t and you're well informed. I can tell you what happened next because I experienced it. Whatever Maher said, unless he just said a joke, which I doubt, so maybe we'll find out about that later. If he gave him any actual advice or treated it seriously like, you know, I think the only thing you can do is this or that, I guarantee you that Trump gave him his full attention, listened to him completely without interrupting and then maybe commented on his comments or something.

Do you know what that does to a person? I had that experience where I've told you this story before. It's not really private. When Trump asked me who I thought would be his running opponent the next time he ran because I saw him in 2018 and I said I thought it would be Kamala Harris and then he said he thought it would be Biden. So he was right. But when the president of the United States asks for your opinion and then he listens for the answer like he really actually no joke in the real world wanted to hear your opinion. The power of that is incalculable.

So I expect Bill Maher will try to act like nothing happened. You know, like there were two adversaries who had a good dinner and it was fun, but it doesn't change anything about how he feels or how he's going to act or how hard he's going to be on Trump. I imagine that that's the look we're going to get. But I'll tell you that experience will change you and that's one of the superpowers that Trump has. He can ask for your opinion, treat you like you're the only one in the room and your opinion matters and you'll never be the same. You'll never be the same. It will just change you forever. It's like an incredible thing.

Anyway, do you remember a while back, it was in 2020, there was a study that went all over the internet that said that black infants have a lower survival rate if they're cared for by white doctors? How many of you remember that? I remember it. So that would be pretty horrible, right? So racist if black infants didn't do as well if they had white doctors.

So guess what happened? Turns out somebody looked at the data and found out the data was maybe not so reliable. And here's why. There was a little bit of a selection bias. And this is so bad. Science is so terrible. Here's what the selection bias was. There are more white doctors in the specialties where you go to those specialties because somebody might die. So the white doctors were in the sort of dangerous jobs, more of them. There were more of them. So that it looked like when you went to a white doctor, you'd have bad outcomes, but you would only go to those specialists who just happened to be more staffed by white doctors if you were already in dire trouble, right? So it might be the oncologist or heart surgeon or something like that. So all it was was they didn't select an equal set of black doctors and an equal set of white doctors. The white doctors were more often in specialties that involved more dangerous kinds of situations. And that's all it was. And once you corrected for that, the difference kind of went away.

Now even if you didn't know that, what was the credibility you should have given the study from day one as soon as you heard it? The answer is none. From the first time you heard it without even knowing what the problem was you should have said oh it's one of those. Here's why half of all these studies, half are not reproducible, meaning that it's a coin flip whether it's real or not. Even if it's peer-reviewed, there's a 50% chance it's not reproducible, meaning it was never valid in the first place.

Now, if the question is sort of a yes or no, which this is, do the black babies do as well if the doctor is a different race? Yes or no? Right? It's like a coin flip. It's yes or no. Under those conditions, when the studies themselves are only 50% reliable, what is the difference between doing a study and not knowing if it's reproducible and flipping a coin? Because it's just going to be yes or no, heads or tails. And the answer is there's no difference. There's no difference between that study even if you didn't know that it was flawed. At the very start of it, you should have said, "Well, that means nothing." Now, it could become meaningful. Let's say if the study were reproducible, that would mean something. Suppose other people did studies in the same domain and got similar answers. Well, now you have my attention. You know, as long as it's not all being funded by one kind of entity that has a horse in the race. But no, when you first hear a study like this, it's just a coin flip. It means nothing.

Here's another one. Lab grown meat. I saw this on the internet today. Lab grown meat potentially worse for the environment than retail beef. So this is told to us by an account called No Farms No Food. So it's an entity that is sort of pro-farm which means probably not pro-lab grown meat and they say an interdepartmental study from the University of California concluded that lab grown meat may be up to 25 times worse for the environment than natural pasture raised cattle retail beef.

Now, here's the first tell that something's amiss. The poster that's pro-farm did a screenshot instead of a link. So if I wanted to click and see the details of the study, couldn't do it. So that's your first signal there. Secondly, we don't know who funded the study. Was it big meat? I mean, who else would fund it? Is there anybody else even going to look into it? I don't know. So if you don't know who funded it, you should ignore it. And then again, you have to put it into the context of the studies being 50% false anyway. So I don't know. I don't know if any of