hat's quote worthy. In this case Acosta. So CNN becomes the news instead of the reporter of the news. That's right. CNN makes themselves the news and then they report on it. So basically they're manufacturing news. So it's not really fake news. It's more like manufactured news.

Roly-Poly sent me some audio files. Let's see if I can play one of them now. I was trying to get like an introduction to my sections on fake news. So here's one if I can play it. Fake news.

All right let's try another one here. Fake news. Tweet of the day. I don't think it was quite there. It needs a little work. Needs a little work.

All right how about this one? This is for the DeSantis news. Pretty good. Pretty good. Good start. Thank you Roly-Poly.

He's tweeting at me right now. Isn't it freaky seeing yourself mentioned on the live stream when you're watching it and then your name comes up? So I've had this happen to me a number of times. I'll turn on the television. I'll just be watching television and they start talking about me. It's so freaky. It's like no, I'm watching. You don't talk about me, television.

So that just happened to Roly-Poly.

How many of you have heard the theory that the therapeutics are being under-appreciated officially? Because if therapeutics existed for the COVID, legally we wouldn't be able to do an emergency use for some other drug if we already had a drug that was really helpful. How many of you heard that and believe that that's true?

How many of you are of the belief that the reason we don't talk about ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine — or now there's a new one, a cholesterol drug cuts coronavirus infection in a laboratory by 70% and it's an existing fairly safe drug that's off the shelf so it'd be a big deal if it worked, just like it would be a big deal if any of the others worked, right?

Regeneron is approved, I thought it was. I mean as opposed to an emergency approval. So I'm going to call fake news on that. I'm going to call that a conspiracy theory that is not backed up. Now I don't know. And I'm going to put odds on this right, so this doesn't mean I'm 100% sure. Sometimes I act like I'm completely sure when I'm not. So I'm trying to moderate that a little bit so that I don't do that so much.

Here's my take on it. Let's say there was a law or a rule that said you can't get your emergency authorization for the vaccines if therapeutics exist. And let's say in this scenario that therapeutics did exist. Let's say they did. Does that mean that in the context of a global pandemic there's nothing you could do? Because the rule says you can't authorize something for emergency use so you're done, right? You just can't do it. Is that right?

So you just can't do vaccines? No, nothing works that way. Nothing works that way. Now there might be a variant of this in which the pharmaceutical companies are bribing the government. But do you think that in the Trump administration — do you think Trump took a bribe from the pharma companies? That nobody's even suggested it, right?

And it would have to be Trump because he was the one beating up on the FDA to get the vaccinations through, etc. Let me tell you this. Let's say there was a rule or a law or whatever it is — I don't know what the situation is. It's either a rule or a law that you can't do the emergency use thing as long as therapeutics exist.

If you went to Trump during the — or any president, could be Biden — you go to the president, whoever it is, during a pandemic and you say we've got this rule that prevents us from doing this thing that would be really, really important to do, how long does the rule stop you? It's over. In a pandemic that kind of rule doesn't mean anything.

How many rules did Trump change just by signing an executive order? Did anybody question them? No. It's a pandemic. I mean it's a different situation at the moment, right? But during the worst of the pandemic we kind of stand aside and say okay leaders, we understand this is not the time to debate. This is the time to do something. And we know you're not going to be right every time. Like that would be unreasonable. But do something because it's an emergency.

You got to do something. Under those rules there's no way that a law or some guideline or rule would have stopped us from doing what made sense. So I'm going to call on the idea that the reason therapeutics are being undervalued by the government is because they just had to get this rule for the vaccinations and maybe big pharma was pushing or bribing somebody. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.

Because I don't think Trump could have been bribed by pharma. Does anybody disagree with that? Does anybody think that Trump — specifically Trump because he was the one there during the time this was all happening — do you think he could have been bribed by pharma? I just don't see it. I just don't see it.

And was there ever a rule that Trump didn't like breaking? I mean most of his act was tell me the rule that's in the way and then I'll break it. Remember you couldn't do telehealth, having a doctor call you across state lines? And I was a little involved with that. What did Trump do? He said oh here's a la