E113: DOJ tries to break up Google, vaccine questions, Ukraine escalation & more
01:38:30 Share

Sexy, how much heat and momentum is nicky hai garden this week?

Oh my god, stop trying to make nicky hai happen. Thatch is not happening. stopped. Try to make fetch happen.

Stop to trying to make fetch.

It's .

happening.

This is like my long google short facebook portrait of last year. It's happening.

That is not happening. Okay, stop. Make you happen.

We open sources to the fans .

and just got crazy.

Just as the programing note, we get a twitter survey and useless this access as the person you wanted to moderate the pod most next. So welcome to fox, new to sunday and here your post game, if you really .

shaved about this on to you.

J, K, no, I am excited for IT. I am so excited just .

to save a keyboard warrior the time. I will never, ever, ever moderate this thing. So i'm here to talk.

right. Three, to welcome to the all in pod. I am your host, the rainman and David sacks, the famous dome clock that atomic scientists used to measure the threat of nuclear iolaus has never been closer in the night, not even during the cold war.

But since the best you think is more important to discuss their stockpile folios, we're going to save you ukraine for later in the show priorities, right, gentlemen. And why not? Who says you can't take IT with you? The dictator cheatham I hoa T S playing to be entomb with his money like an egypt fero and with his sweaters too, even though he certainly won't be cold where he's going.

And of course, so throw in the world's greatest moderator, Jason cocaine, in the tune to be had servant in the after life. It's the world jack out them, preparing for all his life by sucking up to every tech founder. VC you can get in a room with I give venerates the sodden science with freeburg he's just paranoid enough to survive with me in the bunker even though he still won't be crushing the dog. S elites that got us here.

How much to dinners .

a .

class does he come?

The money back responds, 一开始。

一开始 了， i'm with .

you actually good. The funny part is when you almost read a loud like, it's like you were like and then David freeburg, insert, pause here.

Reading is an area.

It's an o when you .

did the intro, come on, did I really say, didn't we cut IT? Yeah you read and then you cut IT. You hate IT IT.

And then we made you put that back in or something like that. Job security is here, right?

OK. Issue one is you one google break up the just department. And eight states are now seeking to break up google business, brokering digital advertising across the this is one the most important legal chAllenges the companies are faced.

Foto lawsuit on tuesday, the just department did, alleging that google abuses its role as one of the largest broker suppliers in online auction years of as placing websites and mobile applications. The filing promises is a protracted court battle with huge implications for the digit advertising industry. Of course, google responded to the law in a blog post saying that the D O, J, S.

Request for to unwind two previous acquisitions from a decade ago is an attempt to rewrite history. They said that D. O.

Jas characterises how is advertising products work? They say that people choose to use google because they are effective, and the company highlights other companies making moves the advertising industry as well, such as microsoft, ams on apple and tiktok. So I guess i'll kick IT to you.

Moth, do you think the D O J has a case here? Do you believe that google PaaS monopoly in online advertising and is unfairly using IT to gain market ture? And is this the right remedy breaking .

up the company? Yeah, I think that this is a totally ill founded lawsuit. And I think IT just shows more of the personal enmity and anger that some people in the U.

S. Government has towards entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship than anything else. Now why is that? Let just think about what a monopoly is. A A monopoly or a monopolist effectively creates a completely stagnant, non viBrant market in which they have pricing power and complete control.

Now the argument that I think that refutes that just on its face is if you actually look number one at their share in number two, how the rest of the share has changed over time. So can you just please throw that up from bloomberg? This is just in a bomberg article that I just shared with you guys.

But google controls twenty six point five percent of a market. Forty three point four percent of that market is with a diverse group of others. Meta has eighteen point four percent, and amazon has eleven point seven. This is not the type of pie chart you would see if you had a monopolist.

So for example, if you went back to the big, big, big monopoly case in the one thousand nine hundred eighties, which is when we broke up mobile, well what that circle would have shown is that they basically had effectively a hundred percent year. And what this shows is that there's a huge diversity of people in this market. The second thing is that if you had done this chart many years ago, amazon would not really even been there.

And over the last five years, they represent almost twelve percent of the entire market. And that means that if you forecast IT forward, they could be at fifteen to twenty percent and a few years as well. So while the pie is growing and definitely google takes a lot of the profit dollars, the distribution is so much more than what anything looks like in a monopoly.

And so I just think that means that the D O, J is more focused on trying to punish these great american companies. And IT isn't trying to be logical and reasoned. And so I don't think this is gonna.

The last thing i'll say about this is that if you think about what you should have done, if I were the U. S. government. I would have actually focused on search because search is a monopoly for google. And while google would try to argue that there are other ways of acquiring information, that is really not true.

And if you could prove that, that monopoly then LED to pricing power in ads, I think that's a much more nuances but logical argument that could work. But by focusing on this, I think it's gonna deconstructed. It's gonna fail.

The taxi version of this exact lawsuit already was thrown out a federal court. So I think that judges and the legal system don't have a lot of patients for this thing. I just meant more to kind of scare american companies and try to play boogie man and decision maker. And I don't think .

it's gonna. I think math raises a really great point that if you define the market as digi advertising, google's market sure is only about a quarter that doesn't seem like a monopoly. However, what the government says is that you should not look at digital advertising as a whole, but rather this sort of broker advertising that, you know google does for third party websites and applications, make sure a chart from their lawsuit.

You can see here that the way they define IT, again, they see IT as this brokering of self IDE in metres, which our website polishers. And then buy side demand, which are advertisers, defines this way. IT looks like google has ninety percent or more market share on the cell side because the double clock acquisition, they've got someone between forty and eighty percent market here on the debt side with advertisers.

And then in the middle, they have over thirty percent market ture of the ad exchange. Is this the right way to look at google's business? Or should we be just thinking about in from the delivers sing market?

I've been involved in add networks since about two thousand and two. So it's been obviously, i'm not directly involved in the business anymore. But um I was pretty close to this and I was pretty close to double click in the acquisition of the business product manager for a period of time on Edward ds.

So the way that that that chart kind of shows the connection between advertisers and publishers is correct. That and ad network, uh, generally speaking, brings buyers of add inventory to the sellers of ad inventory. And the sellers of ad inventory have the option to sell their inventory on an add network.

And if the money that they're making on those add slots that they have, whether it's a slot on the side of a page, on the top of the page or an interstitial video add, whatever is they're going to keep selling, they are inventory through that network if they're getting paid the most. And the real reason google has won as two part. One is because they ran add network ism auction, meaning advertisers were competing with each other to pay the most for an ad spot that was the highest quality.

There was also add quality index uh, calculation, a click through index, a bounce back index, that is all this data that feeds into google's add network auction so that the ad that shown on the publisher site is not just the best ad for the publisher, but the best add for the consumer. And then when the consumer clicks on the add, the publisher gets paid. And the second thing that google did.

And so the auction dynamic is a really powerful dynamic. He creates the best Price for the publisher and he creates the highest quality ad for the user, which translates typically in the higher click through and Better revenue. What they also did that was really powerful is they did the highest revenue share in the market.

So historically, add networkers had like A I think initially like a sixty forty red shire, with the only paid publishers forty percent of the revenue the advertiser paid. Then the network started to move to a fifty five, forty five model, then a fifty fifty model, then a forty five fifty five model. I believe, on average, google currently paying somewhere between seventy and eighty percent of their publishers.

I got to check my mouth on that, or ever the latest in eight seventy. And so IT is a very competitive share now that the point being because it's an auction system and because it's opt in by the publisher, if they're not paying the highest Price, the publisher can go and get ads from somewhere else. And historically, publishers built their own sales force to sell ads and to source advertisers and to make money off of their adam mentors and IT.

Turns out that was a lot more effective to use an add network to do that. The other add network simply haven't been as good at building an auction model and building competitiveness. But I will tell you that when you get to a certain volume and it's not a big volume, you don't need a million advertisers spitting against each other.

You only need a few dozen advertisers. And what you have a few dozen advertisers against each other, you start to get very competitive and inventory. So google is real lock in with publishers. And the real reason they win in this marketplace is because they they are pay the publishers the most.

And if you try and break this up, and if you actually do try and get into the the weeds of the whole system and change IT, the publishers ultimately will make less money. And this will be a real problem on the publisher side that they're making the most money, they're getting the highest share of advertisers spend and consumers are getting the best quality experience. That's what makes google's model so hard to tackle from an anti trust perspective.

Because of its giving basic is what you're saying that because fundamental, this is an auction model. IT prevents google from extracting monopoly rents.

correct? And they already pay the highest share on their add network back to the publishers. And so you could go in and say, hey, high sixty or seventy percent, they should be paying ninety percent. What's the real right number if they're already paying more than anyone else to the publishers, they're already making a lower margin, anyone? And i'll say let me just add two more things, sorry.

which I think just OK I go to check out first. I go check out here even though he won't do the same for me. Ah jack, i'll do you agree with freeburg that uh that the reason for google success is that they're hyper efficient and this auction mechanism prevents monopoly behavior? No.

there is monopoly behavior going on at google, obviously with search and putting their own content and services on top. And to smart point like that's probably the easier target here. This just feels like they are maybe ten years behind.

