It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour, brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Lawn Jean. Good evening, this is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Mr. William Bradford Huey, editor of the American Mercury, and Mr. James H.R. Cromwell, former United States Minister of Canada. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Kenneth B. Keating, United States Representative from New York. The opinions expressed are necessarily those of the speakers. Mr. Keating, our viewers during the last few months have been disturbed about some of the forced stealing that's been going on in the Justice Department. And you're a distinguished Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee. And I believe that you are a member of the subcommittee which has been investigating the Justice Department. Is that correct, sir? Yes, I was the author of the resolution to do that and I'm the ranking minority member of that committee. Well, then you're just the man to tell our viewers something about the Justice Department and what's been going on there. Now, sir, as a first question, what is the primary purpose of the Justice Department in our government? Well, the Justice Department has to do with all of the legal matters in the government in a broad sense. The prosecution of federal crimes or the lack of prosecution, the defense of the government and civil claims or the lack thereof. All of the matters pertaining to alien property, immigration and naturalization, there are a great many other matters. The Justice Department today has broadened its scope so that it is probably, in many respects, the biggest and most important department in the federal government. Now, this department has been headed in recent years by Mr. Tom Clark of Texas, Mr. McGrath of Rhode Island, and now more recently by Mr. McGrannery. That's correct, isn't it? That's right. There was a short interim period when there was an acting Attorney General, Mr. Perlman, just before Mr. McGrannery's appointment. And now for the last three or four months, your subcommittee has been investigating this entire department. Now, sir, what do you think is the most important accomplishment of your committee today? What is the most interesting thing that you've discovered in your investigation? Well, I think perhaps the most constructive thing to date in our accomplishments is that there are great many matters which should have been attended to before they were by the Justice Department, but due to the activities of our committee have been brought to a head to illustrate the chairman, one of the members of the Veterans Affairs Committee of the Congress, a congressman from Texas testified before us a week or so ago in which he said that he had written letters to the Justice Department about various veterans fraud cases involving these schools, some of these fly-by-night schools. He couldn't even get answers to his letters. When our committee got after it and asked for the files, then he said things began to happen, and he gave to our committee the complete credit for that. Now, we're not after scalps so much as we are to bring about constructive accomplishments, and that's one phase of our activity. What's the story about Newbold Morris? Why did he fail? Well, the Newbold Morris episode is another matter that I should have mentioned in answer to Mr. Huey's question. Mr. Morris was appointed, as we brought out in hearings before our committee, at a time when it was known by the top officials of the Justice Department that he was then under investigation for alleged violations of the criminal statutes. Now, of course, I don't know whether those took place or not, but here they appointed a man who at that time was under investigation in the very department that he was supposed to investigate. I call that a sham. I say it's a fraud on the American people to tell them there's going to be a great new era of decency, and there's going to be a great clean-up campaign, and then to appoint to head that campaign a man who is himself under investigation at that moment. And it was known to them that he was. Are you telling our viewers that the President of the United States and the Attorney General, Mr. McGrath, knew that Mr. Morris was under investigation at the time he was appointed to that position? We have no evidence taken before our committee that the President knew it, whether he did or not, I don't know. We do have evidence that Mr. McGrath, the Attorney General, knew it and other high-ranking officials in the Justice Department. We took that evidence and it was made public. And the reason you called that a fraud on the American people is that obviously if Mr. McGrath knew that this investigator was under investigation himself, that he could be controlled by the people he was supposed to investigate. Nothing to fear from, in other words. That is certainly a fair conclusion to draw. Well, do you think that Mr. McGrath is going to be a better Attorney General than Mr. McGrath was? Do you think that he will do a better job than a predecessor? I think I'd prefer to reserve judgment until Mr. McGrath has been in office a little longer. I will say this, that shortly after his appointment, the chairman of the committee and I had a long discussion with him in which he told us he would cooperate with our committee. He was just as anxious to clean up things that were wrong in his department as we were to have it cleaned up. And there has been some improvement in the way of cooperation since he went in, in the way of getting files on pending cases and that sort of thing. But I would prefer to let Mr. McGrath reserve a little longer before I made any final commitment. You don't know whether he's going to have a whitewash or whether he really means business in cleaning up the department. I think it would be better to wait until he's been there longer. It's an opportunity. I think that's very fair. Now, sir, in general about the Department of Justice, isn't it true that nations that have fallen into totalitarianism, that one of the agencies of government that's become totalitarian or a tool of totalitarianism, has been the Department of Justice? Isn't that one of the key agencies that shows deterioration? Absolutely. A dictator must get control of the Justice Department and the police, the interior. So if our own country, as many people fear, if our own country should ever fall into totalitarianism, the Department of Justice would be one of the first failures, wouldn't it? It would be an absolutely essential cog in such a machine. I don't want to have it appear that I'm charging that there's any such thing underway. But it would be an essential cog to get hold of the Justice Department. The Justice Department today has displaced the Postmaster Generals Department as the most important political department in the government. It affects the lives of the everyday citizen more than any other government department. Mr. Keating, I believe that our viewers, and I might say the American people as a whole, are very profoundly concerned over the tendency or we might say the drift in this country in the last decade towards government by executive decision or decree as compared to government by law. I think we all realize, as Mr. Huey says, that that is a tendency or a drift towards totalitarianism. Now, what can be done about that to halt that drift? Well, of course, the fundamental answer is elect a Republican president and have a Republican administration. Now, to get a little more specific, we will never get away from this continual centralization of government in Washington. Until there is a change in the administration. I say that very seriously because in these times and as our party systems have developed, the Democratic Party has become more and more the party of centralization of everything in Washington. The Republican Party is more and more inclined to place greater responsibility upon the states and the individual localities. And in my judgment, at least now, that is certainly a desirable trend. Well, Mr. Keating, what we need in the Justice Department, of course, are very able and sincere lawyers in the policymaking positions, don't we? That's absolutely essential. Now, in the old days we had outstanding men as the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the United States. Men of great ability and the highest integrity. We must return to those days. The last three that we have had, Mr. Tom Clark, Mr. McGrath, and now Mr. McGrannery, are those men who were distinguished lawyers or distinguished in the legal profession before they became Attorney General? Without any reflections on any one of them, I don't think that anyone has ever accused them of having been distinguished lawyers before they took this position. Now, Mr. Justice Clark is now Justice of the Supreme Court. I have the most profound respect for the Supreme Court of the United States. It may be that he has acquired a great deal of experience. But at the time of their appointment, every one of those three men was primarily a political appointee. And is it fair to say that most of the lawyers, the government attorneys, the U.S. attorneys over the country now, are men who are perhaps less able lawyers than they once were in those positions? I think that's unquestionably true, and that's always going to be true when the accent is put on politics rather than on ability. Now, what, sir, as a final question, what, sir, is the next step that your subcommittee investigating the Justice Department will take? Well, we have some very interesting hearings coming up next week in which we're investigating certain antitrust violations which for some reason were suddenly called off in the Justice Department. We want to know why they were called off. We believe that the evidence which we produce will indicate that. Then we're going into a number of alien property cases. There are a great many other cases involving the Justice Department, which we now have under active investigation. Well, Mr. Keating, I'm sure that our viewers appreciate your very forthright statements tonight, and thank you, sir, for being with us. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Mr. William Bradford Huey and Mr. James H.R. Cromwell. Our distinguished guest was the honorable Kenneth B. Keating, United States representative from New York. Now, the problem confronting the manufacturer of an article of extreme precision such as a Laun Jean is to deliver it to its eventual owner in the same perfect condition in which it leaves the factory. For that reason, Laun Jean watches have always been distributed directly from the factory through a limited number of jewelers qualified by knowledge and experience to handle watches of Laun Jean quality. Now, these jewelers are our authorized Laun Jean Wittner Jeweler agencies. And in this way, you're assured that the Laun Jean watch which you buy is a worthy representative of the only watch in history to win ten World Fair grand prizes, twenty-eight gold medals, and highest honors for accuracy from the leading government observatories of the world. Now, when next you buy a watch, either for yourself or for an important gift occasion, see Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, sold under our factory guarantee only at your authorized Laun Jean Wittner Jeweler agency. Throughout the world, no other name on a watch means so much as Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour. Broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem agency for Laun Jean Wittner watch. C. Crosby & Hope, Saturday night on the CBS television network.


