places that a cheat happened in the 2020 presidential election. I’m not saying that, because I don’t personally have any evidence of that. However, if these million documents pay off the way the individual who got these documents thinks they will, there will be proof that the election was stolen. Do you think that they gave him anything that would show proof that the election was stolen, or did it take so long because they had to look through it to make sure they didn’t give him anything that would prove the election was stolen? They just give him all the other stuff. We’ll see.
Inflation and Data Accuracy
According to Newsmax Money, the way we calculate inflation is wrong, and if we did it right, it would look a lot higher. I remind you that all data is fake. We don’t know about autism because we don’t trust the data; we don’t know about inflation because we don’t trust the data; we don’t know about the election in 2020 because we don’t trust the vote totals. Do you see any pattern developing here? There’s no data that’s reliable.
That’s something I’ve always known because I worked in jobs where it was my job to collect the data that was accurate. One thing I learned right away: it didn’t matter what the domain was, it didn’t matter what the source of the data was, it was always inaccurate. We used it anyway because you’ve got to do something. You can’t just say, “I don’t know, we’re just going to guess from now on.”
Potential Government Shutdown
We’re heading toward another government shutdown possibility because we’ll never agree on a budget, of course. The government funding as it is expires on September 30th, and there are too many large differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. It’s Groundhog Day all over again. I would expect to see some posts from Thomas Massie reminding us that there’s no chance that Congress will act responsibly and come up with a budget that is the product of their negotiating and reduces the deficit, which is the main thing that they have to do.
If it’s like every other time, they’re going to do another continuing resolution. They are not going to cut the budget. They are not going to make any decisions, and they’ll just kick the can down the road because that is apparently all they’re able to do.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to tell you. Thanks for joining, and I’ll see you tomorrow, same time, same place. See you later.