of you could look at that situation and say okay the podcast part doesn't count. They're just really good at looking at stuff and you can tell they're good at looking at stuff. But how did you do that? Because that's the part I can't do. To me I just saw people had different opinions and I couldn't adjudicate any of them because I don't have the skills they had. If I had the skills they had I wouldn't need to look at their opinion, right? If I could judge whether Brett and Heather were correct, if I could judge that it would mean I had their skills, wouldn't it? I would have to have at least equal or better skills to judge whether they did it. Because remember your dog can't judge how you do your work because your dog doesn't understand your work so he can't judge it, right? So I'm like the dog. I'm like a dog watching Brett and Heather go to work and the only thing I say is roof, ruff, I'm hungry, I need to go out. That's all I can add to the conversation because I don't have their skills. But you do. Many of you have some kind of heuristic or rule of thumb that you're holding from me because nobody will explain it to me and I feel like you're doing it intentionally. You know something I don't know and you're all not telling me. How do you know that they get the right answer? Like how could you judge that? I'm just like the dog barking at a computer. I'm like barking at the television. Roof, roof. How do they put those pictures on the television? Roof, roof, roof. That's all I have. But I'm completely aware that I'm just the dog barking at the television. How did you know that they were right and that so many other people were wrong?

Now I heard you say it's because of money but even that doesn't work for me because they're all making money in their different ways. How did you do it? No, seriously, how'd you do it? Evolutionary biology? That's not an answer.

All right, here's the other thing that I can't do and I've told you this before. When I watched the documentary about Michael Jackson and the allegations against him and children, it was a hundred percent convincing. And boy was it convincing.

So you believe Brett and Heather because they admitted when they were wrong and that increased their credibility. Okay, now we're talking. Let's work with that. So would you say that people who get things wrong and then correct it are more credible than people who are not telling you they got anything wrong? Is that true? And do you think scientists don't correct themselves when the data changes or they find out there's something wrong? Do the scientists who actually work in the field of science, did they get new data and then they just say that data doesn't agree with my opinion, I'll throw it out? Is that how other scientists work? Or is it possible that you saw Brett and Heather changing their minds only because you were watching them and that's how all scientists act? That the reason they're scientists is because they're going to respect the data and the process and that when something changes they change with it.

Now I thought that regular scientists were also doing that behind closed doors and I just didn't see it. Whereas if you have a podcast you do it in public and then people see it and they say well that's credible because I see them doing the most normal thing that any scientist does. But they're doing it in public where every other scientist in the world who does exactly the same thing — change their mind when the data changes — they do it behind closed doors so you can't really trust them. So being on the podcast is what gives them credibility. Now that I hadn't thought of. So just doing it in public makes you trust them because you can see them change their mind. But the people who are also scientists who do that every single day because that's exactly what they signed up to do — change their minds — that they signed up to change their minds to find out new things and then adopt those views, do you think they're not doing that behind closed doors? That really they just keep their same opinions even when the data changes? They just call themselves scientists but they're really just actors? Maybe crisis actors?

All right, so that's one way. So one way is that they change their mind in public. What are some other ways you know they're right? And the other people followed the money. So the fact that Brett and Heather had one sort of business model, do you think that if Brett and Heather had decided that new information showed that the vaccination was the best thing that ever happened to the world, do you think that they would adopt that view which would be reputationally and financially devastating to them? So you trust them to the point where they would not follow the money. They would be the only ones. So you believe that you found the only two humans who don't follow the money. You do? Okay, well that is very good. Vote for those two.

See, I don't have that skill. I'm still like the dog barking at the TV. Follow the money. Row, row, row. It's just different money following a different path. To me it's everybody following the money. Now if you thought that Brett and Heather are especially immune from following the money, what about me? Because you've seen me take the view that makes me the least money and you know it, right? You know it. You know it. You watch it every day. You see me pissing off my audience every day intentionally. Do you think I do it to make money? I don't know any business model where that works. I'm basically being CNN right now. I'm being CNN. I'm trying to be balanced and it's just killing me financially. It's horrible. But that's what integrity looks like in case you've never seen it. In case you've never seen it. That's what it looks like. Somebody says it's my ego. Yeah, my ego is the reason that I'm saying things that make people hate me because of my ego. How do you even connect all those dots? That's a lot of dots to connect. Dignity.

All right, well that's enough on that. The funniest people are the people who tell me that they're gonna stop listening to me until I stop talking about the interpretation of data basically. And I think you really think I'm not going to block you for that. I block everybody who says I liked it when you did this but you know you did too much of this pandemic stuff. I just block all of them so they won't have to deal with it again. Which I think is a fair deal. Because the thing is that if I only do what the complainers tell me to do this would be the shittiest experience you ever had. Like oh these three people told me I must do these topics but never do these other topics. That's not the show you want to see.

Do a Spaces debate. I've got a prediction. Nobody's going to want to debate me on this. Nobody's going to want to debate me on this. Yeah, yeah, it's never going to happen.

By the way, what do you think would happen if Brett and I — Brett Weinstein — what would you think if we were to compare notes and if we were to say all right what do you think is true and what do I think is true? How different would it be? How different is my current opinion from Brett Weinstein's current opinion about everything on the pandemic? You think it'd be 90% different? I think it would be the same. It would be the same. You don't think it would be the same? There wouldn't be one thing we disagree on. But you don't realize the idea. What would happen if I debated Alex Berenson? What percentage would we disagree on?

Here's what I think. I think it would go like this. I've got this information that says these vaccinations are dangerous. And I would say well I don't believe any pandemic data. Do you? And then he would say well yeah I believe this data. And I would say you live in a world in 2023 where anybody's data is credible on the pandemic. And in about five minutes he would agree with me that you can't really trust any of the data. Right? He might start that way. I mean this was specul