Gates and they have problems with them. He says further evidence of this is that there are two states in India one that used hydroxychloroquine I think it was. Some people had lots of vaccinations and there's a country in Africa I forget which one where they have a lot of problems with chloroquine and they did well without vaccinations.

Do you like his facts? Did those sound pretty credible? Do you think there's 99 studies that show it works and only a few that show it doesn't? And that Bill Gates funded them and that there are clear examples in the real world of where either hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin because you can just see it. You can see the area worked and you know there are they didn't use they didn't get the good result. Do you think that's true?

All right yes and no are the wrong answers. Yeah yes and no were both the wrong answers. There's no such thing as reliable data about this. There's no such thing. Bill Gates doesn't have reliable data. RFK Jr. doesn't have reliable data. I'm pretty sure that these 99 studies were observational and retrospective or very very small and flawed and that when somebody did a meta study where they sort of sum up all the studies you know they got some kind of an opinion but meta studies are basically astrology. It's not even science. I've said that argument too many times to do it again but it's basically what assumptions you make when you do the analysis the outcome. So it's not a science at all. You pick some assumptions and you're kind of done. It's just what assumptions you picked. So there's nothing about science that should flow from your assumption. It should flow from tests. If it flows directly from your assumptions well I assume this big test over here this is biasing the results. I assume that's worse than some of these little ones so I'll take this one out. It's not a science. It's somebody's assumption about things.

So I would say that RFK Jr.'s take on this would be the same as anybody's take who believed data or what data was accurate and what data was not. It's just not a thing. There's nobody you can look at any data and know anything about it about ivermectin because the topic itself is too politicized. You would just assume that it's distorted by money somehow one way or the other. So I'm not going to say that it works or it doesn't work. I'm going to stick with my opinion from the very beginning. I don't believe the data that says it works or that it doesn't work. I don't believe either one and I don't believe that we have any business.

Now actually let me amend that. We might actually have good data but you might never see it and you wouldn't know what was the good data versus the bad data. So anybody who has something like certainty that's the only wrong opinion. If you said to yourself you know I've looked at these studies I gotta say I'm leaning in RFK Jr.'s direction. I'm leaning in that direction. Perfectly reasonable. Do you get that? And if you said you were leaning the other direction perfectly reasonable. But leaning is as far as you can get, right? We're so far from actually knowing that it's the knowing that bothers me. And so I think RFK Jr. would be more solid if he said that I don't like any of the studies but there are enough studies that show that it was positive that wouldn't it be good to know for sure? Something like that. But the certainty I think is a little off-putting to me because I think that the data supports it. Certainly it might support leaning in one direction or the other.

All right Blaze Media which is no good friend to Fox News I guess broke the story that there's a match donation. Fox News so if you give some to your church I guess they'll match it. You give some money to this or that they'll match it. But apparently there was no limit on at least if it was a charitable entity that you could give to. So they found out that some people are giving to a satanic temple, something called the Trevor Project that must be bad for conservatives, Planned Parenthood the conservatives don't always like, and what else? Southern Law Center which is amazing.

Now is this a real story or is this a summer story? The details are probably right. I mean I would guess somebody did screenshots and it seems like it's well documented so I would say the facts are probably right. Probably right. Do you care? Do you care that there was some troll or even maybe just one person at Fox News who was literally a member of the satanic temple or thought it would be funny and gave a hundred dollars to it just to see if Fox News would match it? None of it matters. Fox News can give its money anywhere it wants. In this case it said we'll match it please want to give it and then they didn't put restrictions on them. Is that good or bad? Is