is that the first two appraisals, I think we do know this was during the depths of the coronavirus problem when nothing looked like it was worth anything and then the third appraisal happened when things were picking up. The stock market was up by 50 percent or whatever the number was and home values were zooming. So but still doubled? Do you think your home doubled? No. I don't know what the real story is but this is not real.

All right, and have I told you about stories that are a little bit too on the nose? A little bit too on the nose, isn't it? The clever Black single mom, I think actually I think she's a single mom, I'm not sure about that part, but you know she's a victim of racism so bad that her home was appraised at half of its value. No, that didn't happen. I'm sorry. Now if I'd seen this story and said there's a 30 percent difference I wouldn't have even questioned it really. I mean I would have been horrified if there were a 30 percent difference. That would be horrifying. But I might have believed it. But not double. Come on. I mean the news isn't even trying anymore when they report stories like this. They're just so obviously not true.

Remember I told you that the disagreement between Dr. Fauci and Rand Paul about whether Fauci had ever supported funding for gain of function stuff in Wuhan, and I said to you that my theory was that they were both correct, disagreeing but both correct. And the reason that I gave is that gain of function was probably being used in two different ways so that they were both right. They were just using the phrase differently. And I feel like that's confirmed now.

Let me tell you what Collins, who's the head of the NIH, said. And I want to listen to his exact wording. All right, so here he'll be denying that they were involved in any funding for a gain of, a gain of what do you call it. So here's what he says, quote, "Let me be very clear. We never approved any grant that would have supported gain of function research on dangerous coronaviruses." Okay, keyword dangerous. "To see if they could be more transmissible or lethal for individuals in the human species," he added. And they said that was not something that we would have done.

Now watch the exact wording here. "We never approved that kind of research." And that's something Senator Paul might want to be a bit more clear about, "that kind of research." So he starts out by talking about gain of function on dangerous coronaviruses and he says we never funded that kind of research. But gain of function is a big category and gain of function to weaponize it is a subset of that category. So is it true that they did non-weaponized research on gain of function but they did not fund in any way weaponizing gain of function? I feel like that's what's going on.

So this looks like fake news, meaning that it looks like there's a disagreement but they're just using the words differently. I think that's my current hypothesis.

Do you remember Project Veritas said they had an undercover video of a CNN technical director, I think he was, and he was saying about CNN plans to panic us about the climate as their next big theme that they'll weave into everything? Well here's your example of your CNN climate panic porn. And ever so their tweet today, "In an ever warming climate, ripple effects or chain reactions could lead to altered weather patterns across the globe thanks to a melting Antarctic ice sheet, a new study says."

So here's my problem. What would happen if we knew that, let's say we knew that the fake news was damaging people's brains because they were getting too afraid? They were frightened to death about white supremacists under the bed. Now they're frightened to death that the Arctic ice sheet will cause the Earth to fall apart from global climate change. What would happen to your brain if you were believing the news? It would be