 Thank you so much, President Clinton, from the bottom of our hearts for helping this movement become real. It was something I dreamt of, but you gave it life. I remember when we were traveling together through Africa, looking at the incredible work you've done with CGI and CHI, and when we talked about it, how you said, if I came back the next day, you said, boy, this is a lot of lives lost, more than we lost in Vietnam, more than we lost in Korea. And if I try to do something about it, you'd help and you'd stay true to that, you've been coming here now. The sixth year in a row, it's humbling, I can't tell you what it means to that child that you just talked about. But I have a hypothetical question. Now that you know what you know for the past six years working together, if you were president of the United States now, what would you do to eliminate this problem? Well, first of all, I think the healthcare budget should be organized around the biggest problems and the biggest opportunities. Right now, basically in the law, the budget, we've made some progress in this. But if you look at Medicare, Medicaid, the veteran system, other healthcare budgets for the government, they're largely organized to serve discrete populations. And then we leave it up to the rest of you to figure out how to fill in the blanks, which is on balance good. But if you know you're missing a big opportunity, for example, in premature hospital deaths, I think we should do that. I mean, when I was really pleased that years ago, before the veterans' hospitals were overrun by the increased survival rates of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, that's basically what happened to the VA system in America. For those of you who are from the United States, we had more and more veterans living longer from previous wars, so they were being cared for. And then you had far higher survival rates because of the increased impact of battlefield medicine. So you had people surviving with serious traumatic brain injuries, serious other problems that had to be taken. So I believe if I were there relevant to what you're doing, I would put more money into trying to solve these preventable problems. And I would do the same thing with the opioid crisis. I think that what a guy's finger is on to something now. I mean, we should simply, 90 plus percent of the impact of the opioid pain killers can be met through other drugs that have no known addictive qualities. So we should start with that and try to stop the gateway door. Then we should recognize we've got a whole bunch of people with serious problems. And the thing that bothers me is that most poor people have no access whatever to any kind of meaningful treatment in the United States. I've been through all of this. I've had Hillary and I have five friends who've lost their children to overdoses. And only, and one for sure and maybe two of them could have been helped only by Narcan. That is, there are still unbelievably a staggering number of people in the United States who do not know the basic biochemistry of mixing alcohol and opioids. That is, they do not know that if you pop an oxycontin to get a buzz after you drink a bunch of beer or wine or a hard liquor and you go to sleep, it deadens the part of your brain that tells your body to breathe while you're sleeping. It's unbelievable. They don't know it. There should be, this should be announced at the beginning of every school year and every, literally in every high school in America and every university in America. Some of you are smiling, but I'm telling you, I have, I talked to a 20-year-old boy last summer after I got off an old public golf course in Long Island. And all these people gathered around me and all I wanted to talk about was the opioid epidemic. They were mostly working people playing there, you know, middle-class people. And there was one young man there and his eyes were biggest dollars and he came up to me after it was over and he said, God, I didn't know anybody like you cared about this stuff. He said, I got out of rehab four days ago and I said, how you doing? He said, I'm doing fine, but he said, I want to live. And I got a good family and I've got a sports system. But he said, I think it's a damn shame you have to be as rich as my parents are to save your kid's life. I mean, it was really moving. So we just had a supplemental budget deal made in the United States, which in many ways I think was a bad thing. But one of the good things was they finally put a little more money into the community health centers and I would make a serious effort to try to see that the drug treatment was that we train massive numbers of people on the most effective known strategies and realize they might be only 50% effective, but that's 50% more than most people are getting now. I think that's one thing that really ought to be done in the United States. But generally, I think that our health care system ought to incentivize proven strategies that work so that a guy asked Joe before we came out here, I said, how many hospitals are in the United States? And he said, would you say 5,000? And I said, how many are in the networks? He said 2,000. And then I said, give me some big hospital chains that aren't in it. And he told me and I said, well, I'll see if I can help. We ought to be, everybody ought to be in this. Nobody should be afraid of this. And the thing I like about what this approach is, is that you don't point a finger at anybody. You don't say, oh, shame on you for not doing this side of the other thing. Just have to ask people to help. Most people do not want to have people die on their watch. But everybody, it's basic human nature, is afraid that they'll be outed for not having done something. And you've done, been over backwards to avoid that feeling. I think that's really important. That's a big problem by the way in this gun debate we're having in America. Talk about a public