They should have just blocked the double click here to acquisition in two thousand and eight. And this consolidate of power, what publishers would say to freebooters point is when you're selling your own advertiser and you get a much higher C, P, M, go direct to samsung or IBM or ney. And so you want to create those direct relationships.

How much to those direct t relationships cost? It's probably twenty or thirty percent, which is exactly to the percentage that, uh, google is taking off the top. So google is pretty aware of that.

But it's just paradoxically that they're doing this at this time, David, because amazon has developed huge ad business, netflix and disney have now have had tears for their services to go up against youtube. So and then for the first time, we've been talking about google search supremacy being chAllenged by ChatGPT. So what happen with microsoft are just late ten years to too late maybe.

right? So to use one of your favorite words, is the D O J acting as a rug polar here for google in the sense that they're trying to unwind ten year old acquisitions. That does that make sense?

Yeah, doesn't make much sense.

The government, we will turn wind acquisition that .

happened a decade. So does I make any sense that they should they should learn from IT and not do IT again. Yeah, thanks.

What do you think?

I think it's a pretty bad way to approach things because they create so much uncertainty in the marketplace and as a chilling effect on future acquisitions. Yeah like when you get approved from the government, you want to know you're good yeah and we have an approval process. So that seems to me agree with jack out like if the government is going to a problem with an acquisition state IT up front, but then once they approve IT, you're approved, you're done otherwise know companies will be much less likely to you engage in acquisitions. And that's kind of a chilling effect on ma behavior in the ecosystem, which is bad for the ecosystem .

as a whole. You you need these exits.

IT puts U S. Compete veness against every other country and any other regulatory regime that will be more permissive to this stuff. And that doesn't make any sense.

And I think this is what's loss on this. I just feel these lawsuits right now are bordering on the mean spirit because these things have been tried. They've generally failed.

And so the real solution IT always goes back to this and its ugly and messes. You need to rewrite the actual laws to reflect how business conditions exist today. And so it's not the responsibility of the D O, J. To try to fit around packed into a square hole. IT doesn't work like that, and that's what you're trying to do. They trying to manipulate and control the law to try to go after somebody that shouldn't Frankly, be going after because these deals, to your point, were done a decade ago and they were done legally and they were done rightly. So if you have an issue with how market is evolved, change the law.

right? I'll also I I, I totally agree with chmagh. I think that this action, you know, as one of our friends put IT on our on our text screen, it's like killing the gold and goods. So I mean, this is one of the the big job creators, innovators and taxpayers and employers and drivers of economic growth.

And why would we allow that to go in kind of burgeon offshore as a as a government? This is absolutely um gona become uh kind of an opening for some you know international competitor to come and try and provide uh alternative services with similar economics. I'll also say I just say you guys a link, i'll send you one more.

The market itself is becoming so much more chAllenging to Operate in in as a mad network, you know, e commerce. So amazon's ad business is booming, right, as dump pointed out earlier. But so much more of consumer behavior is shifting where people are going direct to e commercials and then the ads that are getting the high est click through and where advertisers are spending more, more money ah is on e commercials.

I know this from experience on a couple of boards. I at where company stopped spending on facebook and google and just started spending exclusively on amazon. And that's where you get consumers that are much more likely to purchase.

The purchasing proclivity is higher, the click through rate is higher. So the return on spend is much higher. And then I think that there's a big shift happening right now, as you guys know with third party cookies. Google has declare that they're moving third party cookies in twenty twenty four. This means that in twenty twenty four, IT is going to be very hard to track a user from one website to the next.

If you go to a website and look at furniture and then you go to another website, r party cookies allow an advertiser to find you on the other website, knowing that you are just looking at furniture and send you a furniture at and say, hey, come on over and you are more likely to click on that add. It's been very effective for advertising and particularly in the segment of advertising called retargeting. But IT is becoming much harder to do this with third party cookies and with the apple identifier being yet.

And google just made an attempt to try get with the w 3c that was rejected。 And that change is now gone to make this hit very, very hard beginning in twenty twenty four. So the add networks themselves are already being massively hurt by apples I D changes, the third party cookies being removed. It's becoming harder to target consumers, harder to make money as um for publishers. So meanwhile the markets being .

chAllenged and was on communist verse definition of oil, in a market there is dynamism where companies are changing rules and that is relocating share gains to different players. That's the definition of a dynamic market that self regulating totally.

Five years ago, this was a bit more sense.

Yeah, much more sense. So I think this this goes back down to one basic thing, which is do are elected and appointed officials really understand what's going on in the economy. And I think this is an example that highlights not as much as they should.

And before a lawsuit like this gets filed, they should call us up. If they call thirty of us into a room one by one and said, can you please explain how this works? You would have come to a different conclusion because we could have articulated these things, and you would have been clear.

And so why do they not do that? Or if they do, do IT who's actually in there? Either way, whatever is getting to the conclusion of, let's go file this lawsuit in two thousand and twenty three is late at a minimum, and misguided at at best. You know.

do you have to ask a question like, how is this different then jian paying saying, you know what, jack man is too powerful. Therefore she's going to learn to paint. I think this is like google to different. This was who makes no sense.

I bring back to china. Is everything in your brain have to virtue signal?

Like, it's like, no, I try to .

intestine exactly.

Let me finish. Let me finish tomato. Let me finish before you jump the fence very simply, you asked, like, why are they filing something that makes no sense? Might change.

I think they want to have an outcome. And their outcome is they want to stick IT to big tech because it's too powerful. And then you just send yourself square peg, round hole. You're trying to find something to get google on. This is not .

in to the .

actually second world, second .

great moors.

Yeah the great to take china out of IT for a second because that mean that mean a lot of different things. And so I don't want to get hung up on that. Yeah, I just feel to me like the government is lashing out against companies like google because you perceived as being too powerful.

That's just going on. And in fact, I mean, that's lacon theory, is that we have to stop big tech companies from getting bigger because power. But in this case, IT doesn't make any sense because the auction market for advertising is very competitive and the remedy of unwinding general deals doesn't making a sense.

So barking up the wrong tree is they they really should be looking at as these ad networks are losing their market share in the overall digital expand. There are two other players, disney, you know, and definitely doing these visual ads on their platforms and having at tears.

And then you may have noticed uber doing in add business now they did three hundred, fifty, fifty million dollars in the first year, that business a million a day, and they're protected to do a billion next year. And those have location information in IT because you have your destination. And so those networks and new opportunities are emerging.

It's a dynamic space. I just want to say, like you guys like I think a really important micro point, which is like in a marketplace, it's always easy to hate the winners and claim that their success is unfair if you're not part of IT. And I I think that just because something successful in a marketplace doesn't mean IT a monopoly.

You know this whole thing of envy, you know, we've heard from like the bircher shareholders meeting. I think there was a good conversation around this. But envy really is ultimately the doom of innovation and democracy.

It's like you see the success you want to take down the successful. Nothing can be too successful or also has to be destroyed. And then, you know, as we talked about, it's gona go somewhere else.

Well, as advocate with IT on that, freeman sounds like we all agree that the government has kind of the wrong theory is barking up the wrong tree here. However, isn't IT the case that apple and google are too powerful? Maybe not in this area advertising auction, but when IT comes to the APP store, I mean, they have an Operating system in apply with IOS and android or do apply.

But I think you're bringing up the key point, which is these new answers are the ones that matter. There is a body of law today, David, that you can apply pretty intelligently and thought fully to that exact problem and also to google search.

And so it's a bit of a head scratcher why the D O J hasn't spent the time to figure out to even understand that, that's actually where they should be focus because that is where there is truly in the actually cause it's a double. So it's very clear the share shift has already been set. There is no shared ship happening to a third player.

There is no side loading that's really happening. And so domestically in the united states, in western europe, there is a defect to do apply complete control, completely inflexible, inelastic pricing that is a monopoly. And then separately for surge in the united states, IT is also an effective monopoly. And those are the things were if you really wanted to go after them because you think there are some damage being to people, I would focus there. But the eyes business is nothing to do with any of this and just means that they don't understand how the market works.

right? OK. The shifting gears. Microsoft has just been sued on anti trust ounds. Rather, there is approved by the eu. And this was based on a complaint actually from slack sacco to complaint back in twenty twenty that microsoft was basically engaging in in bungling or tying of products. The allegation is that mysore t fairly ties microsoft teams and other software to its widely used office.

Sweet, do you guys think that's a Better claim? OK? So I mean, i'll just say like there was an episode that we did, I think, back in september where I basically railed against microsoft for exactly this kind of bungling that seems like the eu has picked up that theory. And once to go after bundling.

we did slack series. I was on the board, took a public baba blot. I'll tell you the thing that we talked about a lot, that was the thing that I was always like the most afraid of, which is how can we compete with a Better product in the face of superior distribution.

I think what microsoft did was anti competitive, but I don't think IT was monopolistic. And I think that the E. U. In that time has a much Better framework of laws that they had demonstrated up in tonal, they were willing to enforce around anticompetitive pricing.

