em really, but I'm assuming that the people who study it professionally probably are pretty good at it. Pretty good. But you're never going to meet them, right? And it's not you.

So what I would encourage you to do is have some humility about the assumption that you can do your own research.

Now let me give you my macro opinion of Aaron Rodgers. A bunch of people sent me his video and said, hey, this is really persuasive. This guy gets it. And here's where he lost me. He lost me when he called himself a critical thinker. So far so good, right? Called himself a critical thinker and then he demonstrated it by saying that he did his own research. That's where he lost me. Because if you're a critical thinker you know you can't. If he were a critical thinker he would know that he can't do his own research, not in any reliable way. I mean even if he were a top researcher he probably couldn't.

Let me give you another example. The director of the CDC I guess recently claimed that face masks are 80 percent effective. Really? Really? Is there anybody who believes that face masks are 80 percent effective? Even the people who are in favor of them are giving numbers that are like sub 20, and we're not even entirely sure about that, right?

So of course this caused somebody in the comments to that. There was a tweet about it and as soon as I saw it I thought that must be a typo, didn't you? If you saw that the head, the director of the CDC, if you read something that said she thought masks were 80 percent effective, wouldn't you think that was a typo or just didn't really happen? But apparently it did. It did.

And apparently, and I didn't know this, there are a whole bunch of studies that show that masks are 70 to 80 percent effective in certain situations that are basically not this one.

How long did it take for somebody to reply to the tweet that showed a whole bunch of studies that show masks totally work? How long did it take somebody to paste a whole bunch of studies that show masks totally don't work? About a second. So right next to each other on Twitter is a link to an article that mentions a whole bunch of studies, masks totally work, and then another one, a whole bunch of studies, masks totally don't work.

So when Aaron Rodgers goes to do his own research, how does he sort that out? Now he was talking about vaccinations not masks but it's a perfect example. Do you think Aaron Rodgers with whatever skill stack he brings to this could be a critical thinker and then sort out whether masks work or not with two completely different sets of answers? I can't. Could you? How many of you could do that, right?

So he did his own research but it's absurd because he never knows what he doesn't know, right? If you're from the outside of the area of expertise, unless you're unusually smart, you know, unless you're Elon Musk smart, you can't enter somebody else's field and figure it out. That's not a thing. It's a thing for the smartest among us but it's not a thing generally speaking. And certainly not a thing that Aaron Rodgers did.

So when he calls himself a critical thinker I challenge that because a critical thinker would know that you can't do what he claims to have done. It's not doable with the brains we have and the information that's available to us. It's just not doable in any rational way.

All right, let's talk about this. I am so interested in the Steele dossier story update because something's happening, right? And I don't know exactly what it is because some parts of the media are treating it like it's not even a story but it looks like it's the biggest story.

And so we have these two movies running at the same time. That is the biggest thing I've seen in years. Or it's nothing. Or you know just some weasels did some lying. That's about it. So it's either some weasels did some lying or Hillary Clinton was behind, or her campaign was behind, a legitimate plan to overthrow basically to cheat in the major election and or overthrow a sitting president once Trump was elected. It's either the worst thing in the world or is it nothing?

Do your own research. Go look at the media. Do you think you can figure it out if it's nothing or it's a whole bunch? Well I think this story is telling you how deeply the intelligence assets in this country are embedded in the media. That's all this is telling us, right?

You know, as Glenn Greenwald often tweets and writes, the public isn't fully aware that major parts of our media are just controlled by the CIA or CIA assets or some damn intelligence units of the government. And this isn't conspiracy theory stuff. This is really well documented stuff. I don't know if anybody even, I don't think there's anybody serious who even doubts it, right? That our intelligence agencies directly influence the news.

And so when you see that this story is sort of semi-disappeared, there it's definitely covered and the opinion people are talking about it but it should be the main story I think and yet sort of downplayed everywhere. Now actually that's an exaggeration. The Washington Post covered it so give them that. Jonathan Swan, I think he's Axios, tweeted the tweet of the Washington Post coverage. So I looked on Axios to see the coverage and there wasn't anything today but I'm sure they covered it originally.

And so Jonathan Swan summarizes the Washington Post coverage of it this way. He says the charges are not only did Clinton slash Democrats fund the dossier but a long time Clinton Dem operative was one of the sources for the rumors about Trump. And then he summarizes that by saying doesn't get much worse, right? Right, as in this is the biggest story. It doesn't get much worse. But it's not the biggest story.

Do you see now that there's somebody deciding what a story is? You get that, right? There's somebody and it probably varies depending on what the story is but somebody controls whether or not the world thinks it matters. And amazingly whoever that is or those people or entities or a series of forces, whatever it is, has decided that this won't get attention. It's really freaky isn't it when you see it in real time? When you see that the news is just not even close to real. It's just a brainwashing operation. You can't see who's pulling the strings all the time but sometimes you can see the strings. This is one of those times when you can see the strings. You're like, hey, hey, hey, I can actually see those strings. And it won't matter. What are you going to do about it?

So let's say you and I see this, how bad this story is. What are you going to do about it? No, that's right. What am I going to do about it? I can't think of anything I can do about it. I don't know.

So it's a weird story. It's the biggest story ever. Treat it like it's nothing.

To be even more amazed, turns out that Rachel Maddow is running a report that Durham, you know the very same person who's coming out with this new information, and Barr, ex-AG Barr, intentionally ignored emails that quote prove Trump was in direct communications with the Russian Alpha Bank. A covert communication channel existed during the 2016 campaign that Barr and Durham knew was real but they covered up. Boomerang, says Rachel Maddow. Gotcha.

So are any of the other major media covering that story? Where's that story on CNN? I didn't see it. Where's that story on Fox News? I don't know. I didn't see it. Did she just make this up? This is just totally made up.

And don't you thin