Welcome once again to the Breakfast on Plores TV Africa. We are joined this morning by Dr Aditya Joseph, she is the founder of Darkass Council Foundation. We're going to be speaking on cancer in children. It's not a conversation that we have a lot here in Nigeria because well, we're going to get to talk about these things. And so we've invited her to share her thoughts on some of these very big issues that are not spoken about a lot. Good morning, Dr Joseph. Joseph, good morning. Good morning. Thanks for having me. Thanks for joining us. So it's not a very popular conversation because a lot of people expect cancer to be, you know, maybe breast cancer, cervical cancer, long cancer, and some of all of that, which happens with older, you know, presumably older persons. Can you share with us, you know, about cancer in children? What are the most common incidents that you've experienced? Yeah, so like you said, it's not a very popular conversation because nobody wants to hear the words cancer and child in the same sentence, so that's understandable. But cancer does happen in children. The most common cancer you find in children is the chemia, which is cancer of the blood. But then there are so many others. There's the one, there's retinoblastoma, which is from the retina of the eye. There are cancers in the kidneys, the muscles, the bones. So there's a whole plethora of cancers that are specific to children and to young adults, adolescents and young adults. Cancer in children is not as common as cancer in adults, but it is often treatable, often curable. They have very, very good survival rates. And so it is more tragic when you see those children die, knowing fully well that with the right treatment, they could easily have survived. So I want to begin first, just generally regarding cancer, the myths concerning cancer in Nigeria.  Can you help us dispel some of the myths that surround this disease? Well, to start with, when you say a big man disease, the thing about it is that unless you have unlimited funds, cancer is one of the easiest ways to quickly go into bankruptcy, because cancer treatment is expensive anywhere in the world. And so no matter how big that person is, it's one of the most catastrophic things that can happen to anyone's finances. And I have seen it personally over and over again, and I've seen families going to ruin sell everything that they have, which is how the Dockers Foundation even came to start with, because you see parents who sell all of their life savings, they sell all their properties, sell their car.  But the chances of that child survival are tanked already because the child came with advanced disease. So no matter what they do, the prognosis was bad from the start. And so until we get to the point where we're detecting it early, that's always going to happen. But regarding the myths in Nigeria, there are many of them. I don't even know where to begin with that. The one thing I will address is two things I will address. Number one is that the treatment for cancer is surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. There is no diet that is going to cure it. There is no vitamin infusion that is going to cure it. All of those things are lies. And I can say it anywhere. There is no data to support it. The second thing I will talk about is nutrition. Because one of the first questions I get asked by anyone who's diagnosed with cancer is what can I eat? Because people come to them and tell them don't take this, don't take that, don't eat this, don't eat that. And so you have a malnourished, undernourished person coming into treatment which is going to be very taxing to their system. So if I had to pick two myths to address, those would be the two. Okay, so talking about kids and cancer screening, where really lies the challenge? You don't screen children for cancer because like I said, again, it's not as common. Because there are only a few cancers you screen for if you compare it to the number of cancers that can happen. Because the logic behind screening is that there has to be a significant incidence for you to be able to make that screening justifiable. For you to spend the money to do a mammogram for 10,000 women. How much does it cost, first of all, the cancer screening for one child? We don't screen children for cancer. So that's even the challenge because they now come with the advanced stage, we don't screen children for cancer because the cancers are not as common as in adults, number one. Number two is that the screening tests are not 100% reliable. For you to do a screening test it has to be reproducible and it has to be reliable. So I can always say that if I check PSA and PSA is elevated something is wrong with this prostate. You have to have something like that that is consistent for you to be able to use it as a screening test and we don't have anything like that in children. Number three is for the cancer called retinoblastoma which is a cancer that occurs in the retina of the eye. And there's a simple check you can do for that which is you check the eyes to make sure that the part of the eye that is supposed to be white remains white or red remains red. So that's the closest you can come to what you call screening for cancer in children. What children need is a regular health check with somebody who is a pediatrician who is qualified to treat children and who can tell that this is not malaria or typhoid and know that this child needs to be referred for expert attention. What happens is that the child comes to treat for malaria and typhoid and they do that repeatedly over and over again in multiple different centers and then by the time a real diagnosis is reached it's been six months and the disease has spread. So there's a lot of expectations with regards to the causes of cancer from how it's been described you know behavioral habits you know food that you mentioned you know the food that we consume you know bad oil bad drugs, smoking some of all of that. So how would you explain to a parent whose child is down with cancer that hasn't been able to I mean it's not old enough to have lived with those habits. So there are two groups and I like that you separated adults from children. Children don't have these risk factors. They haven't been exposed to these risk factors long enough for them to be relevant. With children it's mostly genetic and when I say genetic I don't mean hereditary necessary. I mean that it is in the genes so it is something that starts from the level of the gene while the baby is even sometimes in the womb and it has nothing to and that's very important to me to emphasize it has nothing to do with what the mother ate or drank or you know understand what I'm saying. Now that's something to say that a woman who is pregnant should not make healthy choices but often those bad choices will show up immediately with a child who is on the weight or who is unhealthy at birth. It's not cancer that is the result of an unhealthy pregnancy. Do you understand what I'm saying? Now that's different from adults. With adults smoking nutrition diet lifestyle all of those things are certainly risk factors but not for children and that's something that is very important to address because many parents feel a lot of guilt and wonder if it's something they did or didn't do and we always make that very clear that it was nothing like that it's like you have an assembly line and you're bringing out sliced bread every now and then one slice is going to be abnormal and what happens in cancer is that the systems that should pick out that abnormal slice fail and they allow it to escape into the system and then that abnormal cell begins to reproduce. So that's what happens. It's not anything that they did or didn't do. Before now you went on to say that maybe a child is sick or you get diagnosed for malaria and typhoid and six months seen they present with advanced stage of cancer you said something like that. What are the signs of cancer in children? There are many different cancers so it's difficult to say there is one specific sign. For the most common cancer. Let's talk about leukemia for example which is one of the things that we see a lot is there is repeated infections so the child keeps getting sick and sick. First of all for people who don't understand help us break down what is leukemia and then go ahead to talk about it. That's going to take us a long time. So leukemia is cancer of the blood and what happens with it is that there is an abnormal proliferation of white blood cells which is the immune system. And because the abnormal cells are proliferating they take over the bone marrow, they starve and push out the other cells. So that child is