you have a problem with the FDA? The whole problem with the rapid tests is that they're lower by design. They're lower sensitivity. And that's the problem. The FDA doesn't want low sensitivity tests out there even if they would be more useful than high sensitivity tests because you could do them in volume.

So I don't think this thing about the mask having the test built into it, I don't think that can work unless rapid tests can work. And I don't see how they're going to get improved right away, although the Biden administration apparently is doing a better job on that, approving that stuff.

One of the questions that I was asked here is to teach people how to know who to trust in the news, which is a good question, right? How do you know who to trust? All the pundits, all the experts, all the news people. What rules do you use? And there are lots of them. But I'm going to put one of them out there. Somebody says trust no one. Trusting no one is a really good starting point, right? Trust no one is a good starting point. I agree with that. But there are some situations that stand out more than others.

All right, you're going to end up probably not trusting, but let's say siding with a side. You're probably going to do that. So you'd like as much knowledge as you could about who's more credible. Here's a little tip. Don't trust anybody who has a brand consistency problem. Here's what I mean by that. A brand consistency problem is you've built yourself into a kind of voice. You always have a kind of slant on things. You're the person who's known for saying whatever. As soon as you're the person who's known for saying whatever and you start monetizing that, your credibility goes right out the door because you sort of need to stay that person to be the brand that people are coming to. And now what do you do? Because you need to be that person.

All right, and I'm going to mention a specific person but I want to generalize the point, right, so it's not about a specific person. So you've been watching Alex Berenson, who's probably maybe the most notable or famous, I would say, skeptic would be the right word. So when you see him appearing or writing and he's all over the place with the coronavirus story, I believe he worked at the New York Times, so he's a credible kind of person with a credible resume. And he's been skeptical of a lot of the data science that's coming out of the coronavirus stuff.

Now in the beginning of the pandemic, is it useful to have a skeptic? Yeah, it's really useful. You really do want some strong voices to say, you say that that makes sense scientifically but where's your data? And then you show the data and then you still want somebody to say, yeah, but I don't think that data says what you think it's going to say. So a skeptic with credentials, you know, at least journalistic credentials like Alex Berenson, very, very valuable. You want as many of those as you can get. Smart people, right? You don't want dumb skeptics. You want a smart, legitimately professional person who's an actual skeptic. So from that point of view he's a national treasure, right?

I always appreciate skeptics. They're national treasures, especially if they go against the grain and it's going to cost them something professionally. It probably did. He probably took a hit professionally. But I think he was starting out doubting, and maybe still does, I don't know his exact position on masks and social distancing and lockdowns.

Now is it reasonable to be a skeptic on masks, social distancing and lockdowns? Yeah, yeah, it's reasonable. Completely reasonable. Is it right? I don't know, right? I don't know because we don't have data we can trust, which would be the point of a skeptic, right? The whole point of a skeptic is, hey, this data you're selling us, it's not reliable. So when you see somebody like Berenson say your data is not reliable on masks, social distancing, whatever else, I feel like I'm on pretty solid ground most of the time. Like I think that most of the time that data is not reliable, meaning it's not really nailed down that these facts are telling you what you think they're telling you.

But as time goes by, those things which you should be properly skeptical about, you get a little more clarity over time. I believe that the consensus of science and even maybe skeptics is that masks surely must make some difference. So not so much protecting you from virus but from the ones that you might be giving off. But now we have vaccinations. Would you take the same level of skepticism for masks and lockdowns and stuff and take that to vaccinations? You should, because skepticism everywhere is always a valuable asset, right? Even if it's wrong, you want that point and counterpoint. You always want that.

So Alex Berenson was tweeting I think the other day, yesterday, that Israel has not yet shown any effect from their vaccinations. And they seem to be the most complete in getting people vaccinated, over 65 at least. And I saw that and I thought, I don't know, is this where you want to put the skepticism? I would have waited a little bit. But almost five minutes after he tweeted that Israel is not showing any difference, Joel Pollak and other people who were also following it said no, actually the data is really clear. Here's the graph. Three weeks after the vaccination started you see the hospitalizations, not every other measure but just hospitalizations, just plummeted.

So who is right? Is Alex Berenson's chart and data that didn't seem to show anything obvious happening there, is that right? Or are the other people who said no, here's the current information on hospitalizations and there are actual stories based on news reports, are they right? I don't know. The problem is just because you see data in a news story it doesn't mean it's right anymore. It used to. It used to make me think it was probably right. But not anymore. You can't really trust anything anymore.

But if I had to bet, I would bet they're working and I would bet that the graphs showing lower hospitalizations, I would bet that's accurate. I would bet the things are going the right direction. So to my first question, who should you trust? Alex Berenson has the problem which is not necessarily his fault, right? This is not a criticism. But once you become the skeptic guy, it's hard to get out of that, right? Once you're the skeptic guy, that's why you get asked to be on the show. It's why a publisher will publish your book. And it would be easy to overdo the skepticism.

All right, so bringing you back to the specific personality, is Alex Berenson a credible person? Yes, yes, he's a very credible person. But if you take the most credible person in the world and put them in a situation where they've got a brand compatibility issue, that credibility you have to mentally adjust it, right? So that would be one tip for knowing who to trust. It doesn't matter how credible or smart or well informed the person is. If they have a brand issue, that's what you want to look for.

Now am I suggesting that Alex Berenson would intentionally say something that was wrong for his brand? No, no, I have no reason to believe he would do anything intentionally. I'm just saying that you should not make any assumptions about people's internal thoughts. And if they have a brand issue, factor that in.

Here's a dog that's not barking. What is the Biden administration's approach to North Korea? Why aren't we hearing anything about that? Did North Korea suddenly become no problem? Because if it is no problem, isn't that Trump? And if it is a problem, what's he doing about it? What's the Biden administration take on North Korea? Would you like to know? That's going to be a fun one. Assuming the world doesn't blow up, it's going to be really fun to see how Biden handles North Korea because he do