going to look at what happened in the past and see if we can figure out just by looking at some data from history whether we can judge that it works or not. That is not the same level of credibility as a randomized controlled study. So if you've got a randomized control study that would have to use those same chemicals and have to administer them in a similar way, not waiting until too late. If you had that and it said it worked, I'd take that pretty seriously.

If you have yet another retrospective study, it just gets thrown on the pile with the other retrospective studies that seem to disagree with the randomized control studies. So if you don't see a randomized control study on hydroxychloroquine, I would ignore it. Same with vitamin D. Vitamin D. I think there's a strong argument that boosting your vitamin D could protect you because it protects you from things in general. But if you see a retrospective study that says people with vitamin D did much better, you must be careful because those people might have been unhealthy in general and a low vitamin D level is a marker for low health in general. So it could be that the vitamin D is telling you nothing but these are generally unhealthy people and if you were to boost their vitamin D that would still be just generally unhealthy people with vitamin D. It might not make that much difference at all. So be careful of correlation versus causation.

Is the Slaughter Meter still relevant? Not really, because the situation became this weird two movies where Trump could actually win and not be president. So prior to the actual election day, I modified my prediction to the coin flip would come up edge, meaning that you'd have two winners and it would just stay that way. And I think that's the situation. I think Trump will make his case at least to the public and so the publi