To learn tat are about ah well good morning. Everybody welcome to my last day on social media. According to most of my followers, I have accepted the challenge will talk about that later to violate the narrative and see if I get kicked off a social media. So let's see what happens, but before we do that, would you like to have one possibly final simultaneous up? It might be the last whatever, and actually it might be, the less whenever this is real by the way I actually everywhere to seo close like it in the light of the sun and I'm doing it for the purpose of making avoid. Now, if I get deleted for what I say today, we really have a problem in the sky,

If I don't well, maybe I will have defined the boundary level, little better sense of what s he kicked off. First, what about the subtlety yeah, all you need is a couple of other less a tanker gels assigned the candy Let us not leave any guide. Fellow with a favorite look, and I like coffee and join me now for the in parallel and possibly final pleasure is called. The simultaneous up and is going to happen now, yeah good, let's go! well, we're going away for the audience to build up for the big big event to see if I can get kicked off social media, but before we do, then some of the things I she could

He ran a little little question on Twitter because I'm always interested in whether our decisions are made by reason than good or are decisions made irrationally, then we rationalism after the after the event. And so I ask the following question: If people two choices they could ever one percent chance of dying or a twenty five percent chance yesterday? What do you think people chose you can have a hundred percent chance dying or option to a twenty five percent chance, a dying which did they choose well, of course, I am. I am Presently the situation in the misleading way to make a bite.

because I didn't ask, as simply as that, I rather complicated it with a hypothetical that the the reason that you it is our die or not die, based on those odds. I would have to do with vaccination. So I thought to myself what would happen if you just introduce the idea of a vaccination into a decision which is amazingly simple? Would people have trouble Answering a really simple question: if you just adding a little vaccination in there, are we so worked up about vaccinations that even you eliminate all risks and saves either a hundred percent chance die or twenty five percent you get to pick. But it's about vaccinations assumes you throw the vaccinations boot people care as to the question now, of course, is suspected trick. There were like I'm not sure I want to answer this question.

He's gonna turn it into something else. Now I know I was going to turn it into something else. I just words Let me give you the exact question if the next variant, so, if if the next variant were to spread as easily as COMECON, and the idea is that everybody would get it eventually across the sort of unstoppable, but but had a one hundred percent death rate, so imagine that some new virus that came out that killed everybody in a month doesn't kill them instantly. They linger for about a month so that they can spread at other people. In the worst case scenario, hundred per cent of people die, but not until they ve spreading around, which would be weird right. Because most viruses that kills you that that stops the virus. But this is a weird one: hypothetically, it's not real one, but hypothetically instead, around and sex everybody in a hundred presenting you die or or

vertically? And this is not real- you could take a vaccine again, hypothetically, no real data here with unknown twenty five percent chance to kill. You bought a seventy five cents per day, Are you a suicide through the vaccine in there? as soon as you threw in the the vaccine park, people couldn't answer the question now. I think the reason they couldn't answer it is that there's a consistency issue that we all have. So if you take it the stand, it's hard to change your even ass the day in the changes. We all know that right. You are all aware that in yourselves, right, would you say that's true of yourselves there once you, you ve, decided here the person who always says acts, even if there are some information that may be, doesn't make that look like that idea.

I want to be the person who says x, cuz, that's who you were too you wanna be. It is hard to change your consistency and you should read this red of help. People responded to a one hundred percent chance of dying verses. A twenty five percent chance turns out. It was a much harder question than people thought I would like to give you like to compliment the people who answered that correctly. So among the people enter them correctly. One of them said yes, yes, they would rather have a twenty percent. Twenty five percent chance of dying than a hundred per cent. So here s what I've well remembered some ground, so gonna get you

Highland Woods forever, but once you get out of the woods you could have got it from the animals cuz. The animals will have this new virus to have course. Everybody wanted to do Kobayashi, Maru me and and change the question. Well, if I were to change the and now you don't get to James question anyway, I don't think that proved anything, but it was a fund little experiment to see if somebody could answer the simplest question in the world if you complicated by adding the word vaccine. Soon as after that word people just their powers of reason, just go sideways Eric wine seen the answers, the question correctly, the crack the answer is, of course you take the twenty five percent over the hundred percent, but

