This is Think Tech Hawaii. Community matters here. Exciting. The three o'clock rock. This is Think Tech Tech Talks. I'm Jay Fidel, one of our favorite programs. And a couple of our favorite people because they're heroes. Okay. This is Elliott Parks. He's the CEO of Hawaii Biotech, David Clements. He's the what? Product Development Officer. Director of Vaccine Research. This is the same thing. And they have news. They have news. This is really important what's happening. A little bit of background, you know, we've had, we have a trouble developing a pharma industry. We've been trying for 20 years to develop a pharma industry here as well as other, you know, tech type, science type industries that make money.  And we're going to talk about that right now, right here today. This is so fabulous. Okay. We're going to talk about Zika. Okay. This is a big revelation. How do we get to this place? Where are we now? We have a Hawaii company developing a vaccine that will be useful worldwide. And we're here on Think Tech talking about it. What happened? Well, about 30 years ago, Hawaii Biotech was started by four faculty members from UH. And they did a variety of things. One of the things they wanted to do in the beginning was to develop a dengue vaccine, which is very complex because there are four different types of dengue seratim. And so they had to build a vaccine that could protect against any and all of the four. And the positive outcome from that, a couple of things came out of that. One is they developed a platform that we use to this day. We've perfected it to make vaccines without viruses. So they're not infectious. So they're very safe. So this is a research tool? Well, it was a research tool. Okay. We developed, we ended up taking the dengue vaccine into the clinic and then selling that to Merck. And we still have all the rights to the vaccine platform and we've made a variety of other vaccines. The West Nile vaccine we've taken into the clinic. The other vaccines have not yet been in the clinic, but we look forward to that. So if I get dengue, I could call Merck and get him a drug that you guys developed to help me with dengue. Well, it's a vaccine. Merck's still developing the vaccine. Okay. And indeed, last week they announced a collaboration with folks in Brazil to advance that development. We had a bit of a dengue outbreak here a couple of years ago, yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. It wasn't in play though. It wasn't to the stage where it could be useful at that time. No, the vaccine wasn't. Yeah. Yeah. Now a vaccine, my recollection, nothing about this, my recollection is the vaccine prevents you from getting the disease in the first place. Precisely. It's not a cure. It's a prevention. You have to take the vaccine before you get sick, before you're exposed. How does it work in dengue? Well, all vaccines work by educating your immune response. We have a natural immune response. And as we age, we come across more and more things that are foreign to us, and our body recognizes that and learns to reject that. So you need help as you get older? Well. You need more help because your body reacts?  Okay. But we also should get the flu vaccine every year. And so, yes, older people have much broader immunity to flu, for instance, influenza than younger people do. We're educating the immune response. And a vaccine just speeds that up. Okay, enter Zika. Zika, really awful disease. And we saw it in Brazil. We saw it in other places in the world. We saw mothers with great problems and pregnant women, great problems. So you started working on that using, I suppose, some things you learned in dengue? Well, David was quite pivotal to that. I got a phone call from a collaborator saying, you know, Zika's coming up. Can you do anything? And so I talked to David the next Monday. And we looked into the genome because the sequencing, you know, a lot about these viruses. You don't know which ones are going to erupt, but you certainly know about them in the background. And David put together, David and the team put together a vaccine, which was one of the first vaccines that the FDA ever saw. Okay, so unpacking that a little bit, David. So you get the genome of the virus in advance. So you're working on lots of viruses, lots of genomes. Correct. And then when the time comes that you're going to seek out the Zika virus, you're ready because you have the genome. Okay, so taking what Elliot's already said, you know, we worked on dengue. We worked on West Nile. And then Zika comes along. They're all in the same family. They're all Flaviviruses. Knowing the sequences, we can sort of, as we like to say, plug and play. We take the specific sequence for the Zika virus, then we take that and we plug it into our system. So as already mentioned, we have the platform in place. You know, we've done a lot of this work before. So it's just a matter of taking the right pieces and putting them together. And also Elliot alluded to that we went to the FDA with this and we were able to do that in roughly one year time, which compared to what we've done in the past was very quick. So that's one of the benefits we have learning from all the previous efforts that we've put together that we can now much more quickly take things forward and we've established a relationship with the FDA so that hopefully we can move things into the clinic and ultimately into products quicker. Well, this is very exciting. So maybe we need more on what the platform, the vaccine platform is. Because now you know the genome of the virus you want to catch. And you want to provide a vaccine. The vaccine would be what? With dead virus? So no, in our case, so there's traditional vaccines. So you have the traditional vaccines, which are generally what they call killed vaccines. So you grow a virus, for example, you treat it with some chemical so that it won't be infectious, but it still has some structure to it. And that's your typical vaccine.  I want to be really careful about that. Yes, you need to be. In both cases, you need to be very careful. And it requires extra work to ensure the safety of those. The way that Hawaii Biotech goes about it is we use recombinant DNA methods and we can produce specific proteins from the virus. And we do that in a manner which allows us to purify those. So only a purified specific protein goes in the vaccine. So it's very safe, non-infectious. And that's how we do our vaccine. So it's just simply protein. We have to use some adjuvants to help boost the immune response. But in the combination of adjuvant and the proteins, that's what... What's an adjuvant? An adjuvant is a molecule that helps to stimulate the immune system. So it ramps up your immune cells so that when you present it with this protein from the virus, it has an appropriate response so that you have antibodies that will protect you from the disease once it comes along. How do you know how much adjuvant to put into the vaccine? Something you have to test for. Many of the adjuvants have been