g a task. You're moving, you're completing tasks. It's actually really good for us. So we probably will become the manual laborers and the AI will do all the thinking for us. That's my prediction.

So it was really puzzling even at this late stage is we still don't know why Sweden did so well in the pandemic. It's still a mystery. Now there are a few things we do know about Sweden. I found out and confirmed this this morning that I saw a list of the fattest countries and the thinnest countries. America is one of the fattest countries in the world, top three I think. And Sweden is one of the thinnest. One of the thinnest. So I can't understand the whole pandemic situation. Oh and then also I found out today that Sweden is one of the youngest countries. It's one of the youngest. America is one of the oldest. I didn't realize that. America is old and fat and is one of the oldest and one of the fattest countries. And Sweden is unusually young and unusually thin. But you know the thing is I can't figure out how they did so well during the pandemic. That's still sort of a mystery.

Oh, another thing I found out about Sweden is that because of where they're located on the planet they routinely supplement with vitamin D. I think they take like fish oil or something. It's nasty. But they have good vitamin D. They're thin and they're younger than other countries that did poorly. But if I had to guess why they did well, probably ivermectin. Probably ivermectin. I think it could have been hydroxychloroquine or it could be because they didn't use masks as much. Could be that. But I know I don't understand how just because they're thinner and younger and they have good vitamin D, I don't see how they do well in the pandemic unless it was ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. What part of the story?

All right, there are two new studies about the vaccinations and about COVID and both of them are total BS. You want to hear this BS? I'll tell you. We I think we can agree that all the data about the pandemic is sketchy. Doesn't matter where it comes from. It's all sketchy. But this is the craziest thing you've heard yet. Are you ready for this? Now of course these are preprints and you know who knows if they could be repeated or anything. But there are two recent studies, one out in Denmark, one somewhere else, that said that if you're over 50 you actually did better if you got the vaccination than if you didn't.

Now here's how we analyze that. We'll start with what we know for sure. Okay, and then you — this is how you reason. You start with what you know and then you reason toward the things that you're trying to figure out. What we know is that I got everything wrong about my decisions about the pandemic. So you start with that as your fact and then we can reason backwards to conclude that both of these studies are BS. Because if I know I got the wrong answer it can't be true that these studies are true because that would sort of suggest I made a good decision. And since we know that's not the case, we start with what we know. Take the L. I take the L. Taking the L. Clotting and coping. So we know that's true. So then we can reason backwards that the studies are BS. So I reject them completely for the BS that they are.

By the way, how many of you understand that I'm accepting that I live in the simulation and that your reality can actually be as real as anything because we're a simulation and mine can be real and opposite and there's no conflict. There's no conflict. If I live in a world in which everything's different than everything for you, as long as it doesn't conflict, right? As long as we can both reproduce, those two worlds can live as completely true as true as anything else. No less true, no more true.

Have you yet watched Brett and Heather? Well here's something I learned that other people can do that I can't. Suppose — and let's take as our starting points again. We'll use the same technique. Since we know that Heather and Brett were correct about the pandemic, so we'll start with the fact that they're correct. Then how did you know? How did you know they were correct? Because I'm going to accept as a fact that they were correct because they have skills. Now they have skills that I don't have so I can't do what they do, right? I could not look at data and science at the level that they could look at and I wouldn't understand it. But apparently they can. But my question is how did you know that they could and all the people who don't have podcasts could not? Like what was it that said to you the people who are good at this but also have a podcast have one point of view and the people who I thought were good at it but for whatever reason don't have a podcast are all getting the wrong answers? So was it the fact that they have a podcast that made you think that they're so good you could just take their point of view?

Because I looked at them and I thought to myself, huh, I'm not sure the podcast part is actually telling me as much as it should. In fact when I analyzed for Big Pharma I thought, hey they're making money on these drugs. Are they completely unbiased? And I said no. If they're making money on a particular point of view you can't trust the point of view. Am I right? And then I unwisely thought, well hey a lot of these people who have let's say different views have podcasts and books and it appears that they're monetizing their point of view much like the people that are criticizing. Now most