t even need to know anything about the domain. In every case, data is unreliable if it matters.

Medical data. I heard recently an anecdote of someone who was a top brain surgeon. I forget where. I give credit to whoever said this, but it's something I heard recently. So someone who is a top brain surgeon was asked how accurate the medical information is and he thought that less than half of what is taught in the medical arts is fake or just wrong. Half. So even if some of it is true, I guess that would be the other half. How do you know which is the half that's right? You know, unless you're this expert brain guy. So the medical world may not be as bad depending on how they're measuring it, but yeah, probably half of it is fake.

And then in the other direction the university or grad is saying that the climate models overestimate nitrogen availability. So by this measurement they would overestimate the CO2 levels or something. And even though that's the opposite direction from maybe what the temperature problems are, it just shows you that for years you've been people have been telling me these climate models are real. They couldn't possibly be. They couldn't possibly be because they're wrong in both directions.

All right, here's a new statistic from the rabbit hole on X. 79% of refugees have vacationed in the country they fled from. So if you were doing a count of the number of refugees that came into your country, the ones that came there to save themselves from torture or whatever imprisonment, you would have found out that 79% of them were fake. Probably more but only 79% of them went back to their dangerous country on vacation. So do you think that there's a reasonable number of the number of immigrants who are escaping their country for safety? No. Any number in that domain would be fake.

All right. Here's one. I guess Doge allegedly cut 9% in federal workers. New York Post is reporting that. And then also there's some positive reports that Doge massively improved the Social Security Administration's effectiveness. So they got 65% more business done through telephones and etc. and 68 million callers served and at the same time the number of claims were driven way down by 35%. So if these numbers were real it would suggest that Doge was just massively successful so far. Yeah. Imagine claims social security claims being driven down by 35%. Does that mean that they would have been fraudulent or were those valid claims that just didn't get processed? I don't know.

But then on top of that, there's reports that Doge saved $214 billion in taxpayer savings so far. If you read the counterpoints, I think it was Peter Baker or somebody I saw, he was debunking that number and saying that's not a real number. Here's the reasons why. There was chaos, but there really wasn't savings, blah blah blah.

So here's the big question. I just told you that all numbers and all data that matters is fake. Why would you believe the Doge numbers if you don't believe in any other numbers? Now I trust the Doge people and I trust Musk to have the right intention about telling the truth, but do you believe this is the one thing that's accurate? Because that would be surprising, wouldn't it? Because the numbers do matter and there is apparently more than one way to count everything. So I would say it's probably moving in the right direction. So in terms of directional change probably in the right direction but it might be an exaggeration how much has been saved so far.

Now, one of the things we would be able to count reasonably well would be the number of federal employees. So if the number of federal employees went down by 9%, probably believable, but far less believable would be the dollar amounts. But like I said, it's all moving in the right direction, I think.

All right. So every single day I wake up and I see news stories about California or Minnesota usually doing some additional form of massive fraud. Makes you wonder how many of the blue states have the same problem. But apparently California spent $24 billion to tackle homelessness, but they didn't have any system in place to track how they were doing. So they know they spent the money, but they don't know if it made any difference because they didn't track it. Come on. You could give somebody $24 billion and then not accurately track whether it worked. Oh man.

CBS is reporting on this. Apparently California has 171,000 people homeless, and that's 30% of all the homeless people