Beware of people who use I pathetically like that in the wrong way. So I don't think there could have been more perfect answer to the question. Yes, yes, but beware of this year, the stack, of course you should now. Yesterday I was having a lot of fun with my critics and miles. John noticed any said, watching people get mad and unfollow, Scott M says for refusing to validate there information, biases by pun, through their echo Jaber, be a reminder that everyone matter where they stand on. The political spectrum is vulnerable to mass formation psychosis so. The thanks that people are suffering from the so called confirmation bias, and that's why they're having trouble with my opinions, this confirmation,

by us. So I responded to myself what what is confirmation by us never heard of that, but I'll tell you what people have informed me I'm doing so. This is what people told me I was doing yesterday. Nothing. Nothing about confirmation bias. What they said is what I'm actually doing is trying to cope, because I was quote afraid of the coup. While I was wrong about all, things that I never actually said and also I was refusing to quote except the L. While everyone Dunk Sunday and I marinate in my ratio, so here I appreciate that you are trying to defend me in the sense in thinking that my critics were suffering confirmation by us, but I think that is the case. I think the problems are my end. What with my coping and being afraid of the coop? Indeed,

wrong about the things I've never said for refusing to accept the EL getting Duncan marinating in by ratio. So less was, while the CEO of Volkswagen just waded that we need more cooperation presence in China, not less because be very damaging to Germany, You wanted to decouple from China. a baby, wonder I'm starting to see it here. is I Germany has a theme like they have a theme. Germany's theme is, if I may paraphrase it, trusting the wrong people what is when Germany trusting the wrong people. Let me give you an example: they trusted Gretta done and then started closing their nuclear plants and then ran out of,

Electricity. They are trusting. Putin to have a pipeline and give them some some gas, as he was like a bad idea- trust him and that the CEO of Volkswagen As we should trust Us President. She say. Germany has this pattern of trust in the wrong people. There is great, a ton burg, Vladimir Putin presence. She I feel like there's somebody I forget, Was ready by also Germany trusted that they should have historically Keyser welcome CAT guys Wilhelm she likes are still one missing view. Think of it. Go back to the one that must be here: mass formation, psychosis.

Several of you quite reasonably quite reasonably criticized my opinion on it now, Are you? Should you be surprised that I just said that the critics were quite reasonable. Lee should be because I have I have it on good authority that I have never ever ever admitted. I was wrong, but I doing it I think my critics were correct. I should have done more reading on this mess formation psychosis, or brushing you decide as nonsense. So yesterday I did a deep dive back to the original source find out what he said. And this thing goes way scarier than I thought, I sort of brushed aside is simply new words for something. We already know that people are a rational and it's easy to get worked up about it So I thought it wasn't, adding a thing

and then I looked into it and saw the full presentation- and it's really scary is really scary, but not in the way you think so was mistaken So, mass formation psychosis, the idea is that when people are afraid, let's say there's a totalitarian government and just tells them there's something to be afraid of through some entity or or some other details, afraid of. That would get people in a irrational, rational sense of fear, and then there will grab onto what The leaders tell them because I d some kind of, certainly in coffins they care, handle the the unknown part of it. Now, this can be exacerbated, says the theory by

social isolation of isolation and some would say that the pandemic is exacerbating the social isolation so so far every bit of this I agree with, but it's all ordinary if you were a, I should have added this one. but we have a new ass all on Youtube. So I forgot to add, when I was mocking my critics that eyes, you find yourself in a whole, stop digging got so? Let let me revise ask back. My clinics are sold at that so what I'm doing is I'm coping of, because I'm afraid of that who from wrong and all the things I have never said. Refusing to set the I'm in a hole. I keep on digging and everyone's dumping on Vietnam marinating my ratio, but thank you for that that uptake so do mass formation psychosis

So, yes, we have all the conditions for mass formation psychosis, but I will. I will say that anybody about a background in psychology or persuasion or hypnosis would be completely familiar with this mass formation psychosis thing. Though there wouldn't be actually anything new in the sleigh, actually, nothing new now do you believe it. Please believe me when I say If anybody has studied even a little bit in this field, you would know completely this whole mass formation psychosis. All of the parts of it are just ordinary have I ever told you that fear is the strongest persuade her of course, of course sometimes. Have I told you that if people are uncertain, the they'll gravitate to a confident voice. I don't know if I ever told you that, but that's just basic understanding,

