n the back that could have potentially created the larger exit wound that we all saw to our horror. However, I did see a Green Beret and I think I saw some other people do this as well explain it perfectly. So I'm convinced that I have exactly the correct explanation. All right?

So I'm going to tell you and maybe you'll have the same impression I did. And by the way, I feel bad because the Green Beret member who did the video did a great job. So if anybody, I think I may have posted it, but I'd love to say his name. But I didn't write it down. Didn't remember. I didn't think I was going to talk about it necessarily, so I didn't write it down. But here's what I learned. All right.

Number one, are you aware that he was wearing a breastplate, a protective, you know, bulletproof thing for exactly this kind of risk. The Green Beret guy said that there are two basic kinds of these protective plates that would go into your shirt. One of them is kind of thick. It wasn't one of those because it's too thick. You would have seen it would be super obvious. The other one is metal and it's thinner and you could sort of see from outlines of his shirt on certain pictures. You could tell that there was a breastplate in there. So number one, I accept because you could see that there's something under there that he had a protective metal, not any other thing but metal breastplate.

Now, the breastplate also has at the top a little bit of a, what would you call it? It curves in toward the body a little bit. So it's not flat flat. It's flat and then it just sort of curves in at the top a little bit of a ridge. Unfortunately, that ridge, if you hit it the exact ridge, the round would fly up toward the head because it would ricochet. And it looks like the round may have hit him at that bent part of the plate just in on his chest. The first time I saw it, I saw it hit the chest plate first. So I saw it hit there. I mean, I thought I saw it. So it looks like it hit the curvy part of the chest plate, maybe on this side, and then came up into the neck. And the reason that it didn't go through the neck is that it was sort of a ricochet that came off the chest plate. It might have even been a piece of the chest plate as opposed to a round. That's possible. Or it could have been both. Or it could have been shrapnel. Maybe it was just what's left of the bullet.

Now, the thing that also didn't make sense is that we're told, and again, anything could be changed by tomorrow, but we're told that the bullet was found in his neck. Now all the people who know firearms were saying that's not possible because if it hit the neck directly, there's no way it stays in the neck. It would be sitting in the people behind him. I mean, it would be in their body. It wouldn't be in Charlie's body. But if it was a ricochet, that may have taken a lot of the energy out of it and it may have been traveling a little bit more uphill, which would explain the larger entry wound because it wasn't coming straight in.

Now to me that is, it comes from a professional who knows all of these devices. He knows the guns, he knows the breastplates. He knows what he's talking about. So I accept that as I'm going to say I'll put a 90% likely that he nailed it. The Green Beret I'm talking about. So please, if you can come up with his name, I think he was impressive.

All right, another topic and I just consider that closed. I'm completely satisfied that that expert opinion answered all my questions. So it was a fluke.

I think according to a post by Karina Petrova, a 40-year study finds that higher science funding happened under Republicans. That's the whole story. Apparently, historically over the last 40 years, Republicans are a better bet for science than Democrats. Would you have known that? Honestly, if somebody said, "Scott, you know, you always support all these Republicans all the time. Why don't they fund science as much?" I probably would have just accepted that as a fact because I hear it all the time. Republicans are anti-science. Republicans were anti-science. Republicans don't believe in climate change, etc. So it wouldn't have surprised me if Republicans just thought that the government should be less involved in science and maybe private enterprise should be more involved or something like that. But it turns out according to this one study, Republicans have always been the ones who funded science more. Could it be there were just more Republican presidents in the last 40 years? Maybe that's all it would take. I don't know. I don't trust this because all data is fake. But it's surprising it didn't go the other way.

See there was something else I was going to mention. Oh, so the autism announcement is coming up today at 4 pm Eastern, I think. And the tease is that pregnant women who take Tylenol that might be implicated in some of the autism. But I got questions. Isn't it true that autism sometimes doesn't show up until the kid is, let's say, eight years old? Yeah, not just eight. But isn't it true they don't all have it at birth? What are the odds that taking a drug while you're pregnant would cause a child to have a problem but not until 8 years old? So after 8 years of not being exposed to Tylenol while somebody's pregnant, it would be after the 8 years you would get the first symptoms. Or maybe that's just the first diagnosis, but maybe it was always there.

And what about the people? Always remember this. Who is the ex-Playboy Playmate? Jenny, Jenny, whatever. Who had the child who she says, I remember telling the story. She says that she saw the life drain out of his eyes right after a vaccination. So what about, oh Jenny McCarthy. Jenny. Yeah. What about that?

Let me tell you what I'm worried about. I'm worried that the pharma industry might throw a sacrificial calf into the conversation to protect themselves as in maybe they have to accept that there's some big pharma connection. Maybe they just have to because they can't get away from it, but they don't want to give up on vaccinations. So do you suppose that anybody, because remember this is all weasels and liars and thieves basically involved in all of this. Do you think that they might be trying to guide the conversation? So you think, "Oh, yeah. Well, we were right all along that it was pharma, but it turns out it was just this special case with just Tylenol and just pregnant women." And look how easy it is to fix that. Isn't that interesting that if that were the problem, you could fix it immediately with no implication for even the Tylenol people? Because if the only people not taking it are pregnant women, well, that's not that many. So Tylenol would go on making money. The vaccine people would go on making money. But still they could say well we looked really closely and we found that pharma was in fact the problem in this very very narrow way that we can easily make it go away just by telling people not to take it if they're pregnant. It feels a little too convenient, doesn't it? There's something about that that just screams there's more to the story. And I don't know if they're going to sell this as the answer. I doubt it. Do you think they're going to say, "Well, we found it." And you should also know, just only based on what I'm seeing on social media, there are claims that studies have debunked this already that there are existing studies because people suspected it before they did a big study and allegedly didn't find it. Do you believe that? Well, here's the problem. All data is fake. So I don't believe the data that says they found it, and I don't believe the data that says they didn't find it. You really we really can't believe either data.