around for a while, so some of those are known. If you use some of the newer adjuvants, you have to do some studies. And I guess you could say titrate or use different amounts until you find the right amount that gives you the optimal response. It's pretty exciting. So you're ready to go. What starts you off on this? Obviously, there's a need for it, but somebody knocks on your door and says, what do you say, guys, we need a Zika vaccine. Who is that knocking on your door? Well, we try to stay ahead of the curve, so to speak. And so if we hear there's something happening in Brazil or something happening in Caribbean, that's a real stimulus for us. So you're starting it yourself. It's an entrepreneurial idea. Because you know there are problems around the world. There are people who are getting sick. There are vaccines. So let's wake up on Monday morning and do the vaccine. And then you find that you're ready because you have the genome ready. You have the platform ready. It's like a really good story. And now you can manufacture it. So now you have it. You have the adjuvant. You have the dead or the proteins. Protein. What do you do now? You've got to test it. What are the trials that everybody talks about? Well, to get to the trials, you have to go talk to the FDA first. So you go to the FDA and you present your package of how your vaccine works and what's in it because that's what they want to know. They want to make sure you're not putting anything in it into humans that would not be safe. So you have to go through that process. And then you start your clinical trials. So there's a process that you go through to prove first that it's safe and it doesn't cause any harm. Then after that you start asking questions of does it really work? So two stages to that. And then the third stage is you go back to safety. You expand the process and you do more so that you ensure that it's safe before the FDA will sign off on it. And you get people to participate in the trials. Correct. And that means here? Typically... We've done clinical trials here. We did our first clinical trial with our first clinical drug, a vaccine, here in Honolulu. But there are only a million and a half people in all states. So you really need a larger population. So how many people participate in the trials? By the time you get finished with the FDA protocol, how many people? A couple thousand. A couple thousand. And it's not so easy to find a couple thousand in Hawaii. Right. And in our case, people who are naive to the disease. We have a lot of people who have been in Southern Asia and other places that may have been exposed in the first place. And you don't want them in the trial. I mean, you say naive, you mean they never had it. Right. I mean, in the final stages of clinical studies, it's fine to have those people. But initially, you don't want that complicating factor. Right. Simple, logical... So the FDA can clearly interpret the results. The FDA is watching you all the while on this sort of thing. Now, what do you get into the patent phase? I mean, somewhere along the line, you want to protect your work. I mean, this is not cheap. Now, we're writing a grant. And David and I just were talking today about having to get a patent in place before we... a patent filing in place before we submit the grant. Ah, okay. So you want to cover the patent, submit the grant. But you're already in touch with the FDA. Right. Well, they're two separate events. The FDA is one thing. Patent means a whole different process. What my question is, can you trust the FDA not to reveal your technology? Well, if we have a patent in place, we're not very concerned. Yeah.  Before we're disclosed to anyone. Although this might be a good place to point out, we have close collaborations with UH, especially the folks in tropical medicine. And we collaborate with them on a routine basis, and we share patents. Yeah, let's talk about that. MAPSUM actually helps you out. In what way? Because you have your own laboratory. We help each other out. Okay. Well, for instance, on an Ebola vaccine, we have a patent on a way to make an Ebola vaccine, and we license that to UH, and they're doing the Ebola work on it. You're working on an Ebola? Oh, indeed. Vaccine? We have to have another show very soon, Elliot. All right. Let's do that. There's an example, because we're happy to pay for the patents. Sometimes it's hard. Having been in the academics in the past is sometimes hard to find the money to pay for patents. It's not cheap. And we're happy to pay for the patents. They can do the development work with us. They can do really great science, and we can do the clinical work. So you spend a year in putting it together, putting the concept and the platform development aspect of it together. Now you're in trials. How long is it taking trials? Two, three years? What? More? Less? It all depends on the disease and the incident, and there's factors, I would say, five years minimum. It could be even more than that before you can get through all your trials.  And then you have an immediate problem. Could that five years be shortened to something shorter? Well, the FDA has some emergency provisions that we don't, commercially, we don't rely on those, but if the occasion arises, it would certainly use them. It might happen. It's been implemented on the Ebola in the last outbreak. There was a vaccine that wasn't licensed yet, but it was in development and they brought it out and started trials with that during that outbreak and they're still continuing that today. But again, as in, well, Ebola, Zika, these are vaccines and somebody who's already sick isn't going to get better because of the vaccine. You have to catch them in advance. But you like to catch them in a vector situation where you know that they're likely to be exposed. Right. Well, and for healthcare workers, for instance, who are working on Ebola patients, we need to protect them. Right. Well, you need to have them, therefore, it really pays to protect them. It encourages them to take that assignment. Sorry? It encourages them to take that assignment. Yes, right. Or it avoids the discouragement and the fear of taking that assignment. So where does it go from here? I mean, where does it go from here in terms of your effort? What do you have to do? And where does it go from here in terms of getting to the public? Well, in the short term, in terms of development, there are several agencies that are willing to support vaccine development. From the federal government to the Gates Foundation to the real health organization, Wellcome Trust, et cetera. But they all want to see evidence that this is probably a viable candidate. So we, entrepreneurially, have to do that spade work. And then we try to sell the project to one or another of those agencies. That's what gets us, gets the expanded development time. And then, ultimately, in our case, we're happy to work with a large pharmaceutical entity that has the ability to distribute, to manufacture and distribute around the world