then the field. So everything is on this idea of the mass formation. Psychosis is ordinary, but real is full. ordinary and totally real every bit of it. So do you think I'm debunking any of it? Does anybody think empty bunking the idea of a mass formation psychosis either what causes it or the fact that were in one right now, I'm not debunking right, unholy accepting it without change completely accepting on a per cent of it, but none of its scary, So far because it's also our normal situation. Do you remember when how many of you are old enough to remember Reagan's presidency. Remember the Reagan presidency, it was, I use a fascist, he was Hitler,

riots in the streets and it was a mass psychosis. It was a mass formation psychosis. You remember, weapons of mass destruction and the nine eleven. Those were mass formation cycle is now those based on real staff, at least the nine eleven was real depending on your point of view, but I was mass for me psychosis, drummed arrangements, syndrome, mass formation psychosis, some would say climate change. Now you would get a disagreement with any. There was that climate change is a real thing, but on top of it there is a mass formation psychosis. Now here's my question to you: And I'll tell you why I'm so afraid of this thing? Why we all talk about it. Now, it's not because Doktor Malone brought it up. Is it

cuz? I thought I was seeing it before he brought it up. Can you give me a fact check on that fact check me it was he brought it up after it was already out there right to So wasn't because he broke up and Joe Rogan, which would make anything get a lot of attention, but it was already out there now Why is it already? Why is it out there now? Why is it a big topic this trending now when I watched one presentation of it, the location was that there is some kind. The ruling elite that are unnamed, that that ruling elite is acting sort of like a dictator effectively, and that is poor. Sing people into this? meant aside situation, where they don't believe any of the news. Everything's bs. So they don't know was true and then they're easy to manipulate.

So all all this happened, but do you think that There is actually an elite group who are making actual conscious decisions to do this and who are the elites? Are they Democrats or are they republic, Or is this priming us for a Trump encase trump runs again as this say, hey watch out? This is how dictatorships get formed, so you gotta watch out from tromp. Who is it again Is is the mass formation psychosis and attack on the democratic elite, the deep states? speak or is it a pre emptive attack on whoever runs as Republican. Why is it out here now when suddenly It was always the case since Reagan, This new right, not nodded,

ideas in this mass formation, psychosis or new. I should very old they're they're. All very old ideas Why are we all talking about? No I'm going with us. There is some force. The put this into our heads, and this is a narrative. What does it mean when a new narrative is introduced does the idea of a mass formation psychosis is a narrative right? it is a story to explain something. That's a narrative, a story to explain something doesn't mean is true. or the only story that can explain. Something is just one so liberally abuse, not literally This is a lie a piece of software that has been slipped into our operating system. So, where some of you,

We're not so aware that there is a thing called them: ass formation psychosis and you Probably less aware that it's something you should worry about at the moment, Scott's doing one hundred and eighty no wait for it, wait for it, wait for it. Don't assume you know where I'm going So here's my concern. My concern is: whoever introduced the idea of the mass formation psychosis into the public it in a way that made it transit cetera. I don't think that happened organically. Do you it could have yeah you can't you can eliminate smelly. That happened organically, but it doesn't have the smell of an organic thing. as the smell of something that somebody pushed into our software, because somebody and this will be speculative right.

It looks like somebody has an advantage or imagines advantage for making this a program that runs in your head. such that the next time you see something you can fitted into their frame until you have the narrative, the new things you see in your environment: don't fit into a story there, just things, but that you have a narrative and you see the new thing might be confirmation by us. You might be over interpret that thing, but you're going to add it to your more now is it exists, and this idea will apply just give you a stronger cause. You saw what happened the last two weeks, This whole idea, one from something you hadn't heard of many of you too. Something like the big thing. We all have to worry about idle. This is our again. What is also unclear? Who would do this? It looks like is pre emptive to take trumpet

to get people are worried about trump? But here is a real Bonaparte array for this. so here earlier, I'm gonna go super matter here. Is that maybe we use the word wrong, we'll find out. But the mass formation psychosis says that one way to control people is to scare them and then give them some certainty so that their fear, those away. That's what the mass formation psychosis idea is doing. The mass formation psychosis idea is the fear. It is the fear and it gives you The reason like the explanation here, here's something really big and scary to be afraid of Hitler, Hitler, Hitler Pillar to be afraid of and hears and here's the solution. Do you think

