ation and mind reading so it's not really fair. But I'm almost positive that if I talk to any of the people that you think are opposite in my opinion that I have the same opinion. Does that blow your mind? Is anybody's mind blown? I don't think we'd have any difference. Everything that you imagined about my different opinion is completely hallucination. And I've always known that. You know I've always known that, right? That we didn't disagree. The people who think they disagree with me are completely based on rumors or bad information or whatever. I mean yeah I'm in 14 to 16 movies at the same time but says I don't believe you. Well let's test it. All right, let's test it.

Those of you who think that I should have Brett correct me, tell me one statement you believe he thinks is true that I think is not true. Go. Tell me one statement. Just a clean statement. Something that Brett Weinstein believes is true that I don't believe is true. Go. Yeah, there's nothing. There's nothing. Ivermectin. You think we have a different opinion on ivermectin? I don't know what that would be.

Here's what I think his opinion is and you tell me if I'm wrong. The ivermectin story is hard to sort out because the studies may not have focused exactly in the right place. Some seem to indicate in a meta-analysis that is helpful. So far, so far agree. So far agree that these studies that show it doesn't work are sketchy. The studies that show it does work are based on a meta-analysis. And then I would say this to Brett, but you know a meta-analysis introduces subjectivity because the person who does it gets to decide what's in and out of the study and that can — and also if one big study is bigger than the others it's really not a meta-analysis, it's one study. It biases it by so much. If I said that to Brett would he say no I disagree with you? A meta-analysis in which one study is so big that it biases the whole meta-analysis is still really good? You wouldn't say that. Do you know why you wouldn't say that? Because he's smart. Nobody would say that was smart.

And then do you think I would disagree with him when he said that the studies that say ivermectin doesn't work are sketchy? Do you think I would disagree? No, I think all the data is sketchy with no exceptions. So we would agree that all the ivermectin data is imperfect. Then we would move to point two. If it's imperfect should you have the right to try it knowing that the risks are low? What would I say? Why would I say that? Would I disagree? I'd say yes of course. Low risk, potential upside, plenty of anecdotal reports. And then Brett would agree with me the anecdotal reports are not confirmation and that the meta-analysis is not confirmation and the RCTs that say it doesn't work are not super reliable. So it just comes down to well I don't know if it works and I don't know if it does or doesn't but it should be legal for me to try it. So where would we disagree? Where would we disagree?

See I have a theory