because that's really not where a fly-by ticket is now and may never be there. May never need to be there. Basically, at some point, we need to pass it off to somebody that has greater capacity. We do the initial stages of development and then we hand it over, you know, in some business transit section. You're not going to manufacture this. That's a deep resource kind of thing. Yes. You just pass it off. And passing it off means you give them what's in the patent, I guess. You give them all your know-how, how to use the platform and the genome and all. And then you give them your trial information so they have that. And then they run with it. But you hold the patent all the while. Right. Give is probably not quite the right term. Sell? Sell. Thank you. That was my last question earlier. What's the economics on this? I mean, I always thought that if you had a serious disease with global impact and all and unknown global impact that there was real money in the pharmaceutical effort here. And that if you hit it, hit the disease with a product that works that has global impact, global effect, you're going to make a lot of money, am I right? Well, our hope is it's a numbers game. Right? I mean, we're happy to sell vaccines for a very little amount of money per person as long as we can get a huge population. And that's a win-win for both the recipients and for ourselves. And the patent lasts for what? 20, 28 years in general. Yeah. About 20 years. 20 years. Yeah. So it's half the life's over by the time it gets on the market. Right. That's ironic, isn't it? You spend all that time and money working it out and then you get there and you only have half of the 20 years. Okay. Well, anyway, so is your work done? Or are you going to be active involved in time trials from this point? For Zika. I'm talking about. We always got work to do. We have many vaccines in our pipeline right now. But for Zika, it's something that we continue to pursue. We're looking at various options of what constitutes the best vaccine or immune response to allow us to move it forward. So we've done some work with the University of Hawaii and that's where we're at at this stage. And as Elliot said, we're chopping around to find who might be most interested in helping us to move it along. Yeah. Well, one thing I get out of this conversation is that everything you do is a lesson for the next thing you do. It's a cumulative effect, cumulative knowledge. So if you solve one or make advances on one, then you're more capable of making advances on the other. Am I right about that? There's some truth to that, but there's always tricks that you'll move on to another virus and it'll throw you a new curveball. So when you take what you can, when you learn them, but every now and again, they throw new things at you, you've got to figure that one out as you go. And the other thing I get out of this is there's a pipeline. There's always got to be a pipeline. If you want to be a successful biotech company, it's not just one product, not one vaccine. You always have to be looking at other diseases and other products going forward. And that's why we talk about platforms. To have some sort of platform, you can use multiple times on multiple different infectious agents. Okay, well, David Clements, we're going to take a platform now. We're going to take a short break, Elliot. We're going to take a short break and switch out and we're going to have some of your other products or your other research efforts in the next half of our show. Thanks for writing my statement. Thank you, Jay. Elliot, stay around, please. All right. We'll be right back. This is Stink Tech Hawaii, raising public awareness. Choose to treat it with the help of a physical therapist. Physical therapists treat pain through movement and exercise. No warning labels required. And you get to actively participate in your care.  Choose to improve your health without the risks of opioids. Choose physical therapy. Oh, wait a minute. We're going to put two in. You can put both of us. Yeah, so you'll be right here. All you're going to put me in there. Well, now, Alice should be next to him because... When I was growing up, I was among the one in six American kids who struggled with hunger and hungry mornings make tired days. Yeah, we don't want to... When kids are hungry for breakfast, the kids in your neighborhood can think, be, and be more. When we're not hungry for breakfast, we're hungry for more. More ideas. More dreams.  When kids aren't hungry for breakfast, they can be hungry for more.  Hey, Aloha. Standing Energy Man here on Stink Tech Hawaii, where community matters. This is the place to come to think about all things energy. We talk about energy for the grid, energy for vehicles, energy and transportation, energy and maritime, energy and aviation. We have all kinds of things on our show, but we always focus on hydrogen here in Hawaii because it's my favorite thing. That's what I like to do. But we talk about things that make a difference here in Hawaii, things that should be a big changer for Hawaii. And we hope that you'll join us every Friday at noon on Stand the Energy Man and take a look with us at new technologies and new thoughts on how we can get clean and green in Hawaii. Aloha. I just walked by and I said, what's happening, guys? They told me they were making music. Aloha. I'm Marcia Joyner, inviting you to come visit with us on Cannabis Chronicles, a 10,000-year odyssey where we explore and examine the plant that the muse has given us and stay with us as we explore all the facets of this planet on Wednesdays at noon. Please join us. Hello. Back we're live and fellow at my left, you may recognize him. That's Elliot Parks. You saw him last half hour and he's the CEO of Hawaii Biotech. But to his left, we have Alan Johnson and Alan Johnson is a chemist with Hawaii Biotech and he's working on anthrax. We're going to learn about anthrax. And to his left, we have Sean O'Malley and he's working on botulina, which is related to Botox. It is indeed, yes. It's scary. Okay. And in terms of preparing here, I want to say that you're going to like this, that in the opera, we have the alphabet soup operas, the alphabet operas, the ABC operas. Okay. We have Aida, Lobo M, and Carmen. And in pharma, we also have the ABCs. Let me see. We got anthrax, botulinum, and cholera. Isn't that amazing the way that works? There you go. Sort of like opera, isn't it? So today, we're going to talk about the A and the B. But the C is cholera. We'll have another show. We'll come back later. We'll come back. Talk about cholera. Happy times. So this is a different pipeline. These are toxin, anti-toxin type. It wouldn't call it a vaccine anymore. It just fixes it after the fact or while you're sick. This is entirely different, more emergent actually. So can you talk about that earlier? What is this pipeline like? Well, the idea of switching gears completely is Alan and Sean and the chemists identify, discover, identify, and perfect small molecule drugs, the