Pom, pom, pom, pom, pom well good morning, everybody. What amazing amazing start of the day it turns out that you woke up today. Thinking well today might be a good day or might be a bad day, but surprised it's an amazing day. Cuz. You made it here to the simultaneous sip and some of you were prepared. Some of you were scurrying now to grab your copy of your beverage, but while you're doing that, let me give me the introduction. The thing that makes it everybody everything better scale, the seventies cover among our glass. That's all you need a tanker tells Us Diana Canteen, Joe Glass, a vessel of any kind filled with very little, and I like coffee enjoyably now for the paralleled pleasure, the dopamine hidden today thing that makes everything better. The thing that connects us across space and time is called

simultaneously and it's gonna. Take your anti bodies to a whole new level. Watch this cup antibodies. Well, I know you don't like anecdotal evidence, you, like data, you like hard data, but let me give you some our data. Nobody has ever died of covert wall taking the simultaneous You can fact check me on that. Zero people out of seven point, eight billion people on this earth, not a single one of them as diet of covered while doing the simultaneous none, not a single one. Do you think, that's coincidence or causation, clearly cause Clearly, because we know how to analyze things while the news Elon Musk is.

Personal net worth is now more. Exxon mobile is personal net worth no, not the value of tests. Tassel is already much more valuable them fairly, much more valuable than Exxon Mobile You learn mosque himself, he's worth two hundred maybe nine billion dollars and by the way is current age. He should be the first trillion there. Musk will be our first trillion, pretty sure been. The odds are really good surpassed the value of exile mobile, which is only two hundred. Seventy two billion. Did you know that Exxonmobil was only two hundred and seventy two billions mean? I realize the billions a lot of money, but I thought they'd be bigger. Actually I was a little surprised. I guess I should. Well, uh Dave Chapelle addressed the issue with the train,

community in the dust up he's having with his Netflix gets special add the others quite clever thing to say he said that the the Trans employees and they'll be she cutie employees at the massive theirs. What they want is a safe working environment is safe working environment. The way Don't we all in? Do we want that for everyone? Of course, we all want a safe working environment. That's a good thing to ask for, and we certainly want it for the Trans community, As Dave Chapelle cleverly points out here only one who can safely go to work at Netflix. Now he doesn't exactly work for Netflix anymore, anymore least he's not doing any more specials that we now have,

but literally he's the only person who isn't safe at work as a pretty good comment, but I like to I'd like to add onto it because I think is a good social commentary, but if I could extend that little bit, Dave Chapelle might in fact, and not be terribly safe if he were Thet Netflix, scarcely angry with the trend. nobody's you'd. Take you community, I guess, but if I as a white man worked for Netflix, but let's not make about Netflix. Let's just make a generic a fortune, five hundred company who would do better at the fortune, five hundred company- let's say equal amount of talent and experience, Dave, Chapelle or me- which one of us would do better in their career, equal talent and equal

experience not even close right and who would do better than Dave Chappelle who, who might do even better than Dave Chappelle it a fortune, five hundred company, maybe a Trans employee, because they there might be more pressure because it's a smaller community and it's harder to find candidates just cuz of the smaller pool. I would guess that if a highly qualified and black employee was up for a promotion against a highly listen to equally qualified Trans employee in the fortune, five hundred company, who wins same, qualifications, I think Trans wins. I think dames right about that Dave yeah. You didn't say that directly, but but I feel that's the implication. So those weird situation where the only

people can get promoted and have a safe experience on the ones complaining. this is not to say they don't have valid complaints. Okay, so make sure you make sure your this correctly everybody's got valid, completes the trans people have tons of valid completes. There are valid, you might not agree with them, but their valid complaints I disagree about what to do about it about we'll, have valid complaints and select. Sir, was remember that you know you you're not alone. If somebody is treating you poorly. If there is one thing that we we should all be older band together and agree on, is it we're all victims of assholes? Am I right, If you say you are you're, not Neptune being and you could fix the earthen and the ratio,

strife, let's say you you, you had all the power that you can somehow do, whatever it took to fix racial division. How would you do it? Would you create a melting pot, the United States balance for everybody together or the new second say can gay people say hey one way to get rid of all this division is just divide. People live with each other. I don't know, I don't think either those are work. Here's what I would do you ready here's, my solution to racial division, separate the assholes in all the groups just put all the assholes together. So you take all the black people who are also assholes, and you separate. From the group of black people were also tell you take all the Irish.

