that is exactly the reason people are mad but they don't know why. They don't really know why.

I saw some people offer reasons that might be explanations. One was the best one I saw is that for a lot of the people on the right, which would include a lot of my audience, that Joe Rogan is a quote lifeboat for their opinion and I put a hole in the lifeboat. That's actually not bad. Good, because there's something irrational happening. Could be that. Could be that I simply disagree with people's opinions or they think so. Because here's the weirdest part. Almost everybody who's mad at me doesn't disagree with me. Now if you don't think that's true I could pick anybody who is my critic and just walk through what is it you think that I think that's different from you and you wouldn't find anything we disagree on. And yet people are still hopping mad. Hopping mad.

That is the mass formation psychosis. Because if people had a good solid reason they would just tell me and there would be a similarity to it. Now the best theory I got that had any meat to it was that people believe I once had a different opinion in which I trusted vaccinations and trusted the companies involved. But that as time has gone by people say that I've changed my opinion because I realized how wrong I was.

Did anybody see anything like that happen? For those of you who watched me, have you seen me change my opinion on vaccinations from the start? Now the people on Locals watch me the most. There is a subscription service and almost all of them are saying no. But I did see a yes. So even on Locals somebody's saying yes. But overwhelmingly the people who watched me the most say my opinion has never changed.

But here's where it gets really weird. All right, here's your first tip for understanding when you're hallucinating and when you have a clear view of the world. Are you ready for this? Here's your first tip. Let's take the specific accusation. One of the few that I got that multiple people had is that I trusted the big pharma companies too much. So that's what people are saying about me. That I trusted the big pharma companies too much.

Now here's how you can tell if that's a hallucination. And you could use this technique for other people in different situations. Just for a moment, just for a moment, try to take yourself out of the fight and just look at it like you're looking down from space. You're not in it, has nothing to do with it. You're simply looking down from space at this accusation. And the accusation is this: that the guy who is the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, whose 30-year run is almost entirely based on not trusting management and about money distorting things, my entire career is based on that principle. You can't trust management. You can't trust what anybody says. The data is all made up, right? Anybody who follows my comic would be aware of that. That I am the single most vocal skeptic of large companies in the whole world. The whole world. You could search the entire world and you would not find anybody who has spent more time saying you shouldn't trust what people in power tell you.

Now do you think that that guy, again remember you're going to pull yourself out, you can look at it like it has nothing to do with you, nothing to do with you. You have come to believe that the person who is most identified with not trusting big companies and indeed said it directly a thousand times since the beginning of the pandemic publicly at least a thousand times, you think that that guy has a problem in which he trusted big pharma, literally one of the least trustable entities of all time? Just ask yourself, does it sound reasonable? If you were to take yourself out of it and just say all right, here's the thing: that the person who is most associated with distrusting big companies is actually one of the most trusting of big companies. Do you think that actually happened?

This is the technique, right? To ask yourself is that really, did that happen? If you can say to yourself yeah that sounds actually pretty reasonable, well then go with it. But I'll tell you what it sounds like to me. And of course I'm in the middle of this, I'm biased. It sounds to me like somebody's saying you know I don't think McDonald's sells hamburgers. That's what it sounds like to me. When you say the guy who created Dilbert is too trusting of big organizations it sounds exactly like I don't think McDonald's sells hamburgers. I don't think they do.

Me comic is 100 percent behind you. Good to know. I love me comic. It's a good comic.

So I decided I would do a self-audit because wouldn't you agree at this point that it's also still possible that I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance and everybody else in the world is right? Right? So I thought I'd do a self-audit. So I started compiling my predictions about the pandemic. And so I started making my list. If you would like to participate in that please remind me or message me on anything you think I got wrong. Ask me a specific prediction, anything you think I got wrong or anything you think I predicted right, just in case I don't have a full accounting.