anemic, that child is predisposed to infection, that child is predisposed to bruising and bleeding and all of that. So that's a very very very simplified version of what happens in leukemia. But then one of the easiest ways, one of the commonest ways they present is that they have repeated illnesses and infections. And so they get treated for an acute infection over and over and over again. And nobody takes a step back to look again to figure out why is this child being sick all the time. And then send them. And the reason that happens is because many times they're not being seen by a pediatrician. They're being seen by somebody who is maybe a GP, who treats adult, who treats children, who treats everyone. And so that index of suspicion for something else is often lacking. Alright, let's talk about the Dockers Foundation. What exactly have you been into since it started? So the Dockers Cancer Foundation is five years old and when the foundation started it was with the intention to support parents financially to pay for treatment. But then like I said, what we found is that there's no point paying millions for treatment. When the child is already coming with a stage four disease and is going to not live anyway. And so as we've gone on, we've had to take a step back to figure out other ways to approach the problem beyond just funding treatment. And so now we've attacked early detection. We've done this Look Again campaign which is training primary healthcare workers and community healthcare professionals across the states. And we've trained over a thousand people now. And the point of the Look Again campaign is teaching them to look for other signs. And understanding that at the point where you see this, you need to refer this child for expert assessment. The truth about it is that not every child in Nigeria can come to a pediatrician every time that they're sick. We don't even have enough pediatricians in the country. So if we can train the people at the community level to know when to refer for expert assessment, that is one step to improve early detection. We've also taken on training of, so for example we don't have any pediatric radiation oncologist in Nigeria. So we recently held a program called the PEDROC where we know trying to build capacity for radiation. We had experts from all over the world training our experts on the ground here to do that. And so we've done many programs like that. We started the pediatric cancer access program. We have funders and donors paid directly to the providers. One of the problems, challenges you'll find is that people are nervous to give money to a foundation, to an NGO, because they want to know how their money was spent. And while we are very open with our books and all of that, just to remove that little bit of nervousness, we say, okay, don't give the money to doccas foundation. Pay it to the hospital. Pay it to the pharmaceutical company. They will supply the drugs directly. The hospital will perform the surgery. So don't give us the money.  So what pickup does is that it eliminates the delays in treatment. The child gets treated on credit. The surgery is done. The chemo is given. And then we figure out how to find a donor to pay for the treatment after that. But the child gets treated. So those are some of the things that we've done to try to address the issues that we've discovered beyond just funding treatment. Okay, so I saw reports by the World Health Organization that said that in higher income countries the rate of treatment and cure for cancer in children is 80%.  What can we do to change this? Yeah, so I mean it's exactly what I was saying that it's very tragic because you know that most of the time these children can survive. I tell people all the time that I attend conferences on pediatric cancer and they don't talk about survival. What they talk about is side effects, quality of life, because survival is taken for granted. It is over here that these children are still dying. And so these are the things that we can do to address them. Early care action is very important. Access to care is very important. Treatment funding is very important. Okay, well of course a better healthcare system, I believe because an endurance can't necessarily rely on foundations all through. Could you share with us you said if a child is going to be helped, the treatment is paid for even before the comes. How long does the treatment take on the average? It depends. So surgery is a one day procedure. I mean of course the child is going to be in hospital after to recover. So it depends on the treatment you're talking about. With radiation, I'm a radiation oncologist. We have treatments that are lasting six weeks or you know two months at a time because they're taking daily treatments over a couple of weeks. Chemotherapy can last for months, you know, at different intervals. So it depends on what kind of treatment but I always tell people, so what I tell my patients in the clinic is this, for the next two years of your life, this is the journey you're going to be on at the very minimum. And when you're talking about metastatic disease, it's really most of the time for the rest of your life. So it's not something, it's like and I tell people, it's like hypertension once you become hypertensive, you're hypertensive for the rest of your life. And that's what happens with cancer that is metastatic. And even when it's not metastatic, it's going to take quite a bit of time, dedication, emotional and financial toll on the family. It's really it's a tough one to deal with actually. Anyway Yes, just quickly, I wanted to ask I've heard about the Nigeria Cancer Control Plan and things like that. How would you really quantify government's imputes in trying to find a way to solve this mess of cancer in the country especially with regards to children? Is the government doing enough and what more can they do? This is a topic that I'm very passionate about because I find that a lot of the time it's very easy to have these conversations where you sit down and you complain about the government and all of that. And I tell people that you see even in the best countries so if you take the US for example there are organizations that are committed to lobbying for cancer patients their entire focus of work, the entire scope of work is lobbying the policymakers to make policies that help cancer patients. How do I expect who a minister of finance for example he doesn't know anything about cancer. If I don't bring it to his table and talk to him about it and tell him what the problems are with these solutions it's not his job to think of them for me. So instead of talking about what government has done I tell people what have you done how many people have you talked to about it how many letters have you written do you know who your legislators are have you approached them to talk about it have you asked for research funded what has everybody done about it I'm sorry so that's how I see it. I can we can sit down here and criticize government until next tomorrow but the truth about it is that the average person on the streets has done nothing or not enough and that's where we need to start from. So what do we need to do as Nigerians so let's start by knowing what the problems are so one of the things that I learned in this journey is that initially I used to go and talk a lot about the problems I'll say these are the challenges and then you know and this is something I say all the time there are very few people you're going to talk to to say children are having cancer they're dying and they don't want to do anything they do want to do something so they're going to ask you what can I do and then you're stuck because you've come only with the problems and no solutions so what we need to do is understand what the problems are and come up with the solutions come up with ideas for the solutions and then tell them that okay these are possible solutions these are the ways that the government can help here is the truth there are very few countries in the world where government is funding cancer treatment in full it's very expensive there are other things that can be done so you can encourage private industry to invest in cancer treatment by giving them tax breaks every private company that do needs to cancer treatment will get a whatever percentage tax break anybody who is importing equipment for cancer treatment will not pay importation fees those are the kind of things that government can do but we can't expect them to solve the entire solution okay so the entire problem in 10 seconds does the health insurance also cover cancer treatment no right now cancer coverage by health insurance in Nigeria is maybe one percent I think cancer treatment yes it's very low it's next to nothing and that is another that's another thing that government can help with because the insurance companies themselves have to stay in business all right I wish we had enough time to talk about how COVID-19 affects cancer patients because the fact we've seen is that it affects them at a higher risk but I guess this is where we can draw the line here thank you very much Dr. Adelia Joseph from the Dockers counter foundation thank you for having me and this is where we will be saying goodbye on the Thursday thanks for staying with us if you missed out on these conversations you want to catch up remember it's at plus TV Africa on Facebook and Instagram same with our YouTube channel along with at plus TV Africa lifestyle I am also give a and I am Annette Felix saying bye bye


