don't need a meta-analysis, right?

So if the signal is so strong you can just see it by looking at it, you don't need the meta-analysis. But what if it isn't? What if looking at it is like, I don't know, it's a little bit all over the map. Maybe the results are not gigantic but they might be small. We don't know. If it's unclear, then it turns out that when you do the meta-analysis what matters the most is what assumptions you made. Which studies you said, well we'll either leave the preprint studies out or we'll include them in. Just one example of the many decisions you would make about, oh this study, well I did say we were going to include all the studies even if they had flaws but gosh I think this one is more flawed than the other ones so this one I'll keep out because it isn't the kind of flaw that the other ones have or something. So the point is the meta-analysis is not something that all experts say, oh yeah you got me with the meta-analysis. Some experts say I don't believe in meta-analysis because you had too many choices when you decided how to do it. So it was your choices and your assumptions that created the outcome. It wasn't the data. It was the assumptions you made about which data to use. That's all that happened.

Now so there's been some back and forth I think. Andres just posted just when I was getting going live. So he's making his point that maybe some of Brett's data is more coincidence and that each time you see the ivermectin come in and you see the infection rate drop, that in all or enough of those cases to destroy the point, in all or enough of those cases there are also other things going on and you can't untangle them. Meaning that there's always a change in the lockdown, the weather is getting better, the vaccinations are pouring in, our ability to do therapeutics is better, we've vaccinated and protected the most vulnerable, we know how to treat these things, blah blah blah blah. So how do you know it was just the ivermectin?

Because I don't know if this is true but I'll bet you could look for random variables that also correspond. So you've got one view that says it's so obvious in the data that maybe you don't even need a meta-analysis but they did one. And you've got at least one very smart person saying don't believe meta-analyses. But this gets back to my original point, right? Apparently the data is so strong, meaning that basically every test says that ivermectin works. Do you need to do a meta-analysis if every study shows it works? How is the meta-analysis going to show something different? What the hell kind of assumptions could you make if every study shows it works? There's nothing you could deselect that would turn that into the wrong answer, would it?

Now again you need the gold standard randomized controlled trial. You need a huge number of people to make sure that you have enough of them and we don't have that yet for ivermectin. And so here's the question. And here's what Brett said on a tweet. And he was concerned that I was being influenced maybe in the wrong direction on this topic. And I asked him what he thought I got wrong. And Brett responded. And what I saw, meaning watching the Twitter back and forth and maybe the live stream I'm not sure, he said in what I saw you, meaning me, correctly found the reputation hazard issue but then allowed a credential to back you off the increasingly obvious pattern. Would you agree with his statement? Did I allow a credential, and I assume he's meaning Andres Backhouse, did I allow Andres's credentials to back me off an increasingly obvious pattern?

Well I don't believe I backed off an obvious pattern because I never said the pattern doesn't exist, did I? I'm looking at your comments and you're agreeing with them. What does it mean to back off an obvious pattern? Define that. What's the statement? It means that I backed off an increasingly obvious pattern. You know that doesn't mean anything, right? Like you're agreeing with a statement that is neither true nor false. It doesn't mean anything. How do you back off an obvious pattern? Did I say the pattern is not obvious anymore? Did I ever say that? Have I ever said that the pattern is not obvious? The whole point of it is the pattern is obvious. The only reason we're talking about it is that 100% of the people who look at it say, well the pattern is obvious. The critics say the pattern is obvious. The proponents say the pattern's obvious. Brett says the pattern's obvious. Andres says the pattern's obvious. I say the pattern is obvious. As far as I know the studies are very, very, very weighted toward it working and each study has some issues. Where about where have I backed off?

So that's my view. It's never changed. Tell me where I changed my view. Where did I evolve? Where am I wrong? Yeah you got a little, you got pretty quiet, didn't you?

So here's my point. We can't even tell what somebody else is arguing, right? You don't even know what my point is half the time, which is normal. It's not a criticism. Big view, it is completely normal for human beings not to even understand the point, much less disagree with it, much less have different data, much less have a better analysis, much less have better pattern recognition. Half the time you don't even know what the I'm saying. All right? And there's nothing wrong with you, right? That's not a criticism in the least. Same with me, right? It's just a thing. People don't always fully understand what other people say. It's the most common thing in the world.

So here's my point of view. The pattern is 100% obvious. It's never been less than 100% obvious. But people can be fooled by obvious patterns. That's all. Keep that in mind.

Let's talk about Putin and Biden. Apparently Putin is putting the screws on Biden a little bit here. And I guess President Putin on Monday signed the law to officially end the country's Open Skies Treaty with the US. So that treaty allowed us to fly over Russia and Russia to fly over the U.S. to build confidence that neither was doing things in a big way that would be militarily aggressive or something. But I don't know if there was much value in that because who knows, can the satellites see it all anyway? Does it matter if we have an Open Skies Treaty? Does that really buy us anything? Because probably between the cyber means and satellites I feel like we can see theirs and they can see ours. Like I don't know if that, if you talk to an expert, would they say this even mattered, this treaty? But the fact that he's canceling now so soon to when Putin and Biden are going to meet, it's kind of a little slap in the face. It's a little bit telling him who's in charge.

Interestingly last month, I think Fox News reported this, that the Biden administration told Russia that it had no plans to rejoin the arms control pact that Trump abandoned. So Trump had canceled an agreement with Russia on arms control and during the election candidate Biden had said that it was short-sighted. So Biden criticized Trump for canceling that deal and now Biden agrees with Trump that the deal should not be reinstated. So add this to your growing list of times when Trump was criticized for being wrong and has been proven right. Added to the list. The list is getting pretty long. The things that Trump told us were true but the news and th