And so part of what slack was trying to do with create some air space for that to get into the either to the discussion that it's like we could build the best product in the world. But if microsoft gives IT away with this other product that is quasi essential, they'll always beat us and there is nothing we can do about that. What do you think? And I think that was basically the question that was opposed to the european authorities because we thought that they would pay attention to IT.

What's interesting about IT is that know when the acquisition happened to salesforce IT sort of waters down that claim because now salesforce also has a set of really essential products that are useful and needed in the market that slack can go and attach themselves to in many ways. David IT forced the hand of slack to be acquired by sales force. And if not sales force, IT would have to be somebody else, but could have have been an independent company had we not had to compete against teams in that way. Meaning, if we had to compete against another world fund start up would IT still be public, I suspect. So I don't think we would have .

sold to sales force when that exactly was. My point when we talk about this last time is that if microsoft can basically clone the sort of the breakthrough innovative product, just say they do one every year and then they put a crappy version of that in their bundle, yeah, ten percent, twenty or fifty percent worse. But they give IT away effectively for free as part of the bundle.

And then they basically pull the legs out from under that other companies who can be a viBrant competitor. And then the next year they'll just raise the Price, the bundle, right? And y've done that was slack.

They've done that with auctor. They've done that was zoom, you know jack out. Can we have a viBrant and technical system, at least in B2B sof tware if mic rosoft can jus t kee p doi ng tha t ind efinitely?

Yeah, it's it's a difficult question. I don't I don't know though if what the consumer harm is here, if you keep adding great features to abundant so to take the other side of the argument, me to zoom has now added channels like slack. Slack has added huddles, which are essentially zoom calls, and now they're both gonna to add the koa and notion with Vicky style you know documents to both zoom and slack.

So everybody y's copying everybodys features, everybody incorporating everybody's features. IT takes a little bit of time. This is actually a lot Better behavior for microsoft than the old days when they would do something called they are.

They used to announce products to chill people from buying them. So they would announce this lack two years before slack came out, just to get people to not in souls like they did that with lotus notes. They said that a lota snows competitor coming for two years and IT never materialize. So I think the marketplace will compete. And if you look at slack itself, it's still growing the same percentage growth IT did inside of salesforce that I did as an independent copies.

So it's growing as similar great they can put of this chart .

yeah was like high teens or something was was .

looks IT looks like from this chart that slack is kind of level. No.

that's the number of users I was talking about revenue. If you look at slack revenue or of a quarter, it's basically .

wasn't there a report that it's been a little bit of a disappointment of sales force or no?

Well, I mean, you know this number here that we're looking at a seventy five million microsoft ams members, twelve lion sack members .

quite well if you want to if you wanted to play conspiracy theories. Maybe that's why there is a falling out between benioff and I mean, bread was the champion of this deal, you know, twenty eight billion dollar acquisition and twenty billion dollars. It's threading a needle.

The only one of that scale that's really worked out definitively has been linked. So if slack kick up in a moment when we also had a regime change in rates in valuations, now look at any office looking down the barel of a activist investor program from alliant men. I mean, the maybe it's not doing as well as I needed IT to.

I got the sense that benny off was genuinely sorry, that bread decided to leave and that I was voluntary, voluntary on breathe part and regret IT. Basically I supposed to.

you know, a non regretted termination.

I have no idea.

like I said I was here is a suggestion for the regulators that are listening or watching our podcast. A really valuable thing for the industry that you could do would be to introduce transparency on elas. What are those enterprise licensing agreements? These are these things that these big companies use to throw everything in the kitchen sink into a deal when they sell to a company.

But if there is transparency, and there is a sense of how those things were Priced, to think of IT, like the F, D, A saying, here's you have to publish your ingredients, right? And what percentage of IT is this? And that IT would be really beneficial because that would slow down the tendency of these big companies to try to kill the small companies with these poor products. And something around E A. And more transparency around pricing to the market could be a good governor without having to go down the path of all this anti crossed legislation after the fact.

I think there is some good advice for regulators there. I think they should focus on anti competitive tactics and like clarifying what those are. As opposed to some of these crazy lawsuits to break up companies, uh, that don't seem to have well grounded theories.

Ya I think Better to focus on the specific tactics that create the harm and identifying what those are. Check out your point about how what myself is doing doesn't seem to be harming anybody. IT seems to be benefiting consumers.

I think that's a valid point, but I would bring up a different example, which is if you look at the competitive behavior of dumping, where a company will basically dump its product on the market for free, destroy all the other competence, and once they're out, they can raise Prices. Because debris to entry your high, there's a huge cost of like basic entering the industry. I think that this button behavior is a form of dumping where in the short run, IT looks like consumers are benefiting because they are getting zoom a zoom clone for free or you a slack loan for free.

But then what happens is once save, you know, hubble, those companies, they raised the Price of the bundle. So I think if we want to have a healthy long term ecosystem, I think this type of like bundling behavior is great, bad. I think it's anti competitive, but I think there's a very specific solution for you don't need to break up microsoft. 我以为 to do is require that when they create a bundle， every product in that bundle needs to basically have an individual Price. And the Price of every product that bundle should add up to the cost, the bundle, so they can do, like you said, china theis like transfer payments or subsidies to basically, you know, take over systematic take over every set vertical.

I think that would be amazing. By the way, there are many other markets, David, or that exactly exists. If you have the ability to preferentially put your product into your distribution channel, you have to transfer Price IT transparently at the market, and it's what everybody else would be able to get that. And that then allows the best product to win in the market. And IT gives the government the ability to say, I understand that these rails are roughly monopolistic, but i'm going to leave him alone as long as you treat everything that is on top of those rails equally and that no one is missing in software. So I think the combination of and spaz cy in these enterprise licensing agreements and more transparency and accounting treatment for what you just said would solve a lot of this problem and you would have a more viBrant ecosystem where the big guys can just not out the small guys, whatever they want.

Yeah, I disagree with you guys. Let me, let me just play. Let me just play my devil sad vit, which is kind of how I feel, uh, as well. I think these these concepts of a monopolist bumbling make a lot of sense and make a lot of sense in the sense in if if what you're bundling in the service or the product or whatever is a commodity product.

And these statements that you're making assume that one messaging service is the same as almost another messaging service, that one video APP is the same as another video APP. And that by giving a discount, they're going to win the market. The real that may have made sense back in the day when there were things like trains and trains had a monopoly on where things could go or electricity or oil production. And all of the kind of origins of kind of monopolistic .

anti trust laws and .

and action started to kind of emerge in in our free market in the U. S. But when IT comes to software, if your product is the same as the other guy's product, maybe they deserve to win by bundle ling and maybe it's OK for them to offer a discount and beat you on pricing.

Because if your product is actually Better and IT provides Better or a way for the customer, has a Better feature set, is faster and has a bunch of stuff that the other product doesn't, the market will pick IT. It's not that the markets gna say, hey, we're just a bunch idiot s these products are so differentiated, but because these guys are giving me a discount, i'm going to go over the discount. That's not how works.

And you guys know this. I'm not saying that microsoft can't copy slack and then under charge a different and charge different Price and a lower Price. And this kind of what i'm saying is they can cross subsidize.

There are slack competitors. The fact that they can copy slack, that makes slack, that means that slack should learn. The fact that, that slack .

actually almost always look software. New software is really hard to create, but really easy to copy. I mean, the first version of a new product is hard to create, but you can reverse engineer almost any software product.

Show me where someone's made a Better competitor to google search. Show me where that consumers don't choose to go to another search. And because google built a Better search .

and now because there's a data network effect there that the more searches they provide, the more data they get, it's the .

reinforcement learning. I differently, it's easier to copy. There's an asm tote to that quality point, though. I don't think that, that's necessarily to you.

Look, there's more locking deeper in the stack that you exist. There's a very little lock at the application layer. So workflow apps, which effectively is what most of these enterprise software things are, are very copy a bull because there's nothing that really locks IT in. But if you're social network or if you are some deep machine learn thing that basically generates great search results that much harder to copy because more and more of the product and generates the product quality is underneath the waterline. But I think in enterprise software, it's all fin U I layers .

on top of very pete. They don't, pete, because the bigger guy that offers a discount is always gonna .

be you what he's saying, which I agree with you, just if you could add transparency so that you understand what is happening, I don't think anybody y's against transparency. Nobody should be against IT. And if if microsoft wants to charge a penny a seat for teams, then they should be allowed to do that. I don't think we're saying that they shouldn't.

A lot of starts have used the opposite active where theyve entered with free offering or free services and then they later. And we don't complain about that.

There's a lot of ways to compete, but there a lot but .

that's my point. There's a lot of ways to compete the marketplace. If the product your offering is of something that's different enough that people are willing to pay for IT are willing to pay more, will pay the big guy that's giving him a bundling and .

just D A Better product, the whole to be packed up shopping, go home. We should stop funding VC s to stop funding new test companies .

because productive and grab the window.

Why and .

that bad for the customer? They are paying less .

and they are getting .

mica because comcast is a monopolistic provider of my internet connection. I should have to take their video offering and will never use netflix.

