I'm just looking at your comments. Somebody says it's urban versus rural maybe. I mean it is certainly that also. Science advances one death at a time. Somebody said I don't know who said it but it's kind of a cool thing. Candace Owens, what about Candace Owens? Is there a question attached to that? Every solution comes with a new set of problems. That's probably true.

Somebody says vaccines. You don't know if you're saying that. Not to change the subject too much but let me make the general point. Whoever says that vaccines are definitely good and there's no reason to be concerned, not smart. The smart range is somewhere in between those two extremes. And you know who has the smartest view on this? I hate to tell you but the smartest opinion I've ever heard on vaccines in terms of the risks versus the benefit that was expressed by President Trump.

And if you remember what Trump says about vaccines, he says that they have been tested individually. Now this isn't his own theory. He's obviously heard it somewhere. It's a popular way of thinking. The idea goes that we have tested each vaccine individually and that individually they look like good ideas. But what we haven't tested is what happens if you give a number of vaccines to the same person. So that's what Trump said. That there's a risk which has not been analyzed. To which I thought to myself is that anti-intellectualism? Is it anti the very thing we're doing is the thing that's never been tested, which is what happens when you combine a bunch of vaccines in the same person?

Now I'm not going to tell you that that's bad because I've never studied it and I don't have any skill to study it but I do agree it hasn't been studied. And if it's true that you should study one vaccine, you know if a new vaccine comes in, if it's true that the FDA should study that vaccine, isn't it also true they should study it in combination? Because what are drug interactions if not that we test drugs one at a time and then when they interact with another drug we say oh whoops it looks like this aspirin doesn't work with that other stuff but we didn't test that because it would be impossible to test every drug with every other combination of drugs. It would be too many combinations. So we just kind of put that drug out there tested largely in isolation and then when it kills somebody or gives them a side effect you say what else were you taking? Well we better put this in the database. Maybe we've got a problem here.

So the president has the most realistic view in this which is why would you trust something this important that hasn't been tested? Is that anti-intellectual? I don't know. You know you might say politically it's smart because he has it both ways. It's pro science and it's also slightly anti-vaccine without totally committing to it. So politically it's brilliant but it's also perfectly a commonsensical point of view.

And by the way I had never heard that point of view. I had heard it in a different realm. I had a friend a number of years ago who was trying to convince me to eat more organic food and to avoid anything in a package, anything that has any kind of additives. And my opinion had always been all of this stuff has been tested right? All of these additives have been tested. There's no reason to think that you know just because my jelly has a food preservative in it that it's gonna kill me because it's all been tested. And my friend said this: they haven't tested it all together. And I thought how the hell did I not ever think of that before?

So her point was this: that if the only thing you ate that had an additive was that jelly that you have once a week, probably wouldn't be a problem because your body could easily handle whatever a little extra thing it was adding to it. But if everything you eat has an additive it doesn't matter that every one of those things has been tested in isolation because what they haven't tested is what happens when you give yourself a whole bunch of different additives from different sources of different types. I don't know, does it hurt you?

Somebody says you look great for 65. I'm 61 damn it but that was funny. They do test vaccines altogether. I don't believe that. There's no way that they test vaccines altogether because you couldn't I don't think you could test them on humans like that. There's a limit to how much you can really test about the combinations. Yeah and the test is on children that makes it harder.

Why is the lifespan in America so much higher than before? I believe it stalled didn't it? I'm not telling you the vaccines don't work. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm an anti-intellectual. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I'm an anti-intellectual meaning that I don't know. How would I know? All right well I don't know much about this category of the additives and how dangerous they are in the vaccines and how dangerous they are.