People were assholes and used to separate them out and you keep the irish people are not assholes. You put them together with the the black Americans were not assholes. How did they do Really well, I really well right. They wouldn't have a problem at all, nothing to do with racism, everything to do with who's an asshole who's, not an asshole, so we are completely framing the problem on. If you took the assholes and of the category of white people granted describing pretty big percentage, but if you could take the assholes out of the average, would white people so bad now now we'd, look pretty good. You take the assholes out and light

why's: do you think you could get along with somebody from whatever community just picture community l GB? Take you women, men, black white asian, American, whatever whatever you want, be getting group and then remove the assholes from the group. How do you like them? The great the great you just remove the assholes, the fact that we've been fooled into thinking. We ever erase problem think about it. I think about any any other ethnic group and then think of somebody. You know personally, who just happens to not be an asshole. Do you like it yeah? Would you hire them? Would you date him? Probably I mean that's slightly different question, but probably so we're we're all looking at the wrong the wrong question here, really we're just looking at the wrong question hour. I d

Kudos to the Biden, administration yeah, I know weirder, I gotta give credit to the binding administration for something now it's conditional cause, I'm not sure this, isn't it I don't know that this will lead to suddenly good, but is a good start and here's the setup pearly but an administration is expecting to name Kim Wyman, a Republican too. I position so Biden is going to put a Republican the high position in in the homeland security, so number by the study would be you try to unite the country below more bipartisan. Now, though, what he packed happens to its not a coincidence, of course, was when hard at Trump for his. What CNN calls is false claims of fraud in the election, so it's a Republican who has come.

Size Republicans now I know you say you are based typing rhino, Rhino Rhino, not a real Republican. I get it I get it can we stipulate just so you stop typing rhino in the comments and type something else care. We stipulate that a republican whose criticise another Republicans, you have a name for them. You know after just keep printing and over and over again the comments just print anything else. Just stop saying rhino, I will I will stipulate There you have that opinion, ok character, we stipulate so it'll have to just keep saying it over and over again, if you dont, like rhinos, I get it stipulated, but Who is more likely to criticise both Republicans and Democrats? Do you think a rhino dozen doesn't criticise Democrats

of course it is. The right now is going to criticise Democrats, but also Republicans, and now you don't like that, and in some cases you say: oh they don't have the right views. Then you do not like people who go against your team. Do they had the Republicans out here, just gotten frickin knots, Let me finish my points you anything now. If your choice was to put, pure democratic, the job without be better or worse than picking arena. No better or worse. What's better! Worse the same, so he says the same. You think that a rhino wouldn't would not criticise them grant. What would stop rhino from criticising Democrat? Nothing right. I think I think by naturally picked the one kind of person

Who is definitely not a Republican in the classic way by someone who has a pretty good chance of at least understanding the argument on two sides? It that's that's, stop and play with. This person will be in charge of protecting the future election, so big a resource to the states to help them prevent being hacked specifically. So there is her job is to keep foreign interference out of the elections, and she will be resource to the states. Now is that good. I am a little disappointed in you, honestly, I'm a little disappointed than the audience. I don't care. I had it.

If you don't understand the point that a rhino would criticize both sides, and you really think that a rhino is really just a Democrat I mean. Maybe I mean I can apply to somebody. I guess I'll think. That's. I don't think that's keen insight. I think you should be able to agree with me that a rhino could criticize both sides. Can I get that? Can I get that the other rhino would criticize Belsize just that? the union's aid alike, of other reasons, but just that I so some of you agree with that and others others say no I think some of you think you're right now, as somebody who is trying to destroy the Republican Party, is that we think you think you're right it was. Somebody is trying to destroy the party that policy that I see as somebody who, like some just one sent me a little different,

So I think that will rhino thing is your server is sort of a weird stimulant just causes people to go nuts. Oh, you got those, maybe it's Leah, the uncanny valley there. Please, exactly like a Republican and your republic, you say yeah right on that's exactly what I expected, but if somebody's like a Republican, but not quite the right thing, although like one but not quite, does it cause revulsion likely uncanny valley? If you ve never heard of a phrase, the phrase uncanny valley, just Google, it separately is good. It's kind of cool concept to know it's about how robots become grotesque when they get close till he exactly like people, but not quite exactly

we're just close to exact and they become disgustingly zombies, yet they just you see what you see. Somebody is almost a personally fails wrong. Maybe that's what it is with the rhinos like they're, almost Republicans, but what is wrong with them? Let me somethin like that anyway,. To really withhold my criticism, because if the job of this