Viewers of our Breaking Analysis series know that we've been following the developments in cybersecurity for a number of years, and of course, throughout the pandemic, focusing on the permanent shifts that we see in cyber from remote work, distributed computing, and technology advancements. We've reported how the adversaries are highly capable, they're well-funded, and they're motivated. And how they're constantly upping their game on defenders, island hopping, stealthily living off the land, planting, self-forming malware at various points in the digital supply chain, offering advanced ransomware as a service on the dark web to any disreputable individual with or without a high school diploma that may have access to a server and is brazen enough to steal from their company. We've also shared this chart from Optiv many, many times. It's a taxonomy of the cybersecurity landscape, and it is meant to make your eyes bleed. Ask any CISO, and they'll tell you they're drowning in fragmented tooling, technical debt, and their number one challenge is lack of talent. Not that their people aren't capable, they are, but CISOs just don't have enough of them. They can't hire fast enough, or they can't retain qualified people with the talent war that's going on, or they can't train people fast enough, or they just don't have the budget. Hello, everyone. This is Dave Vellante, and welcome to this video exclusive with Nick Schneider, president and CEO of Arctic Wolf Networks. Nick, so good to see you. Thanks for coming on theCUBE. Thanks for having me, Dave. That's our pleasure. So Arctic Wolf Networks, let's talk about the company, the problem.  What are you guys all about? Yeah, so at its core, we're a cybersecurity technology company. You know, it's our belief that we've really pioneered the first full-scale cloud-native security operations platform. And at its core, what we're trying to do as a business is make security operations something that's fast, easy, and economical for really a company of any size and scale to implement with really two key components. One, we're agnostic to the technology and the landscape of the technology that they have already implemented within their environment. And two, we can feather into really any organization, regardless of the skill set they have from a cybersecurity standpoint in-house. And really the problem that we're setting out to solve, I think you illustrated well at the beginning of the show here, is that it's our belief that the cybersecurity industry, in a sense, has failed the end user, or failed the customer by throwing a myriad of different tools at them. And it's really our mission here as a company to end cyber risk. And it's our belief that through the cloud-native platform that we've bought in the cybersecurity operations cloud that we've built, that we can deliver the outcomes that have been promised over time to these customers, which at the end of the day is really just to be safe and have their business protected. So you guys are the experts. You can kind of provide a white glove service that essentially plugs in to my business. Is that right? And how easy is that to do? What do I have to do to set it up? How complicated is that for me, the customer? Yeah, so it's very straightforward. We can implement our security operations platform, you know, and is short as a week and generally speaking, you know, about a month. And we plug in really to the infrastructure that the customer has in place. And for some of our customers, that's very little. And for some of our customers, most of our customers, that's quite a bit of technology. And the beauty of the way that we've built the platform is that we're really agnostic to that tech. So we can take feeds from kind of any technology that are in place. That helps to augment the platform that we've built. And then we feather in kind of the technologies that we've built within the platform into their existing infrastructure. And at the end of the day, what we're trying to do is give the customer visibility, you know, into the tools that they have, the gaps that they might have as a result of the tools, you know, in some cases, the duplication of efforts that they have, you know, between these tools and then deliver a security outcome or a protection that maybe they haven't otherwise felt as a business. And then outside of kind of the technology platform, we add what we call our concierge security team as a layer to the deliverable that we give to the customer. And why that's important is that not all customers, you know, are created equal and with regard to the skill set that they have in house in that that concierge security platform allows us to kind of work with a customer at any kind of, you know, point along their security journey, regardless of the in-house technology talent that they have. Now, so I got to ask you our largest footprint for the Cube is in the heart of Silicon Valley. We love the Valley, but I also love stories of high growth companies that are outside of Silicon Valley. You guys are in the Midwest and Minnesota and got some compelling DNA in there. And I remember my, so my business friends, Phil Soren and Larry Asman, you know them, Phil used to tell me, Dave, this is actually an advantage for us to be in the middle of part of the country. There's a talent war going on, which back then was a lot less than it is today even. So how do you see that? Are there advantages to you and being in that part of the country or does it not matter because you're so distributed around the world? Yeah, I mean, I would follow a similar tune to Phil, right? I, you know, obviously worked at Compellant early and, you know, historically I've worked at other Minneapolis based technology companies. And the reality is there's a really strong technology ecosystem in Minneapolis. And a lot of the, of the talent, you know, is not just in sales and marketing or just on the technical side, but it's in building high growth technology companies kind of from the ground up into, you know, large scale. And now we've seen not only the Fortune 500 kind of base that we have here in Minneapolis, but also a growing contingency of larger technology companies using Minneapolis as at least, you know, one of the spokes against their hub, if not the hub themselves. And clearly my pedigree in history was out of Minneapolis based tech, you know, and I've moved to other locations throughout the country. But as we started to build out, you know, Artic Wolf and what we wanted Artic Wolf's culture to look like. And as we started to lay out the foundation for what we wanted our growth to look like, it became very clear to myself, you know, our chairman and co-founder, Brian Nesmith, that Minneapolis would be a great home for us as Artic Wolf. And then we would continue to invest in some of the locations that we have, you know, both across the country and now across the globe. So there are a lot of companies that are doing managed security services. But if I got it right, you guys specifically target smaller and mid-sized companies. Is that correct? And why is that? Yeah, so I would say that that would be correct. As of a few years ago, the dynamic has changed quite a bit. And I think it's a result of the dynamic of the market. First and foremost, we are a technology company. We have this Casier's layer on top, which is really what the customers are looking for. But it's all powered by the platform. So the platform kind of allows us to do what we've done as a business into both small organizations, which is where we probably got our start. But over the last few years, we've seen tremendous growth upmarket. So for example, we as a business have grown over 100% now for eight years in a row and now on a much larger denominator, but our upmarket business is growing at 4 to 500%. And I think that's a result of