anned him because it couldn't tell his parody from his actual opinion. In 2021 you've got to be careful about your parody because people can't tell. I mean they actually legitimately can't tell when you're joking these days because everything is so ridiculous that a joke looks like reality. There's no difference anymore.

So Andres got temporarily locked down for making a joke about it. But Slovakia has announced a nationwide coronavirus lockdown. So if ivermectin were making a big deal in Slovakia, well, stop doing that. And Andres tweeted out that maybe there was a variant that has escaped the ivermectin. Maybe it's an ivermectin escape variant. Which is just a joke but Twitter couldn't tell the difference since they locked him out.

So one of the key evidences that you heard from Bret and Heather on Dark Horse that appears to be debunked. And again let me be very careful in my wording. I'm not telling you ivermectin doesn't work. How would I know? I'm just telling you that these country-wide evidences they're all — all right.

Jay Le Calm helpfully suggested that I host a live stream debate with Pierre Kory on ivermectin and it would be a service to your viewers no matter what happened. To which I will tell you for the millionth time, Gutfeld says in large capital letters you do know it works Scott. Let me say clearly I don't know that it works. Like legitimately I don't know. If I had to put money on it — yeah that'd be a good question. If I had to bet money and it wasn't betting my life but let's say it's just a financial bet and I could afford it, would I bet that ivermectin works? That's a tough one because I think that you might have a situation where it works in some special cases. I wouldn't rule that out because I don't think we have enough evidence of that one way or the other.

But I feel like if I had to take the bet I'd bet against it. I would think in my opinion the body of unreliable information — because it's all unreliable right — to me the body of information suggests that it doesn't work. But I would say I have more like a sixty forty on this. So I bet the sixty percent that it doesn't work but I'm completely open to a full forty percent possibility that it works for some people in some situations. It might. I can't rule it out.

So anyway let me say that me talking to one expert will never be a good business model. It will only make things worse every time and there can be no exceptions to this. What would work is have two experts or more, one on each side of the topic, and be hosting it. That would work pretty well as long as they had some time and they could maybe do a little research on the questions, each give each other. So you'd have to figure out how they could do a proper counter response to stuff. Yeah maybe do it over one to three days. You don't do it in one day. That would work. But please don't ask me to interview one rogue doctor. There's no way that can give you good information because I won't know what to ask.

Here's how that would go. Me: Hey do you have any proof that your opinion works or your opinion is correct? Rogue doctor: Yes there was the Eastern European Indian subcontinent study that was just completed. And then what do I say? Oh that's the end of the conversation. I can't fact check them in real time. Have you seen a credible comparison with the other protease inhibitors now being brought to market with incredible purported outcomes? A critical comparison. So I don't understand the question Chad but maybe somebody else does. Are you talking about in the context as a treatment for COVID or are you comparing two different fields? I don't know the nature of that question.

All right, of doctors seeing the successes? No they're seeing the anecdotes. They're seeing the anecdotes. So I saw somebody sent me the anecdote of the man who