information that you didn't have a long time before you had it that Regeneron works. I can't tell you how I knew that but I knew it months before it was public. And but the problem I understood is to make enough of it. Can anybody give me a fact check on that? My understanding is that the monoclonal antibodies were mostly a problem of how fast you could make it because I think that what Dr. McCullough may be interpreting as part of that problem of bad early treatment protocols is that some of it just wasn't available. Like even if you knew it worked you couldn't get it right. But I would think he's spot on by saying we should have released the doctors to maybe be a little more creative with their solutions because I don't know what does or does not work but if doctors were experimenting with their patients and giving them hydroxychloroquine or something I feel like the doctor should have been able to do that. So I agree with them on the big picture.

So here's my bottom line. I'm gonna — I hate to do this but I just feel like it's important because we're all trying to understand who's credible and who's not. And I have an impression of the good Dr. McCullough that I'm going to share with you now that I'm going to tell you in advance feels unfair even though I'm going to say it right. This feels unfair but I also think it's important and I just want you to have this filter. You've heard the phrase it takes one to know one. Well when I watch Dr. McCullough he's one of me. Think all right so that's the part that's the provocative part. And by one of me I mean a grandiose narcissist. Now there are several versions of narcissists and I put myself in the category of a grandiose narcissist. It's a specific kind. Some of the narcissists are just toxic and bad for the world. It's not that kind. The grandiose narcissist is trying to build up their own image, self-image and reputation but by doing something useful for the world and making sure that you knew it, right? I do that every day. I don't think you could have a better example of a grandiose narcissist than me. I literally tell you that's my business model all the time. You know it's more like my psychological model than my business model but I combined them. And I literally want to help as many people as I can. That's the books. That's why the topics of the books I write or that's why I do the micro lessons. That's why I do most of this. But I'm also self-aware that I do it because that feeds something in me right that maybe I'm not proud of but it's sort of like capitalism. Nobody would say greed is a positive element of life but if you don't have greed as part of your capitalism model it doesn't work. So I would say that narcissism is just one of those double-edged things that's obnoxious, can have a downside, but in some cases the person who wants to change the world and get credit for it is contributing. Let's say Bill Gates or Elon Musk. Are they grandiose narcissists? I don't know. I mean I think Musk's brain just doesn't work like other people's so you can't make any assumptions there. But if they are I hope so. I hope they are because they talk like it. They talk like you know I'm doing the best I can to help the world in the biggest way that I can. So we don't know how they internally process it.

So when I hear Dr. McCullough talk the way he talks about his own qualifications etc. and how he's the only one who knows the right answer and he's the lone voice in the wilderness and going on all the big talk shows and stuff like that he strikes me as someone who needs this to work for him. I feel like I don't feel his motivation is monetary because some of you are going to say oh who's paying him or is there some way he thinks he's going to make money off of lecturing or something giving speeches. I doubt it. I didn't pick that up at all. Now again right nobody's a mind reader right so anything I say about another person's internal thoughts you should automatically say well you know how do you know that that's the right stance to take. But it's just my impression that his motivation looks like he really wants to help. I think that's real by the way. So you know if you could pick a personal doctor pick this one. He looks like he's a really good doctor because I think he really really wants to help people but it's because it feeds him as well. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that. That's not a criticism but I think he has that personality and having that personality myself I'll tell you there's a risk to it. If my hypothesis is right that we have that in common which is you can easily blind yourself that you found the thing that will change the world. Do you know how many times I thought to myself I think I found it. I might be the only one who found this. I just found something that changes the world. Do you know how many times I've had that thought and then I have to use every power of rationality to squeeze it down and say okay maybe you're being a little too gullible. Maybe you're being a little too optimistic about Omicron being a vaccination. Maybe you're a little too optimistic about this fusion technology. You know that sort of thing.

So the blind spot that a grandiose narcissist would have — and I'm putting myself in this category — is a little too much optimism about what we can do. You feel that? Have you ever seen me do that? To have too much optimism about what I can do just personally to make the world a better place right? Yeah. And RFK Junior all right. JFK Jr. is probably — I'm sorry RFK right. It's RFK. His credibility is really low you know that right? Which is not to say he didn't get this one right but here's what doesn't help: reading one person's book. I want RFK to be on Joe Rogan's show sitting right next to Daniel Dale or some fact checker you know could be Andreas or anybody else and then we'll have a conversation about RFK okay? But if you're saying read RFK's book you're telling me to do something that I know to be psychologically crippling because you would get one person's opinion and no counterpoint. That is like that's like you telling me hey I'd like you to run a marathon but could you start the marathon by cutting off one of your legs? That's what it feels like. Thank you Torah I appreciate that. Is RFK still alive? Yes. So just know this: every time you tell me to read a book or listen to one expert I automatically think you're not good at analysis right? Nothing personal because as I often say nobody's good at anything unless they practice it right or if they've been trained or if they have skills. So people have been trained in data analysis are good at it and people who have not been trained think they're good at it but they don't know the difference. Read all the books you're right.

What about the Elon Musk tweet? Well we talked about his tweet about me the other day. All right Scott's Peru debunking need your own comparisons. Well I'm not sure if the point you're making is that the debunks themselves get debunked but I would tell you this: if you look at say who is it is it factcheck.org who sometimes debunks things that are true but when you see somebody debunk something that's true there's a way that they do it which is sort of avoiding the question or modifying the question as they go until you're not really even on the same topic by the end of the fact check. Have you noticed that? But a fact check that I usually depend on is one that says the claim is X, here's the data that shows it's wrong. Usually I'm going to go with a fact check on that one usually because if the person who made the claim wasn't even aware that there was data that debunked it that's a problem. Now if the person said I'm aware of the data that looks like it debunks it but there's a problem with that debunk then I'd be oh okay now it's a tie. But if the person making the claim is not aware of the argument against it or doesn't include it in their presentation just so you know that they know it I go with a debunk in those cases. So look for the debunks on the question of Peru and ivermectin. Make your own decisions.

Dismissing Japan is a mistake. Just watch Dr. John Campbell. Huh is Dr. John Campbell somebody who might have appeared on the show without a fact checker sitting next to him? I'm just guessing. I'm just guessing. How many times can I tell you the same thing and you'll just say what about this expert? Let's do it again. Let's do it. Let's practice this. I'm going to tell you clearly as possible that the last thing I'm gonna take as credible is one rogue expert talking to an interview who doesn't know what the he's talking about. No that's not Joe Rogan. He's great at interviewing. So now you're supposed to say oh but what about this expert who doesn't have a fact checker. Go ahead see how that goes. Can we just do this over and over again until you give up? Will you give up to tell me to read this one book or this one expert? It never ever is a good idea. Not ever ever ever. There will no it will not be an exception. There will not be. But if there's an objective source that shows the plus and the minuses and the whole picture I would definitely like to see that.

All right just looking at your comments and I think I'm just about done. Yeah the new thing that's missing from live s