really two things. I think A, customers of that size and scale have realized that cybersecurity and cybersecurity operations as a problem is something that's really hard to accomplish in-house, regardless of your size and complexity. And then two, I think what happened over the past year, year and a half is that we saw a lot of organizations move from a centralized IT or a centralized security function where they could all operate within an office and all operate in a centralized environment, all of a sudden becoming very disparate in their geography. And that led to a lot more interest in what we did with larger customers because we could deploy a security operation effectively remotely in a really short amount of time. And we could do it more effectively and economically than they could do on their own. And then we also saw for a component of the human aspect of what a security operation means. And what I mean by that is these larger organizations can take their highly skilled cybersecurity talent and focus them on the strategic initiatives within the company, whereas a lot of the security work or risk is in kind of the day to day, right? The dieting that takes place within an organization. And that's where a lot of the breaches take place is in making sure that you're actually paying attention to the alerts that you're getting and paying attention to the telemetry and the tools that you've made investments in. And we augment that portion of cybersecurity operation really, really well for large organizations and for smaller organizations, we are that security operation. So it's kind of dependent on the way in which they're set up. Okay, so it's a mix of both augmenting and basically you take the whole thing. And so your ideal customer profile, your ICP, is anybody with a security problem? I mean, that's everybody. Well, maybe you could describe, paint a picture of your perfect customer, if you would. Yeah, so, and I know you said that somewhat jokingly, but it is true. We have customers of all sizes. So I bet our smallest customer is under 10 employees. Our largest customer is over 50,000 employees. We have customers in every vertical of the market, mostly centralized in healthcare, financial organizations, manufacturing. But the largest swath of customers by industry would probably not top 10%. So we service really any account that's looking to develop and invest in a security operation and has the support of their organization and the support of their board and their leadership teams to make that investment. And then where we fall within the account is really dependent on the way in which their current operation is set up. And certainly the massive organizations that have 50 people within their cybersecurity team and they have a hundred different tools, they're probably not the best target for us. But if they have security awareness, if they have a security as a top need or a top priority within their business and they're looking for a way to build out a true security operation within their account, whether that be wholesale through a third party or in part through a third party, we're a perfect fit for all those accounts, which makes our addressable market massive. Yeah, so what's unique about you guys, I mean, this may be not the right analogy, but you're kind of like the easy button for cyber. I mean, there's nothing easy about cyber. I get that, but you do make it easy, especially for companies that don't have any cyber expertise to engage and get up to speed fast and certainly be more protected. So that's one aspect of your uniqueness. The other is, I think is your tech stack. I'm hearing you've got a platform. I know you're focused on network detection and fast response. Maybe you could talk a little bit about what's unique about Arctic Wolf. Yeah, so the platform itself is really what we founded the company on. So we spent the first few years of our organization in really building out this cloud scale, multi-tenant cloud native platform, understanding that the volume of data and the amount of sophistication that we would need to deliver the security operation in the long run was going to be massive. So the platform's really kind of set on a few different founding principles. One, the platform needs to work for any organization regardless of their size, regardless of their underlying tech and regardless of the skill set within their account. And that's really important. A lot of the tools in the market today require certain things of the customer. And it's our premise, regardless of the customer, that we won't require anything from the customers themselves. It's up to them to tell us which portions of the experience they want to own versus Arctic Wolf owning. The second would be that we need to be able to ingest a vast amount of data and we need to be able to make intelligent decisions with that data in a short amount of time. And as we've built out our machine learning and our AR algorithms, what we've been able to do is leverage a tool set that allows us to ingest, I think we're up to now 1.5, approaching two trillion observations a week, which might equate to a few hundred alerts within our sock on a per customer basis. But we're only bringing one or two things to a customer on a weekly basis that really need attention. And that's all about the platform kind of curating and cultivating the vast amount of data that we've brought into it. And then how do we explain and how do we sell that platform with this concierge later into the customer base is also important. And we've done that through what we call modules. So we kind of founded the company on MDR, managed detection and response, but we are not a managed detection or response company. It's one of our modules. We've then added manage risk, which competes kind of in the vulnerability management space. We've added a SAS and IAS monitoring, which is really cloud security. We've added what we call log search, which is really our first foray into collaboration. And then we just recently launched a quarter ago, what we call managed security awareness training, which is training the human aspect of the company on the threats of cybersecurity. And we actually just announced another acquisition in the managed security space today with habituate, which is going to give us kind of a Hollywood style approach to content within managed awareness training. But tying all those together is very unique in the market. So generally speaking, you'll see a company focused on a specific attack surface or a specific threat. And what we're trying to say is, look, you're not 100% protected as a business, or you don't have a robust security operation, unless you're bringing together all aspects of cybersecurity under one umbrella. And that's really our goal as a company. Okay, so you got all these different modules and you may not want to go here because you're in the cyber business and you're prudently secretive, but I'm interested in what's underneath. I presume you're using best of breed tooling underneath, but unlike the hosting company of the past or a big integrator who could do this, but they've got one of everything and it's kind of a mess. You're building a scalable business, but you're not developing your best of breed identity access products for the marketplace. I presume you're buying those in, integrating them and working through whatever APIs and making it all work across your stack. Can you talk a little bit about your tech stack? Yeah, so the technology stack has all been built from the ground up by ArticWolf. So certainly we're using various technologies or open source technologies from within the ecosystem, but the technology and the platform itself is ArticWolf. So we're not beholden to any third parties for what we deliver to the customer. And that makes us very nimble in a few areas. One, it makes us very nimble in the way that we price the solution to the customer, which for us is a very predictable model. And then two, it allows us to be nimble with customer needs as to what they want from us, both of the existing modules that we have, but also additional modules or additional solutions that we might bring to the market. So a lot of vendors that have historically kind of lived within the MDR space and certainly vendors that have lived in the managed, the MSSP or MSP space, which we are certainly not, they're generally leveraging third party technologies, they're generally buying and implementing or white labeling third party technologies. And then they're layering kind of a services component on top and we are not doing that. We've built the technology ourselves and don't get me wrong, that was a massive investment in both time and