Bret Weinstein

method that you used, which was talking to people and hearing them out and challenging them when they said stuff that didn't make sense, that method worked pretty well.

Were you going to get the shot?

You were.

Did you get it?

No.

Did you end up avoiding it?

Did you get wise fast enough to stay away from it?

You did.

Did you have ivermectin when you got sick?

You had it available and you used it.

These things worked well.

And I guess the point is this is a classic case of the proof is in the pudding, right?

I will take that accidental natural experiment run by the courts over some fancy randomized control trial where I can't even figure out what they did and why they kept moving the goalposts in the middle of it.

any day of the week.

Right.

So the point is we should just be way more ready to say, I don't know what that complicated thing is, but it doesn't look reasonable.

And then here's some stuff that actually I can be pretty sure I can check myself.

There's nothing that can hide in the statistics of a chi-square test.

So all I need to know is, is the data accurately represented?

And then the chi-square test leaves nowhere to hide shenanigans.