eir movement went away. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wall Street, big old thing, big thing, and then it went away. Why did Occupy Wall Street go away? Is it because income inequality got fixed? No, nothing happened. They just went away.

Why did Antifa and BLM, who were so big under Trump, why did they just sort of fade away a little bit? Well, I think they don't need them anymore. I think that whoever is creating the fake news on the left just doesn't need them anymore.

By the way, if you've never met somebody who creates fake news for a living, you really need to. It'll change everything about how you see the world. There's a large volume of the fake news that I think goes through the same people. So I think a lot of what you see on the left and the right probably gets filtered through a fairly small number of people before you see it all.

All right, the Build Back Better bill is so complicated that apparently somebody only just found out there's tax breaks for the news business in there. No reason. They're just good tax breaks in the proposed bill for the press and media companies. Do you know why they deserve tax breaks? I don't. No reason given. The obvious reason is that the Democrats work with this industry, and they're just scratching each other's backs.

All right, here's my take on that. Wherever things are complicated, that's where fraud is hiding. So anything complicated is riddled with fraud. So the financial advice business is real complicated. Oh, you could get this financial vehicle or this one. Riddled with fraud because it's complicated and people can't understand it on their own. Everything that's complicated is riddled with fraud because that's where it can hide. Fraud can't hide in simple situations because it would just be obvious. Oh, that's obvious fraud. But wherever there's complexity, there's always fraud. It's just guaranteed.

So we have Congress writing these hugely complicated bills with all kinds of topics and legalese and everything. And we're expected to support them or not, or tell our Congress people to support them or not. And even Congress doesn't read it. It's too complicated.

Here's what I would do if I were president. I would reject every bill that wasn't written in a way the public could understand it. Pretty popular, right? Talking about a populist opinion. I will reject every bill no matter what the topic if the public can't understand it. Now the public might not need to know every detail of it, but at least there should be a summary with a little bit of a pro and con. Says, oh, this would do this, and here's why. Let's take the media tax breaks. This would give tax breaks to these certain media companies. Here's the argument for why, and then here's the argument against. Yeah, you'd vote for me, of course. If I ran for office, I would be destroyed by the media, so it's a bad bet. But yeah, I'd be an excellent president in some ways, probably bad in a lot of other ways. So yeah, if you can't understand the bill, you have to oppose it.

The San Francisco Chronicle had an opinion piece. Now keep in mind this is San Francisco, all right? So consider the source. And it's an opinion piece. And it says our current requirements and punitive actions — talking about the pandemic mandates and stuff — suggests that many of California's health officials may be going off gut feel or worse, ideology, rather than a calculable risk methodology. So the San Francisco Chronicle in the heart of San Francisco is saying, I think maybe our pandemic requirements are not based on science. That's a shift. It's a zeitgeist shift.

All right, there's more Fauci versus Rand Paul. I saw a video that's new, right? Is that video I saw Rand Paul grilling Fauci again yesterday or something? I think so, right? It's new. Okay, it's new. And in it we see exactly what I told you was the case. Who else told you this before I did? Did I tell you that the argument between Fauci and Rand Paul was really a definitional one? Did I not tell you that Fauci was just using a different definition of gain-of-function than Rand Paul was, and that that's what it was? Well, Rand Paul basically just took that approach and just said it looks like you just changed the definition so that you wouldn't look so bad. And I think that's exactly what happened. I mean, I don't know, but it does look like they changed the definition of gain-of-function on the website to hide the fact that it had been a larger definition than they narrowed it.

Now I'm not the one who's going to say that Fauci did anything wrong in terms of funding gain-of-function. I don't feel like I can make that call with what I know because it comes down to this. It comes down to this: Was the type of gain-of-function more potential benefit than risk or more risk than benefit? In other words, if trying to defend against a future gain-of-function attack, if you could do a better defense by studying it yourself, how much value would that have? Hard to calculate, right? You couldn't really calculate that. But likewise, what are the risks that in studying it you create the very problem you were trying to avoid? Again, I don't think you could calculate it. Which of those risks is bigger? Do you know? I'll bet you know which one scares you. And I'll bet that's what you would make your decision on because we don't have the data. So you're going to end up making the decision based on what scares you the most.

So what are you most afraid of? An intentional biological or accidentally creating a biological attack in trying to defend it? Which one of those scares you the most? I don't know. They both sound pretty bad to me. So if Fauci with his body of knowledge about this stuff concluded that the world was safer studying it than not studying it, I'm not going to tell you he was wrong. He might have been. And I'm not going to tell you that Rand Paul is wrong that under no circumstances should you get near this stuff. I don't know that that's the right decision. I feel like that's a fear opinion. In other words, if you're more afraid of the accidental release than you are of a foe intentionally releasing it, then you would go one way. And if your fear of the other thing was greater, you go the other way. But you don't have data. You don't have any way to compare those risks. There's nothing to compare. You've just been guessing which one is worse.

So I'm not going to defend Fauci. I'm just going to say that there's a difference of opinion on the risk. That's all we know. That's all we know. Difference of opinion.

All right, I'm a big fan of Rand Paul, so I do love that he's pushing this because no matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know. No matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know. So this is good work by Rand Paul. And again, like I've said a million times, there are only like four productive members of Congress. It's all the same people all the time, and Rand is one of them.

All right, Martin Kulldorff did a little analysis comparing the Israeli and versus the CDC studies to see if normal immunity is better than vaccination. I gotta run, but the bottom line is this: that Israel says normal immunity is stronger than vaccination. CDC says vaccination is stronger than immunity. CDC did their math wrong. CDC did the math wrong. That's it. I don't even need to add to anything, do I? The CDC did the math wrong. Now when I say that, I mean the statistical approach they used was apparently suboptimal. But two opposite opinions using the same data. Boom. That's everything you need to know.

And I am done for today. Gotta rock. See you later.