kind of pills that you take as opposed to biologics, which is what biotech has been doing for the last 20 years. Pharma has done small molecules for 200 years. And so Alan and Sean develop drugs that are anti-toxins, block toxins that are produced by either anthrax or botulinum. They're both chemists. Correct. Why is a chemist important in developing anti-toxins? Because small molecule drugs are chemicals. That's how to put them together. Chemists are into small molecules. Yeah, designing and building small molecules. What's a small molecule? I'm a molecular engineer. Technically, something that's less than molecular weight, 1,000. And aspirin is a small molecule. That's the best example. Most of the over-the-counter drugs that you take in pills are small molecules. As opposed to a large molecule. Most biologics are large proteins that you have to inject them. These could well be oral. It's a set of constructive atoms that's maybe 100 or 200 atoms together, whereas proteins are thousands of atoms linked together. This is a significant difference. You can see it on a microscope immediately. In an electron microscope. But not a typical one. Very smart. Doesn't everybody have one? So, let's talk about how the whole thing about anti-toxin works. In the case of anthrax, you don't die from the infection.  How does the toxin kill you? Actually, with anthrax, both are a problem. So, anthrax is somewhat unique. It releases the toxins to try to block the immune system. So, we were talking earlier about immune systems with the vaccines. Basically, the toxins are released. They shut down the immune system. And the immune system then cannot fight the bacteria. So, the bacteria then goes on to do its nasty stuff. Clever! Yeah, like little ninjas, basically. So, you end up with the bacteria invading all your tissues and causing basically tissue damage. Nothing to stop it. Right, and then sepsis occurs and usually bad things after that. So, why not just enhance the... We talked at the last part about you put these drugs in and they help your immune system. Why not just bolster the immune system against the anthrax? Well, there are vaccines for anthrax. But again, as was mentioned, if they're not taken before you're infected, they're not effective. Okay, I see. So, it's too late already. Right. So, the first line of defense for anthrax is antibiotics.  The problem is that after the bacteria has been killed and your blood is, say, sterile, you still have all these circulating toxins in the body. The other potential issue is that you could have resistance to the bacteria by the bacteria to the antibiotic and so you have a real problem where now you need to clearly shut down the bacteria's offense system, which is the toxins in order to help the body clear the bacteria. Is there a point where it's too late? Yes, there is, unfortunately. What is that point, logically? Well, I wish there was a clear endpoint for that. That would certainly help us with our research because unfortunately, the disease is asymmetric as the word sometimes you hear. Certain people, depending on their strength of their immune system, have a shorter time window for treatment than others who may have a stronger immune system. Depends on the person. Depends on the person is basically the bottom line. So, the point at which one would call the point of no return is when you really become septic. So, there's what's called a fulminant stage of the disease where the bacteria is basically running rampant. Your body cannot clear the bacteria any longer and at that point even giving antibiotics may be too late. So, Alan, how do you build the anti-toxin that will stop this process? We're following the kind of classic method of medicinal chemistry as it's called and that is basically we have the protein, the toxin itself. You design and build a molecule that you think will fit into the box where the active site is. In this particular toxin, the toxin cleaves a protein, several proteins in the body which allow it to function properly. So, what you're trying to do is you're trying to put something in that space so that the protein can no longer clip the target in the body. Okay, so you have to identify the protein. You have to identify the protein. Is that a DNA kind of thing? Is that a genetic sequencing thing? Actually, this was done through, well, molecular biology is not my forte but that's really what was the basis of the whole thing. However, the toxin that actually Merck had done some early work as well as others and they had published a crystal structure so they actually gave us a picture of what the box looked like. So it was our job to try to find something that would fit tightly in that box. You sound like it's a physical fit. It fits a lot in key. How do you like that? And the box is a contained space. It's a contained space. The protein does change its shape because it's a dynamic kind of living thing. So basically the way we do what we do is we it's by somewhat trial and error once you find a let's call it a core structure something that has a general correct shape you start adding bits and pieces to it to see if you can get it to fit better and we test those molecules just to see how well they bind to that particular box site. And so once you get the right configuration the right antitoxin material again then it's going to bind to the protein and neutralize the protein. So chemically how does that happen? How does a neutralization happen? By filling that space. It's just a matter of filling the space. It can't function if the space is filled. That's correct. That's clever. That's classic. It is. That's why medicinal chemistry and the small molecule drugs have been around for so long because people figured this out well before us. How far advanced are you on this project? We are now in early development which means we have selected a particular molecule that we believe will work in people and our goal is very similar to what would be with any other therapeutic and that is you have to demonstrate that it's safe for humans and that takes several years and that's the stage we're in right now. What about the patent? You can get a patent on this too, right, Elliot? We try to have patents on whole families of compounds so someone can't just tweak one end of the lock and key. They can't make another key that looks almost the same but also fits. Prior art but not. Okay, well let's go to I hope you've been listening, Sean. I have. I've been listening to this guy for a long time. Botulism Botulism is a really scary thing. It's frequently fatal, you can tell me I'm wrong. It's also that goes into plastic surgery with what we call it? Botox. But it's really deadly. It works faster than the, am I right? The anthrax toxin. Well let's just say it works differently. Okay, differently.  