But they're all just re-reporting on an article from July 2023 in an outlet called The Exposé. This article is covering a non-peer-reviewed study published on Med Archive, the RXIV, that, you know, I was told that that's pronounced Archive. RXIV? Oh! Alright! Alright! It was published on there and that was in May 2022. So that was last year. It isn't proof of anything and it's not a super prestigious study. That's just a load of shit.

And so when Alex says that there's a new study out for Trump to research... The image that's on the screen is just a screenshot of a tweet that Ezra Levant posted about a non-peer-reviewed study.

The study that Alex is referencing doesn't say any of the things he's claiming. And interestingly, a lot of the conspiracy theories surrounding this article or this study don't even say the things that he's saying. About the double-severing DNA stuff.

So Mike is referring to a recent, not yet peer-reviewed study that looked at how long coronavirus could survive in various conditions, including on various surfaces. Here's where the first problem with Mike's comments pop up. Silver was not one of the surfaces they tested. So this study does not really help him there.

That Lancet study was not applicable to the general population. That was a study of people who presented with the pneumonias. It was a 41 sample size. They were already the more extreme cases. It's not applicable to the general population.

They have no scientific methodology from their study. People have looked into it and shown that, like... The way you gather data could not possibly lead to a representative sample. It was like open surveys that people would take on the internet and stuff like that. It's like there's literally no... And the questions were asked in a very biased way. Do you mean the surveys that people are paid to take? Well, I don't know if... I think these were just like open. Ah, okay. I don't think they were... I think they were just almost like Facebook quizzes. Right, right, right. And stuff like that. And they found that the way that the questions were posed were biased, which everyone knows... In statistics, if you ask a biased question, you'll get biased results.