rhino. You call her is to protect foreign elections or elections from foreign interference. Is there any way to do that without? Knowing that you can also fully ought at the election, so here's my stand anything short of an explicit effort to make all elections instantly audible. So you can track your vote individually, all the way through anything. But that is not good enough, not enough, because you never know if, if any influence happen now influence

maybe beyond just vote counting right. It could cause you devote the way. You do that's a separate question, but somebody's gotta be in charge of making sure the elections or instantly ordered to bowl, and if this Kim Wyman is not that person, then this is a complete failure, complete failure by the by the news region. I mean it's good that every resource del against hacking, but it's not even close to what the job requires. The job requires that we have at least an explicit goal. Now I get that the states have controls elections right. I will stipulate that the states have control of the elections, but somebody

maybe the federal government should say the objective is to be fully honourable and fairly instantly that there should at least be the objective. Even if the states say we can't get there or we need resources to do it or we don't want to do it for one reason, at the very least, it should be the objective so obvious. It's a small step in slightly the right direction- and I ll give him credit for that. But I don't see evidence this anywhere near enough. Rhinos have known natural predators. That's interesting, somebody says that's, not the goal is Michael is Michael, should be or go right is anything I write or criticise the GEO pay for the wrong things, but that's just as just an opinion that it's wrong things. May they just have a different opinion.

You don't need to argue with me that you disagree with where the right now I mean there there's nothing there. I get it. You disagree with them. There's nothing else to be said about really. It's not interesting in any way So Saturday Light live Hamleys. How many people saw Saturday live with Jason's Sedateness Sedateness Roasting Biden may see that cause it felt like air. It felt like a change in tone. did it look, do you like the ESA, I'll just said: oh hell, we just cannot ignore this anymore. Buttons binds trade make it look like they went out and pretty hard and when, after is nothing,

They went after his decline, you know how I used to be all energetic and now he's there's not much left of him. I thought it was. It was pretty brutal. Now. Are you surprised. Because you ve seen that the sea and then started move against amusing, binds pole numbers or crashing I see it also feels like one of the last whole. Doubts doesn't like you get s Adele, They are right. You know we had good hopes, but it didn't work out which is. So he says that they would. After a very soft, it was just in a sense, but they had all the points it did seem. It did seem like that. A gentle edge or you're right, you're right about that, but they did had all the points they did get his mental decline. They did get. You know his is craziness

Who says whose Zobeide thing was? That sounds like something good that I don't know about? Anyway, the Wall Street Journal as also sounded the alarm, the editorial bored. So it's not just an article. The editorial border, the Wall Street Journal bases. He said we have to stop ignoring the fact that by is incompetent like you, mentally incompetent, not just his job as a pretty big deal. Snow S. Analysis basically just put it out there, and now the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, basically just reports it like an obvious fact. You don't even after you, don't even in the medical examinations to soar lobbyists. Now s pretty amazing.

And I would love to ask people privately, who were big supporters abiden if they got what they wanted. I would love Zimbabwe had that conversation privately as anybody at a private conversation, because you act differently. Republic was able to get a private conversation with a Democrat who is regretting their choice because people tend to have cognitive, dissonance and say there. They were right, even if there were wrong Yeah, you don't see much look a little there as you would expect it to be a lot of it, because the poor numbers are plunging right, and so therefore there should be a lot of people change their minds. But you can't find him. Oh here's some so yet my neighbour LISA says there's still anything but Trump yeah. So I guess they can defend their choice because its end,

drunk. I guess you always have to fall back on here's. My question: if we can put a Tesla automobile in space, When I say we I don't mean me cuz. I had nothing to do with it, but humans at least some of us are smart enough to get together and launched a new automobile into space, and yet we can't invent a fake gun. Real on a movie really really the only way to shoot a movie, which is, I believe is where a gun was that could at least potentially fire real ammunition. Nobody can make a fig gun. There would be an actual prop, as opposed to a real gun that they pretended prop can't do. That Nobody's regular, it does feel as though there is a market for that now am I understand

is that there are such things as proper guns and a prop gun. Actually, you couldn't put a bullet in. If you want to know just be blocked, but am I imagine the prop gun doesn't have the same action or maybe doesn't flash the same or have the kick or whatever it is it? That makes it look realistic in a movie, but we could figure out how to solve those problems are minimised. It was like a solvable problem to me to have a gun that makes a flash without a bullet you couldn't. You could make a electronic gun that just light something that just flashes out there the barrel or something. I mean really out. Is that, while we're found together. How dumb Hollywood is. I've got a really is this story and you get us where, if you haven't already heard the story, you get us where I'm making this up.