health problem. In other words, basically the problem you got in America on that is that, I believe it or not, a smaller percentage of households own guns in America than own guns 30 years ago, the percentage of households. So if you're in a gun manufacturer and you want to make more money, a totally paranoid population of gun owners is really good for you. Because then you can get people to go out and buy more guns and more ammunition than they need, and keep upping the sophistication of the weapons because the devil's at the door, the devil's at the door. And we need to create a situation where what I did, we passed an assault weapons ban in 2004 when I was there, and a magazine limit. And we lost 12, 15 congressmen over to second time in the history of America, the speaker of the House who defeated because he stood up for the lives of kids. So these young people in Florida need to be supported, but they're probably going to have to win some elections before we do it. Meanwhile, the gun owners, we should say, look, nobody wants to interfere with your right to hunt, to sports shoot, or to protect your family. But we need your help. We don't think that you like it, that all these kids are being killed. And let's don't pretend that there's some easy way to do this. Look at what happened in Australia, look at what happens in Canada, look at what happens. Any time a country takes a serious position on this, you can drive down the number of mass killings, and it could have been much worse. I mean, did that guy, did that guy, did that guy, did that guy, did that guy, did that guy, first, I mean, did that guy Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas he could have killed 500 people. We're so lucky that it wasn't worse than it was. So I think that, you know, I think we had to keep knocking on the door here. But I would like to see the federal government do more to promote things that we know save money to improve health generally, And they could, with the right sort of incentives, get almost all the hospitals in the country and the patient safety movement. And I think it would be an appropriate thing to do. Thank you for what you did with the assault weapon ban. It's a shame that it expired. And it's a shame that people lost their jobs in Congress. We have someone here, Jeremy Hunt, who's doing some incredible work where he's breaking down some of the barriers I've seen in every other country in regards to transparency, no blame way of looking at harm. And he's got a lot of people criticizing him for it, but it's the right thing to do. And some people are courageous enough to do it. Well again, it depends on whether you really believe cooperation is the best way to solve problems, especially among diverse groups. I mean, we, this is an age of great resentment. And if you expect instantaneous benefits, then you just want to run up to body count on whatever it is. I don't mean body count in the sense of mass killings, but I mean, you know, just zap people. But the truth is, we need to, if you want to rehumanize the world and these countries and deal with these human losses, that's hard work. And resentment is not much of a guide. You've got to figure out who can contribute to solving the problem, who can contribute to seizing the opportunities. And you have to make people give them the emotional space to do the right thing. Yeah, we'd like to make the world sane again, starting with America. You know, all of us, if you live long enough, you make enough decisions, you're going to make some mistakes. And if you live long enough and you have any kind of feelings, you know, you'll make some mistakes because you weren't thinking you were feeling. And if you have no feelings, you might as well be a robot. You'll also do some magnificent things in your life because you had feelings and you acted on them instead of you're just, you're a calculating brain. And so when you come into that kind of network, you have to make allowances. You have to give people the psychic space they need to help to be free to make something good happen. And it's very hard to do that in an atmosphere of constant, relenting resentment. And I think I don't want to get off the subject here, but part of this may just be the stage we're in with the information revolution we're going through. You know, eventually people will become, I hope, immune to fake news and false profits, both P-R-O-P-H-E-T and P-R-O-F-I-T profits. But all this needs to be, you know, it's easy to wig out on something that's wrong and quite another thing to do something about it. But in the end, that matters more. And I think it's fine to give voice to resentments and we all have them and some of them are legitimate and some of them aren't. But in the end, the question comes back to what do you want to do? I've spent, ever since I left the White House, I realized that I had a opportunity out of politics to try to figure out how to help people to get together in diverse groups and figure out how to do things faster, better at lower costs and saying it is a lot easier than doing it. But first, people have to want to do it. They have to have the space to do it, the emotional space. If you want to, this is like these in America that a lot of these gun owners agree that there ought to be restrictions to reduce school shooting and mass killings. So they should be asked for help. Then the people that won't help are still vulnerable to the paranoia machine that is the gun manufacturers lobby, the gun owners. That's really what's driving all this. It's a business model. Then you have to try to defeat them in a free process. And they'll have to be some of both. But I think it's very important if you lived in a big state in the United States where the nearest law enforcement was two hours away from you. There are really a lot of people who live in places where the nearest law enforcement's an hour away, even in the same county. You