agency.

Now it could be that they just had an insider who would do it for them, which would look the same. I'm not saying they necessarily could hack the system or that they had a back door, which is possible. They just might have an insider who could do it for them. Makes you wonder how many other suppression algorithms are in the code.

Now I would like to once again claim the best prediction about this. Back when Jack Dorsey was running it, I said two things. Number one, there's no way that Jack Dorsey knows what the algorithm is doing. And people laughed at me. Actually laughed. It's like, my God, of course he knows. Of course he knows. Nope. I would say it is now confirmed beyond any doubt he did not know, because it was unknowable. The complexity of it and the number of places they had shadow banning code, it was just bigger than any one person would know.

And I even said that it's not just that Jack Dorsey might not know what the code is doing, but I speculated that there was nobody in Twitter who would know. Would you agree with that now? They just found this. What, can you give me credit for saying that nobody knew what the algorithm was doing? Now maybe there was some secret person, but you know, in terms of management, nobody knew.

Yeah, so everything you suspected about Twitter having some kind of suppression was all true. Do you remember, was it a week ago I told you I thought Twitter was suppressing me? How many remember? I was saying that like a week ago. It seemed obvious to me that something had happened again. Now how many complaints do you think I get on my Twitter account? I mean, I wouldn't necessarily see them, right? I wouldn't be aware of them. But given my recent dust-up in public, you don't think a lot of people are reporting my account for, you know, just to try to screw with me? Of course they are.

So this specific suppression algorithm they found is exactly in my ballpark, and it's exactly in Musk's ballpark too. We're both the kind of personalities that attract a lot of complaints, and that's what got us suppressed. Yeah, I noticed it looked like somebody just put the brakes on my account a few weeks ago. It just looked like everything stopped suddenly. Anyway, so that's probably what it was.

All right. This is amazing. There's an RFK Jr. story about a CDC whistleblower. And this is the most mind-blowing story. Now I'll simply tell you what he's saying. I have no way to validate this as true, but he's a credible personality and he's saying it and he's running for president, so I'm going to repeat it.

He says there's a CDC whistleblower who personally was in a meeting where they looked at data that black children were being injured by this medicine, and they decided to hide the fact. And all the documents were collected up and thrown in the same trash before they left the room. Does that sound true? Yeah, it's too on the nose.

My suspicion is that if you ask the company about this, they would say something like, yes, we did collect them all and throw them away, but it's because the study was bad. And then if you looked into it, you would find out maybe there were some holes in the study. Now I'm not defending them, because I don't even remember what company it was frankly. I'm just telling you, you should never believe one side of an argument. Never believe one side of an argument. Doesn't matter how convincing it is. Never believe one side of an argument.

That's why we have lawyers. That's why there are two lawyers. If you could believe one side, you'd only need one lawyer for every trial. Okay, we're going to tell you what he did. Now vote. No defense needed. Just one lawyer. No, you don't do that, because one lawyer can always be convincing. That's what they learn to do.

So when RFK Jr., who is a trained lawyer, when he goes on Joe Rogan and he says a bunch of things that sound really true, well, it should sound true. He's trained to make things sound true. He's really good at it because that's exactly his profession. So whether it is true, you should not use your confidence in his argument as part of your reasoning, because the confidence in his argument will always be there whether he's right or not. Because he would be a guy who can make a confident argument about something that's true or not true. He would have that skill.

So you don't know what he's doing, and you don't know if he could just be wrong and confidently arguing but maybe wrong on some facts. So have I ever told you that watching Joe Rogan have somebody on for three hours is not only not helping, it's worse than nothing? Have you heard me say that? That having one expert on for three hours is worse than nothing. It would be better just not even have them on.

Yeah, I've been saying that for a long time. And I've said the ideal situation would be Joe Rogan or somebody like him having two experts on who disagree. And do you remember what I said about the format? You know what the format should be if there are two experts? There was one thing I said about the format that was important. No time limit. No time limit. That was very important, because otherwise the person with the weakest argument just runs the clock out. You can't let one of them run the clock out when they're losing. You need a winner, right? You need to just stay there until somebody's ground down.

So here's a real thing that happened in the news. So Joe Rogan had RFK Jr. on, and RFK Jr. made a bunch of claims about vaccinat