Anybody who owns a gun or has been round guns or knows anything about guns. You gotta think I'd made this up this this will blow your frame of mind. I swear to God. This is true. I am going to read it This is one from CNN there. This pastime, the crew members, sometimes do. This is coming from somebody who knows that world somebody named Waxman is called planking. So there's somebody Lit movie crew members do called blinking, and they go out into rural areas and they shoot a beer cans. This is with live ammunition. In other words, they take the guns that are used for the movie.

they take them to somewhere in a rural area? They replace the blanks with real bullets, and then they shoot at targets, and then they returned the gun. I I'm not making that up actually do now, every that everybody has a gun training hold on hold on The top of your head, because it's coming off is covered, offers the top of my head honestly. Can you think of anything double.

If you are going to teach a class and guns safety, can you imagine a better anecdote of bad behavior? Now I know what the movie people are going to say. Figures say: Scott Scott, Scott there's somebody in charge of checking all the guns before their handed to an actor. I mean it's not like alive round is still going to be in the chamber. Scott you that's why we hire somebody, we hire somebody just for that job to make sure that gun is safe before it gets handed to an actor. And all the people who have any gun, training whatsoever say you are the dumbest person in the world. If you think that's a good idea, because now you ve taken these failure point and you put it on one person whose underpaid and may not be paying attention like amount in with a hang over their day and lives, would be a mistake for somebody just two,

skip a step or something you would never ever put a live round in a gun, that's going to be moved used in the movie, no matter how sure you were that you were going to remove it. This gets me to a related topic. I've had a side conversation with somebody who works on movie sets a lot. He was often on movie sets. This is his job and is arguing on the internet and can't understand why people don't get his argument and he argues that One is not either responsible or a hundred percent responsible, because there is somebody whose job it was and is the routine way the movies are done. Somebody's job was to make sure that gun was safe. Before was given to

And therefore the people were saying that Alec Baldwin is fully responsible, don't understand because clearly was somebody else's responsibility and the whole point was to keep the actor just as an actor, and I have to worry about this stuff. So Scott know you understand, don't you understand that the responsibility was sort of shared, at least by the person, is job here is my counter argument ready, there's no such thing as one kind of responsibility in this matter, Do you imagine that there's one thing called the responsibility and they can be defined one way well. You're lost because there's nothing like that. There's legal responsibility, which has it standard, there's financial responsibility, which might be different than the legal responsibly could be the same, but could be different than theirs out. What I would call common sense responses

it has nothing to do with the law, or anything else is just what makes sense to you like. It As an ordinary person, what makes sense and then there's gun responsibility back me on this gun owners, so the rest of you or not, may be trained in firearms. That looked in the comments of the people who are and see. If you agree with the statement, gun responsibility. Is absolute, its absolute there's, no such thing as sharing it, its absolute and this absolute for everybody who touches it. In other words, the gun owner or the persuasive handler, say. The person resident has head in hand, is a hundred percent responsible for what happens a hundred percent, even if. the person who gave it to him is also honour percent responsible, so God

Starship is the only situation in which the responsibilities can add up to over one hundred percent of all right, which is illogical, right, cuz responsibility can't add up to a hundred percent, but let me say it again: it does because governors gun owners don't fuck around when it comes to safety. right: there are absolutes and when you're trying to argue with a gun or a butt, but don't you get that the system was at this. Other person takes responsibility. Both people that agreed, you know, Alec Baldwin, knew that the person responsible knew it. They had agreed that it was her responsibility. So therefore, no blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah your reasons. Nobody wants your reasons if you're a gun owner or if you have a gun in your hand, is your responsibility period period

Nobody's gonna listen to a counter argument, because the moment you allow the counter argument in people get killed. The moment you allow the wealth that could be an exception, Bab somebody's dead, because this was the exception. This was exactly the exception. This is why always has to be a hundred percent, because the moment you make the exception, somebody get shot every time, so you don't make that accession and has nothing to do with legal responsibilities. A different standard, legal responsibility is nuanced and we really have to figure out who did word blah blah blah, but gun responsibility is irrational by design right. It's rational, irrational,

reality is rational to be irrational, gun safety and by irrational I mean you, don't even put your finger on it unless you're gonna do something productive with it. like this is how irrational gun safety is. If your guns of the US, this is your gun, you don't even you don't do this unless you gonna move it productively like with a purpose, you don't do anything with a gun, anything unless you're doing it with purpose and safety. So anyway, people are not. Are you in the same arguments or their pretend these all responsibilities, one thing or is logical, its common sense as none of those things, and they should be as soon as you make those of common sense people die. So there's a reason for it.

