DMT, I don't know.

So all I want to make, I'm just going to make one point. If you're still living in the world of two buckets, you know this is the Greg Gutfeld point, the prison of two ideas. If you're in the prison of two ideas then legalizing looks like the worst thing anybody ever thought of because it never works. But the very moment you say well what would work and why don't we add that to the legalizing part, it starts getting easy. Am I wrong that the solution is sort of easy? You just have to make it voluntary and offer a drug-related course that we know works. So I think we might be closer to something. But I'm not in favor of turning drug addicts into criminals for some purposes of our own I guess. I don't know why we do that.

All right, here's another great thread about Google. This is from Kanekoa and then from his Substack. Now I've mentioned him before. If you want to look for him on Twitter. So he would be one of the long Twitter threads. This is useful, you know, like an Adam Townsend or Michael Shellenberger or Matt Taibbi. So you know it's that level of high quality journalism I guess but Twitter journalism. And I won't read it all but basically we know for sure that Google manipulated search results and manipulated things to hurt jobs. So there's a long body of evidence that's incontrovertible at this point. So we know for sure that the 2020 election and presumably the others maybe were subject to huge manipulation by both Twitter and Google.

Now does anybody have any doubt that manipulating those two platforms changes an election? Does anybody think oh that won't change anything? There's nobody who believes that, right? Then there is a professor, I can't remember his name, but we figured out the ratio of how much a biased search platform would change your outcomes. It would be a lot. You know there are things that have just disappeared. You know they just can't find them if you look for them.

So here's what I think Trump should do. If you're talking about the platforms Twitter and Google and you could extend that to some others, is there any question that the elections recently have been rigged? If you take out of the mix the ballot counting questions and just say you could just even forget that. Do you know why I think there's a good chance that the elections were not rigged in terms of the vote counting in the ballots? Do you know the best argument for why the election probably wasn't rigged? Here it comes. The best argument for why the actual vote counting was straight is they didn't need to because they had already rigged the lawfare, right? They changed the rules. They had already rigged Google. They had already rigged Twitter and they rigged the entire media. They probably didn't need to because all of those things are apparently legal. Am I wrong? Everything we found out about Google, everything we found about Twitter, nobody's going to jail. Those are just things we wish hadn't happened.

So I think Trump's strongest play would be, you know we should always be working hard toward more transparency in the elections but you know what, the question of whether they counted the votes right probably doesn't even matter because Twitter and Google and the media, they largely moved the needle more than some cheating would have. Because I don't think you can cheat enough in an election to move the needle that much. I mean you'd have to perfectly cheat in just the key areas where everybody's looking for the cheating. It's kind of hard. It's kind of hard. But the stuff they did with the social media platforms was easy and legal. And the stuff that the news lies about every day is easy. Lying is easy and legal. The news can lie to you all day long but it's not even illegal, right?

So I think Trump should say that the elections have been rigged by the social media and the media and then say you know we're still looking into whether the election itself was rigged but we need more transparency there. All he'd have to do is tone it down and emphasize the part that everybody can see with their own eyes is definitely in evidence that it was rigged. If rigging doesn't mean miscounting the votes and it only means rigging the brainwashing. So I think you can use the word rigging without any explanation beyond that. What do you think? Yeah, and we expect more rigging in the future.

So Google actually had a list of things that they were suppressing at the same time that their CEO was saying oh we don't do that. They actually had a list of websites and individuals that they suppressed. Absolutely did the thing they said we absolutely don't do. And they were doing it really hard. Well I'll say they don't do it.

All right, Rasmussen says that a majority of people want to see a lab leak investigation about the virus. So two-thirds of likely US voters want to see some kind of investigation. And let's say 49 say it's very likely that the virus came from a lab leak. 49 percent. What do you think would be roughly the percentage who don't think it's likely the virus came from the Chinese lab? Anybody want to take a guess at that before I tell you? I'll bet you could get it within five percent. Let's see if you can do it. I'll see if you can get it within five percent. That'll be your test.

Looks like we lost comments here on the Locals platform. We got a little bug which will now be corrected. I think. Nope apparently not. So it looks like Locals is not working at the moment. Comments. All right, sorry Locals. The Locals app has crapped out. So the video's here but I can't see your comments for some reason. God damn it. All right, they're so annoying that yeah it's funny that there's so much live streaming and podcasting and there's still no platform that can just live stream and just work. It just doesn't exist yet. It's amazing.

