a is that one fact check will sour you on an idea even if there are other sources that are even more reliable, I would imagine, to say it's true.

Do you know how you could have saved some money on that study? You could have just asked me. Because every hypnotist will tell you, and probably anybody who's studied psychology, that a little bit of negative is much stronger than a whole bunch of positive. You all know that, right? Let me explain that better to you. If you're eating some delicious soup and I say, "Oh, when you turned your head I saw a bug crawl in your soup. Can't see it now 'cause it's swimming around the bottom." Do you say to yourself, you know, all the other information about my soup is positive so I'm just going to keep eating this soup? No, you do not. Do you trust the person who said that there's a bug in your soup? Maybe not. Maybe it's not somebody very trustworthy. But you're still not going to eat the soup. It's just a basic element of a human brain. If you've got a little bit of danger that you've been warned about, like this isn't true, is way more influential than a hundred people telling you something's true or something's safe.

So yeah, you didn't have to study that one. You could have just asked me.

And then the ultimate one, the ultimate example of this. Medical Express is reporting that you can study eye movements when people are watching a movie and somehow they can determine, wait for it, wait for it, that when two people are watching the same movie on the same screen they might be watching different movies. Meaning that what they're perceiving on the same movie is so different that it's effectively like two watching different movies.

Has anybody ever told you that the human experience is two movies on one screen? Yeah, I tell you that about once a day. So you didn't need to study that one either.

Oh, here's some good news. According to the WHO, that would be, well they're a very credible organization, very credible. I don't know if they've ever been wrong about anything that I can think of. How about a meta study? Meta study, well that's the highest level of scientific integrity, a meta study. Now I'm joking. If you knew the WHO is not exactly where I would go to get my reliable science, and if I were looking for reliable science I sure as hell wouldn't look at a meta study, which is basically astrology. But because most people don't know what a meta study is they say, whoa, that's better than a study. You know what's better than a study? A meta study. No it's not. A meta study is just pure garbage. I've explained it so many times I don't need to do it again.

However, the WHO that you totally trust did this meta study that's totally better than astrology and they found no evidence, no evidence whatsoever, that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer. That's according to Brandon Vigliarolo in The Register.

And here's the thing. I'd like to tell you a story from my personal experience. Now anecdotes do not top science. They do top meta studies though. My anecdote would be every bit as credible as the WHO doing a meta study. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying that my credibility and my one little anecdote I'm going to tell you, it's about the same, about the same as all their science. Totally unreliable.

All right. I used to work for the phone company, local phone company called Pacific Bell, which no longer exists. But during its day I worked in a laboratory and my group, the larger part of the group not me specifically, tasked our best scientist engineer guy to go study these new things called cell phones. The cell phones had been invented but the smartphone type, the little micro cell or something. But in the early days we wanted to know if it was dangerous to have this strong radio in a phone that people are holding up to their head. And so we put our best guy on it and the best guy went and studied it. He looked at all the science, he looked at the logic of it, etc. And he came back and he gave his official well-researched conclusion: no, it is not dangerous to use a cell phone and put it up to your head.

Now that was Pacific Bell's one guy, the one expert who was in charge of knowing the answer to that question, and he said absolutely no, there is no evidence that you should worry about it. Then I sat with him privately because he was in my work group and I said to him, can I ask you a question? Now you studied this thing and you're saying that the science says it's safe. He goes, yep, science does not indicate any problem. And I said, follow-up question. He goes, sure, what's your follow-up question? I said, knowing everything you know now that you studied it and found it safe, would you feel comfortable putting one of these phones up to your head? What do you think he said? Nope. He said no, there's no way he would put these phones up to his head. And then he described exactly what he thought engineering-wise and scientifically why it wasn't safe. But his conclusion was based on looking at all the science. His official recommendation was it was safe for the rest of us, but there was no way in hell he was going to do it.

That's your real world, folks. That is the real world you live in. The number one expert, the one that all the decisions were made on, his personal decision was opposite of his professional recommendation. That's a real story that happened to me personally. I asked him in person privately.

Now that doesn't mean that your cell phone is dangerous. I'm definitely not saying that. So yeah, I want you to hear that. I'm saying that if you rely on science or health in