this coincidence that they talked about how scaring you can manipulate you and they gave you. To scare you and then manipulated do with it? This is a little bit too on the nose. If you know what I mean like everything about this topic smells of intentional, it does not smell organic. So if you said yourself, hey, there's a say mass formation psychosis? I should learn about it and then I should incorporate it into my point of view. I feel, like you been brainwashed, there's nothing here, The mass formation psychosis as nothing, nothing, it's a bunch of stuff everybody in the field as known forever,. There's not a single new idea here and has nothing to do with the current moment. Here is one of the ways you know something is a fake I've told you this technique before, as they say, five

is that true and then slip and one day you know isn't, then he knows brainwashing right right. You can call that the Hannity trick. the only one to doesn't you see on the left and right, you'll see the things that are true and people got her then he will slip on in. There is not quite true here's. The one is not quite true, we are socially isolated and therefore more susceptible to bs and believe in things that are not true. That's not true. We are socially isolated. We might be physically isolate, but with social media. We are more connected than at any time in human history. By far not even close and that's the point is. How do you know there's something is true or not. Unless you ve got somebody showing you the counterpoint, so the media is nothing but a bunch of counter points.

social media is the opposite of what mass formation psychosis would require. Mass formation psychosis requires you not to have access to the entire world to tell you you're wrong, but social media gives you access the whole world now the problem, is you get your bubble right here in your bubble, social media doesnt work to help you at all just makes everything worse by. I reject the idea that we are socially isolated in a way that would make mass formation psychosis worse. In fact the entire. Let me let me let me give you my best guess. What here. There is one entity that would benefit the most two oddities, actually collectively they would benefit the most from. Maybe you think they're mass formation psychosis is the thing you should. focus on. Imagine that as a diversion

agenda as take your mind away from something that somebody doesn't want you to think about what is at this. happening in the world is big, that there's mandatory or entities that don't want you to think about it, but I'd rather, you concentrated in this new idea. This whole this, this mass formation psychosis and the answer is the news business. the news business. Does she not the other, the alternative explanation for mass formation psychosis? What is the alternative explanation for everything you see Without without ever needing mass formation psychosis, fake news, News gives you everything that mass formation psychosis promises it gives. You fear, It gives you, sir, that you latch onto even, though, is not true

so, if I had to guess. but he was involved with either social media misinformation or the news and fake news once I think you should really be looking at this new smart idea. mass formation psychosis and don't come trade so much on the fact that Europe algorithms are red, allegedly, and your news is fake intentionally am I right? Doesn't doesn't mass formation psychosis seem like an empty theory. There has now purpose other than to distract you from the obvious problem that News is lying to MRI. I can say that they do that with intention. I'm just saying I reeks it reeks of intention that I don't have any evidence of it, but a reeks of it.

Rasmussen asked did a ball and asked if people, if they thought the January six right at the capital, represents a. Brought to american democracy threat to issue american democracy without Libya, a scary thing. Well, what would help the public was a scary thing and they felt all uncertain. Well, how about the left gives you an answer and says it's an insurrection. but some of those scary people in jail you'll feel better. Won't you you're you're concern about this happening again. Well, the answer this question: thirty five percent of the people said that riot and Jerry six was a threat to the american democracy, but forty three percent, said now, that's a pretty substantial difference and twenty one percent said not sure full sixty

Four percent of the public is either not concerned or definite, isn't worried about the capital riot. And were still doing an entire? Like committee investigation about the thing that sixty four percent, the country, things isn't even a thing. why? Why would the fake news and the liars and Congress want you to be thinking about mass formation psychosis? because they don't want to tell you that they're lying about January sex right in front of you is fake news. You don't need any complexity to understand that if the news is lying to you, you got some. You got some trouble. Sure enough, I did read today about systems As you know, I am somewhat well known for saying that the systems are better than goals and a good system is a great thing,

some good systems capitalism's a good system, lots of flaws, but The great things about capitalism is, you can populate capitalism with a bunch of defective human beings and somehow is still works. Elisa works better than the alternatives right so you can take the defective humans. Put him into this system, called capitalism and sudden The system corrects on average for all these defects and gives you some kind of a generally good result. The launcher democracy in and the republic are alike that tell you can take all these formed not too smart citizens plug them into this system called democracy, the republic and it sort of works