would probably have a rifle in your home. And you'd probably know how to use it. You'd probably make sure your kids did at an appropriate age. And you would do that. You should, and a lot of those people that will vote against anybody who tries to act on here because they think it's all just an excuse to get their guns. Or they think there's so many guns out there it won't make any difference. And you have to talk to those people with respect and reach out to them. Because a lot of them are really good people. If you were their neighbors and your house was on fire, they'd come in and try to save your kids and put the house out, the fire out. But they can be snapped. We're all vulnerable to resentment and fear. So the trick is to oppose the people who have made a cold-blooded decision that they're prepared to let these kinds of incidents occur. Because it's part of their business model and the people that are caught in the middle who are just trying to hold onto their way of life. And you have to do both. If you want to make change, instead of just have dueling resentments. You touching back on the opioid crisis. I know I've had the pleasure of knowing you for a while. And I know for the last two years, you've made that one of the strong, big initiatives, two of the big initiatives you're carrying forward. What can we do? What are you doing? What can we do to help with the opioid problem? Well, first of all, there's a big debate. A lot of people think too much is made of this Narcan thing because they think it, like I've even heard law enforcement people say this enables people to use. I personally don't buy that. I think anything that saves a life in an emergency is good. And there's almost no such thing as an unmixed blessing. So are there some negative consequences of knowing you can always fall back on Narcan? Sure there are. Just like we were talking backstage about how you can use your medical technology to, if drug users will use it, to know that they have now used heroin or they have now overdosed and they're about to be in terrible trouble and they can call for help. I still think you ought to do it. A small Irish company ADAPT was the first company in the United States to offer nasal spray Narcan and the FDA approved it in record time. It was a good thing. And they are, as their sales allow, giving away dosages of it to high schools and colleges throughout America. So I think that's a good thing. What our problem is, as I said, the only people who only need that are people who are not yet addicted to opioids and just didn't know they could mix it with alcohol. They couldn't mix it with alcohol. They're more of those people than you think. That's a good thing. But otherwise, you have to detox and then after detox, you have to have access to some sort of treatment. And then you have to have enough follow-up to recognize that and 50% of the cases that won't work the first time are that there will be some sort of relapse. But the idea that I went through that with two people in the last year where, and one didn't, one didn't. It worked. I was almost, I was a statistical example into these cases I was involved with trying to help people. One did, one didn't. But you just can't give up. I mean, we have to see this in society and in places that have this problem as a, you know, something that unless you just wanna give up on these people, you just have to keep doing that. And it's the best treatment that has today a prohibitive cost if it were part of insurance plans and we could get more people into it than the best treatment would, relatively speaking, become somewhat less expensive. And I think that's important. But this is not an easy deal. But I'm just telling you, this is a, it's the number of people who died almost by accident is far higher than people know. I mean, I had one friend of mine had a daughter who was in having trouble with her marriage and they were separated at Christmastime and he was desperate, he called her every day. She was, she spoke French and Spanish and Mandarin fluently. And she was a lawyer and she had just for kicks translated from French into Spanish for commercial sale a novel. Well, she was just practicing along. And he couldn't find her and the police went into her department and found her sitting there watching television, stone dead with a glass of wine in front of her. And so there's a lot of this out there. You know, there's no, not a lot of room for sanctimony here. We're either gonna do more on this or we're not. But just think about it, we've been feeling with this. We, my foundation been working on this for five or six years, it's been a problem for a decade or more in America. And nobody tells these kids when they go to school that you can die if you do this. You cannot mix these two things. Two of these five people would definitely be alive today if they had done what they did in the daytime falling asleep at lunch. Then somebody would have revived them and they would have gone on and they had enough life in them and enough reason to live and enough positive reinforcement that it would never would have happened again. I'm positive of it. Maybe three, but I'm sure or two. So these are the kinds of things, on the other hand, the others I think, and also for those of you who live on the edge of this, both in hospitals and with the drug problem, you just won't have 100% impact. There's some people that you, it won't work because you don't get there in time. But we can do way better than we're doing now. Way better. And in order to do it, you have to be willing to weight into the thickets of all these things knowing that in the beginning at least you won't be 100% effective in everything you're talking about. That's the other thing. If you take responsibility for something I learned a long time ago, your few failures may outweigh your massive numbers of successes in your own mind. You have to learn to forgive