d here's the thing that you have to be bothered by. When you watch Fox News the person reading the news is obviously a news person and the people doing the opinion stuff are obviously opinion people and you really don't get them confused, right? Nobody thinks Hannity is a hard news guy. He's an opinion guy. Tucker Carlson, same thing. But CNN likes to have that a little bit more gray. So here's Jim Acosta, famous for covering the White House under Trump, so you think of him as the news guy. But now he's gone full opinion at least on this show. That feels dangerous to me. I don't think you should — just as a production note, if you're in the news business I think your news people need to be walled off from your opinion people a little bit. Having your news guy do opinion, I feel like people are going to take that as news a little bit more than they would if it were someone else. So just something to watch for. Not a big problem but something to keep an eye on.

And he says things like this. He's talking to his guest. He goes — I guess it was Yang — and he said Tucker Carlson, I mean let's just say he's a bad person. And he goes on claiming that he spouts off white nationalist talking points, which I don't think he does by the way. I think that's an unfair statement. He does say things that are compatible with what other people that are controversial and you know you think should be condemned and I think should be condemned. But just the fact that we humans have a lot in common with each other. Yeah, everybody's going to have something that's in common with a group they don't like. Don't you think that would apply to everybody? Do you think that Biden doesn't say some things that some bad people agree with? I'm sure he says things that bad people agree with. Does that make Biden a bad person? It doesn't really work that way. Just the fact that bad people agree with you on some part of what you say, that doesn't accrue to you. It is not your fault that people you think are bad agree with some small part of what you say. It doesn't work that way.

All right. The American Medical Association has a note about ivermectin and it's informing doctors how to respond if their patients ask them for ivermectin. And it goes on to say that ivermectin is not proven and that as an unproven drug maybe don't recommend it but instead recommend this. Here's the weird part. So the AMA says we don't have evidence that ivermectin works so therefore they're not recommending that it be prescribed. But they are saying that if your patient wants it you should refer them to one of the ongoing ivermectin trials.

Why am I confused now? Weren't we told that ivermectin definitely doesn't work by the medical community? I thought we knew that, right? Am I wrong? Isn't the established medical community — I know you might have different opinions and there are rogue doctors etc. but isn't the established view that ivermectin has been proven to not work as opposed to yeah we don't know? Isn't that the view? And the AMA is saying well if your patient wants to do it refer them to an ivermectin trial. What one doctor who believes that we know it doesn't work should tell his patient to take it anyway for the trial if he knows it doesn't work? Remember it's not wondering if it works. Don't they know it doesn't work? Isn't that the official belief?

If the official belief is that we know it doesn't work why are there even trials? Who's running these trials? Don't you think the people who are funding the trials should have said by now, "Oh darn, we already found out it doesn't work. Let's cut the expense of the trial right now and wind this up." There's no reason to go to a result because there's no reason to get a result in the trial because all the other trials have shown it doesn't work. There's no reason to finish. Is another example where we're clearly being lied to. We're clearly — we the public are clearly being lied to because if these trials are happening it does mean that people with real money and a lot of it because it's expensive and people who are real professionals in this field because who else is going to do the study? It's going to be professionals, right? If they're not sure, why do you have to be sure, right? If medical science itself isn't sure why do you have to be sure? That's a little bit inconsistent.

All right. Now to be clear, as far as I know the benefit of ivermectin has not been demonstrated. As far as I know. I'm not the expert but I do follow the news. As far as I know it has not been demonstrated. Definitely some indications. You know there's plenty of things that tell you maybe. I suppose that's why they're doing the trials. And of course given that the risk of it is low it appears that we have been more brainwashed than informed on this topic.

Hey, here's something that I didn't know until today. I'm here to inform you. We all know that the vaccinations could wear off, correct? We all know that the vaccinations could wear off and that antibodies can diminish over time, right? So I think whether you got infected or you got vaccinated I think your antibodies decrease over time. But is that the problem that you think it is? If you hear that your antibodies are decreasing over time what does that tell you about your risk? Tells you you have a higher risk, right? But it's not quite as clean as that.

Turns out there are two kinds of resistance. Let me call — I'm going to use non-medical terms here so that it's just simpler. There are two ways that having some kind of prior antibodies help you. Number one is keeping it from getting into your body in the first place and taking hold. So there's sort of an initial defense that keeps you from getting it in the first place and that will decrease over time which means that your initial defense will let it in. You will more likely after the immunity goes down, you will more likely catch it. But here's the part I didn't know. There is a second type of immunity which doesn't decrease the same way. So the first kind which is you're going to get it could decrease to the point where you get it but the other kind has much more lasting permanence. And the other kind is the kind that keeps you from dying.

So the good kind we got because it's keeping you from dying. The other kind where it's keeping you from getting it in the first place isn't working. Which is good news or bad news? Is that good news or bad news? Suppose you took a vaccination and your ability to catch it went down but your ability to prevent serious illness was still solid. Is that good or bad? I think it's good. Good-ish. Because the end point is we all get vaccinated and we also get the infection. We just get to the end point faster. Now you don't want it to rage out of control and crash your hospitals and stuff like that so you want your good news to be moderate good news. You don't want great good news because things would happen too quickly. So there's a rate of change that's important.

But did we luck into this? Imagine if you could have designed this on paper. Would you have said let's vaccinate and people are just good, they're just vaccinated, they won't get it? Or would you have chosen to vaccinate people in a way that they would still get infected so that they could get the natural immunity but it won't kill them? I'm not so sure this wasn't perfect. Are you? Can you tell me that you know this is worse? Because I can't tell.

Somebody says it's a bad analysis. Do better. Do better. Raise your game. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm asking the question but your criticism needs to be better than that. Just give me a reason, some kind of any kind of indication.

It's all good until they're forced. Yeah that's a separate question. Yeah we can't tell if it's good news or bad news. Isn't that weird? It's one of the most gigantic factors in our environment right now and we don't even know if it's good news or bad news.

The vaccine is a scam br