No, they have. They offer a commodity. That's my point. If you're offering a commodity, these things should apply, makes the time of but but what do you think effectively? And what you just said is that B2Be sof tware is eff ectively com mode and you wan.

t to cop y IT and you wan t to be sai d to you, i'm turning this off. You only have one choice and its mine because this is my rails and I built IT. You would turn to the government to help you because you would say, but netflix is a Better product. And what David is saying is the exact same argument. So my point is unless you also believe logically that you are allowed to turn off netflix, if your conchas and take their crappy V O D service, then you you at least intellection .

consistent to to steal as a combat too, and you can engage and dumping. I mean, this is the argument, is that, for example, you know, with respect to china, the argument was that they were dumping cheap steel in the us. Market to drive all the produces at a business. And then once around a business, that race surprised.

The point is there's all these examples where we have had the intelligence and the ability to be nuances about this to see that these things are possible and they shouldn't exist. We don't let conchas turn off netflix.

X, O, K. We have a law .

around that. I understand. so. So I think what working is embrace and extend this law for these new markets that didn't exist fifty and one hundred years ago when these laws were written, so that the same benefits that we have in the steel market and in the cable market, we have in the software market.

it'll just create a healthier ecosystem. All team does IT automatically. We install the microsoft office feet, does IT automatically installed teens, because IT does seem to default matters to people have to actively turn IT on or IT actively built in.

And so the buddle of IT, I think, matters. And that interaction ability, nature. So there are other vectors here to force them into oppor ability. So if you open your windows machine, do you have .

a choice of independent? Let just say that you use exchange for certain things. But in other things, for example, to manage your name space, you may use auctor, but then they say, actually know, we need you to use our version of doctor IT. All becomes complicated. I think it's too complicated, or for a government to understand.

So I think the general thing is, can we extend the definition of these basic rules that we've agree to other markets to include technology? And would we be Better served? And I think, for the most part, I do think that would be IT would Better serve startups. He would Better .

serve the folks that want to build you. I think, David say, is nothing when turned IT on for a dollar, a person or something. He, here's interesting Price.

I think the combination of what David said, A I said would do the trick, which is if you force these highly complicated license agreements to be transparent, IT would not allow them to dump. And then the second thing is that all of that transfer pricing that goes into that license cost needs to sum up to the cost itself. Now why is that important? You can learn about how they prevent this in health care.

So let's take vizor good example. Here's a company with thirty billion dollars on the baLance trip, right? And fighter has a need still to subsidize all of the orange of their drugs.

And you would say, oh yeah, they have thirty billion dollars. So they should just take the money of the baLance sheet. Do IT.

Why don't they do IT? It's because the accounting laws and all of the complicated any competitive laws say, well, if you wanted, take this cash pile and use IT over here, echoes from an asset liability item, thirty billion of cash in all of the time i'm going to net against your E P. S.

I think I like I think there's .

the actual .

cost for these companies to do this stuff, to bundle, to cross to all of this stuff. And so what do they do? They go into the market, they ask startups to build stuff and then they buy. That's the kind of market I think is Better for us.

Yeah, less of that be the last word on this topic because we going for well, but i'm glad you brought up fighter because this brings us to issue to both, which is and I think we can show this.

create meat for David.

Ah so Albert berlow is a CEO. Pfizer went to davos last week, and he probably expect to davos, you know, that the conference of the surplus elites, and he expected probably nothing but soft balls and falling treatment from the established media. And instead, he probably had the most uncomfortable walk of his life, and two reporters from rebel news approached him. The problem started to asking him some tough questions.

Less rotates. What remote like can I ask you?

When did you know that the vaccines didn't stop transmission? How long did you know that without saying IT publicly?

Thank you very much.

So question, I mean.

we now know that the vaccine didn't stop transmission.

but why did you keep a secret?

The question, you said that .

was one hundred percent effective than ninety percent than eighty percent than seventy percent. But we now know that the vaccine do not try, stop transparent. Why did you keep that secret?

Have a nice day. I will all have a nice day until I know the answer.

Why did you keep at a secret? Your vaccine did .

not .

stop .

trying to from there.

but that welcome to I know .

what real journalism looks like. Not a bunch of your times of reporters covering for powerful people, but asking .

them tough questions .

question .

I think you .

guys are about to get us downrange on youtube .

yeah I look, by the way, you're right that youtube paying that video, we have to watch IT on twitter because, elon, my twitter is still free.

Why is youtube .

protecting? Why is youtube a bridging freedom of the press? And what to protect the powerful CEO fixed for instrument question tion, that the question, their basic questions.

is IT legitimate question of did they cover up the fact that the vaccine student transmit? I think it's A A legitimate question that I would actually want of the answer to. I don't know why I didn't just answer that. No, we didn't cover that.

Everybody.

would you you asking me if I know what? Whether fights or did not cover up is that we are a gentium.

A question is what I am getting.

Why are you unwilling to see the.

oh, no, not question at all, but i'm not I this is a look. First of all is uh, commercial enterprise. So they have the incentive to make money hundred percent, right? So their objective is to sell a vaccine. I think they are making ten to fifty billion dollars on this vaccine this year. You're absolutely right that the economic incentive is there for Fisher to continue to push and rationalize the sales of the vaccine.

The africy of the vaccine weight very quickly as this virus evolved and mutated IT became pretty evident pretty fast that the uh the rate of transmission uh in vaccinated people continue to go up and you know this may be a function of the quality of the vaccine or the african y the vaccine more likely a function of the fact that the virus has predicted evolved and therefore the anti bodies that that produced uh and the t cel response that's induced by the original vaccine becomes less fictions over time. So the real question is a policy question of behavior question. And but look for the product to sell. So certainly make sense for them to continue to solve their product. And there is still good data that represents that there is some mune response and some benefit in certain populations to continuing to get up uh, a booster and all the stuff with the original data.

The fact that, that fister only has this product to sell is not exactly are any endorsement of their behavior. But but let let's stay on the data for second.

There is a study in nature, which is one of most prominent scientific journals about the risk of milo car dias and Perry car data, which is basically information of the heart tissue, which can basically lead to heart attacks, saying that the risk among Young people, such a Young men, in eighteen to twenty four years, was elevated if they got the vaccine. This was a study out of france. So it's pretty clear that the award as applications, we thought, but IT is IT less safe than we thought as well. I gender, I don't know the answer to this. I would like to know .

it's an important question. And there's a lot of work being done to uncover IT. And here's a link to a paper that was published in the journal. Circulation is the name of the journal not too long ago by a team LED by a researcher math general and um what this uh and so just to address the mayor car I this question and and just so everyone that listening knows, I take a very objective view on all the stuff. I don't have a strong buy as one way or the other.

So the mass general team identified sixteen people that had my your car itis that that were vaccine, forty five people that didn't IT were part of their control group. And they try to understand what the difference was between these two groups. There have historically been three kind of theories about why there is incidents of mo car in certain populations that get the the covet vaccine.

And by the way, the incidence rate is still typically less than a two out of every hundred thousand people that get the vaccine. But as you saw on the paper you just shared and others have validated, IT can be as high as thirty times more likely to happen. And Young people that take the the moderna vaccine, which is still a low incidents but but thirty times higher, is is significant worth and understanding. So the three kind of reasons .

are the three and hired. That sounds like.

yes. So the reason of a small base, but yes. And so the three ideas, or the three theories around why this is happening, number one is what's called protein mimicry, where certain people, the protein on the the hearts tissue, for example, or certain proteins found in the cells in their hearts tissue.

Maybe you look like the um some element of the spite protein that's created by the vaccine. Therefore, when you make anti bodies to bind to and clear your body of spite protein is also binding to your own cells and causing an auto immune response. And those are kind of auto antibodies.

The second is just general immune stem activation that maybe genetically, some people are pretty posed to having a very active immune system in responsive vaccine. And therefore, what a very active immune system make an inflation tion mage. And then the third is this idea that there is just massive proliferation of your b cells, some of which have auto antibodies and some of which therefore destroy your heart tissue, causes information.

So what this team did is they looked at the blood difference between people that have mayor CD itis and people that did not. They found no other and and t they saw no big changes in material bcl populations, meaning that there isn't a big immune system activation difference. The big difference that they found was that .

the people that had myo .

car dias actually had a lot of the Spike protein floating around in their blood. Where's the people that didn't did not have the spite protein floating running the blood? So this answers one question, but but opens up many more doors, which is what's really going on. So if you have Spike protein in your blood and your bodies not clearing IT.

right, how long after being vaccinated, where the Spike protein still floating around? Because I remember when the M. R. A vaccine first came out, they said IT with the Spike proteins to go away after a couple of days, three weeks, three weeks, three weeks. They done to study like, no, six months after.

a year after, not yet. But that's being done right now. So what identifying is what's going on with mune system of these, this population, where their bodies not able to clear the spite protein, and when their body doesn't clear the spite protein, a bunch of sidecars and other infantry ory things started to get released. And IT causes information on the heart tissue.

Because you there a particular remember is when you the vaccines first came out, remember rogan almost got cancelled for saying that if he was a Young person, a Young man, he is like fifty. So he got vaccinated, but he said that he was a Young person in my twenty, I would not vaccinated because I don't think the this return makes sense. And he almost got cancelled for that was really right about that.