resources. But I think in the end what it'll allow us to do is be very nimble with the market and most importantly be very nimble with the customer's requirements and requests. Right, okay, so let's talk about your market opportunity. I mean, the cyber space, I mean, I got it well over a hundred billion, I don't know, maybe it's 110, 120 billion, that's kind of your tan. You may be not serving that entire market today, although you said you started in small and mid-sized, you're targeting now your enterprise, your higher end business is growing. You talked about, I think you said 100% growth, like eight quarters in a row. And so there's no shortage of opportunity for you. How do you think about your total available market? Maybe you could add some color to that. Yeah, yeah, so it's been eight years of 100% growth, eight years of 100% growth. Eight years, not eight quarters, I apologize. It's been going really well for us and it's a reflection on the market itself and the approach we're taking. So in our view, security operations is really the opportunity to unify all these disparate markets in cybersecurity. And when I walk into a customer account, if I had to use two words to describe how they're feeling, one would be confused, the other would be frustrated. Sometimes they're both, sometimes they're only one, but generally speaking, one of those two words comes out of their mouth and the reason for it is at the end of the day, they just want to be protected. They want the outcome and all of these disparate markets are promising the same outcome, but they're just promising it on the end point or just on the network or just in cloud or just in IoT or just in OT or just in fill in the blank. And it's our view that it's our opportunity as a company to really fill that void for the customer, which is to unify all of these different technologies and spaces into one security operation. And sometimes that means that we're delivering our own endpoint. And sometimes that means that we're leveraging an endpoint or an endpoint solution that the customer has in-house and we're ingesting that data into our platform and we're making sense of it to the end user. But when you put that market together, it's a hundred and I think Gartner's recent numbers there, 150 plus billion dollar market in 2021, I think it's growing at 12 to 15%. And it's our view that we can service the majority of that market. I think on a conservative measure, 90 to 100 billion is the TAM that we're addressing. And we're now starting to go not only scaling out from the number of products or the markets that we service. And you can see that through managed security awareness training, but also the geographies we service, the segments of the market we service, specialization within verticals. And for us, that is the opportunity at the end here. I wonder if you could help us squint through some of the data you hear in the industry, some of the trends you see in the press. Certainly this came up in the solar winds hack. We're seeing, I mentioned up front, the adversaries are very capable. They're able to get in, live off the land, live stealthily, their island hopping in through the supply chain. You know, oftentimes you don't know, not more than often, you don't know they're there. I've heard stats like, if you look at the solar winds hack, we saw that it was 300 days or over a year that they were inside the company. And you've heard average statistics from whatever, that it's hundreds of days. Are those, are you able to compress those? Can you talk about that a little bit in terms of where you see your customers and how you're helping them respond? Yeah. Yeah, so at the end of the day, you know, cybersecurity, the industry is really about limiting the volume of incidents within a customer account and then limiting the impact. And what you're talking about is the impact and the impact as these threat actors become more sophisticated is larger as they're in the environment for a longer period of time. So the faster you can get to an attack or the faster you can detect an attack, the better off you'll be as a business. And that is the core of what we do as a company. And certainly, you know, managed detection response or MDR or first offering was all about that. It's all about detecting early and responding early to a threat so that you can get anything that has gotten through your perimeter defenses out of your systems as fast as humanly possible. And then we've feathered in, you know, manage risk, which is more about the front end. So how do we make sure that we have everything configured properly? How do we make sure that we, you know, fill any holes that are in the current environment so that we don't even get to a point where we have to manage the time with which an attack has had to live within your environment. So it's all about kind of those two things, reduce the frequency and reduce the impact. And we're focused on both, both the kind of the proactive measures, which would be more on the front end and then the reactive measures, which is what do you do and how can you act as quickly as possible within your environment to ensure that, you know, they're not getting into the crown jewels of the business. We've seen lately where the attackers have, I mean, it's really insidious, right?  And then they, maybe they're hitting the bank and they're scouring to see what the chief information officer is going to invest in. And they're actually making trades ahead of that. They're making more money, you know, snooping than from the ransomware. And then when the company realizes and they respond, then they get them in a headlock and say, okay, now that you're going to stop us from making all this money through exfiltration, we're going to hit you with ransomware. So it's just, it's a really awful situation. So my point being that we've said organizations have to be stealthy in their response. Have you seen that as a trend? Am I overstating that? No, no, I mean, customers are, you know, good news, bad news, customers are very aware of the threats in particular ransomware, data exfiltration and all the other trends in the market. And I think they've become more sophisticated in the way in which they respond. And I think as a result, we've seen both changes in the way customers kind of set up their environment technologically, but we've also seen a pretty dramatic shift recently with the way in which they view insurance and the way in which, you know, carriers view insurance and how that plays a role in, you know, cybersecurity and their cybersecurity operation. And for a lot of customers, I think recent trends are that the carriers are struggling to, you know, make money on their cyber books. And the reason for that is because they need to make sure that the customer's environment is truly secure or they're kind of flying blind on what their book looks like. And we've started to see that both on the end user side, we've seen that through the carriers themselves. And that also has played an integral role in the way in which the customer views risk. And I think that dynamic's changing. And I think what the result of that will be is that customers are going to be looking more and more towards how they solve this problem by alleviating risk in-house as opposed to transferring some of that risk to an insurance carrier or a third party. And what I hope that means for customers is that they'll have the proper investment, they'll have the proper tooling, they'll have the proper operations around how to react and how to respond in the quickest possible manner, which at the end of the day, the faster you can react to an incident, the smaller the impact will be and the smaller of a financial burden it will be. And they'll do that through vendors like Arctic Wolf, tools that are best to breed within their infrastructure and then a really well thought out plan about how to respond to anything that happens within their environment.  Exactly. What percent, do you have a sense as to what percent of enterprises actually have a SOC? Yeah, we actually did some homework here and there's kind of two stats that jump out. And these are through a few different surveys through very well-known organizations in the cybersecurity market. But one is that last year, which would have been 2020, about 60% of organizations said that they suffered some semblance of a breach. 