I'm gotta tell you something, but I can't tell you why a lot of the big political stories you're here now you you're completely misled on. What's really behind I can't tell you which stories I can't tell you why, but just trust me, I'm sitting in the more windows than you see and I can't even freaking believe the stuff. I'm saying you're never going to hear why I don't think I don't think you'll ever know what I'm talking about, but oh my god, the biggest stories are just so completely wrong. important ways, airway, obviously, that their CNN keeps dumping on Facebook and loving it see it as attacks from the left it Right so CNN Cnn is attacking Facebook for not for not censoring enough, and their examples would be January. Sick

for example, they didn't sensor enough so because people organise into bad stuff that, of course, the right things they sensor too much. you're not like this, but are probably means they're doing a good job. I hate to say at another Facebook, by the way I don't use it, I think you should go away just don't like anything about Facebook. Honestly, not a amount affair. But if you see the face, has been criticised for being not censorious enough, at the same time, there being criticised for being too censorious, said Edward Censorious, censoring too I will take this kind of where you need to be. How could they possibly have both sides? Happy about that does obey think there's something they could do. That would make both sides happy.

But now that that's even option not now say they're doing it. The way do it or the or that its flaw free the clearly there are flaws, but it looks to be the kind of laws that you would expect in a free system. Right civilization has flaws. But we like to be civilised. Capitalism has flaws, but still pretty good compared the alternatives. Democracy in the republic and all that lots and lots of flaws- But nobody's figured out a better thing to do. Facebook is turning to feel like democracy is a terrible system that we can figure out a better one. Now I'm not supporting any decision they made and I'm not going to criticize any specific thing today. I'm just saying that I wouldn't want one side to be happy with Facebook at the other side to be unhappy with you

Tell me when you want one side to be happy in the other side to be unhappy. no matter which side was happy. I wouldn't that feels like a very unhealthy situation. The healthiest situation is exactly what we have everybody's matter: Facebook all the time, I hate to say it, but that's literally the healthiest situation, everybody mad at Facebook. All the time. So what else we got going on here. There's a reason that I follow Michael malice on Twitter. If you don't follow Michael Malice and he's at at Michael Mouse, just his name's put together here, why I'm gonna radio one of his tweets- and you know why I following ok- just want we he tweeted today or

yesterday. I wonder when the Alec Baldwin will resume shooting. That's why I follow Michael malice. Maybe the two now a little more explanation. I've taught before how there are some humorous, such as nor Mcdonald. If you don't understand his humor, you don't realize that the joke is always on the audience so sometimes easier. Just joking but lots of times the joke. Is about how the audiences responding Dave Chapelle sometimes does the same thing day chapels operating at that that high level, so that he's telling jokes also it's sort of about your reaction to the jokes to write and

You have to lose, and Michael malice is also about your reaction. So don't know automatically jump to imagine he's he's a monster because he says things they get. You wound up his act. If I can All of that his approach may be. Is he finds the worst thing you can say about every topic? Whatever is the worst thing you could say, tweets. and if you can't appreciate you have the I don't know, I guess they the edge that he brings to it. That you probably shouldn't follow But if you get that he's doing for the reaction, then that is just as just a great show, so I recommend them highly and by the way you won't like it sometimes, which is the point,

Sometimes it's really going to really get a rattle. Your change. I I've been accused credibly, so here I'd like to agree with my critics. Sometimes People say scouts Gus got you, you can't admit when you're wrong, but I think I do. I think I do actually, but maybe I'm not really went wrong I'm so I'll try to do it now, I'm going to end I'm going to agree with my critics that, although I've said over and over again that, for example, that I don't care if you get vaccinations the way I talk about the pandemic, lead you to believe that I'm on persuading you or that I have a certainty about things. I don't answer diva, so I think my critics are completely right, that you can accidentally influence people just by what you talk about most right. So if I happen to