So, you know, I have been thinking a lot of this decision to get vaccinated or not, and how we came to that decision. And then I think with freebies that early is super interesting because of virus mutated, the ethical acy of these are vaccines, obviously changed and was unnecessary. And so I think he was a moving target to understand if you should take IT or not.

IT was a very personal decision, clearly, for people who were over sixty five years old, the chances of dying were very significant. Uh, for people under that a certain age, IT was lower. So I everybody had to make .

a very personal decision. Here was IT a personal decision when you had vaccine. And then on top of that, on top of that, you had the media were dunking on anti vaccine throughout twenty twenty one member that, I mean, they were saying about ani vacations that that if you can get the vaccine, you've got sick.

There won be the hospital bed for you. There was a lot of like dancing on the graves of these people yeah where, you know, they were like all these articles that be like some preacher who, you know, I don't have vaccinated and then they would dive cove IT. And there's a lot of like more bid sort of goolies like articles dancing on their graves. I mean, IT was not this objective personal decision. There was tremendous social and illegal pressure .

to get vaccinated there.

And I think part of the reason I myself got vaccinators because I wanted to be able to travel again, I wanted to be able to go to medicine where garden and watch the next. And I also thought, well, I I don't want to be if I await, like, one of the people who dies from this. So, you know, we all SAT here. We all got vaccinated. Do we regret our decision to get accent ate now that we see this you know studies like maybe IT wasn't necessary and also IT was apparently over sault and when the Fisher CEO would say when they knew IT wasn't at a stock transmission, I think it's evaluate question to investigate what fires are new and when um and just keep everybody accountable for this uh for future things that happened because right now we're in a position where if visors not being honest with us, if the origin story of code isn't being honest with us, these conspiracy theories are now starting to start to look like reality.

Let me go to your chaos. I mean, so we were all felt this tremendous pressure in twenty twenty one to get the vaccine right. We all care about our health.

You care a lot about your health. We all thought we could trust the experts that the vaccine was both evocative and safe. We know IT was not evocative in the sense that they're telling us that we have to get revelation every two months for to work on safety.

I don't want to get over my skis because we only have some data, but clearly like this, my okar data data is not good. So where we basically stampeded into making a decision that was not actually good for us. And would you make the same .

decision today?

Let just lay the foundation for understanding how we got here. So there are these athletes inside the F, D. A to get drugs approved. And if you take a Normal pathway for a Normal drug, you're gonna end nine or ten years, maybe more, twelve, thirteen, in some cases in more than a billion dollars, to get a drug approved.

And the way that IT works is in phase one, you do IT study on toxicology effectively, like, is this safe or not safe? And you have to have enough people take IT, and you need to observe them for enough time where that face one outcome accent. He says, this won't hurt people.

It's beni. We don't know the mechanism of action. We don't know whether it's gona solve the problem, but we know that it's safe.

And then in phase two, you then try to really understand the mechanism of action. And if that works, you going to face three, where you actually scale IT out, you create a double ARM study. You may do a control group, you may do an open label companion.

You may overpower with thousands of people. And the F, D, A is incredibly rigorous, okay, even down to like, it's incredible, by the way, like how you are allowed to open the results. And they have all of these services that make sure that you can influence the result, manipulate them is incredible.

The F D A has an incredible process. The thing is that they also have a way to jump around that fence, and that is what we use for the covered nineteen vaccines. So in a molecule, thirteen years, if it's for a really important drug, you can shorten IT to six or seven with this link called breakthrough designation for a biologic to over thirteen years.

But he gets this thing called our mat six or seven years. So you're still talking years and thousands of people, David. But then there is one special astro s that exists inside the F D. A called emergency use authorization. And in moments of deem emergency, you can shorten ten, even six years down to, in some cases, six, seven, nine months, year two years.

right? Are you you're describing Operation .

warp speed so that emergency use authorization fast tracked these vaccines to market. Now the thing to keep in mind is there are still two classes of vaccines. They are the messenger, are in a vaccines that the buyer tech and fier ones.

And then there are the more regular ones that in many cases, the west was dumping on. John, john, we used to ship those to developing countries and say, will just keep the M. A. Once you guys say, dave shapu had this unna jokers like I took J J.

Vacine, right? But IT turns out that now when we're looking back, the long tail issues may actually applied to these things that were fast track, these M R N A vaccine that were fast track under emergency use. why? Because of what freeburg said.

This protein mimicry thing is something we don't understand that. Why don't we understand that? It's because our tools are not precise enough to exactly know when we engineer these solutions that IT only bind to this paced c protein.

And what we're learning is that there, these proteins are some, they're so similar that there can be a little colorful damage, that this other thing that looks ninety nine percent will also all of a sudden attract this, this. And so this is a very complicated body of problem. And because we didn't give IT enough time to bake in the wild, we're learning about this thing in real time.

If you, if we had gone to what U. S. Suggested, which is a massive masking Mandate while this stuff played out.

Could the outcome be different? But we don't know because we didn't make those decisions. But I think that's what people be debating.

The last thing i'll say on this is specifically to my OCR data. I have an interventional cardiologist in ala. I've seen him every three years, ever since goldy passed away.

I'd of respect for goldy and Cherry, who initially asked me to go, but it's been a great thing that i've done. I have learned a lot from him. He introduced me to P, C, S, ki, pus and a bunch of things.

He called me two years ago. And every month I wanted do a study that over a year ago, I want to do a study that looks at actually my whole car data and the the effects of this vaccine. And nate, I don't know if you can just throw up, but we publish something.

And basically, you know what we see, David, is that for folks mile carditis, you're releasing proponent. And this is a, this is A A, A protein that you would otherwise used to figure out whether you're having a heart attack or severe, you know, some sort of hard abNormality. And so IT just goes to show you that there is some collateral damage in some cases.

In this example, this is one case that we publish, which is a sixty three old White woman. I'm saying that IT implicity. So that people understand that these things really matter on age, gender and race. All of the data that comes at a france really was focused on, I think he was eighteen to thirty four year old males of all racial persuades.

And we thought that this issue is prevalent only mails, but we've had a few cases that we've talked about now that, that touch women is also it's a complicated set of things because our tools are not fine grain enough to engineer the drug for incredible specificity. And I think that's the thing that were dealing with now IT. And by the way, last because of all this is probably is reasonable to take a set back and have a commission that just uncovers all of this stuff.

Look, we've had commissions for things.

designer.

serious usage in baseball. We need investigation. This goes back.

This is back to the rebel news asking a very simple question, which is, what did you know and what did you know with respect to the african y and safety, these vaccines, if they did not tell the public that these vaccine did not work the way they're are supposed to because they want to keep minting money, that is a legitimate scandal. We've a right to know. But free berny ask you a question here.

I think, you know, Thomas talked about this sort of a sped up process to cut through red tape and get of vaccine to market more quickly. I persons actually think that that kind of process is fine for a patients who want to assume the risk as as sort of a libertine. I support that, but I go back to the fact that people in many places were not given a choice.

They had to get vaccinated or or they could lose their job or their freedom, participate in society. And now we're finding out that they may have been forced to do something that in their particular case, may not really have been a great cos band fit decision for them. What do you think that the sort of impacts gonna a be of this is like socially?

I mean, you've talked about, I think that there's A A decline in trust of instruction authority in the U. S. And that's a huge problem. I mean, isn't this going to .

contribute tonight? Yeah, look, I mean, I think that there's been institutional authority over reach, uh, that's been building for quite some time. And you know look and you guys can go back to our first episode and our earliest episodes, and I wasn't and haven't been and I I think the first time I tweed, I waited about the adverse impact that lockdowns could have, and we should be waiting the cost of the lockdowns against the benefit.

And ultimately, the benefit was zero because we ended up accumulating called ten trillion dollars of of, you know four trillion dollars is of net costs that we have to pay off at some point, not to mention the economic uh, consequences of the lockdowns. And uh you know the the benefit was negligible because, uh, the virus continue to spread and evolve and h there was no way to really stop the virus in its tracks. Hindside twenty twenty fog of war.

Lawmakers made decisions. Was that the right decision? What you've made the same decision? It's really hard to say like you're saving the world when the world is ending. Uh, it's easy to kind of act uh, what some degree of what is now viewed as overreach.

I do think that the mass of vaccination requirement may have also been deemed overreach, given the limited data that was available and the rapid evolution that was pretty arent in the virus at the time as well. But vaccines are required for a number of other illnesses in a number of school systems, uh, around the country. You know you start to question I I think we will start to see people question whether those are appropriate. But again, those are longer started, Better understood. The the the cost benefit analysis is is much there.

Yeah, actually, I think you're right at one of the cost of this policy is gonna a be that people will stop trusting vaccination in general, even though I think that these cover vaccines, i'm not i'm sure you can really call vaccines. I mean, every other vaccines that i've ever heard of completely prevents that disease. The lio vaccine ended polio.