60%, think about how many tools and how much money these organizations are investing in protecting their businesses and over half are suffering some semblance of a breach. When those same customers are asked whether or not they felt like they have a security operation, over 99% answered no. Wow. Right, so they have a bunch of tools, they're investing a ton of money, but at the end of the day when asked, hey, do you feel like you have an operation that can protect your business? Their answer is no. Well. And that's really the void we're trying to fill. And you and I both know that 60%, okay? But then the other 40%, they've been hacked, they just don't know it. Yeah, exactly. So, all right, let's wrap with the substats on the company. I think you've raised nearly half a billion dollars to date, $500 million dollars to date. So that's, I can infer from that some pretty lofty numbers. But where are you in funding with that kind of growth? I got to believe IPO is in your future. What can you tell, what metrics can you share? What can you tell us about where you want to take this thing? Yeah, so I'll give you a few metrics on the platform and a few metrics on the company. So the platform itself, we're observing over 1.5 trillion observations a week. We have 10,000 plus sensors in the field. We're ingesting, coming from a compelling infrastructure guy, we're ingesting over a petabyte and a half of data a week. I would have loved to have been that sales guy in the glory days, but the platform's operating at massive scale. We've grown the business eight years in a row, over 100%, we've talked about that. Our subscription gross margins are very software-like. We have over 2,000 customers. Our customers are really happy with an MPS score, approaching 70, over a million licensed users. So we're doing very, very well as a business. And as a result, we've raised money to invest in that growth, which is to the tune of about a half a billion dollars. And our path here, and we've stated this publicly now, is that next summer, give or take a quarter is really the timeframe that we're marching towards for an IPO. If I'm being honest, given the metrics that we have as a business, we could be a publicly traded company today, especially with the way the market's operating in the valuations of some of the businesses that have gone out. There might be some, even some pressure to do so, but we want to be make sure that we are ready to go from a systems and an operations standpoint, to not just be a flash in the plan, pan, awesome IPO, but a company that's really kind of the backbone of cybersecurity for years to come. Well, obviously a hot split space. I mean, we've been covering for a couple of years now, Octa, CrowdStrike, Zscaler, we've seen what's happened in the action of the market there. I mean, what are your comps? I mean, I know, I think Darktrace is getting ready to go. They've gone yet, Sentinel-1 went out. How should we think about you? You're not an Octa or, I don't think, well, CrowdStrike, but those are pure play product companies. How should we think about you guys? Yeah, I mean, companies that were on a similar trajectory as us at our size, Sentinel-1's a very good example. And you can kind of look across all the core business metrics on that. And clearly those will all be public here in under a year. CrowdStrike's a great example. If you go real back the tape to when they were our size, we're right in line with them. Zscaler, Octa, I joke with our board and investors and our CFO that the number of companies that we benchmark ourselves against is starting to become a very small number given our growth at the scale that we're at. Well, it's an awesome story, Nick. We're really excited that you can make some time to come on theCUBE and we want to follow your progress. Welcome you back anytime, really appreciate your time. Yeah, great. Thanks for having me, Dave, and I look forward to continuing the conversation at some point. Excellent, and thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE and we'll see you next time.


The CDC shocked a lot of people when they announced a new guideline for COVID-19 masking saying people vaccinated against COVID-19 can go without masks indoors and outdoors. Now this is great news. They base this off of new studies that conclude that not only are you very, very well protected against the virus if you've been fully vaccinated, but on top of that, you're less likely to spread the virus to other individuals because if you've been vaccinated, then you're less likely to have a larger viral load, which infects other people. So it's really good news to get this information and these studies. The issue is without the enforcement of some sort of system or vaccine passports, how exactly is this enforceable? How exactly are businesses supposed to determine who is and isn't vaccinated? Well, according to Dr. Anthony Fauci, they're just going to use the honor system. So more than 40 percent of adults, we should note, still are not fully vaccinated. Some are partially, but not fully. There's no real way right now to track who's vaccinated, who isn't vaccinated. There's a lot of resistance to any sort of vaccine passport. But how are restaurants, airlines, others supposed to know if the people coming to their establishments or their vehicles without masks really have the right to not, well, we all have a right to do whatever we want, but really have the CDC guidance supporting they're not wearing masks. Well, Jake, they will not be able to know. I mean, you're going to be depending on people being honest enough to say whether they were vaccinated or not and responsible enough to be wearing a vaccine, excuse me, a mask, not only for their own protection, but also for the protection of others. So in other words, we'll be trusting people like this. What could go wrong? Now, listen, I feel frustrated with this, right, because on one hand, the vaccines work. That's what the CDC is communicating here. And that's really important. And it could be used by the CDC to encourage people to vaccinate. Look, if you don't want to wear a mask anymore, get vaccinated and you no longer have to. The issue is that this comes at a time when not everyone is fully vaccinated. In fact, we're about 50 percent of the population having received at least one shot, but there's still a lot of people not fully vaccinated. Myself included. I mean, I had my second shot, but it's not until the two week point after your second dose, we're considered fully vaccinated. And furthermore, people who are eligible for the vaccine were 18 as of April 19th, they're still not fully vaccinated and children aren't able to get vaccinated yet. So this raises a lot of questions and this guideline is pretty vague and it's led to organizations like the National Nurses United Union to condemn the CDC here. As Julia Conley of Common Dreams reports, the largest nurses union in the United States is calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to revoke the guidance on mask wearing and social distancing that the agency released last week, calling the significantly skilled back guidelines dangerous as the U.S. and other countries continue to face the coronavirus pandemic and new variants of COVID-19. National Nurses United circulated a petition over the weekend gathering signatures of Americans who were confused and alarmed by the CDC's new guidance. Soon after, the union released a statement condemning public health authorities for recommending that fully vaccinated people stop wearing masks and social distancing in most situations. Quote, this newest CDC guidance is not based on science, does not protect public health and threatens the lives of patients, nurses and other frontline workers across the country, said Bonnie Castillo, executive director of NNU and a registered nurse. Now is not the time to relax protective measures and we are outraged that the CDC has done just that while we are still in the midst of the deadliest pandemic in a century. The union expressed particular concern for how the new guidance would leave public facing workers, including grocery store employees and healthcare workers vulnerable as business establishments will have no way of making sure unmasked people are vaccinated against the coronavirus. Quote, people have been asking us, I don't understand. How am I going to know if the person next to me is not unmasked because they're fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, refused to be vaccinated, have conditions that don't allow them to be vaccinated, said Gene Ross, co-president of NNU in a video the group released Sunday. Well, we share that confusion and I tend to agree with the National Nurses United. I get that you want to incentivize mask wearing, right? But there are other ways to do that if that's actually the CDC's intent here. I mean, you can have incentives to where you give people a tax break or in, I think it's Ohio or Oklahoma. No, I think it's Ohio. They're offering to enroll people