 All right, I told you about vaccines. We talked about this a couple of days ago. We talked about vaccines. We talked about the fact that why don't, instead of doing, in a sense, 30,000 people in phase three clinical trials, why not use the entire, or as many people as they can vaccinate right now, as much supply as they have, get as many people vaccinated, go into production, start vaccinating everybody. Some of the vaccine will work, some of them won't. People have to sign up because there's risk involved. One of the risks involved in this is that some vaccines will actually make you react more strongly, potentially, more strongly. Bad vaccines can make you react more strongly to COVID. So for only give it to people who are willing to take the risk or willing to do it, don't give it to the elderly, for example, give it to younger people, see what happens, and run the phase three trials on hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions or tens of millions of people. I think that would save a huge amount of time. It would get the economy going again. It would get people, much more activity could be engaged. We'd get rid of a lot of the obstacles that US economy has right now. And phase two is to secure its safety, that you're not gonna die from it. You're not gonna get really, really hurt badly. And the vaccines passed that. Now what's interesting is this was proposed in an op-ed, I can't remember if it was New York Times or somewhere else, by a scientist who said let's vaccinate as many people as we can and use that as the phase three. I think it was a Forbes article. Sorry, it was in Forbes, right? He did it in Forbes, not New York Times. Basically got a huge backlash, huge massive backlash. People wrote to him, scientists, everybody wrote to him and he today retracted his statement. He said, no, I made a mistake. It's actually riskier and there's not enough production and basically wimp. I say go for it with all the risks, with all the challenges. If you don't, if it's too risky for you as an individual, I mean, it would have to go with education, about the risk and have to go with people signing a liability waiver, but I say roll out the vaccines. And then today I noticed this interesting story about this group of scientists in Boston, scientists at Harvard and MIT who are like, we don't have time to wait for this vaccine. This disease is bad. These are people who, you know, taking COVID seriously and they think it's really, really bad and they don't want to get it and they're scared. So basically they formed a group, RadVac, they're calling it RadVac, they formed a group and basically some of the grad students in this group have developed what they think is a vaccine. They haven't tested it. So they think it's a vaccine. They're basically using, in a sense, elements of the virus itself. And it's a nasal spray, you know, right now in development, there are 199 different COVID vaccines, 199. Five of which are nasal sprays. Anyway, they have a nasal spray. There's a whole theory about this. I'm not gonna get into the science of it. There's a whole theory of it. And they basically have a mailing list of like 70 people who've agreed to take this. And they're not charging anything. And this grad, these, I guess it's scientists, grad students, I think it's scientists, putting the vaccine together and mailing it to people. And then the person doesn't actually get the vaccine itself yet, they have to mix two substances, shake it, I guess, and then spread it into their nose. And they don't know how many of the 70 people have actually done it. And many of these are prominent scientists at MIT and Harvard. So these are big time names, not trivial. And the question is, is that legal? And they don't know exactly, right? The idea is because they're doing it themselves, then it should be legal according to the FDA. But because they're distributing it, maybe not. Now my view is, who the hell cares? If these guys want to create a vaccine and if somebody, if they give it to their friends, I don't care who they give it to, they produce it, they get to decide who gets it, because they're all these ethical dilemmas. Well, but they're privileged, quote, that anti-concept, privileged, because they have a talent, ability, and a lab, and they can create this and we can't. So we're at a disadvantage. Fine, so what? If you have an advantage, why not take it? They're not doing it at my expense. I'm not worse off because they're better off. And they're giving it to their friends and family. Great, good for them. Now I don't know if it'll work and there's risks involved, but these are all smart people. Why would anybody object to this? But of course, people are going to in an egalitarian world in which everybody has to get everything at the same time. People are gonna object to this, just like they're gonna object to whatever mechanism we have to distribute vaccines. There will be objections to it because not everybody will be able to get it at the same time. And I think it's pretty cool. I think it's pretty cool that scientists can figure this out. They've got the genome of these all biologists, the genome of the vaccine. They figure out quick, make it home, kitchen variety vaccine for the virus and they're injecting it. And they're taking this whole phenomenon seriously. So they're taking the whole COVID thing seriously, not like some people. And as a consequence, they want to get vaccinated. So they are. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist, bro. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show you support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marks, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.