Here’s the transcript again.

“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous -- whether it`s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn`t been checked, but you`re going to check it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you`re going to test that too. Sounds interesting.“

[so this first part, he’s clearly talking about UV light and bringing “the light” (specifically referenced) inside the body through the skin or some other way]. This statement clearly talking about UV light and bringing UV light inside the body is IMMEDIATELY followed by:

“ Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.”

so right after talking about UV light and bringing UV inside the body he says “AND THEN I see the DISINFECTANT….”

So your argument is he’s really saying “I wonder if we can bring UV light inside the body. AND THEN I see the UV light and wonder if we can bring it inside the body”?

And then you have Trump himself who says this in defending his statement ….

TRUMP: No. I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen. I was asking a sarcastic and a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands, and that would make things much better.

If he was talking about UV light, why wouldn’t he just say that instead of confirming he was talking about disinfectants in his defense.

It really is ok to admit you’re wrong. It’s not a sign of weakness or stupidity. Quite the opposite in fact in this case.