yourself for trying and failing. It's a big deal for everybody in life. You gotta suit up and try every day. That's the gift you're given. You just think about it. Everybody in this room has a gift that most people who lived before the last 100, 200 years never had, you got to choose what you wanted to do with your waking hours. It's something we all take for granted, isn't it? And you can choose to quit now. You can walk out this door and do something else. Most people never had that choice. It is a gift. And you have to live with the ambiguities and the burdens of it as well as with the benefits. And you can't let it get you down. On balance, it's way better than giving up your freedom, I think. President Clinton, in 93, you try to pass a sweeping bill to change our healthcare insurance ecosystem. I know recently, Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and J.P. Morgan have announced that they're gonna create their own insurance company, not for profit. What's your thoughts of that? And is that the new way, the third way maybe of providing insurance instead of either single payer or the way we're doing it? What do you think about that? Well, because we didn't, before the current Congress administration were in, I liked the bill that President Obama signed, but it had some serious problems. The small business market never worked exactly as it was supposed to work. And there were not enough providers in rural areas. There were all kinds of, there were gaps in it. And I think that we should have created a so-called public option to cover those gaps after the last election that was no longer a reasonable possibility. Now, the great thing about letting Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon and the others do this is that they will look for disruptive technologies, some of which may mortify some of you. That is, you may think they will claim to be doing things that will actually be short-circuiting aspects of the healthcare system that you think are important, or that they may have the market power to provide certain things to people at a price which will wreck the economic model of others who are serving even more people. So then this is all unpredictable. But I think that it will be a very good thing on balance. My gut, I'm betting on them coming up with some good ideas that will be applicable to the larger populations that will lower the per unit, that is the per person cost of providing basic healthcare and find greater efficiencies for dealing with people who have more costly conditions. But there will be some, if you do it this way, there's gonna be some wreckage, particularly if the Congress remains reluctant to make appropriate continuing changes. So it used to be, for example, and this wouldn't apply to Britain, for example, or any country with a parliamentary system. But in our system where Americans persist in believing that they're better off with the president one party, the Congress and another are aware there's no connection between the voting. But what we used to do is, for example, if you passed Medicaid in 65 and Medicare, everybody would realize that you couldn't have a major change without unintended consequences. Arizona, for example, did not take Medicaid for 20 years. So it didn't bother me that these states were in a different place. But when that happens, what Congress always had was a bipartisan committee whose job it was to fix obvious flaws in major legislation and to try to pass changes that would deal with problems that were inadvertently omitted from the legislation. So that when you passed the bill, nobody thought it was supposed to be like the 10 commandments. I mean, it was something, it was a work in progress and it was a structure and everything else was refinement. And at least in the United States, we don't tend to do that anymore. But that's what you need to, and so these big companies have enough market power that they might be able to do that. That is, they might be too disruptive, too fast, and there might be some unintended consequences to systems that are working fairly well, and that's what we'll have to watch. But given the fact that so many things don't work at all and can't be fixed, they could really do a lot. What I hope they'll do is something like the re-insurance building business is doing for climate change and resilience work in the United States. For example, if you read the newspapers, you would think in America the Republicans don't believe in climate change and the Democrats do and nothing's gonna happen and all that. But if you were mayor of a coastal city in America, particularly on the Atlantic Seaboard, it wouldn't matter whether you were a Democrat or a Republican because the re-insurance companies have already told you if you expect us to allow you to have any insurance, you will have a resilience plan, you will build further away from the ocean, you will build down deeper, you will elevate the structures, you will take account of the prospect of rising sea levels and try to do what you can to mitigate those rising sea levels. So that's what these big companies could do for healthcare. So it's interesting, one group you'll notice is absent from our movement or the current insurance companies and it's not from lack of trying to get them involved. It'll be interesting to see if this group will be interested in joining. You think they would be because of all the extra costs associated with medical errors, but they haven't. Why do you think that is? You think they got all they can say grace over with the new law and all that? Well I have to tell you, you have convened some incredible people that you've given me a chance to speak with to try to get them to join and I'm not gonna name them, but after meeting with several insurance company executives as part of what you helped me gather, one of them actually took me out and said, Jill, you know why we're not signing up? He said when