who get vaccinated in a lottery and they're giving five residents a million dollars each. I think that things like this are important, but for something like this, especially when you offer a little to no guidelines and you just say people who are fully vaccinated no longer have to wear masks, this could backfire. Because again, not everyone can get vaccinated and not everyone who wants to be vaccinated is fully vaccinated yet, including children. So in an interview with CNN, the CDC director, Rachelle Walensky, was asked about this. Like, what does this mean for people with children who are afraid that people will abuse the honor system inevitably so and maybe endanger their kids? And her answer didn't provide much clarity. Let's just get practical here. Is it safe for that unvaccinated child, even in a mask to be in a grocery store when people around them could be unmasked and not following the honor system because they're not vaccinated? Thank you for that question. We were going to be at this period of time. We knew that there was going to be a time where we had the majority of Americans who wanted to be vaccinated, vaccinated, and yet the children were not going to be eligible yet. And we are working really hard. Let's celebrate the fact that this week we also got news that we can vaccinate our 12 to 15 year olds. We hope by the fall, by the end of this year we'll have kids eligible at even younger ranges. And what we're saying is those kids should continue to wear a mask in those settings. We recognize the challenge of parents who can't leave their kids at home should be masked in those settings and to the best of their ability to keep a distance. Those, the recommendations for those settings have not changed. And do you trust that people who are not vaccinated, given what we've seen over the past year plus, will actually keep their masks on? You know, I think that people who were not inclined to wear a mask were not inclined to wear a mask before Thursday. But some of them were mandated to do so and those mandates are lifting in part because of your new guidelines. Yes, and what we're really asking in those settings is to say, in terms of the honor system people have to be honest with themselves. You're protected if you're vaccinated, you're not if you're not vaccinated. But again, not everyone is fully vaccinated. And this is the same CDC director who just a month or so ago warned of impending doom because of a rise in cases. Now I get cases are down, vaccinations are up and the vaccines work. That's great news. But the question is, how do you enforce something like this when we don't know who is and isn't vaccinated? An honor system very clearly isn't going to work in a country of people who have been lying and raised issues with the mask mandates. But I mean, sure, it makes sense to want to incentivize the vaccines by saying, look, your life can kind of return to normal if you get vaccinated. It's just this raises so many questions that aren't answered by the CDC, which is why I'm inclined to believe that what they did here is irresponsible. Now, what happened over the weekend was many retailers such as Costco and Walmart did in fact just lift the mask mandates and asked whether or not the CDC anticipated this happening. Rachelle Walensky didn't really give an answer. She just basically evaded the question. Did you mean for this guidance to result in stores and local governments lifting those mask mandates? Good morning, Dana. Thanks for having me. I think we should just take a moment and pause and celebrate where we are in this moment. Cases have come down by about a third just in the last two weeks. Our death rates are as low as they have been since April of 2020. So, and vaccines are available and eligible. Everyone is eligible above the age of 12. So, we have a plenty of vaccine and the science as you just conveyed demonstrate that they work. And so that is what allowed us to make this guidance at the individual level. This was a first step. It was foundational guidance. Everybody is really thinking about what this means now at this moment, 16 months later, as we really think about opening up. And we needed to sort of set this foundation based in the science to make sure people understood as they make their recommendations moving forward. And we are doing the hard work with them to make those recommendations. Yeah, and I understand what you mean about a first step, but can you see, since this is big news for every American, can you see how your guidance that vaccinated people can take their masks off? But requirements from businesses, local governments to keep the masks on are sending a mixed message. Here's what I know. I know that we need to do the hard work. This was individual guidance to understand what this means for communities, what this means for businesses. We know at the individual level, the vaccinated people are safe. More than one third of Americans have been vaccinated over 45% of adults above the age of 18. Those people are safe when they get vaccinated after they're fully vaccinated. For those who are unvaccinated, we're really asking those businesses to work hard to make sure that they have available vaccine for those people so that they have paid time off so that they can get their employees vaccinated. And for those people, we really are asking them to get vaccinated or wear masks to keep themselves safe. So we're relying on the honor system not just at the individual level, but at the business level as well. We're supposed to assume that businesses out of the kindness of their hearts will allow their employees to take some time off to get vaccinated and perhaps take a couple of days off after their second dose if they experience side effects. I mean, do you understand why this is so confusing? And let me just say the CDC director should be clear, should answer questions as clearly as possible, not evade questions like a politician. So this is really frustrating to me because again, I kind of see why the CDC would do this to incentivize people to take the vaccine and it's based in science. If you're vaccinated, you're good. You're basically able to resume your activities as you did before the pandemic. But at the same time, what I'm worried about are the people who are inevitably going to abuse this system who refuse to get vaccinated and don't wanna wear a mask. Of course, they're just gonna lie and say, yeah, I'm vaccinated, mask comes off.  Then they have to pay the price. It's just, it feels weird. There should have been more clarification with this statement. And again, I am not a public health official, so feel free to disregard any and everything that I'm saying right now. But I'm just sharing my opinion. I think that what should have happened was they should have delayed this new guideline at least for a month or so. So that way, anyone who finally became eligible, the general population as of April 19th would be fully vaccinated when this goes into effect. It is the case that if you're fully vaccinated, you don't really have to worry about this, but there's a lot of folks who still kind of do have to worry about unmasked people spreading their germs. People like my nephew who just turned 18 and got the vaccine, but he's not yet vaccinated. He'll get his second shot in the beginning of June, I believe, and then two weeks after that, around mid-June, he'll be fully vaccinated. I mean, what about these people? And to me, my issue with this is that masks are the easiest, most convenient thing we can do to stop the spread of the virus. So are they really that big of an impediment to our daily lives and routines that you have to issue this new directive right now? Again, it is based on the science. I don't agree with the statement by NNU that this isn't based on science necessarily, because it is. Studies show that the vaccines are highly effective in the real world, and that if you have the vaccine, you're less likely to spread the disease to other individuals. But at the same time, it just seems like this is a little bit too early. But I mean, what do I know? I'm just an individual and I just want us to get through this. So whatever we can do to actually permanently get through this, I'm all for that. It's just that this doesn't seem all that thought out, especially when the CDC was overly cautious for months and then they just change it on a dime like that. I don't get it. It's frustrating, and I think it's irresponsible at a minimum for the CDC to just do this, make this new announcement and then absolutely provide us with nothing in terms of what we're supposed to do to enforce this. It's not good. We'll just, we'll put it like that and leave that there.