So I'd be very curious if all of the moms who have children on the spectrum, I'd love to hear from them. I believe that they will probably coordinate to find out how many of them were taking Tylenol when they were pregnant. And I think they're going to find out it wasn't most of them. Although Tylenol is practically ubiquitous. Maybe it's hard to avoid, but I feel like that the people, you know, the actual parents are going to come forward and say, "All right, I know three people in my situation and three out of four of us say that we didn't take any Tylenol, so now explain what's going on." So I feel like there's going to be some push back if the only thing they identify is Tylenol. What they might do is say, "We found this for sure." Or sure enough that you know, you should avoid it and we're still looking because there's no way that's the whole answer. I don't think.

Well, you know the story about Tom Homan who was accused of taking $50,000 in cash before Trump was in office and before we knew he would be and before Tom Homan was in his current job. He was a consultant working in that border security area and apparently he allegedly took $50,000 from what he presumably didn't know was an FBI thing and they were going to pay him for him to give them some special access once Trump became president if he did. But allegedly he took the 50,000 which I have not heard confirmed by him by the way. I've not heard Homan say he did or did not ever accept 50,000 in cash for anything. So I don't even know if he did that. But the story is that he did take the money, but that they never found out if he would do anything illegal because when Trump became president, his administration came in and they dropped this thing.

So if you look on social media, people will say, "See, I told you he was totally innocent because the charges were dropped with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing." You know, that's not exactly what happened, right? So that's the Republican version that well there must be nothing to it because Biden's people didn't charge him and then Trump's people didn't charge him. Not even charging him. So therefore there was nothing there, right? No, you were completely misunderstanding the story. There's nothing there, but there wasn't supposed to be. First you pay the bribe, then you wait for Trump to take office. Then you wait for that company to approach again and ask for special help. And if they got it, and if they got it because they paid him, that's a crime. But since they never got to the point where he was in office and also making decisions, never got to that point. It was dropped before he could make any decisions. So would he have done something illegal? Nobody can know. I mean, I'm going to say, you know, innocent till proven guilty. He's not been proven guilty. By definition, he's innocent. We should not assume they would have any bad intent.

But here's the part that I've been laughing about. Do you believe that Tom Homan could not spot an FBI sting? Of all people, Tom Homan. Tom Homan's been around. Have you noticed? He's experienced. He's seen the ugliest side of life like you and I will never see. Do you believe that he did not have any suspicion whatsoever when somebody offered him $50,000 of cash? Cash? Didn't even write a check? Was it literally cash? Like a bundle of cash. Tom Homan. Now, I could believe that, you know, if I randomly chose some of my audience here and said, "All right, I'm going to put you in this situation. Somebody comes in with the 50,000 in cash, would you know it was an FBI thing?" I would. I'm pretty sure I would have spotted an FBI thing or I would have assumed it was. Nobody gives you $50,000 in cash unless it's a sting or a cartel thing or whatever. So you know, I will acknowledge that real criminals do also give large amounts of cash, but wouldn't you just assume that this would be too dicey to take the money? And what if, so this is me just speculating because it's funny. What if Tom Homan was not only suspicious, but he thought it would be hilarious to take the FBI's money because they weren't going to get it back and they would never find him doing any crimes because he was not inclined to do any crimes in the first place. So it's entirely possible that he totally suspected it and said, "All right, I'll take your $50,000, but you're not going to get anything in return." Maybe. I don't know. But if you tell me that Tom Homan can't spot a trap that's that obvious, I don't believe that. I don't believe he couldn't spot that from the jump.

Speaking of things like that, apparently Democrat, oh what's his name? Cuellar. Henry Cuellar, Democrat from Texas. So he's under indictment for taking all kinds of bribes. Of course he, you know. Here's my question. Is it only Democrats that are doing all this bribery stuff and getting caught? Is it possible that Republicans are doing as much crime as Democrats, but they don't get caught? Or maybe my algorithm is not feeding me those stories? Because it sure seems like all the criminals are Democrats, the government criminals. Am I wrong? It seems like it's been a long time since a prominent Republican got arrested for any bribery. But Democrats, yeah, every week.

In other news, the percentage of Americans who say college is very important went from 70% thought it was very important in 2010 to this year it's 35%. So college is half as desired as it was in 2010. But I think that's the right answer and it has to do with colleges not doing the job of remaining relevant. Do you think people would say that if all the colleges were preparing people for useful careers? I don't think so. It's not that people changed and now they don't want these educations. It's that the educations were garbage and they figured it out. So once you figure out that many of the majors are garbage and a waste of money, you should go from 70% to 35 in thinking it's worth it. You should. So that's not even bad in my mind. The bad part is the colleges are a ripoff. That's the bad part.

All right. In the all data is fake category. This will be the DEI chapter of that. I saw an article by Amuse. I always tell you to follow Amuse on X. It's spelled just the way it sounds. Amuse. And he's got some good writing and that goes with his posting. And he tells us that back in 2020 there was a study claiming that black newborns were twice as likely to survive if the doctor was black. Now that's pretty shocking, right? That the black newborn is twice as likely to survive if the doctor is black. That would strongly suggest that the worst kind of discrimination was happening and the white doctors were letting babies die or not trying hard enough to save them or your brain goes everywhere on that.

Well, what do you think was the truth? Well, the truth is it was fake data. Not only was it fake, but the group of what Amuse calls black women who did the study knew it. They actually knew it was fake. They did it anyway because they wanted more bl