ly one saying it I'm pretty sure. Now that doesn't mean he didn't come up with the idea on his own because it's sort of obvious. I mean it's the question you would ask.

And by the way one of the reasons I could never be president is because I could never survive the brainstorming conversations taken out of context. Because I would do exactly what Trump is getting in trouble for all the time. I throw ideas that had not yet been on the table. So I would say well can we just kill that person? And then somebody would say no don't do that. And I say okay. And then I say well should we just nuke that thing? And then people would say no no you can't use nukes. Here are all the good reasons. And I'd say those are good reasons. But I would throw all kinds of crazy just to see how people would respond to it. And that would tell me something, right? I would know if they had ruled something out by reflex or if they really thought about it.

So when Trump throws out ideas like can't we just lob a drone in and take out the cartels, I say that's good presidenting. That is good presidenting. He asked the question and he asked it of exactly the right person. And then when that person gave him an answer which apparently was sufficient that he didn't do it. So it's reported as some kind of like wild crazy reckless thing that Trump did. And I'm listening to it and I'm thinking well you just gave an example of perfect presidenting. That was perfect. He asked the question that should have been asked. That absolutely should have been asked. He got the answer from an expert. He took that into consideration and that's the way we went. Perfect presidenting. And it's reported as some kind of flaw of course.

Oh Trump told Oz to claim victory. Do we have another one of those? Did Oz — he did didn't he win? Is that still in question? The Oz primary went to a runoff. Interesting. So he told them to claim victory. Well why not? Isn't that just standard procedure to claim? Oh yes.

Now there's talk about monkeypox. A variant of the bubonic plague. Madagascar has got a case of it or something. So yeah monkeypox. Can't wait for the monkeypox to come. I feel like there's something else coming don't you?

All right. And there was a case in Connecticut. Somebody says yeah. Who was having sex with the monkey is what I want to know. And was the monkey attractive? These are the questions we want to know. Monkeypox. Yeah okay. I'm not even gonna say that out loud.

All right ladies and gentlemen let me ask you this following provocative question. It has been over — how long has it been since people got their first vaccinations? A year and a half? Is it a year and a half since the first people got vaccinated? And it would be maybe two years since the first people in the trials got vaccinated, right? Something like that. So somebody says 13 months but closer to 18 months or two years. So the question is this: Would we be seeing the effects of the vaccination itself? Because all vaccinations have risks, right? So nobody's saying there's no risk. But would we be seeing 80% of it now? If you said not necessarily you're correct, right? So the correct answer is not necessarily. Can we all agree on that? The correct answer is not necessarily. Maybe. Maybe much later. But statistically and based on what we've seen with every other kind of drug would you say there's an 80% chance that we have enough information already? We don't know. To your point which I accept you don't know what the future brings. Like you can't say oh we're done there's everything we know now is everything. Not that.

All right. So I'm trying to be fair and balanced here but how many years would you have to wait before you would be willing to say well it looks like the vaccination itself wasn't a problem? Suppose we went five years I suppose. And that the initial studies about the risks of the vaccine essentially held that what we believed as we entered the trial was largely what we got five years later. Somebody says 10 years. Do you think that the difference between five and ten years is statistically important?

Here's my assumption but I would need somebody who's an expert to back me up on this. My opinion is that in five years you would be at something like 99% certainty and at 10 years closer to 100%. You never get to 100%. But that's what it feels like. It feels like the first one year you know almost everything you need to know in one year. But you know this vaccine is not like other vaccines so maybe it's different. But after five years I feel like five years would get you well over a 90% certainty. But again can you use the past to predict what would happen with this mRNA technology? And the answer is maybe not. But wouldn't that be true for all of the vaccines? That every one is a one-off. There's always something different about it. That's why it's a different vaccine. So isn't it always true that you don't know for sure if that one year or five years is going to tell you everything you need to know? You never really know.

But I'm good. Dax Adams. So you all know that I was against vaccine mandates, right? And I didn't get the a