The m. mr. Vaccine ended muslim mus. rebellin. The cove vaccine just didn't work. I don't think IT was a vaccine, but I think now was going to happen as people are going to .

have a lot more distrust is a tremendous is a tremendous amount of post activity rationalization going on where once you cut of made a statement that the vaccine will stop transmission of the virus or stop hospitalization and suddenly IT doesn't. And you've made that statement with such charity and gravity and funded IT with so much money and cost such cost in doing so.

At that point, you're too far removed to go back and say, you know what IT doesn't. And as we're seeing now, the consequences of not being willing to say that you are wrong, maybe far greater then the consequences of kind of continuing or or kind of you know making this change. So it's .

actually point. Are you find a question to out on that point? So I mean, jack, I luck you were dunking or at least controlling on anti faxes during this time period. Do you reconsider that all? I mean, other words, everybody was saying that the anti vacations were these stupid.

unsophisticated people who you.

I, but maybe, but maybe IT was the elites who were the ones suffering group thing. I mean, look, and I put myself in this bucket. We will all heard IT into this idea, took being an earlier doctor of a product, and now we're finding out and do what said.

yeah, we in fairness, we said we knew this was experimental. We knew this is the first time mra. But we also knew like a billion people had gotten hundred. And so I think people made a risk assessment, knowing this was an experimental vaccine, knowing that the covet was mutating at the time. And yeah, I could have been oversold, of course, that that seems to be in the case.

I, nick, pull up of this tweet.

but you know, we need to, I I think we have to look at because we had this conversation you and I you were very much in favor of everybody getting the Mandate and everybody being forced to get the the I never .

supported the man date you did.

We had a conversation about that, like if people, people go on trains and your position. People, no, I I did not .

support a Mandate. I thought always people's choice. I did believe that. And I made the mistake of, again, I made the mistake of believing the experts in the maistly media.

I think if the last couple years have told us anything, it's that they can be trusted. The level of the trust we should have was even greater than we thought. I never supported a Mandate.

I thought a three people's choice. yeah. And I certainly wasn't I don't think I was dunning on the anti access. Let's pull up this tweet.

nick. Yeah.

my lord trump his crimes of foxes are killing their own constitution with this antivari nonsense.

Yeah, do you attract that? Do I retract IT? Um i'm trying to look at the date by the way.

this this is a tweet that um Jason put out. What was the date fed again? Ford, twenty twenty two. That sex pull up this of people.

Yeah the years ago.

yeah that point people were saying that.

no, I get IT, I get IT. This is not rare. This was .

not a rare sentiment but i'm this was showing the deaths of uh, from covet we're happening at a magazine more by people who didn't take the vaccines and we know the vaccines was had reduced death so we still know that corrector berg the the vaccine reduces reduces the cases of death correct yeah this new by violent .

booster um ero put out a tweet I I gave you guys the link here where he covered a paper that was done recently and the paper shows a reduction in hospitalization rate and death rate up for folks that are getting this newby valan booster. So but again, that is a benefit that is the benefit yum in one's own kind of personal safety and there's a risk profile associated with that. A sex is pointing out. But this notion that the vaccines stopped the virus and are a true vaccine in the sense of how we talk about polio and chicken part ware, uh, small box in the other stuff, not equivalent data.

How long after vaccine was that data? Because I thought that with respective the vaccine, one of the big problems is that, that the benefits only last for two months unless you're willing to get revaccinated .

every two months. No, yeah.

it's not really realistic.

Generally speaking, this is not like a vaccine in the sense of A. Small pox or right.

this is a shot.

but it's it's a it's a modest building of the effects and it's one that people need to take kind of a risk st decision on for one's personal thing, but having Mandates on whether or not you can go to school and whether or not you can you know be in places and whether or not it's appropriate for for workplace setting. There is still high degrees of infectiousness with this ever evolving virus.

The virus that we have today is not the virus that we had in february of twenty twenty. It's a very different virus. And IT is evolved to such an extent now and is continuing to evolve. That is very difficult to say there's a vaccine for this virus.

It's just why would you to say that this, the so called vaccine, has been .

a .

failure? We don't know I don't know the full safety implications. Like I said, I don't want to get too far out of my skis on that. However, yes, we know the efficaciously of IT has been a failure. What IT doesn't like to get jabs here, which I don't think anybody here would .

do that something does not necessary because it's we will hold on. There was a time period where IT was effective, corrector berg and IT did reduce. That's massively. So I think that's the the issue that we're talking about here is that now the coverage trains are so weak that maybe it's not as necessary.

But there was a time period where people were not taking the vaccine and republicans specifically weren't taking the vaccine and they were dying at a much higher percent. So I didn't if you're defining the vaccine is not getting not transfering the disease, sure. IT was a failure. IT didn't block like we thought IT was terms producing that producing death. IT did work for a period time.

if IT only last year for two months. And cover is still around and it's basically endemic. It's everywhere. How do the vacine make any difference whatsoever?

I think now it's two months, but fact that IT wasn't but you know three burger.

three burger. Is that true?

What's a question? I'm i'm losing tracks.

How long does he the lowering the percentage of debt.

the benefits of IT of reducing only last two months is that true?

IT depends on the population. And yes, there is a decline in the benefit over time as well as the fact that the virus is evolving. Those are both two years of independent things and as a result, over time.

No, yeah, we got to keep getting boosted or shots and fighter is making a great business out of IT. You're right. There is a massive economic incentive here for them and return NER to keep this gravy train rolling. And there's a massive incentive for government officials, politicians to continue to stand by what they said before because of the wise, there's going to be called wrong and .

they're going to get beat up. And I feel like you're making an effort you're making an effort to stand by what you previously said.

I think come out I .

think we should just come out that look regards of where the safety data ultimately comes out to space on evocation ously. We can say that this thing didn't work and therefore, mate IT was even worse thing because hold we put we put the drug through this rapid process and we didn't let people make an individual cost benefit decision. We basically herded them into this. And at best, I didn't do very much.

I don't think that that decision if if you make that conclusion, i'm not sure that IT gives us a tool kit to do Better the next time. And I think we've all said this in freeport was the one that first really taught us about this. There will be an next time, unfortunately.

So I think that we have to focus our energy here in acknowledging that the tools that we have to create these messenger, army, vaccines and other types of solutions, we are pushing the boundaries of science, and the body is still very poorly understood. And so the sensitivity and specificity of these drugs may not be what we think up front. And as a result of that, maybe we need to find a different way of using emergency use authorization in the future. And I don't know, David, to your point, i'm beyond my seat tips on scientific knowledge to know how, say minimum.

I would say as a minimum that if you're going to do emergency use, IT shouldn't Mandated let patients and doctors sign on own 好， let's go on. So we have a mind of agreement.

Question for freeze. yeah. Would you advise or in your life, would you would you continue to get a booster? Or are you going to consider getting a booster every year if they keep at them? And now would you advise parents, or you know, adults over sixty five or seventy to get one? Because those seems to be the higher prit brit. So if your parents said I get IT or not.

I would add, advise the to the doctor and doctor would advise to to do IT.

What do you think most doctors will tell somebody above sixty five or seventy at this point?

That depends what stay there and at this point.

but we basic would be split on lies unless .

this virus turns into ebola. I'm never getting boosted IT again. I'll take that right now. I get grease.

What about you guys?

I'm not to I think that peace volumes, that peace volumes right there .

like .

we can t that all of .

us can arrive at that and then we're worried about getting .

banned.

Tell you how screwed up your our society is what we can't like an on conversation .

about this by a large number of people hearing a say this and because people have these deep that what happened and this is now become uh a sense of identity, a sense of tribalism and a sense of it's a belief system it's .

no longer about an objective decision became the the problem of .

the red my hat and .

the vaccine is basically, you know, it's become tribal. But that's but people need to move beyond that because this is a scientific question of of costume benefits related to this medical treatment. Okay, let us move on this.

Too much of the there's not for venture capitalists about your in to see.

Please don't .

listen to us.

You do and remember, vaccine manufacturers have a business to run and politicians have to .

get reelected, right? Let's move to stuck on. okay. Look, there's been a very important developments in ukraine, and I think we should discover quickly this week there are a bunch of things.

The by administration said they are going to send abms tanks as well as bradleys and lepardo toes. The abroad tank in particular, is our best, most expensive tank. At the beginning of the war, they said they would not send them, so they reverse their decision on that.

Now the ukraine ans are saying they want jets as well. That sort of the next issues can come up the by adminstration, also in a york times article that came out earlier this week, said that they were warming to the idea of of supporting an invasion of korea. Some europeans, like Peter hitches, are getting very novice about this level of escalates.

He had a pretty amazing peace talking about the risk of this creating nuclear war. And even if the ukrainians prevail in this war, there was a really interesting statement by Larry think at davos last week saying that he estimated the cost of reconstruction at seven hundred hundred and fifty billion dollars. And fitch rating agency says that ukrainians had to towards default.

So major, major developments, I think in the war this week, I want to get your guys opinion on this. We know from history that wars tend to escalate and to be far more costly than the participant's ever thought. Is that the track on now? And in hindsight, knowing what we know now, should we regret that we didn't use every domain, all we had to prevent the war, most nobly taking their expansion off the table? Freebase are go to you.

It's such .

a tough .

situation.

