Bret Weinstein

But it can be right.

And so in any case, I would just say fraud is a serious problem.

I think...

let's give them their due.

They're sitting down talking to two people who

who I think they don't know, can't assess whether or not we're being honest, whether the data is as reported.

So I think there's a natural reaction to reject that which seems

I think when you've been lied to as much as these doctors had been lied to about repurposed drugs for COVID and vaccines and things, that being confronted with very powerful, in fact, if the data is what it's supposed to be, incontrovertible proof, and I don't use the word proof lightly, but, you know, P equals 5.03 times 10 to the negative 15.

That is an amazing level of statistical significance.

Well, what they said was, well, there could be lots of explanations for that, which is not true, right?

I think they were reserving the right to go find some explanation because think about it this way.

No.

No.

Okay.

Let's imagine how this experiment could be something other than it seems to be.

Let's say that the courts were biased in who they granted the right to have ivermectin administered to.

If the courts were biased, then the test isn't what it appears to be.

However, you would expect the courts to be biased in exactly the inverse way as the result.

In other words, you would expect the court to grant access to ivermectin in more dire cases.

So you would expect people who got ivermectin, if there was a bias in the way the courts granted that access, you would expect the people who got ivermectin to be more likely to die because- Right, that would be logical.