the cost of the more errors and more problems to hire the cost and we get a percentage of that total. So if the cost go down 50%, our revenues will go down. Now that person may not have really spoken for the industry but that's the whisper I got. But when they got into the healthcare bill, the way the administration got a lot of them to sign on was to give them piece of the savings. That is, look, if that were true, they should have been against universal insurance or as close as we could get to it and they worked out deals to give them a piece of the savings. So I don't know. And so they must think now that 100% of the savings will go to the providers and not to the insurance companies. And the other thing is they also have a real problem because we didn't fix the small town, the rural, the small business markets enough. So I think that's an economics problem. If we're stuck with private insurance, then they have to get a rate of return on everything they do and so you just cut them in and give them part of the savings. And I'll bet you a lot of the providers might be willing to do that in order to get the savings and save the lives. Keep in mind, a lot of the providers, their first value is saving the lives. They don't want it to cost them money. They know they'll save money, but if let's say there's a, you know, whatever the X billion dollars will be saved, then you should get the insurance networks to support it because if they did support it, then they could require a lot of these procedures by the providers. They could drastically accelerate this transformation and it would be worth it to give them part of the savings. Well, interesting transformations are occurring. CVS and Aetna combining, so they can provide lower cost of care to the patients, to the people. You've got some major health systems last month that announced that they're gonna create their own not-for-profit generic drug company. What do you think? I mean, we live in a society that believes in the free market and the capitalistic notions of free market. What do you think about these ideas? Do you think they're good long-term? If you take a long view, or do you think they could make others that would want to get in and more of a free market, capitalistic type of approach, shy away from solving some of the problems ahead? It depends on whether those unbalanced that things you've cited, I think would be good because I think that the markets under the, I think the patents tend to be too long and I think the price of medicine is too high because in the United States, what we do is we give an in effect, almost monopoly pricing on new drugs and the theory that costs so much money to take a new drug to market and we have to give all the profits in the United States drug sales because even in the wealthiest countries in Europe, there are restraints on what people can charge but Germany and Switzerland have sizable pharmaceutical companies and they bring new drugs to market and they live with restraints on prices. So I think that my own view is that these things should be done and what would also keep in mind an increasing percentage of new drugs brought to market had either some or dominant involvement investment provided by the United States government through appropriations from Congress but all the benefits go to the pharmaceutical companies that do it unless the drugs were developed in the university labs. So I think that we'll work out the details of that. I think on balance it's worth trying these new things because you can't, it's unrealistic to expect that from now to the end of time that the United States will pay the extra costs of development and bringing to market medicine that can then be sold for peanuts in every other country in the world no matter what their per capita income is and no matter what it does to healthcare premiums in the United States, this whole thing's gonna have to be rationalized a little better and I personally, when I was president I used to talk to these drug companies and say look I have actually no problem with our paying a premium for medicine in order to keep these jobs in America keep this important industry in America and keep you devoting money to R&D but if you look at the trends over the last few years where less and less money is put into R&D and more money is put into basically stock buybacks and other things it's an institution that has become kind of institutionalized that is more interested in perpetuating the present array of resources than in breaking new ground. So I think it's overdue for a reworking and if that's one of the things that happens as a result of this big company and these other issues you met I think that we just have to be sensitive to what the danger to the public interest is and figure out a good fix but you can't be afraid of change what we're doing if what you're doing is not working then you just have to get in there and try to change it as best you can and recognize that there are always always unintended consequences to every change and the job of change maker is to mitigate the negative ones. That's just a law of life if otherwise you wouldn't ever do anything. You know, otherwise we'd also be riding and we'd be riding around London and horse drawn carriages. Not such a bad idea. So back to our world, speaking of change and maybe unintended consequences. In my company, if I have a problem in my production line or we find a design flaw, we stop the line until we figure out what's going on. If we think we figure it out then we start making stuff again. We're preaching to the choir. These are the hospitals that are making the commitments implementing the solutions but many hospitals still haven't and the question I have, what do you think about this notion that hospitals stop taking elective surgeries until they have implemented all the processes that are known to make sure human errors don't become fatal? Well, that's why