which doesn't make sense. You know if you looked at it on paper, how do you put a bunch of dumb people into a system and then get a good result, but it does it's a sort of a self correcting system. At the very least, it gives you a credible even if it's not a good one, so there's a big systems. Also the justice system is good because you can take off very citizens, with all of their defects, put em on it, a trial on a jury and you generally get pretty credible,

thoughts. So those are three systems that we ve had great experience with, putting defective humans interim and still a sort of self corrects, which is amazing. If you think about it, I mean how hard is it to correct the system we you put garbage in and you get gold out. I just told you three of whom we have three major systems where we can see the garbage monitors into gold. We can see the stupidity letters into a reasonably good decisions. compared to the alternatives? Lots of problems correspond. God of amazing, now contrast that to social media take a bunch of flawed human beings, And give them social media accounts, Does the social media act like these other systems and take these flawed human and sort of overtime correct for their accesses, nor does the opposite. It exacerbates

So social media is a system that takes the flaws of humans and accelerating it exacerbates, right. So the system is not by design per se, but where it evolved to. is the opposite of a good system and so rest complaining, I thought I'd, suggest some ways to tweak it, so there's ways. We could tweak our information getting systems some. You say that the news this plus social media are collectively a system for getting accurate information to the public. so that system could be tweaked out an When the following tweaks, because I don't think we need to go through a legal constitutional process to do this number one stop calling anonymous sources anonymous sources, you can say that there not enough.

But instead of calling them anonymous sources, we should all agree to call them unreliable sources because they are. imagine the news is every time they had an anonymous horse, they tell you synonymous, because that's just part of the story they also say and son, this unreliable source. They should all of them on unreliable right when they help it is just as a standard for social media and a standard for the news, to simply say that if something is anonymous, the sources it is also by definition unreliable. Somebody says: unverifiable, that's not good enough. Not good enough on unverifiable is true and maybe even more accurate, but it's not good I think you have to go all the way to unreliable, because we ve had so much trouble with it if we

Brad trouble with it, I would go with unverifiable gazelle legislature, but unreliable, does more work. Unreliable, says we ve had trouble with this in the past. Why? Wouldn't we have trouble in the future unverified might not be a problem. You just don't know one aware that this is definitely a problem, so go with unreliable set and this one will take you some thinking you might not instantly embraces. we can agree. We meaning the public and the press, and everyone else it agreed to ignore claims any claim, that is not in close proximity to the fact check or the criticisms. What I mean by closer proximity while Twitter is a good example? If I tweet something, that's falls in very clear: proximity. There will be almost guaranteed a tweet right below at a cost,

this has now you're wrong. Here's the fact check. So I think twitter is a reasonably good mechanism for information so long as you read the comments right, so should agree to read the comments, because unless that model they claim and the counterclaim are right next to each other there in close proximity that doesn't make you smart, but at least it is a good system, now compare that to the european model. Reviewing one expert for three hours is that export talks for three hours and covers all kinds of different topics. It is as far away as you can get from the fact check, or the criticisms or the counterclaims.

So my problem with the european model is that its great entertainment obviously is hugely successful. It is informative, definitely informative, but we should be smarter consumers and we should treat them entertainment. If you came away from the jargon show and said, I learned some new things about science. You shouldn't why you should do is say I was entertaining programme with a doctor who said some things that counter the mainstream narrative. That's all you did. You didn't get any information

Together information, you need the claim and the counter claimed to be in close proximity then, and only then can you say I learned a new thing, because I saw the claim I looked at the counterclaim and I decided that claim was stronger than the counterclaim Marcus Egg, Scots telling us what to think mark your officially too dumb to be on this live stream. Could the rest of you confirm that I'll tell you what to think, but rather the technique for thinking and systems, so mark your officially too dumb to be a member of this conversation, you will now be banned too loser them. As I heard you on this, to tell you, what do you think I don't know what you're, what

anyway, I do not have all the answers rather fix our information systems, but but I saw I put out some ideas and I would recommend that we, that we sort of promote a standard. The says, if it's This is also one reliable and we should always say that and that, if it The claim this not in close proximity to effect checkers is just entertainment. It could be valuable and could give me information, but you should not use it for decision making. You should not use it for decision making. Does. I agree with our standards because it doesn't say anything good or bad about darkened alone. It just says that in that format,

you, you got some entertainment as an information, but not the kind you can use. You got information, but here's the cape, not the kind you could use until you see the counterclaims and then maybe so there might be some other ways to go about this anyway, I offered on Twitter. Is there a lot of supporters of Doktor Malone? and I said this I'll make a deal. I will watch the entire three hour, Joe Rogan Interview with Doktor Malone. I've already started some are way through it I watched the entire three hours before like you or most of you, look at the facts: jacket on Doktor Malone, the claims that apparently guy I'm kicked off twitter or talk, not those element.