Scott, could this be someone trying to damage you? Well it doesn't really look organized. It just looks like a bunch of people who have lost their minds from the mass formation psychosis. So but I do think it's fair when hundreds of people tell you that you're losing it that you should take that seriously, don't you think? You know at the same time I can defend myself and say oh this looks like obviously a delusional thing. At the same time don't you think there's a responsibility on my part to take it seriously if so many people are saying it? Right? So I'm gonna do an audit of my own I guess sanity if you will. And so help me out. Tell me what things I predicted wrong or even right and we'll see how I did just on the pandemic. You don't have to go beyond that.

Now other things that people criticized me for was a tweet made before Biden was elected. I said if Joe Biden got elected there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year. Now how many of you think that a tweet that says if Joe Biden gets elected there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year, how many took that as literally the Holocaust will be kicked off in less than a year? And how many took it that way? Because if you did you're not really a good reader.

Here's how you should have taken it. But I will accept that it could have been clearer, right? You should have taken it this way: things will get a lot more dangerous and especially for Republicans. Does that seem fair? That the way you should have interpreted, you know, because Twitter is all about hyperbole. So yeah, you should be mentally reducing the hyperbole before you interpret it. If it's your first day on Twitter you're excused. But if you spend any time there you know that the absolutes are never meant to be absolutes, right? If you say everybody does X nobody thinks you really mean everybody. Not everybody. Everybody just lots of people. It's just the way we talk.

So I predicted that if Biden got elected there's a good chance you'd be dead in a year. Crime has spiked. The number of people dead from coronavirus way more than Trump. We probably have a little more risk with our nuclear adversaries than under Trump, although you could argue that one. Overdoses through the roof. Am I leaving anything out? Suicides through the roof. Overdoses, suicides, coronavirus, crime. And then you throw on top of that the political prisoners, the January 6 political prisoners. And I think we just have to call them political prisoners at this point. I don't feel that we should assume that they're just part of the justice system. It doesn't look like that to me. And I think that the government has the burden of proof that they are not screwing us.

So if you say to me Scott can you prove that they're political prisoners I would say nope, nope. Nor do I need to. Because if you're making it look exactly like they're political prisoners that is the assumption that the citizens should operate on. It's up to the government to tell us that's not what's happening and they haven't. Right? So the government is guilty until presumed innocent. So January 6, those are political prisoners until the government makes an argument that they're not. Okay? So that's the operating assumption.

Let's test another theory. Here's another way to sort out truth from hallucination. You all know Robert O'Neill. Does everybody know Robert O'Neill? Rob, I think he goes by. He was a little bit famous for putting a bullet into Osama bin Laden. I think more than one actually. I think he had some fun with it. But he tweeted today that Twitter had deleted Joe Rogan's interviews with Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough. And Rob asks us why do you think that is? Why do you think that is? What would be your answer to Rob's question which is a very good question? Why do you think those two doctors got deleted?

Now what are the possibilities? Now one possibility is political, right? Yeah. One possibility is money. That big pharma pushed the right levers and made it happen, right? So let's consider our possibilities. So one, there is a very impressive conspiracy in which the pharma companies can actually have the stuff taken off of social media. Maybe because they're big advertisers, something like that. Now does that seem reasonable? Does it seem like a reasonable possibility that big pharma is getting their critics kicked off of social media? Yeah, yeah, that could happen. It's certainly within the realm of possible. Right? Possible. Okay.

Let's talk about some other possibilities. Is it possible that the reason those two doctors were kicked off is that they can't even convince other doctors that they're right? Because I don't think Twitter used its doctor judgment, do you? Do you think there's a doctor who works at Twitter who said yeah I'm a doctor too, I looked at this stuff and I've judged that as my doctor experience tells me this is not right? Do you think that happened? Or do you think Twitter got advice from experts? What do you think?

I think that you have to ask this question. So Rob O'Neill's question is a good one. Now we don't know exactly the answer, right? Why did these two doctors get kicked off? That's a good question, right? But the question that also is a good question is why is it that these two doctors can't convince other doctors that are right but they've done a good job of convincing non-doctors they're right? Would you be concerned about doctors who could convince people who don't know anything but could not convince people who know as much as they know? Does that worry you?