That's how it kills. It is different from anthrax in some ways and similar in some ways so it's different in that the threat is actually not an infectious agent. You don't get infected by botulinum. The actual toxin itself is a weapon so it's a poison. Yeah, exactly. It's what's called an enzyme which is a protein that has a function and its function is to get inside the body, find a neuron, it actually finds the nerves that attach to muscles and in the nerve it goes in and it clips the protein machinery that is responsible for release of neurotoxin. So if you tell your muscle to contract the muscle doesn't hear the signal anymore.  So it is definitely a threat in terms of a weapon or in terms of a biodefense concern. It's also about 150 to 200 cases annually in the U.S. for infant botulism that comes about just from getting the toxin. Food is also an issue for spoiled food. It's an anaerobic bacterium that will grow a little bit of contamination from the soil and no oxygen. And so the issue of having the same kind of approach as we do with allen is we bring a small molecule in we try to design something that will fit into the active site of this toxin to prevent it from working in the cell so that if someone is getting sick or is pretty far gone and maybe even on the respirator we can give them this drug after they've gotten it and the drug will go in and it will stop the toxin from doing what it does and the body will naturally start to heal and they'll either recover more quickly or they'll never need to get in a respirator in the first place. What would you rather have a botulism point poisoning or anthrax toxin? I'm a botulism guy all the way. I guess so. Your faith told to the mission. Would you rather have anthrax or botulism? No, I'd rather have bot. With the disease itself untreated typically if you're exposed to high enough level of the bacteria untreated you have about 7 days period. So with botulinum toxin you've got a little bit longer time. And if you can get to the hospital they can keep you alive. It's very challenging. It's a very rapid disease if it's left unchecked. Well, I think the magic word here for both of you guys is weaponized because 1500 cases are patient-wide. It's not that much to warrant a multimillion-dollar effort to deal with it. But if it's used as a weapon then that could happen anytime. My guess is it's not that hard to develop these. We had an example of anthrax after 9-11 and botulism you can manufacture. You mentioned botox. And actually there is an issue because botox is something that it stops nerves from overacting. So it can relax muscles that are too tight. So everyone knows about wrinkles but there's actually over 200 uses of it medically. And it has to do with conditions any condition in which the muscles are contracted and palsy issues recovery from dramatic surgery or war injuries. It's even finding uses in pain phantom limb pain and migraine. In other countries internationally that all manufacture botox. So you can imagine that that means there's more access to this potential weapon. And that has a little concern. The guys who manufacture botox could just as easily manufacture botulism. Just last year Iran started manufacturing it for medical purposes. That's scary.  So is it by a pill or what? You mentioned before the show that if you digest if your nerves are messed up on your digestive system where you're swallowing then you may not be able to swallow a pill. How do you initially the drug for botulism would probably be IV assuming that that's going to be given to somebody who's in the ICU already. Now on the other hand if you're thinking about a situation where there's a large scale terrorism event you may also want to be giving it to people but who have likely been exposed. And in that case a pill form may also be useful. So probably first is IV and then you would follow that up immediately with something that's easier to distribute to a large number of people. What about an anthrax, the anti-toxin anthrax? How do you administer that pill? Pill, yes. That's our current target for delivery. Because again if you look at a mass casualty event say someone releases a couple of kilograms of spores from an airplane over Honolulu you're going to infect 300,000, 400,000 people. Thank you for mentioning that. And how do you treat all those people? You can't have them line up and I'll get an injection that would take 5 days to inoculate. Yeah we know the Postal Service does a pretty good job of delivering the mail every day so you could potentially deliver it to the mail. They could deliver the powder, they could deliver the pills. Don't quote me on that. I didn't hear anything. This is all so encouraging. Biotech is reaching a whole new height here with all these things in the pipeline. This is so excited that I'm here with you. I'm only two feet away from you. I'm so excited. Where are we in terms of biotech in Hawaii? Where is this all going? Is this going to be as big as I think? Well, what a biotech does is going to be big, clearly. We're well established. We have good funding. We have great programs, if you've seen. We don't hire hundreds of people but we hire a couple people a year and we, as I said before, we bring in interns from UH and so we'll be here to stay for a while. Whether we're going to have 50 companies like Hawaii Biotech here, probably not. But sometimes quality is as important as quantity.  We are proud.  Thank you so much. Well, thank you. Kelly Parks. Thank you. Allen Johnson. Thanks. Was that usually operating for you? Don't touch me. Thanks a lot. Thank you. You'll like this.


Alweodd nesaf, mae'r Rhiforol yn ddiwedd yn ddod os y Gwaedd Ddechysgwyl Prydyniadol fel hanes? Yn gyda'r Rhiforol yma yn ddiwedd y Gwaedd Ddechysgwyl Prydyniadol, ond cyd-arfau ar ei gyflawneg ar y Cymru, wediальныйd arhaf gwneud, dyna'r Cymru sy'n hyn ar hyn. Y new academy created in 1994, the Academy of Social Sciences worked very well, especially in a theoretical, we can say a theoretical way, studied the problem of globalization, studied the problem of war, studied the problem of the new sciences, the religion in the new sciences and many various things. But it was more theoretical reflection. When came the Pope Francis, he asked the Academy, completely to me, please study the problem of the new forms of slaves, of the human trafficking, the trafficking of organs, the organized, the criminalization organized, the question of my narcotics, very completely. We accepted this challenge and as you know we study these three of these very important subjects and we organized many things. But we understand many things. The first thing is that today is very important that the religions work together in the defense of the human dignity and freedom, especially against these new forms of slaves, that today are 40 minutes and the people don't know. And I say at the other, the Pope came here, we invited the more important religious leaders and the message was these new forms are a claim against humanity and we need to work together if we can pray together because different ideas about God. God is only one but we have different, at least not easy to pray together. Anyway, we can and need to work to ask together to defend the human dignity.