And just ass, he had a look at the counterclaims, so I will agree to go through three hours of their content of already started. I'm just gonna ask you to look at the counterclaims, now did. I just tell you that the counterclaims are the correct. Once did you hear that I hope we dimmed because I'm gonna tell you that we at one of the counterclaims is really bullshit so we can talk about the counter flavors, also having some issues the fact checkers also some issues, so what I'm asking you is always look at the facts check as well as the data. I'm not tell you in this case that affect check is the the believable one I mean it is thus not that's not today's.

I'll tell you honestly that I looked at the fact checks and I looked at the claims and the fact checks do look stronger than the claims. But how can we judge if you're not an expert stuff. How can you judge, but one of that one of the fact checks did look like bullshit. I will talk about them. I hope very soon. I will see if I can get kicked off of social media now. The idea was the bet that I'm taking here and we'll get to this is that the social media, supporting one narrative and suppressing another, how many of you would day that that would be true of these two topics: the twenty twenty election integrity, vaccines safety, how money We would say that the official narratives are being promoted.

but any alternative. Narratives people are getting kicked off now I want to make eight. I want to make a distinction between the algorithms which might you d boost. Things and boost others. Can we all agree that the algorithms appear to choose some narratives over others? Would we all agree that there our lived experience. The sure feels like it. I mean I've, seen lots of examples of many of them. Many. Examples, I've seen didn't hold up to scrutiny, but I mean you can smell it and feel it. It just feels like it couldn't be anything but that right now I would. I would say that even the social media companies would admit they would admit that they support the the approved and narrow.

If science seems to supported by consensus, so you should see exactly that, you should see the official narrative get more boost. Does assertion companies tell you that directly or we're gonna boost the things we think are true and have credibility according to them, maybe not to you, but accordingly so so let us not have any disagreement today about whether the algorithms are biased. We'd. All accept that right Even if their biased with good intention leopard is debatable, but there is no question that the biased towards the official narrative, which the social media companies believe is actually true and helpful and useful So the thought is that if anybody goes against the narrative unsocial media, they will be banned let me give an example: Marjorie Taylor Green was permanently suspended by twitter. I hear

things. She said. early issue included a leaving. Oh, she said that the Saturday she tweeted falsely they say the clay visitors is false, the third quote: extremely high amounts of covert vaccine deaths. Including what what is called by the fact checkers a misleading chart They showed information from a government database, the virus database. You all know about that. The various databases not confirmed problems, but rather suspected or possible problems, and it has a lot of activity with Listen vaccinations so near times, as fact checking her on. That's as as the twitter saying that the very database is Hazel system that relies on self reporting and so on

Marjorie. Tell her green showed that that was evidence of of a lot of confidence that she had to get kicked off. But is either missing from this story. Do you not? I would have liked to see in this New York Times story like. to them I say: why It is normal for a vaccine Roland. does the various database normally get this much attention, or is the fact that the there's database. If it is not enough, this is into if, if There is database has more reports, say by a factor of ten, and I have no reason to believe that is true, but just hypothetically would the New York Times have some obligation to tell you know: you cannot rely on the various database for certainty, but once again, this is hypothetical

but what is ten times as big as any other vaccine? There was rolled out- that's not true, that's right pathetically, its notable, don't you think there are times is selling a narrative, as opposed to doing the fact check, because I think if I were a fact check, they say yes, it's true, that there is an alarming number of reports in the various database by you must understand that the pandemic it's getting a lot of attention and there might be moreover, reporting possible. There might be some under reporting possible So, although you should not take it as the final word, if the various database reporting is. Way out of line with what one might expect that should taken as a signal to research and more reliable data. That's what effect check would look like this wasn't a fact check.

And by the way, I'm not supporting Marjorie Taylor Greens interpretation, because I think she too should have sought and her her assertion? to what we know to be true. Now I would say that this is a case of Marjorie Taylor, Green, being misleading, a health related topic. Would you would you disagree that, if Marjorie Taylor Green showed you the various database without also giving you the context that it can