As per the clip, I don't see anywhere where he said that. Looks as though what he said was taken out of context.

Trump mentions the disinfectant and asks if there's something that can be done with that with injections as well. He says it would be interesting to check that and that medical doctors would have to be used (because obviously he's not a doctor and doesn't know for sure if that can be done).

Now how many people know for certain this can't be done in anyway? I for one, based on what I know, would assume it's not possible, but who's to say it's not possible in some specific manner? If it wasn't possible, then I don't know what was so bad about what Trump said. He's being more open to possibilities at this time since it's about saving lives, so if it's not possible, so what? If he had said it worked and demanded it be implemented asap, then that would certainly be a problem. Questioning possibilities shouldn't be a bad thing. I'd hate for the scientific community and their backers to start thinking that way.

Why is it that in general, when Trump acts as if he knows everything, some people go after him because they say that's not true, yet when Trump says something like this, being fairly clear that he doesn't know everything while looking for answers, those same people go after him because supposedly he should know everything?

So who's right and who's wrong? Is anybody right?

I wonder what people would have said back in the day, if the President questioned blasting peoples bodies with radiation to cure cancer?

Nah, Nicotine withdrawl treatment lile transdermal patches. If you don't smoke and put on a weak patch, You'll notice that nicotine is an actual drug like Coffee. 

He actually has experts he could talk to and can confirms whether or not injecting disinfectant is a good idea before he throws it out as a possibility.  

There is in fact no reason for him to throw out any possibilities.  He has no expertise.  There's no reason why any researcher should be taking cues on him to guide their research.  He shouldn't be suggesting the virus should disappear miraculously, suggest it will go away when the weather is warmer, suggesting drugs that have not been shown to be effective at all, or so on.

All that he should be doing is presenting the best information available, from people who know things.  A random person taking a national stage to throw out wild ideas does nothing to help the situation and might make it work.

Of course, this is a pattern of constantly putting out dangerous misinformation with a blatant disregard for truth.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-retweets-bogus-crime-graphic/

Nah, Nicotine withdrawl treatment lile transdermal patches. If you don't smoke and put on a weak patch, You'll notice that nicotine is an actual drug like Coffee. 

So does the MSM and so do individuals themselves at times. Many just blurt out whatever they are thinking at the moment, and some don't bother asking the professionals whether it be out of 'stupidity' or time perhaps. Are the professionals always right? Do they always have a complete answer?

Lots of entities that shouldn't be throwing out possibilities or opinion, yet they do, and at times purposely, while not always to everyone else's benefit. If Trump being so important and a leader, stopped doing that entirely, would all other entities follow suit? We all know the answer to that.

Any idea where I can find the fact check site that fact checks your link?

Remember, he also asked the world leading experts on virology, immunology and epidemiology if they had considered using the regular flu vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

The MSM and other individuals aren't the damn president of the United States.  He is held to a higher standard because of his position.

Oh, and the articles link back to the source of their correction.  I mean, you did read the link, didn't you?

This is really weird:

http://www.rfi.fr/en/science-and-technology/20200423-french-researchers-suggest-nicotine-could-protect-against-covid-19

"Researchers from several institutions saw that of the 11,000 or so patients hospitalised in Paris public hospitals for Covid-19 at the start of April, only 8.5 percent were smokers, compared to 25.4 percent of the general public."

"tested positive for Covid-19 and found a similar phenomeon: the 343 hospitalised for serious complications had a smoking rate of 4.4 percent, and 5.3 percent of the 139 who were sent home with less serious symptoms smoked. Upon further investigation, accounting for age and sex, the researchers found that the small number of smokers appeared to have had some kind of protection against the virus."

"The findings were in line with a study on Covid-19 in China," (so china found the same corrolation that france now found)

The French study “confirms that active smokers are protected against the SARS-Cov-2 infection,”.
“The reasons for this protection are not established, but nicotine could be a candidate.”

Basically they suspect the virus doesnt like nicotine.

“Although the chemistry of tobacco smoke is complex, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that its protective role takes place through direct action on various types of nAChRs [nicotine receptors] expressed in neurons, immune cells (including macrophages), cardiac tissue, lungs, and blood vessels.”

"In other words, nicotine could block the virus from entering the body through neurons in the olfactory system or through lung cells.
The hypothesis remains to be proven. The researchers are looking to organise a clinical study using nicotine patches, pending approval from French health authorities."

reminds me of this:

"The chief spokesperson and lobbyist Nick Naylor is the Vice President of the Academy of Tobacco Studies. He is talented in speaking and spins arguments to defend the cigarette industry in the most difficult situations. His best friends are Polly Bailey that works in the Moderation Council in alcohol business, and Bobby Jay Bliss of the gun business own advisory group SAFETY. They frequently meet each other in a bar and they self-title the M.O.D. Squad, a.k.a. Merchants of Death, disputing which industry has killed more people. Nick's greatest enemy is Vermont's Senator Ortolan Finistirre, who defends in the Senate the use of a skull and crossbones on cigarette packs. Nick's son Joey Naylor lives with his mother, and has the chance to know his father in a business trip. When the ambitious reporter Heather Holloway betrays Nick disclosing confidences he had in bed with her, his life turns upside-down. But Nick is good in what he does for the mortgage."

Like one of my favorite movies of all time.