But Aiden Yoram's, again, I don't know if I said it right, I'm bad with names, but he requested that we do a little bit of a skit on, or not a skit, but kind of a definitional video on social-immediated reinforcement. So the best that I can tell you is that, I mean, you still have reinforcement, right? So we're going to focus on reinforcers. We're going to break this down into both types of reinforcement, both positive and negative reinforcement. And one of the things that we need to remember is the social piece. And now, keep in mind that we are not talking about social reinforcers here.  Oh, here it comes. So we got Brad, this is a rare occurrence of Brad on camera. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that. So what I just did, I reinforced Brad's behavior, right? For coming over here and attending to the stimulus, or attending to my request and following through this task. Well done. Good job. Thank you. That was not socially mediated reinforcement. Even if I'm giving him attention and saying, good job, Brad. I really appreciate you being here. I know it's wet and cold. My suit's sticking. Don't ask why my suit's sticking. Anyway, so if I, I didn't do social mediated reinforcement, I may be giving him some social reinforcement. Are you requesting to leave? Yeah, can I go? Yeah, of course. Yeah, I gotta check on that. Excellent. All right. Thank you. Brad was an example of socially mediated negative reinforcement. Why socially mediated? Brad requested from a social source, right? So another human. So he requested a reinforcer. The reinforcer that he requested was escaped. So negative reinforcement. He gets a little nervous on camera. So he needed to get out of it in the situation, right? So that was the socially mediated negative reinforcement. The key folks is on the mediation. Social reinforcement is all well and good. That's the interaction and the reinforcer delivered by social interaction, right? But social mediated is where a person is mediating the reinforcer. We also want to think about that there's a, if you really get down into it, there's a piece of the mediators, behaviors, part of the function, and it gets kind of messy, but we want to focus on the fact that they're requesting. Brad could have just as easily asked me for an M&M. Okay? So instead of escaping, maybe Brad was more interested in eating M&Ms, which is just something important as you become a better behavior analyst, you'll learn that you should always carry M&Ms in your pocket because it's just awesome to have people get out of your hand. So I don't know. I walk around with them always for random reasons. Ones that I probably won't say on camera, but no, I just got done with a health exam. Maybe I shouldn't be walking around with M&Ms all the time. Anyway, folks, socially mediated reinforcement. We're not going to go into the socially mediated punishers and all that fun stuff, but that just gets weird and naughty. But right now, I think that's a good enough member of social interaction between people and behavior. And then the mediation part is requesting something. Oh, oh no. Can I have another one? Of course you can. See? And socially mediated positive reinforcers. So there you go. So the prompts. So in this case, Brad did approach, and what was I reinforcing? Right? I wasn't necessarily reinforcing him coming over here. I was reinforcing him manding me, all right, for an M&M. Oh, not going to eat that one.   All right. So anyway, I was reinforcing him for manding me, for requesting. That was gross. So I just spit out half of my M&M, because I was talking too loud. Anyway, I'm reinforcing him for manding me for an M&M. So it was a type of social reinforcement as well. Even in this particular case, it was a verbal one. So it applies all across the show. It's a really, really useful technique to teach people. Let's say that it's okay to ask to be reinforced. My kiddos do it all the time. Can I earn a marble? Can I get a marble for that? What can I do to get a marble? All right. You get the idea. Socially-mediated. They know they need something, or they want to earn those reinforcers for whatever reason. And that's really all there is to it. Excuse me as I choke on him and him. I don't know if that's socially-mediated. I suppose somebody will analyze my behavior. Tell me down here. It's more responded. It is a bit responded. Yeah. All right, folks. Thank you very much. Socially-mediated reinforcement. We'll come back for more later. Take care.


