uclear in America, how can we get it in space? Now the expert explained that because it's space, the type of energy you can use up there is not every kind of energy. You couldn't burn oil or you can't use coal in space. You can't run an extension cord for electricity. So there's lots of things you can't do to get energy in space. But the one thing you can do is nuclear. In fact we already do it. I think some satellites are nuclear, right? Fact check me on that. And Adam asks on my behalf, can there be a Space Force without that? And the expert said basically you need nuclear for space.

Now once you know that you need a domestic nuclear program, a good one, a robust nuclear program, because otherwise you give up space, it's over, isn't it? The question of whether America needs to go hard into nuclear energy for domestic use is completely answered by just that one fact. If we give up space that's the end. That's basically putting a timer on the United States to no longer be an important power. You know it might be 50 years in the future but it definitely puts the timer on and says okay if you're not going nuclear you're not in space. If you're not in space you're not going to rule anything on Earth either. You're done. It's the end of your republic. So I think this only could go one way. And also climate change etc. was screaming for an answer. The answer was already there. It was nuclear. Just people were not well informed. So when people like Michael Shellenberger testified to the American Congress and gave them information for the first time, a lot of them were under-informed. But once they were informed you saw that the United States Congress, both parties, are like yeah, nuclear, boom. So just being informed and brought up to date on what the real risks are with the newer technologies etc. was enough probably. So Shellenberger for the win.

But did you know that Michael Shellenberger also did the same thing in Great Britain? Also brought his expertise to Great Britain in 2019 and it was asked, you know, what to do about climate change etc. and told them the same thing. There is one solution. It works. There's one solution: nuclear. There's not a second solution. And now Great Britain also, now informed, yeah, "Apocalypse Never" was Michael Shellenberger's book that talked about that. And now informed, Great Britain's not just on board with nuclear but aggressively, aggressively on board.

So I asked this question provocatively. I said, you know, is it a coincidence that everything I persuade on goes my way? It's not because I caused it. It's because I could tell which way things are going to go, right? Now I did of course try to influence as much as possible. Mark Schneider was a big part of informing me so that I can inform others. And I don't know if you know but a number of people in Congress follow me on Twitter. Did you know that? There are quite a few people in the news business and in Congress who follow me on Twitter. And so I've been informing, basically using what I knew from Mark Schneider, from Michael Shellenberger, to communicate the safety and the necessity of nuclear. And here we are. But I don't think it was my power of persuasion that made the difference. Obviously it was Shellenberger making a big difference. Mark Schneider I think made a big difference. But I think it was inevitable. I basically predicted something that couldn't go any other way. There was only one way this could go. It was a matter of how much time. But as soon as people were brought up to speed information-wise there was only one way it was going to go. So when I cheekily say is it a coincidence that everything I try to influence goes my way, it's not because I influenced it necessarily. Maybe I did but not necessarily. It's because I'm good at picking things that are going to go that way anyway.

Let me give you another example. One of my earliest efforts for influence was getting smoking out of public places and out of offices and stuff. So I put a lot of work into that. But wasn't that going to go my way anyway? I mean really, you know, do you think that smoking was always going to be allowed indoors? No, no. I just knew it was obvious which way it was going to go. I threw in on that direction. Maybe I made some difference, maybe not. But it was more like a prediction and it's easy to predict the inevitable. Likewise other persuasion that I've been very involved in was the right to die, to have a doctor-assisted death. So in California that passed. So that was the law and I persuaded very hard on that topic. But again, wasn't it gonna go that way anyway? Really I feel like I just picked the topic that was going in the right direction. So just keep that in mind. But I like putting that out there because it's provocative.

Here's a question. All right, I'm going to quiz you to see your general knowledge of a very important fact about COVID. You ready? If you get this fact right, if you get the right answer, then I would say that your opinion about vaccinations might be credible because it means that you know more than other people. All right, so here's the test. We're going to see if you have, if you know enough to have a good opinion about vaccinations. Here's the question: Do vaccinations cause more variants? Like the Delta. Now the Delta came before the vaccinations but do the vaccinations cause more or could they cause more variants? Look at the answers that are streaming by on each of your platforms. We're seeing a mixture of no's and yeses. Do you see that? The mixture is pretty mixed. Pretty mixed. Seeing a lot of yeses but seeing a lot of no's. Now how could you have an opinion on vaccinations unless you know this? Pretty important, isn't it?

All right. How many of you have heard of the chicken vaccinations? Which there is a study that shows that the vaccinations for the chickens for some chicken disease actually did, according to a study, did increase the variance. How many of you are aware of that study? Are you aware of the study about the chickens and how their vaccinations increased the number of variants? Because that's what is always tweeted to me when I bring up the topic. Okay, so if you're not on Twitter maybe you've never seen it. But let's just say there is a study and the study says that where they vaccinated the chickens it increased the variance. So let's say that was true. Now it's just a study. You'd want to see some more studies and etc. But let's say it's true. Let's say you believe it. Does that, if it's true, does it tell you something about the coronavirus vaccine? If it's true for chickens. Oh and I'll add something. I'm going to add something. The chicken vaccination is also leaky just like the coronavirus one. Leaky meaning that even when you're vaccinated you can still get it. You just won't die. So they're both leaky. Does the fact that, you know, the chicken vaccination, let's say you do know that, cause more variance, is that, does that mean that you have the same risk with the coronavirus? Go. Let's see in the comments. This vaccine isn't as novel so you can't compare that. That is a correct answer. I'm looking for something else but that is a good comment. Yeah, you can't compare. They're just different technologies etc. We're not comparing to natural immunity. Now drop that topic for now. Chickens are not humans, of course. But remember we're talking about the logic of it. We're only talking about the logic of it. Is the logic that if your vaccine stops most of the virus that the only ones that can get out are the bad ones, the variants that escape the vaccination's coverage? This paid comment says selecting for a specific protein to target which is what we do with coronavirus increases the probability it could cause mutations. I haven't heard that before but I don't know if that's true but add that to your questions.

All right. Here's what I believed was true. What I believed is that the more virus, the more variants. Anybody, does anybody agree with me? Not the more filters but the more virus. To me if you had a billion times more viruses they'd be just naturally mutating all over the place and some of them would be stronger like the Delta and they would take over. But suppose only one person in the world was ever infected. We'll just take the extreme. Only one person in the world has ever been infected with that. Would one person create just as many variants as if a billion people were infected? The answer is no. No. A billion people infected create more variants because there's more virus, right? So if your vaccine was not leaky would you have a