Because if they could convince other doctors then Twitter wouldn't have kicked them off, would they? Do you think? If there was a solid, even a minority but a solid body of other doctors saying yeah you know I've looked at their argument and I gotta say that's pretty strong. Now you might say to me Scott, Scott, Scott, Twitter doesn't even check with other doctors. I don't know. But you don't know either, right? I don't know that they do but you don't know that they don't. It seems kind of obvious that they would, especially if somebody asks how, why'd you do that? Now of course they don't have full transparency so I guess they could do anything they want.

So that's my next advice for sorting out BS from reality. Now keep in mind that none of the tips I give you for sorting reality from hallucination will be 100 percent. You got that right? These are all sort of rule of thumb ways. So just as you say you follow the money, it predicts almost every time, doesn't it? But it could also be wrong. So would you agree that the rule follow the money is a really good rule of thumb for figuring out what's real but you know not every time? You give me that. So I'm going to give you some more like that. So that are in the category of follow the money doesn't work every time but it works a lot.

And it is if the expert can't convince other experts and they're skipping the other experts because they can't convince them and they're going directly to the public, there's a reason for that. There's a reason for that.

I'm seeing a counterpoint here. Let's see. I saw a counterpoint about Dr. Malone having people on his side. Where is that? No I missed it. I think there's some counter argument that Dr. Malone has people on his side but you would have to limit that to the specific question, wouldn't you? So the question is not Dr. Malone good or bad. That's not the question. The question is specific claims that are not in the mainstream. So if the doctors have convinced people that their specific claims are true and there are lots of them we should be talking about that, right? We shouldn't be talking about there's this one doctor who says something. We should say there's a whole bunch of doctors and we'll put some more on and they'll say the same thing. But why do these two doctors get all the invitations? Are there no other doctors who agree with them? Yes. You don't even know the claims disputed. That's correct. I don't know all of them.

I do know that there is one specific case of Dr. Malone tweeting information that was considered false information about the outcomes of the vaccine. So I think that's what he got kicked off for. My understanding is he got kicked off for tweeting data that was misinterpreted or obviously wrong. Now it's the obvious part that is where we're going to disagree. I would, having looked at the debunkers and then looked at the data that Dr. Malone tweeted, the debunkers looked stronger to me. But could be wrong. Could be wrong.

All right. So ask yourself why you would ever agree with doctors who can't convince other doctors to agree with them. I would never do that by the way.

Arthur is saying good point. Arthur says Scott's got not working for me because other doctors are afraid of being canceled. Let me call complete and total bullshit. The other doctors are afraid of being canceled. Absolute complete. And I'm surprised that you believe that.

Let me tell you what the real world looks like. In the real world the people are too different. For every person you find who doesn't want to get canceled, and there'll be lots of them, you're going to find at least one person who likes the attention. You will. You will find at least one person who likes the attention. Now the doctors you can trust cannot trust are the ones who need hospital privileges. Do we all agree on that? If you require hospital privileges you can't go against the mainstream hospital opinion. You'll get kicked down. But that still leaves a lot of people, right? Retired people, retired doctors. What about the other people who worked on the same team with Dr. Malone? Have you seen all the interviews of the people who have the same experience as Dr. Malone about mRNA technology, worked with them on the project, same experience? Have you seen the interviews with them? Why not? Do you think they're all afraid? All of them?

So this is very similar to you're going to hate this but I'm going to do it anyway. Do you remember the fine people thing in Charlottesville? And when you go to debunk it people will always go down the what I call the well until the last thing they have left is that in a big event like that nobody could have unknowingly been there without knowing it was a Nazi neo-Nazi event. That's like somebody who's never been born in America or never been here. Any large group of Americans have every opinion. Again I'm speaking in weird absolutes but if you take a hundred Americans just randomly and put them in a room what do you think? They're gonna have two opinions? No they have like 100 opinions.

So if you're telling me that doctors are so single-minded that their fear of their career is the guiding principle that just got all of them basically the entire industry was so hive-minded that they had to do what their medical masters told them to do, we don't live in any world like that at all. In our world people disagree with everything vigorously all the time if they believe it. If they believ