ow you can see this clearly, right? Because you're my judges. You're the ones who are judging who's in cognitive dissonance. Did you clearly see that he changed the subject to debunk me while actually just being on the wrong topic? Did he ever debunk the claim that there are no countries or towns or anything that have solved their problem with ivermectin?

Now if anybody's new to me, I'm not telling you ivermectin doesn't work. I'm not telling you that because I've actually said that you know if I got in this situation I'd probably take it. Risk management. I think we're going to find out it probably doesn't work but that's just statistical prediction. If I had to bet my life on it I'd say there's a solid 10% chance it could make a difference. I'd take it if my doctor agreed, etc.

So they've hallucinated an entire opinion that I don't hold. That there's somehow no studies that show it works. Of course I've talked about it at length.

All right, so that's the first tell. Let me give you a vote so far. Who's in cognitive dissonance so far? Is it me or is it them? Yeah, it looks like them, right? I mean I'm not the one who can tell. That's why I need a third party. But of course you're biased for me so that's also a problem.

Let's see what else they say. So John says where there's smoke there's fire. Meaning that there's so many indications that it works. How could it all be wrong? That's not really a sophisticated analysis of anything, is there? Because you know what else has lots of smoke? Everything that's not true. Everything that you thought was true for a while. Maybe from Russia collusion to you name it. They all have plenty of smoke but they're not true.

Yeah, how much smoke is there that Hillary Clinton has massively been executing people? Lots. I don't think it's true personally. I mean I could be surprised but I don't think it's true. There are plenty of things that have tons of smoke that aren't true. Do you know why we do randomized control trials? I don't think John Dvorak does. Now that's not fair. I don't know what he thinks in his head. But the argument for a randomized controlled trial is that you never want to say this. You never want to say there's so much smoke there must be fire. That's what you're trying to avoid with science. Science is trying to cure this problem of people saying they can see it with their own eyes. I'm looking right at it. Look at all this evidence. That's the problem that science cures, right?

So he's in the problem instead of what science cures while claiming a scientific insight.

Let's go on. And then of course there's the use and this discontinued use and then reuse and watching the numbers go up and down. So that is a bad thing to say.

Yeah, well let's see. Let's listen how he arrives. And by the way, and Peter McCullough who used to be the editor of a couple of journals where all you did was look at data. It just kind of belies it, kind of overlooks that fact. He was a peer reviewer himself as it were. I think he's all right.

So Dvorak is saying that I'm overlooking the fact that Dr. McCullough is very experienced in peer review of looking at studies. Did I overlook that? Do you think I ove