Is this situation escalating to a point where wish be concerned?

You know, there's a lot of information we don't have and there's a lot of intelligence gathering and conversations and chatter that we're not privy to. So to sit here and kind of be an an I don't know what diplomatic conversations have gone on or are going on, uh, all I know is what we're reading on the internet, right? So nobody.

this war is extremely well covered and there are no diplomatic conversations going on.

yeah. So we are .

escalating the war. Get J L. A. Mothy here. I do you guys have any concerns about the direction this is added at all?

Yes, i'm concerned. I also agree with facebook that I don't think we have all the information, but i'm not exactly sure what we can do right now. It's IT seems like they have decided that there is a play to exert a lot of pressure come the spring, and that's something that you've mentioned as a very likely thing. And so I guess the calculus on the ground is that there's a way to really push russia into a corner, and the only way to do that is with more military support. And then on the heels of that, David, the link that you sent is that it's not just a warm machine that is now spinning up, but it's the aftermarket financial services infrastructure that's also .

spinning up for Larry.

Larry think yeah Larry think was like they're gona need three quarters of a trillion dollars of reconstruction support. We saw that play out in a rock as well, where at first I was the war machine and then IT was the reconstruction machine.

And together IT was trillions and trillion. Those are called infrastructure funds. And those infrastructure funds raise hundreds of billions of dollars to make investments to build new infrastructure in markets that needed when they are willing to pay for.

And IT will likely end up being kind of long term debt assumed by that region to pay to do this work. And the beneficiaries will be the investors and owners of the infrastructure funds. I think there's two sides to the sets that are worth kind of noting. One is the telegraphing of this decision because it's not being done secretly, it's being done out me open. There's certainly a calculus to that.

Why are they telegraphing this? And what are they intend to do with that messaging being put out there like this? And IT maybe that it's uh to assert or assume a stronger negotiating position, certainly to go into some sort of you know mild, modest exit or settlement coming out of this thing.

But you're right, the flip side is on the cost year is one of extreme outcome, which is there may be a friends further moment here where one thing goes too far and triggers a category smic outcome and in this case, the category mic outcome is tactical nuclear weapons. And tactical nuclear weapons as we talked about when I think I I, I had some conversations and some dinners, I I share any guys with some folks in the intelligence community. And this been talked about by, uh, x intelligence community folks publicly.

Are a key part of the russian war playbook that this is um there is a uh, tactical nuclear weapon response system that is in place. And you know these are very possible pads that we can find ourselves kind of walking down obviously where that to happen. That would be a massive escalation tion.

And you're right, there could be a france for an end kind of moment that emerges by h shaking mccain and and lighting a fire. And there may be A A stronger negotiating position to get to A, A, A settled faster by doing. I I don't have a strong point of view on the probability either those and and why. But I think, you know maybe both are certainly in play here.

Yeah, he was interesting to me that the wall street journal, on the heels of all of the stuff, also published an article about roman or bronzed. And the interesting thing about IT was a quote in the article that effectively said something tend to met to, well, noise proof and not as useful. We need to target him with sanctions. So I I just think that what all of this is is now sort of they're entering the end game, David, to use a snooty and IT looks like they're setting the wheel in motion to kind of put all them pieces together for a negotiated settlement.

Do we know only, but there was a continual escalation. I mean, jack, at the begin the war, we didn't want to give the ukraine an abms tanks because they were that was concerned to provocative.

Now we're giving them to them. I think what's going on here is, and I suspect this, you know, from the beginnings that we are trying to engage them in a war of attrition, and it's working. And so I think the west collectively is trying to further that goal of just making russia economically, politically, military, culturally irrelevant or ankle in some way.

And if you think about what's now happening with energy, know his primary export, he is going to lose those customers and his customers will be, you know, bottom feeding india, china, low cost, we don't oil and he is going to be a prius. So what i'm looking at is if there's going to be a negotiated settled this year, what is the next five or ten years gna look like for russia? What is their place in the world going to be? The west is never going to trust them again.

The germans are never going to buy their oil again. Everybody is going to be looking for ways to distance some cells. So how does he have an exit rap? And we talk about this from the begets o here on this pocket is what's the golden bridge for him to retreat across? And and we really need to find that golda bridge quickly, because I do think this is starting to look desperate for him.

The west keeps giving Better and Better communications. He keeps losing economically. He's gone to keep losing. And in politically, who would ever want to engage, put in anything, you know, any kind of cultural or or international trade, uh, it's going to be a disaster for him. So this war of attraction has to resolve itself with some sort of settlement. But we kiss cco on for two, three years can not I mean, is that has to settle at some point?

I think that I can certain ly can go on. And I think that history proves that, worse done to escalate, and the costs incurred are much greater in many cases, that the participants ever dreamed of, and that they had to go and do IT all over again. They wouldn't have gone into IT in the first place. So yeah, I think this is concerning. I think that is the .

war of attrition strategy .

I developed into a and I think you're right that well, I think I think possibility, I think this two possibilities. J, K, L, I think that the maybe the more cynical or realistic members the administration think there's benefit in wearing russia down and writing them down. However, I also think there's kind of a true deliver camp that sees pushing rush out of ukraine, nothing less than that will do.

And we have to punish their aggression. Maybe they want regime change. I think there's doing factions demining straw.

Remember, general mili several months ago said that everything that the ukraine es could achieve, military, army just about, had been done and they shall negotiate. And even jack solvent had said that they should take crimea off the table. That was just the leaks a few months ago.

Now the administration is leaking that they are going to support a crimean invasion. So I think there's these both schools within the administration. The true believers, the more cynical folks, and IT feels to me like the true believers are on top right now, because we just keep escalators, this war, more and more.

And I think that's dangerous, that polarizes the outcomes, right? So I think, jack out, if you had your way, that sounds like you would grind the russians down. But at a certain point you would say enough is enough. And like a poker player, like you do IT at the poker table, you'd say, have one my, have one my, free us for the night. I don't need to rist that to win a tesla, someone to cash my chips and and get to wait, walk, what right?

Yeah, I wish I could do that. I wish I could do that. consistent.

yeah.

Exactly up the table is a rare skill that's right.

But i'm not sure administrations getting up from the table. I mean, I think we've achieved the american position on this, I think is largely been achieved. We've prevented russia from taking over ukraine.

We've prevented we've basically shifted europe onto american natural gas. We've destroyed north stream. I think we're close to achieving our major objectives, but i'm not sure we're going to stop there.

Yeah.

anyway, I listen. Move on freezer. Give a science corner.

I was gonna share the this was last week. I I think we talked about talk about this week. So um there is a paper that is a pretty um compelling paper published by a team, a let out of harvard on identifying what may be the the core driver of aging and demonstration on an ability to kind of reversible.

So i'll just start really quickly. You know, in the human body we have many different types of cells, right? We have two hundred roughly different kinds of cells and ice cell, a skin cell, a brain cell, a heart cell.

They all have the same DNA, the same genetic code, the same genome, uh, at the nucleus of that cell. What makes those cells different, and the reason they act and behave differently, is they have different gene expression, meaning different genes in that cell are turned on and off. And when a gene is turned on, the protein that that gene codes for is expressed and made in the cell, and the genes that are off, those proteins are not made.

And remember, proteins are the biochemical machines in biology. So when certain proteins are produced, they do stuff, and other proteins don't do stuff, and the cell acts and behaves very differently. So some cells, when you turn genes on and off, you get a new on.

Some cells, you turn on and off. If you get a muscle cell in your back up some of them you get a heart cell. And so all of these cells are differentiated by the genes that are expressed.

The general term for the expression of genes as the epigenome and an epic o basically refers to these, these systems wear by a certain parts of the D. N. A certain segments of genes are uncoiled a little bit. So if you zoom in on DNA, you know, twenty three chromosome ones tightly wrapped in these coils. And when you go even closer, you see that there's these segments called nuclear sons.

And the nuclear zone means, if I can beat and a bunch of DNA is rapped around the beat, and how closely those beats are together, how much the DNA is wrapped allows a segment of the DNA to be opened up and then expressed, meaning copies of the DNA turned into R, N. A, which flows into the sink, called the ribs som. And the ribs sama is the protein printer.

So the more these little segments of genome are are exposed, the more they're expressed. And there are certain chemicals, these methods and seats are kind of attached to the genome, and certain elements that allow parts of the the chromosome to wrap up and get really tightly bound or to unrated, and to express the gym for the epigenome. almost.

You can think about IT, like the software. And the genome, or the D, N A, is the hardware, until the hardware basically defines what you can make. The epigenome e defines what is being made, what stuff is turned on and what stuff is turned off.

So this paper and this work that was done, history, ally, we've always thought that aging meant that over time, the D N. A in ourselves was mutating, and errors were accumulating in the D. D.

N. A. And as a result of those errors, the cells started this function. And what these guys really did a good job of proving with this paper is that IT may not be mutations in the D. N.

A that's causing aging, but actually changes in the epigenome, and that the DNA remains pretty stable and pretty consistent over time. And the way they did this is they broke the DNA. Just see, you guys know every second of your life, about a million breaks in DNA itself through your body are happening, your da being broken up.

