itive.

However, I'm going to add this little bit of skepticism. It goes like this. It's not just that that was a non-controlled experiment because it was a natural experiment, not a controlled, you know, placebo type of experiment. If it were true that the events happened as reported, then I would agree that the odds are a trillion trillion to one that it was an accident and that that would be quite definitive that Ivermectin was a good solution. However, when it's not a controlled experiment, even if it is, because a lot of controlled experiments turn out to be fraudulent, it's possible that it was simply reported wrong. Meaning that the people who said, "Uh oh, in my hospital, we got this result" could be lying. They could have made up the whole thing. Or if it were only known because the press looked into it, somebody could be lying. So you can't rule out the fact that if it were a natural experiment and you got all the data correct, that would be very definitive. But if it was a natural experiment and that's the very reason that you can't know for sure if somebody made up the data or lied to you or just came up with a story, you can never really know. And that actually is the reason that a lot of the scientific studies are debunked eventually is because if the data were true, it would tell you something, but you can't be sure it's true.

So I would say the Ivermectin story is highly likely that it made a difference in a positive way. But not 100 percent. Can't really get to 100 percent on that one in my opinion because I don't trust whoever told whoever says it happened. Yeah. But if I were Joe Rogan, I'd sure be mad at the way they treated me. Are the fine? Yep. Never saw a horse with COVID.

All right. How about UAPs and UFOs? I do not believe that there are any aliens. I wouldn't rule it out. I mean maybe, but I would say at this point we cannot convincingly say there are aliens. Yeah, I have a good track record but obviously did not have a pandemic track record until recently. Anyway, so that's what I think at the moment.

Let's see what other stories. But it's so weird that it's now just a fact that the election was stolen and that there was a coup attempt and the coup plotters are free and they will never be punished.

So did you see my predictions yesterday about the Epstein files? So even as we had hours to go for the release of the files, I was posting on X skeptically saying, "You're not going to see the files." And what happened? Sure enough, we got some files. And if you get some files and not all the files, it makes it worse, not better. Would you agree with that take? Would you agree that getting some of the Epstein files but heavily redacted, that it made it worse? It almost confirms that there's something that we should know that we don't know.

So I would say I don't know who is the guilty party but obviously the Thomas Massie and Luna bill had a big loophole in it which allowed somebody we don't trust to block out stuff, to redact stuff. Yeah. But would you agree that the bill ultimately made things worse because if it allowed any redactions, you will never trust the redactions. True. You will never trust the redactions because you don't know who made them. And even if they told you why, you wouldn't believe them, would you?

So Massie and Luna trying to do the right thing, genuinely trying to do the right thing. And also both of them, I would say, very capable and very bipartisan, but they made it worse. They did not mean to do that, but they made it worse.

Now, here's the most surprising thing, and don't get mad at me, all right? If you're going to get mad at somebody, get mad at Alan Dershowitz. So I saw his reaction to the partial release and as usual, Dershowitz had the most interesting argument that I'd never heard. So he argued that there should be no redactions, including the victims. And his argument was that if you showed the people who were accused, but you didn't give the names of the people who were accusing them, that was not a fair situation. And I thought to myself, wait a minute, he's right. The argument is right. It doesn't mean I agree with him. It doesn't mean I agree with him, but his argument is solid that it would be a crime to show the people accused but keep hidden the people who accused them. Would you agree?

Imagine if Trump had been accused by E. Jean Carroll of some sex crime and she was allowed to be anonymous forever, but he was not allowed to be anonymous. Would that be fair? No. In our system, you get to know who is accusing you. And ultimately, if it goes to a trial or something, you would know who the accuser is.

Then somebody got mad at me online because they said, "You animal, are you saying that you should throw the victims under the bus a second time?" To which I say, "What is the alternative?" Keep in mind that everyone who is an underage victim is now in their probably 30s. So none of them would be children. There'd be no children involved even if they were children when the crime happened. So forget about children. This would be adults being outed or not. Now some of them might not care, some of them might.

But apparently Massie knows the names of 20 or so accused famous people. I think as soon as he said we'll out everybody accused but we won'