All right, I did a deep dive into long COVID to see what the latest is and here's what I determined. Because you know some people say long COVID isn't real. Some people say it's not only real it's huge. But I did a deep dive and here's what I found. In one movie, long COVID is totally real and ruining lots of lives and many studies support that view. So that's in one movie. So if you do a Google search you'll find that long COVID is real. It's affecting a lot of people and it's ruining their lives. You can also find studies that say long COVID is imaginary and that when you test people's vitals they say they have long COVID it kind of looks like the average person so it's probably all in their minds.

So these two movies will never be reconciled. Do you know why? Do you know why we'll never know if long COVID was devastating a generation of people or absolutely imaginary? Why will we never know that? Because we don't have to. Those two movies can live forever because they're both consistent and you can live within them without any problems. So if you get sick and you believe it's long COVID it doesn't matter if it is or not. You'll just go along with your life. You'll tell your friend it was long COVID but you'll treat it based on the symptoms whether it was long COVID or not. Long COVID, you'd probably treat it the same way based on the specific symptoms. So the people who will believe they have long COVID will go through life. They can interact with you. There's no penalty if they were wrong. And likewise the people who say there's no long COVID, they get sick, they go to the doctor, the doctor says I think you have long COVID and the other person says or just a headache, and then they treat you for the headache or whatever it is and then you never need to know if it was long COVID. Long COVID never needs to be solved because everybody can live in a complete movie where it's devastating or it's a nothing. And somehow we still can procreate and have babies which is all evolution ever cared about anyway.

And this dovetails with one of my critics who was right about everything, Mike Hart. And he told me that when he looked into the situation of getting vaccinated or not he said quote it was simple. It was a simple decision. It was simple because he looked at the government not testing the thing as well as they could and then the coercion. If you take those two things, not tested, you know it's a novel thing, hasn't been tested enough, and they coerce you to take it, it's a simple decision. What do you think? Agree it's simple? I mean those two things tell you everything you need. And I would agree because long COVID seemed complicated to me because it was either the biggest factor or no factor at all. But Mike Hart handled that by simply ignoring it and that turned out to be the right answer.

So if you simply ignored the biggest variable that mattered to the decision, because I don't think any of us were too worried about dying, you know the odds of dying were actually pretty low for most of us, so I wasn't worried about dying. But the biggest variable was long COVID. If you just act like it's not even there it simplifies everything. Doesn't it? Wouldn't you agree? And that's as simple as you can get. You know just ignore the biggest variable and if you did that for every decision imagine how easy it would be. Just ignore the biggest factor in every decision and that would simplify everything. It's a good recommendation.

And importantly people like Mike Hart need to simplify the following, which is you look at the VAERS report and you'd see there's just way tons of people complaining about theirs which would suggest that the vaccination itself is causing damage that's higher than usual. So it's really simple. You just look at the VAERS report but you can simplify it even more by not looking at all the studies about long COVID and that simplifies it. So if you look at the VAERS report and you don't look at the counterbalancing risk of long COVID, just ignore it, everything's simpler. And that gets you the right answer. So that's not the way I would have necessarily known to go. I would have looked at all the variables especially the biggest one. But ignoring the biggest variable did get you the best answer and the right answer. Very non-obvious. And that's why I got it all wrong.

Herd immunity. Now this is something I'm hearing for the first time. Wait are you saying that a previous infection to a virus could give you some kind of natural immunity? I'm hearing this for the first time. Is that true? Because I need somebody to tell me that every five minutes for the rest of my life because I just can't remember it for five minutes. Wait I'm forgetting it again. Somebody needs to remind me. Is natural immunity real?

All right, yeah. So my bottom line on all this is it does appear that the worst conspiracy theories about big pharma were probably true. Would you agree with that? Would you agree that your conspiracy theories about big pharma they look like they were completely true? That there wasn't enough safety and maybe too much about money. Totally true. So pretty much all of our everything you suspected except maybe chemtrails. I'm not so sure about chemtrails. But it feels like everything you suspected was true. Yeah it's not literally true that everything you suspected but it feels like it, doesn't it? Actually feels the depopulation for it. Sure. Sure. And the WEF is trying to track you a