And then there's all this machinery in yourself ell that fixes the DNA when IT breaks. Now what happens when IT fixes that IT? Turns out it's actually really good at fixing IT, and the DNA doesn't change.

And we historically thought that the DNA changed a lot and mutations accumulate over time. But in reality, what may be happening is as your DNA gets fixed, the epigenome, the a seal and metal groups on the gene, uh, on on the the crime. Sm, don't get put in the right place.

And over time, what happens is the epigenome degrades. And this is considered. A lot of people refer to this now, the information theory of aging.

You can kind of think about making a lot of copies of software, a lot of copies of a photo and a photo printer over time. And every time you make a copy is a little error, little error. And those errors accumulate.

And the errors that accumulate caused the epigenetic m to change. And as a result, certain genes are turned on. They are supposed to be off, and certain genes are turned off that are proposed to be turned on. And then those cells start to get this functional because the wrong proteins are being made in the cell can no longer do what it's both to go. So what these could be.

the could be the right ism as well that gets screwed up over time.

The printer, the river ism is um a pretty. You know, uh, static protein IT just does its thing, and there's hundreds of ribs zones in the cell. So you know if one of them, this functional just doesn't do anything and then the other ones step in and IT.

So the river stones are constantly running. What these guys did is they basically took two mice to populations of mice, and they gave the one population of mice, uh, a certain thing that caused its DNA break at three times the rate of the other population. And then as the DNA broke, they could, they could see that this mouse population got older and older faster, and buy a bunch of measures on how do you measure age.

But what they did is they then measure, they then sequence the D, N, A of the two populations of mice. And what they showed is that the older mice, the ones that had their DNA changing a lot, by the way, these are genetically identical ied um the ones that had their DNA broken a lot more, they had the correct genome. Their genome was the exact same as the other mice that that stayed Young.

And so what that tells us is that it's the epigenome and not the the D N, A self that's changing. So then here's what they did. Remember last year we talked about yemen archiv tors, which are these four proteins, these four molecules that can be applied to to DNA to a cell, and they cause all of the gene expression to reset back to looking like a stem cell.

Remember, all of those differentiated cells come from a stem cell. And when they did that, the older population of mice suddenly started to act Younger. And all of the measures of age reversed and they did this uh, across different tissue types.

They measure this in a lot of different ways. Cognitive function, uh, health, cellular help is set up. And so IT is not just a fantastic new proof point of how human arch factors can actually reverse age, but IT demonstrates that the epigenome itself is what is the chord driver of aging.

And you guys remember altos lab raised three billion dollars in a sea ground last year, and remember red, the end of twenty one. I said, like ym, arch factors and aging research is gonna of the next part thing. I think this paper is gonna one of the many papers that really kind of um illustrates proves the point that this epigenome is the driver of aging.

And as we now are investing a lot of money and figuring out how yun architecture and other transcription factors like the Young and archives tres can be applied specific ways to actually reverse aging and cause the cells to start functioning correctly again, and then people will start to act and resolve in a healthy way. Once again, there's a lot of work to go between here and there. But now we have a much more kind of definitive proof point that this information there of aging may be real, that it's tied to be epigenome and that there are solutions that can work.

And we have to figure out how to put them together and how to engineer a fantastic outcome. So really great paper by a team let out of harvard, I think, really validates a lot of the work in the money that's going into the space, both in the public and the private sector. And obviously, a lot of you started as kind of chasing this opportunity to figure out how we can use these transcription factors to reverse aging and that this may end up leading us to, uh, you know, a much kind of helping life.

And by the way, when they applied those yuan archiv tres to the mice, the mice lived one hundred and seven percent longer than they were supposed to. But more importantly, the health span, as it's defined, improved. So the mice not only lived longer, but they actually live healthier. The all the measures of healthiest in the body improved. So it's a really kind of .

help us in the next ten .

years IT may yeah, it's very well.

There are now somehow gave your science corner. I feel like science corner should only discuss that can happen in the next few years. I put that way. Look at IT.

I'll tell i'll tell you one thing for sure. You can you can make money as an investor over the next ten years in finding the right teams that are gonna have a higher likelihood progressive clinical trials in the space.

I will say that there maybe clinical trials that can come to market really fast, particularly what kind of these x vivo of the apex s when you take cells out of your body, apply the ominous chieti and then put them back in your body for certain tissue types, like I cells, for example, or t cells in your blood, there's a lot of ways that this may come to market faster. And it's not just about reversing your age overall, but reversing the age of certain cell types in your body that can then have profound health impact in the new term. So that's the kind of stuff that's gna start to come through clinical stage sooner than later.

And then maybe you know some number of yours down the road, we forget out a way to reverse the age and all the cells in our body and the whole body becomes more youthful. But for now, it's going to be targeted cells in a very specific way to reverse ageing and improve heal. Very powerful, very interesting, lots of investment opportunity and certainly some some very smart .

folks what the time frame is for black in a reversing aging because we .

need that thirty years.

thirty years .

should .

the eighty.

That's what you needed the most? No, but we'll need the most.

But I feel if .

we live to eighty, if we live to eighty, does that mean we're going able to like live to .

one hundred because we'll to like verse ages. Can you live to think question? We don't know.

But if you could reverse aging?

Yes, we don't know what that means because there's all kinds of things that you inherit over time. But this may not. For example, like if you have long term heart disease, I could see how the cells could get healthier, but I can't eliminate the black in your right. You know that the calcium, sorry, that that that is there. So right, you you have .

to say alzheimer, like alzheimer, has there's a black element. The cause of that and the secular function may be reversible.

IT could definitely be that like injury rates of older people, hips, knees, shoulders and arms, all the sort of like soft mosquito to skeletal stuff you can, you can really do a good job of. Because at the same time, as you get older, like people in take less protein, the process that as well you lose a lot of muscle massage, ge, you get older. Those are things that I think like short term solutions, but not to be honest with you, sucks the stuff that really can screw you, which is heart disease and brain function. This probably won't do much for a long .

time to check else. Rit, ah.

yes, i'm the best shape of winter, twenty years. I feel great.

Can you reverse whatever is wrong with J.

K, L, the the category show?

I got an email. We all .

got IT from a guy who I won't say just why not to violate Price privacy, but he's in the sketchy one. He listens to the pod his father is and made him get a removal scan through through the father to vancouver. They found a five centimeter cancer tumor on his kidney, and the three days ago had had removed and looks like guys totally healthy .

and eliminated.

You think so, another lives saved.

But I.

but I wanted to show you guys a picture. So yesterday I went to los Angeles to see my intervention. Al cardiologist, and what they do is they do what's called the contrast.

C. T. can. So they put you into A I, V, and they put this contrast inside you. You want to put through the picture up, please.

And then they use all the soft attack to create an extremely accurate a three d model of your heart. And what they can do is go inside of your arteries and actually measure the calcium build up. I mentioned this before.

This, this is a service called heart flow H E A R T F L O W. In any event, my calcium scores still zero. Thank god touchwood keep grounded.

But I just wanted to put this out there for anybody who has a history of heart disease in their family, for them or for their parents, or what have you? If you go and ask your doctor, this is a third party service that they can do IT. You go get a contrast, C, T, and you can get a very accurate sense of your heart health.

This is amazing. They, they found, it's incredible. They found that you have a heart.

They did find that I have .

a heart because this is a critical technology, because all of us, we would try to find if you have a heart. For all this hundred and five episodes.

the rose.

but they found a heart have .

looked to huge. I look like secrets. Yeah .

like, I do have a big heart, boys.

as you guys know. No, I mean, this is shocking for .

the little size can be actual size.

It's bigger than this brain got a big heart. Glad you are healthy. Evey, that's fantastic.

So go get, go get a heart flow of anybody has heart disease. Go to your doctor.

All right. Well, for David .

sacks was a moderation. Okay.

yeah, I mean.

this hunk is in the right.

I'll come back to .

moderate next week, and I would give both the Davids A, A robotic b minus, c plus. I think they're Better off or pining than moderating, okay. And I think that person really doesn't have anything interesting to say. So he set off moderate .

and what is like my covers.

and then we can minimize the number of times he finds any round of way to take IT back to virtue signaling and genuflecting about. I was going to ask Jason what I thought IT about the cobo's forty nine ers game, where Kitty was an ineligible downfield received that didn't call a penalty. Very important catch for that game that, again, the cobos now losing every single time they get to the players. But I didn't want to ask you because I was, I thought that you would fear toward gegen pins from china comment.

no. Any genuflecting would .

you like to do before you go back here? I will admit .

that the moderation thing is harder than IT looks. It's harder than IT looks to be entertaining.

I think .

that's that's the thing .

I can plus moderator back to B.

I will. I will come back next week. moderate. I, I have been under the weather.

pass the ball and let us put the ball on the basket.

I will put the ball exactly where you each like IT perfectly. Look for some great assist coming next week to check out back at one hundred percents. K, thanks to the David for going in for you last two weeks, and we will see you all next time.

your.

Winter, man.

We open sources to the fans.

and we just got .

crazy with.

Several times to .

release A, B, B.

we need get.