st basically thinks it's funny. He just laughs at his own company that he bought.

All right. I don't know if this is the favorite story of the day, but you all know the congressman Santos, the Republican who just got elected and then apparently we find out he didn't have the education he said he did. He didn't have a college degree, I think he didn't have one. He said he did. Didn't work at two prestigious places that he said he did. And I think there were a bunch of other lies. So basically he just totally lied and got elected anyway.

Now there's a few things, a few ways to go on this story. Number one, the question is should Republicans try to take the high road and even though the Democrats are full of liars, should they say no, we cannot have a liar in our midst so we've got to get rid of them? Or do they say no, things are so tight we need every vote we can get and everybody's a liar so you know, what's the difference?

And I have to admit I was sort of going back and forth this morning trying to decide which one made sense. I was thinking, well I do like making a point of it because it'd be a good way to establish Republicans as at least trying to be more honest. But on the other hand I can certainly see the raw power argument. And Congress is mostly a raw power situation. So playing within the rules, everybody lies, he lied, no big deal.

But here's how I decided. I made my final decision on this. I think he should keep his job as opposed to resigning. And here's why. Do you know how entertaining it would be to hear the other members of Congress argue that they just can't have a liar in their midst? You tell me that wouldn't be funny. Every time, I don't care who says it. I don't care if the Republicans say it. I don't care if the Democrats say it. As long as they're members of Congress, I want them on video saying we have to get rid of the liars in Congress. I just want to see that. That's all. I would personally find that very entertaining no matter how many times I saw it. And I don't need to point out the hypocrisy, right? So we don't need to point that out.

You know I could always tell the people who believe what they read on Reddit. They come over here with some rumors about me that are almost always out of context or untrue. It's always the Reddit people. Like I think anybody who actually got their information anywhere else doesn't have any. So somebody's coming over here just to say vaccine passports because they actually believe that I was in favor of them. So we'll get rid of the dumb people, the disinformed people, but they like to keep me busy.

All right. So I thought it was interesting that Musk is directly accusing Fauci of these things because doesn't he have any defense to that? He's got some defense, does he? I don't know who's telling the truth. But oh, I guess we were talking about Santos. And then the other thing that Santos said in his not quite truthful way was that he's a Catholic guy. But at one point he said that he wasn't Jewish but that he was Jew-ish. So your emphasis on the ish part. So not really a Jewish person, but he claimed that because he had some family connection to Judaism that's unclear that he was a Jewish-ish.

And then I saw the number of people who are criticizing him and I thought I'm a little uncomfortable with that because while he's not Jewish, if you criticize him you wouldn't be anti-semitic. But wouldn't you be a little anti-semitic-ish? Just a little bit? So I don't want to criticize him because I don't know where that line is. I don't want to be anti-semitic-ish about a guy who's not Jewish but he's Jewish-ish. So I mean it's dangerous. It's dangerous out there. There's a landmine everywhere. Would you take that chance? No, no, don't take a chance. So I'll just stay away from that.

Well there's a new book out from somebody named Thompson, Escape from Model Land. In this case it's not Victoria's Secret models. It is mathematical models. And these models being used to predict the future. This will come as a big surprise to you but did you know that complex models that are used to predict the future, I know this is going to be a real surprise, not reliable? I know, I know. I was as shocked as you were. Yeah. So there's a book now to teach people that complex mathematical models don't actually predict the future. Amazing. Amazing, huh?

Well this brings me to my next topic, which is I believe that doctors are learning the hard way how to analyze data. And by that I mean they're learning by doing it wrong in public and having people say that's not how you do that. And I think that I'm seeing at least in my Twitter feed a lot of doctors who are clearly now way more informed about how to consume data.

And here's what I would suggest for doctors who didn't have any training in this field. I think you could simplify it to simply a checklist quiz to ask a doctor which of these sources are reliable and maybe a little bit about why. It'd be a really simple one-page test. For example, if you ask doctors to rate the credibility of the following things, I don't know what they would say, but let's say you said a study is published. There's one study. It's not a randomized controlled trial but it's just one study in a publication and it's published as peer-reviewed. What level of confidence should you put on one study, not a randomized controlled trial, but it's peer-reviewed and it's published? Well the right answer is less than 50 percent because about half of them get retracted. But of the ones that don't get retracted, how many of those are true? Nobody knows because they didn't get retracted. But it's not zero, right?

So it could be that something in the order of 25 to 50 percent of studies that are peer-reviewed and published turn out to be true or useful. So would a doctor know that? And we're somewhat of course, but how many doctors would know that being published means it's usually untrue? I bet most would say well it might be false but if it got published and it's peer-reviewed it's probably true. But actually it's the opposite. It's probably untrue. So would they even know which way it goes? Would they know it's probably untrue or would they just assume it went through the steps to validate it a little bit so that is probably true? But maybe not. It's a big difference because that might be the difference between an off-label treatment or not.

How about this? How about a retrospective study? A retrospective study, would somebody be able to know the value of a retrospective study? Now that's where you didn't do a study in advance so you have to look at it after the fact. And so you say okay, these people did take this and they had these outcomes so it must have been because they did the thing. Now that's different than saying in advance. If you say in advance we're going to test this thing and we think it's going to have this outcome, that's a far more reliable way to go. But if you only did it once and nobody reproduced it, you're still not where you want to be, right? Looking backwards is going to be less reliable, right? Would you all agree? Looking backwards as opposed to establishing a test where you can look forward and find out if y