talk about things that were pro vaccine. Even if I'm not telling you forget it, you would internalize as well. He sang pro vaccine things. How can you say you're not trying to convince me together? You keep saying pro vaccine things so as a public service. Because I know that annoys a lot of you, I'm going to argue. opposite of my opinion. Today,. say the same way that you know I make the mistake the other direction. So I won't be so much I'm making an argument against my opinion as much as I'm giving the other side of the story that that fair, so I'm gonna put I'm gonna concentrate on something. That's pro Iver Makin does. Usually I talk about the opposite. Some new tell you some things are pro. I ever met them, even though I am almost always like in the opposite. I'm not trying to convince you, nothing! Nothing! You hear now will be

convince you, it's good or bad right. Now, I'm just going to take the other side. Now. This is a good exercise. It's a good exercise to see if you can argue the other point, all right If you can't argue the other side's point, you have to ask yourself. Why is it because the other side is just whack or cuz you're, so cognitively biased that you can't even say the words that the other side would say. So it in the Spirit, testing, my own cognitive dissonance, I'm going to give you shall be an exercise in which I speak. The opposite of my opinion, again, it'll be on the vaccines and also on Iphone I think one other thing and you start with a willow contacts. There will lead you into it. Rasmussen there all about climate change and

ass people is climate change crisis. Fifty one percent of the people said: u hell yes or no. Leaning yes, so over half the people think climate changes, crisis breaks down exactly like you think, seventy five percent of Democrats and thirty, one percent of Republicans an interesting Lee. The moderates are right in the middle, which tells you something disturbing because another story- and then Rasmussen also asked on paraphrasing the questions that they put the questions in better form, then I'm going to paraphrase them so just know that they know how to do quest. He's right, even if I say them all, they asked the if, if the country that

goes the hardest that climate change and green energy stuff will they reap the economic jobs benefit in green energy and other words do do people think that going hard against climate change and that being an economic, positive and fifty six percent? So yes, fifty six percent of the public thinks that going hardy climate change would be a positive economic thing. Thirty eight percent disagree again. Remember I'm just sort of Giving you some views here so we're gonna do climate change now, I'm gonna do covert Susan done and then do you agree with their buttons approach to climate. Forty eight percent sported it before he, six percent do not, and six percent are unsure, but I think the unsure should be thrown in lead. You now support category that would be so pretty much a tie between support

by that I mean that sporting and, as Michael shall Berger, is pointing out the worlds renewable experiment is over so violence. I'm a those dead. This is Michael Schonberg tweets nor reaffirmed oil drilling so Norway is basically saying, ok, green stuff, isn't working we'd, better drill risk a busy drilling. and even the Uganda says that the solar and wind force and wind cause poverty in Africa. South Africa is giving up on green energy, Norway in some. as the United States might away, with the climate and in Germany, seven same issue- and I think you gay is looking at nuclear itself- so, basically, everything you saw, you knew or people thought they knew about green energy and its benefits seems to be wrong

So, at the same time, their Rasmussen saying hey, look at all these people who think the climate is a crisis and by those doing the right thing are looking at countries all over the world who also thought the climate crisis and going Green was the right thing and they have all learned that they were wrong and the reverse in their decisions. At the same time, by looks good majority people say Alex get while the rest of the world who already went there is changing remind us of this

Alright, I'm going to argue the other side quickly for ivermectin stuff, here's my question: if you had a drug that you knew worked in a laboratory in the test tube and it kills the virus in a test tube, why doesn't it work in people now? I know I know the reason you do. The controlled trials is because it's actually rare for something that works of the test tube to also work in the human without hurting do agree. Everybody knows that the test results actually rarely working. People. so you would expect that just because a worse untested doesn't really need anything people, but suppose you out a drugs and the reason I ask: why is it? Why can't you tell them working people was there was the the the ruins and we know it doesn't work, but with them

and I heard number of smart people say well: the body rapidly breaks down chemicals. So what whatever you put into a body soon, as it interacts with your you know your blood in your hormones and everything hit my break it down, and so the effectiveness you saw on the test tube could get just destroyed by the body. make sense, but suppose you have the special case, the drug. Your testing is already known not to break down in the body. Let's take I've Rebecca as my example. I remember I'm not promoting over mechanism. As working, because I don't have any idea, I'm just arguing the other side see. If I could do. I ever met, and we know, doesn't breakdown in the body so much that it doesn't work for what it was in London for