What is the truth about Celtic warfare? Did they fight naked? Were the noble savages they were all passion but with little strategy? Or were they actually competent and skilled warriors? In this video, I'll look at the history of Celtic warfare from around the 5th century BC to the 1st century AD, a period where Celtic civilization flourished for a large part, but it was then conquered by the Romans in the later periods. The first point to note is that many of the sources of Celtic warfare come from Greek and Roman sources, who essentially saw the Celts as the enemy, one of the great barbarian civilizations as they would have saw them. So we need to understand that there's a gladiatorial amount of propaganda and stereotypes that's often contained in the descriptions that we'll go through in a second. That being said, there is key insights that are that can be revealed from these Greek and Roman sources. Julius Caesar, for instance, described the Celts as being fierce and savage, but essentially unreliable. Moreover, Strable, a Greek geographer who lived from around 63 BC to 24 AD, described the Celts in the following way. The whole race is madly fond of war, high spirited and quick to battle, but otherwise straightforward and not of evil character. And so when they are stirred up, they assemble in their bands for battle, quite openly and without forethought, so that they are easily handled by those who desire to outwit them. This viewpoint of Celtic warfare, of barbarians that are savages fueled by passion and less so by tactics and organization, is quite a common viewpoint amongst Greek and Roman sources. They often view the Celts as noble savages, essentially natural people that are untarnished by civilization, in the words of Barry Cunliffe, in his book The Ancient Celts, which is one of the main sources used for this video. This framing of the Celts as barbarians as savages is often a way, or was obviously a way, for the Romans and the Greeks to exaggerate the importance of their own civilization. Some Celtic practices were savage, such as head-hunting, and not head-hunting as we use today, in recruitment for instance, which is my day job. Head-hunting in the sense of collecting the severed heads of your foes. The Romans, however, were no angels, even though they often depict themselves as being so, and they essentially committed genocide, or they did commit genocide, in the Celtic world, through Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, just as one example of their brutality. Strabo further elaborates on the behaviour of the Celts when angered, and there are numerous interesting details amongst the propaganda in his description. They are ready to face danger even if they have nothing on their side but their own strength and courage. Their strength depends on their mighty bodies, and on their numbers. To the frankness and high-spiritedness of their temperament must be added their childhood boastfulness and love of decoration. They wear ornaments of gold torques on their necks, and bracelets on their arms and wrists, while people of high rank wear dyed garments besprinkled with gold. It is this vanity which makes them unbearable in victory, and so completely downcast in defeat. Now what equipment did Celts use in warfare? Very quickly, if you want to support this work, all the links will be in the description below. You can also pick up this t-shirt and much more in my merch store, top link in the description. Thank you, and now on with the video. The Celts main choice of weapons included a shield and a sword. Celtic shields came in a variety of sizes and designs. The range from being as tall as a man to be quite small sleek designs, and the materials used ranged from wood to some more elaborate designs such as bronze. Decorations of animals on the front of the shields were also quite common as well as various patterns. As far as swords, swords were often fastened to the right hand side of Celtic warriors, but some Celtic tribes would have fastened the swords from behind and then had to draw them from their back over their shoulder for battle. This was the way that the Prissy tribe, the Celtic tribe of the Yorkshire area today in the north of England, would have fastened their sword and would have drew them for battle from behind. Other Celts would have used bows and arrows, slings and throwing clubs. Various other weapons were used by the Celts. Spearheads had been filmed across much of Europe, particularly on the La Tène site in Switzerland, and spears in general were quite common in Celtic warfare. It seemed that swords represented a degree of kind of class, of social status within Celtic society in general, and swords were quite expensive, so some people would maybe only have had a spear for instance, or weapons that were less expensive to produce and to buy. Helmets were often worn, as well as tunics of ring mail. Iron swords were usually covered in sheaths of iron, leather wood or other materials, and these sheaths, these covers of the swords, were often decorated in quite elaborate designs. There was also a vast variation in the quality of Celtic weapons. The Greek historian Paul Abias criticised the quality of the swords used by some Celts in the Battle of Telamon in 2-5 BC, which was a war fought between the Roman Republic and an alliance of Celtic tribes. Celtic swords were good for cutting, but not thrusting, and Paul Abias describes that many Celts had to pause or stop in battle to then restrain their swords, basically had to use their foot to then bend the swords back into shape, as when they were thrusting the swords would often bend. As if you didn't have enough to worry about, an ancient battle against the Romans, you had to straighten out your sword every 2 seconds. It should be noted however that the Celts seemed to have some sort of ritual of bending their swords before discarding them, and Paul Abias may have got mixed up to some degree. He could have observed Celts doing this to their sword before discarding them, and presuming it would have been a result of the battle itself, so some of that may just have been lost in cultural translation if you will. But it does seem that some Celtic swords were made using soft iron, and they wouldn't have been particularly effective, and it would have been the case that as Paul Abias described, some of these swords wouldn't have been fit for purpose. Did the Celts fight Naked? Well it's certainly the case that some Celtic tribes would have fought Naked, with only a sword in their hand and a torque on their neck. In the Battle of Telamon, Paul Abias describes one unit of the Celtic force, probably a Celtic mercenary force, called the Gaiassati, fought Naked. He writes that, very terrifying too, where the appearance and gestures of the Naked warriors in front, all in the prime of life and finely built men, and all in the leading companies richly adorned with gold torques and armlets. This was not an isolated incident as well. Numerous other accounts of Celts fighting Naked are found through the historical record, including in Galatia. Although it certainly was the case that some Celtic units would fight Naked, most Celts did not fight Naked, and as the centuries progressed and Celtic warfare itself evolved and matured, Celts were heavily armoured warriors, and in Julius Caesar's conquest of Gaul, his commentaries on this conquest, he recounts on numerous occasions where the Celts fought in a highly organised fashion. Quite contrary to the notion of disorganised barbarians that Greco-Roman authors usually depicted, or quite often depicted, in the historical record. Paul abides his account, notes a massively important feature of Celtic civilization and Celtic warfare in general, something that Strabo