the insurance company things important because the only way you're ever gonna get something like that done and it could be done like that then is if the people who are paying for it require that. So I think it's a good idea as long as people have a reasonable time to do it but you gotta get, that won't work unless everybody's doing it and there's either an immediate incentive to the hospital to do it or the people that are paying for the surgeries require it which is why you wanna get the insurance companies in. I mean, it looks to me like this is that if you look at the economics of it, it ought to be simple. If I were running an insurance company and I wanted fewer losses so that more of my premium income would not be at risk I would be for this. If the hospitals got the benefit of all the savings or then I might resist it but you keep in mind this is a less raw version of the school shooting. There are people's lives at stake here. You have to basically make it clear that if you choose not to do this you are making a decision indirectly that there will be more fatalities that can be avoided just like if you choose not to do something about salt weapons and large capacity magazines you're making a decision that there will be more mass shootings. Having said that, you're not a bad person we think you wanna do better and you're entitled to the cost of the transition and there's a way that will all be better off when this is over. I mean, I think that it's a combination of outrage and stick and making it, people feel safe in making these changes and rewarded and patted on the back and doing all this, there's a big, there's a lot of evidence in all human motivation studies that the things we assume are driving people are not necessarily driving people that there is an innate desire to solve problems and an innate desire to advance human knowledge and an innate desire to enhance human life. And I think even if it had a neutral economic impact and matter that actually there's some evidence that a neutral economic impact is better than a positive one but if you can't expect the whole insurance industry to think it's gonna be a negative economic impact but you may not have to bribe them or anything as long as they think it's not gonna be negative. I mean, I think I know a lot of people in a totally different context who felt terrible that they could never figure out a way to get 20,000 small business people to join into one pool so we could have an affordable small business pool or felt terrible that we could never figure out a way in rural America to insure people in pounds of 5,000 and less at the same per capita cost they could in cities. And so it may be that if you just, obviously you'd have to do the research on this but there's an enormous amount of behavioral studies which show that we assume you have to bribe people with money to get them to do what's right and that's not that there isn't an innate desire to do that but you can't expect people to shoot themselves in the foot. So I would recommend just starting at zero and just try to get people so they won't be in the hole if they do the right thing and then see if they won't do it anyway. One last question. I don't always get to sit with one of the most intelligent and smartest people in the world so I'm gonna ask you a tough one. We've got a lot of companies who've signed the pledge to share data. We're except for one in the EMR industry and one in the infusion pump company industry who have not been able to get the rest of them, get the rest of them to sign the open data pledge to share their data. What would you say to them? What is your advice to them to get them? I'm gonna play your video in front of them to why they should sign our open data pledge. How would you approach it? Well I would tell them first of all they're not that go back to the point you said was made in the UK. Nobody wants to hurt you. You're not running for office. You gotta understand, when people think about sharing data, I mean look at the United States. You would conclude given the events of the last two years that if you share your data you're a fool because it can only be, it's only interesting to people if it can be used against you whether it's being used truthfully or not. I mean we released 38 years of tax returns and they showed we always paid in some cases more than we owed, 98% in ordinary income tax, gave three times of national average in charity and so it was a boring story because it wasn't bad. And then if you don't release your income taxes at all but you maintain a very high level of sanctimonious rhetoric, people, people, wait, wait, wait, people get bored griping about the same old thing you didn't show until they write about something else. I mean keep in mind a lot of this reluctance is formed by the information eco structure. Even it may not even be a self-conscious decision. People believe that information is only valuable to others and so far as it can be used to hurt you. So what you need to do is to say, look, this is not that. We're trying to save lives here. Aye, Joe County. Aye, the person in charge of healthcare in the UK. We are not going to hurt you. If there is a problem we will help you solve it. We will not tell people you're irresponsible. We are not to help people you're reckless. We will not tell people we'll help you solve the problem so we can all go forward together. I think if you go, think about it, there would be no successful AA meetings. If people thought what they shared at AA meetings would be treated in the same way that your standard political story is. Would there? I mean, AA's work pretty well. That's about as effective as anything else anybody's ever done for this. And the whole model would collapse if it was based on bad fates, selective, twisted use of anything negative cause it doesn't work unless you let it all hang out. I'm a lousy drunk. Here is the thing that I've done