So it is so we know that the body seems to keep I've reflecting the intact long enough to work against its original purpose. You know as a de warmer for horses, for example, but in humans as well, Originally created for humans, so if you know it's not gonna break down, and you our kills a virus in the test tube. Can you real end? no now you know what parts of the body it gets into. Presumably you can find out, it would be hard. Imagine take some blood from a person and say: ok There's the growth of right there there, the blood, then he gave him some ivory Maktoum Detestable altogether. Ok, their blood has I I am also has corrode of ours. Do they both existed the blood at the same time

are you telling me that if you put something that doesn't breakdown, as we know, it doesn't break down for its other purposes? That doesn't mean it doesn't break down for this purpose right. It could break down in a specific way that luckily doesn't matter to one purpose but matters the other rights of Iraq as the possibilities, but when you expected to work more often than not as long as the british drug itself doesn't change too much in the body. Ass, a little while, if, if your blood, let let me ask the question- is why if I drew your blood out, they had grown a virus in it, so I've got little little petri dish full of blood, less airport, a bunsen burner understood the stays about the right temperature is, body. So now you ve got real blood from real person with real virus in it. If you drop in ivory acting Pillon there, I'm simplifying right would be upheld. So put my room

another, and you just keep at an idea, boy, sex and huge an hour is it can have the same amount of virus? What do you think if you tested outside the body, but it was a real persons, blood with virus and real hormones and real everything else is in real blog is a real one and you drop the I reacted. It wouldn't kill the reaction in the blood, and now I don't think we tested in blood right. Somebody give me a fact check on us when they tested laboratory, then I'll put it in anything like blood. Do they just put it in a dish?

with the virus and some kind of medium? Am I right both? Should there be a step where they drop in human blood? Save makes a difference really just immediately breaks down. So here's my question: how in the world? Do you not know that I respect and works if it doesn't breakdown for its other purposes? It doesn't give you side effects those things we now does kill. Ivermectin and laboratory. Are you telling me nobody ever did a test where they dropped it in a little pint of blood real blood to see if it made a difference? Nobody ever doesn't that because if it did, if you, if you could, if you could neutralize a virus

the real blood, let's say in an hour and the other was less of it doesn't have to be gone, but would it be noticeably less? How can it not work now? Is this a good argument. It is my argument good now remember about. We are not giving you certainly there's no certainly involved here. I'm just saying this. I would love to see an explanation.

Now, if you're saying to herself Scott, this is why we test randomized control trials, exactly your problem, because you can't tell that the laboratory extends to the real world. But are you telling me if you knew the drug at at the level given less? Let's say we knew that the drug was gonna be administered at the same level. It is for other stuff, and we know it doesn't have side effects and we know it doesn't breakdown quickly because it works for something else. Does breakdown too fast for that.

Are you telling me that you couldn't test that in blood in the laboratory and really really be close to knowing if it work again? No, certainly that's why you do than randomize controlled us now, keep in mind what I'm doing here, I'm not promoting. I reckon or talking against it. I'm saying that I hadn't spend enough time talking about the possibility of wood work. The possibility. Now many of you have pointed out ad nauseam, follow the money in it's about the big former. Doesn't want the cheap thing to work because it's off patent Bla Bla Bla. Could it is it possible that big former could block I ever met in

In every way that people are looking at it because it be pretty massive, do you do that big farmer could influence like everybody everywhere in the world, like all all the governments and all the experts yeah they could yet they could if they can find to choke point now, I doubt they could do it, retail meaning go to every person than bribe every person and you get to them individually or something like that, so you can't get to them individually, but who controls the data who controls the date? Where's come from because if they control the data, then the air they can control what everybody thinks of it. Now do the big farmer companies do they get in then the trials. Who is it? Who is funding the trials of ivory makin? Do you know? I don't know,

those are funded, but maybe some money went to farmer to some middle man to some other middle man and then to the study. Would you note, I would note, I mean to say they know who fun studies are mothers? Does that always reported of toys reported, but. Is possible, so so part of my argument had been there's no way. This conspiracy theory could possibly be true, because too many people would have noticed a did work too many countries would have run the trial where did work, and then it would be working real world that rebate would notice, as I have argued that it will be impossible to, to conceal such a mass conspiracy that affects so many people is such a big dollar and life and death and everything else. Alas, they control the data. and they could so not only do I'm saying

You can't rule out the possibility that the big farmer controls enough of the tree. else. I wouldn't have to control all the trials. They would only have to control the big ones or that put people in charge who don't know how to do trials or there's probably a million ways you can ruin data or manage it So so that might prove I remarked in argument again: I'm not provide from acting. If I had to guess, I'm gonna gas against it being a big deal, meaning maybe it makes some difference, but I doubt it would change the pandemic. So that's where my opinions, Having spent time talking the other side's illegal, I about on vaccinations, I tweeted out earlier I gotta run grass friend, who was it Louis, who is scientist, but he is immaterial scientists, but he apparently as experience as a medical data analysed,

somebody who's good at data systems and analytics and he's a scientist, not not the right kind for biology, but he does do medical data analysis, so he knows data and he knows where to get it and knows how to look at it right. So What are the right person- and he did studies of vaccinations to see- affects nations, work and sure enough. There's like a totally solid correlation the more you're vaccinated the fewer the fewer problems have correlation is unmistakable. You can't miss it very, very clear correlation vaccination boom, lower problems, turns out there's a little bit of a surprise involved than the data, which is that the infections turned down before the vaccinations.

