c were sure that they were safe enough I'm pretty sure that they'd all be on that side.

Now here's the problem. You've got a government who has to manage toward minimizing death, but you've got a public who doesn't have that same single-minded focus. The public wants to live a life that they know has a certain amount of risks. And once they've been informed and once they've been given some reasonable tools to deal with the risk, which we have now, the public just doesn't have the same objective. Our objective is to get out there and live, take some chances. The government's objective is to minimize death. They're just not compatible. And so I submit to you that the public needs an advocate, actually somebody whose job it is. I don't know how they would ever be appointed or self-appointed or something so that somebody can negotiate directly with the government. Because the government are not our representatives on this specific question. The government are our representatives on basically everything else. It's just a weird situation where we should not expect that they would represent us because they have different objectives.

Now that's not their fault, is it? People manage to their incentives. You can't change that. People manage to their own risk management, and the politicians have to manage for minimizing death, and the public doesn't. So we need an advocate. Now I don't know I would be the right choice for that, but there should be somebody who at least has something like my skill set, maybe more credibility in a variety of ways, but something like that. We just need somebody to speak for the people because the government can't do that right now.

All right, there's a new technology that looks promising that will allow you to get a vaccination without a needle. So there's a little device that blows focused air into your arm or whatever, and somehow that air can inject enough of the vaccination that you don't need an actual needle. And as others have observed, you know we humans are rationalizers. We're not really rational people. And I do suspect that I'll just throw a wild ass number out. This has no data or anything. It's just based on living in the world. I would bet you, I will bet you that of the vaccine resistors, 25 percent of them, it's about the needle. They won't say that necessarily. They might make an argument for risk management etc. But I feel like at least 25 percent have a needle fear that has influenced them to think they have some other reason. That would be normal by the way. That would just be how a normal brain would work. You would rationalize that stuff and make you think that you're making a rational decision.

Air bubbles in veins, I don't know. I guess they figure that out somehow. It's not like they're shooting into a vein. It looks like they're shooting into your skin somehow. That's way too high, Scott. Why would you say 10? 10 maybe just have fear of needles. Fear of needles is a big thing. Somebody says two percent. Maybe. I know, but for some people who actually maybe would want the vaccination but are afraid of the needles, that might make a difference.

Then again I'm not recommending you get vaccinated. Let me say that as often as I need to. I'll give you the pros and cons as they develop. So this is on the pro side but it doesn't mean you should do it. It just means that there's lots of pros and cons and maybe you should be aware of them all and then make your own decision.

All right, let's see what else is going on. Oh here's the name of that company that's making that air vaccination thing that just blows air into you. It's DiosynVax. D-I-O-S-Y-N like synthetic vax. And let me give you some advice. I'm going to give some corporate advice here to this company. So you can just watch but this is intended for the CEO of DiosynVax. If you're trying to make a device to get the people who don't want vaccinations, a lot of them would be Christian. You don't want to name your company Dio Syn Vax because dying is bad, sin is bad, and some p