when I was drunk. It was horrible. And they give you an atta boy for God's sakes. And they should because you're trying to get better. And so I think my own view about this whole information sharing deal is it's somewhere between AA, right? And not giving up your tax returns if you're a politician. But you're laughing at me but I'm telling you the truth that the same kind of things are going through people's minds all the time. And what you've got to do is to make it safe. You've got to say that this is an honorable business. You're doing the best you can. You're like everybody else you're dealing with a complex world. You may have made a mistake. You may have some problems. And we're gonna give you an atta boy and help you solve it. And the more people feel safe that they're giving up something to get better instead of giving up something to have somebody cut their heads off and put them out of business or humiliate them the more likely they are to share the information. I mean, you know, that's what I think anyway. I've had as you might imagine no little experience with this. And I think it's, you know, we're saving lives here. We're not trying to tip an election. You just need to tell them it and you're not gonna let their competitors in effect treat it like it was a piece of political data. That's what you have to do. You've got to do that. And then you want to get the, you want it so that everybody who is not hiding tax evasion or something else feels safe. And it's, look, it's a scary world out there. You know, people think they're guilty of cues. And so you got to get by that. You got to say, no, no, no, no, we got this. This is more like, you're not like AA. You don't have to confess you're bad. You just have to confess you may be imperfect and you want to know what the deal is and you'd like to do better. And you've laid the groundwork. You've asked people to do this so they can get better. That they should be rewarded for doing this, not punished. Again, you know, this is a whole different approach than what tends to dominate the headlines today. But again, keep in mind, you're in the trend line business, not the headline business. And if you really get that mindset that you're in the trend line business, then you can get the headlines. Eventually, if you keep at it, the headlines will reflect the business you're in. People are smart enough to figure this out if it's presented to them in the proper way. What's, we have this incredible talent that's committed a group of people we have. What's your charge to them? What's your closing comments? We have some people also live streamed. You know, I had the great privilege to be in the only line of work where people are surprised if you know anything. I mean, it's really true. You know, if you're a politician, people are stunned if you know anything. And he knows a lot. So the bar's kind of low. I don't know much about what most of you do. But I know this, that the more you know and the harder you work, the more you have to have protections for your good intentions and your hard work against the unintended consequences of your collective endeavors. Because it is almost impossible to be busy doing good and be constantly aware of any systematic shortcomings that may exist or may arise. It's almost impossible to do that. And the busier you are, the harder it is in some ways. So this movement offers you a chance basically to have somebody in your organization or you yourself in a part of your life look at the thing whole and make it better and make sure that the good motivations and the hard work and the good work you've done actually advances the cause to which you devoted your life. I think that's the important thing. We all, almost all the major mistakes I've made in my life is I made when I was so tired I couldn't lift my hand above my shoulder. And I was working hard, trying to do what I thought was good, you know? And it's very easy to be defensive when you do that. The harder you work and the more good you try to do, the more prickly you are about it. Being told, well, you know, you've got to do this differently. I don't have any time to think about that. So that's my advice. My advice is for yourself and for each other, give each other a lot of support in this. Self-examination and changing systems and changing habits and changing pattern. While you're doing your day job, what you got in this, whatever you're doing, what you got into it in the first place is a hard thing to do, but it is very rewarding. And as I said, that the whole future of the world, in my opinion, depends on increasing the level of cooperation among diverse networks of people. Diverse networks make better decisions. With a cooperation model, then lone geniuses are homogenous groups. And in order to make it free and safe for people to do that, you have to be aware of all the pressures not to do it and compensate for them, take account of them. And, you know, it's the brave thing for the government agency to undertake that. Because most people in government learn sooner rather than later that they'll never get in trouble for just saying no. Whatever it is, say no and stay out of the press. And of course, when you're done, you might never be able to cite anything you did either. So we all have to be a little more risk-oriented in a prudent way. You can't be totally risk-averse, but I think you need to help each other minimize the downside of doing this, help each other create the space to do this. And realize what I was telling you, what do you believe there's an afterlife or not? Once you realize both how small we are and the larger span of human existence and the massively and daily increasing space of the universe, and therefore how big your life is because nobody else has got one that's bigger, it oughta give you all the energy you need to do that. It's not that much trouble to give people the space they need to do better. Thank you.