Pray reliably, which means- and this is just speculation from Jason. The vaccinations might not be the cause of the decline, because the decline starts well before the vaccination. and just continues any suggestible. You ve got a lot of problems and by then you ve, already mast up and put on done. Social isolation. Remember now argue in my point of view, right if you joining late. This is not my point of view. I'm just trying to give the opposite point of view of what I usually do to show that I can do so. He's got a suggestion that does the vaccinations might not make any difference and the mass king in the social distances. My pick a lot.

Reference not concluding that's not a conclusion is just somebody is really good. Looking at the numbers said, the numbers don't explain why the dip comes well before the vaccinations. So there is at least one person whose good with data who says the data is, I think,. use the word agnostic about whether the vaccinations work. Think about that. The years somebody is really good data issues and public data, so you can check resources. and he says it doesn't doesn't make the case. It does not make the case, but it doesn't make the case because the dip starts before the vaccinations now again person

I think if I had to guess I think there's slightly more chance or maybe love or chance that the vaccinations work I got vaccinated, adore recommend you do because there is out right? If I told you, I'm certainly made the right decision and speed. I told you a certain you made the right decision, be a beggar ain't. Nobody could be certain about this stuff. So just for balance, I show you the argument the other side now, since you also don't believe many of you that mass and distancing work, you probably don't buy his alternative explanation, but it does suggest that there is something in the data we do understand. That's probably only that you can conclude the only thing you know for sure. There's something you don't understand. Not necessarily the vaccinations are not good work.

How many, how many anecdotal reports have you seen of somebody you forgot to give vaccinated or didn't give accident? They died a lot right, CNN used to do one every day, every day didn't give exited, and I didn't give accident. wish I didn't give exited. Where are all the anecdotal reports of people who took, I remarked in early when they first got symptoms and died anyway, not hoarsely warmer and not overdosing on Firstly, why? But where are the reports of even one person, just one just one. who took, I ever met an early and then died anyway and didn't take anything else. Just over makin died anyway.

Not one because seeing that is pushing pretty hard on this anecdotal persuasion, they can't find one person who took the ivermectin and then died anyway. Again I'll remind you if you're coming here late, I'm not pro lifer back to my personal opinion. Is that we'll probably find out its weak or doesn't make much difference, but is it fair, fair question why we haven't seen one example of what the news tells us is true, The news tells us that doesn't work, probably their tens. thousands of people using it anyway, you ve got a lot of people that you can look at mass yourself. I didn't even die. Now you can say: ok, that's what the that's. What the trials are, though, the trials sort of summed it up but where's that

one person? I get that the trial show that some people died even on over makin. That must be true book, but where's the anecdotal story, because then you know they want to give it to you to say they want you to hear that anecdotal story. Worse, I also ask questions is unethical to test a new therapeutic, because if no regenerate works, which we do. How can you not give it to somebody who has covered can you give somebody some new therapeutic that you're testing without also giving them regeneron cuz? If you don't give them regeneron, they might die so ethically, can you do you do a test of another therapeutic once you have one that works, I don't know they can. Adam, don't we never interesting, tweet, listen the sweet all the way to the last word.

Listen to all the way to the last word. Adam says the dog not barking spent. And weeks and Pfizer was fully FDA, approved too much fanfare, Madeira. still not approved even The emergency authorization was The only one week apart from from Pfizer, really raises. Concern that the result wrong with the modern as lobbyists. Good tweet, there's something wrong with the main donors. Lobbyists that is a well constructed tweet, ladies and gentlemen, this is my show I must go now. I hope that I have satisfied some of my critics in, in the limited sense that I can, I can give you an argument for the other side doesn't mean it's right, but I think I gave you an argument that at least that's a little bit of weight on the other side. Wouldn't you agree.

Thank you. Some of you were like you, gotta run wishing stay longer, but it's been a treat to be with you,