also notes, the torque. Warring around the Naked, Celtic gods were often depicted as wearing the torque as well, and it would have given the wearer, he or she, the feeling that they were protected by the gods, an aura of invincibility. From Ancient Europe, the Celts of Ancient Europe, to Boudicca in Ancient Britain, the torque was worn religiously by Celts in battle and during rebellions. The chariot was also used by the Celts at various points down through time, although there was some regional variation and some variation in dates, as things progressed the chariot seemed to be less and less used, potentially replaced by the cavalry to a large degree. Although Caesar notes in Britain, when he arrived in Britain, that it was in use, the chariot was still quite in use in Britain, but it wasn't so in Gaul, showing the original variation between Britain and mainland Europe, the variation and Celtic practices of war at different times. Warriors would throw javelins and spears at the enemy from the chariot, and then descend to join the battle on foot. When Caesar crossed the channel and fought against the Ancient Britons, he noted the agility and skill of the charioteers in Ancient Britain. In one exchange it was noted that the Britons had around 4,000 chariots, a quite remarkable sight if they were all deployed at the same time. As noted the chariot seemed to be replaced over time, and the rise of cavalry probably was one of the reasons. The Celts were known to be strong on the horse, and during the Second Punic War, between Carthage and Rome, Hannibal made use of heavily armoured Celtic cavalry. After Caesar conquered Gaul, Gaul went on to provide highly effective auxiliary cavalry for the Roman army. Another important point to note about Celtic warfare and the contrast with Roman warfare is about organisation. The Celts were a series of tribes and tribal confederations that were bound together somewhat loosely to a degree, by the likes of language, shared beliefs, culture, and some shared religious beliefs and practices in general. They were not a unified empire, there was never really a Celtic empire to any degree, in contrast with obviously the very regimented Roman empire for a large period. One of the main reasons why the Romans managed to conquer so much of the Celtic world in the ancient world was probably due to the fact that the Romans were highly organised, force, part of a unified empire, economically, politically, that backed up the military power of the Romans. And this level of organisation and this level of unity obviously provided just great benefit for the Romans, even as far as organising supply chains for instance, paying and financing wars, paying soldiers, organising them. I think at different points Roman soldiers would have got land and even pensions at various points in the history of Rome, where as Celts were essentially ununified to a large degree and really struggled to unify at various points. So we can talk about tactics, we can talk about equipment, weapons, materials for weapons, etc. But the unified nature of Roman organisation versus the kind of disparate groups of Celtic organisation or disorganisation to a degree was obviously probably one of the main reasons that much of the Celtic world lost out to the Romans in the end. Other points to note is that it probably was quite common for the Celts to challenge their opponents to single combat before the battle began. The Celts would have also made an incredible racket before battle. Carnixes would be used amongst war chants and various other noises before battle, both to probably amput the Celtic warriors, but also to instill fear. And the noise of the carnixes would have been a fitting prelude to battle, just given the ambience or the noise and the motion of these instruments. Finally the Celts had a small naval presence, with the Veneti tribe of Gaul and modern Brittany having a naval fleet that was eventually defeated by the Romans. So what does all this mean? Although some Celtic warriors would have fought naked, and some were perhaps more led by their hearts than their heads at times, it is clear that there are many skilled warriors amongst or as part of the Celtic civilization. The Romans after all suffered many defeats at the hand of the Celts. Also many Celtic mercenaries were employed by different civilizations, and even parts of the Roman army itself incorporated for instance the Gaul at Cavalry, or large Cavalry contingents from Gaul after it was conquered, after it was Romanised, and incorporated that into the Roman army. So it's clear that many Celts had notable fighting skills, and were skilled warriors to a large degree. In contrast to the barbaric noble savages, image often portrayed by Greco-Roman writers, which obviously was propaganda to a large degree, trying to inferiorise, if that's even a word, the civilization, the barbarian civilization, to emphasise the importance and the prestige of their own civilizations. History is written by the victors however, and the Romans essentially managed to conquer a lot of the Celtic world by the first century A.D. Apart from parts of Britain, and a few other maybe small localised areas, the Romans managed to really wipe out large parts of Celtic civilization, committing genocide along the way, but this victory essentially led the Romans to depict the Celts in whatever way they wished. Speaking of the Romans and the Celts, what is the truth about Hadrian's Wall? To find out, please click here. Thanks for watching, please subscribe and hit the bell to tell your friends and family about this channel. If you'd like to pick up this t-shirt, another one's like it, much more as in the merch store for Celtic history decoded, that'll be the top link in the description below. You can also support my work through Patreon, buymeacoffee.com, as well as PayPal. Thanks for watching and I'll see you next time.


Cleveland State going up against Wright State. Cleveland State up by two with 16 and a half seconds left. This was actually submitted by a Wright State fan. They went through some heart ache. They lost this game at the buzzer a week before, so they're trying not to lose another one at the buzzer right away. Cleveland State, they're 8-0 in their last eight games looking to make it 9-0. Loud and Love got nice braids. Kind of confusing me because you put a little time into these braids. They're like French braids, but the sides don't fit up anymore because he used to shave the sides. I mean, how much time pregame are we working on the braids here for just one-time braids? Just playing braids. I mean, I'm a braid guy, so I love it, but very caught me by surprise a little bit. 15 seconds left, 14 seconds left. What's the play? What are you going to do? Down by two, drives, dishes, puts up to three for the win, misses, rebound good though. So now we're tied and here's where it gets a bit confusing for me from Wright State. Why guard the inbounder? You're guarding everyone, you're pressing, but you're leaving this dude open for like the easy pass. Basically, five seconds left. I don't understand what happened here. I'm not a basketball mind at all, but it just seems like don't let that guy and then our dude with the braids, Loud and Love, he's 6-8. He's not going to be able to guard this dude. He's coming up at half court. He gets beat, obviously, and then they throw up the alley hoop and then boom, that's the game. Well actually, there's 0.7 seconds left, so number one's got a chance. Now stuffed by number three, let's go. He's excited. Everyone's excited. This dude with the clipboard, super excited.  I love the direction there by this dude with the clipboard, the excitement and check out this dude with the clipboard. Obviously, he's the first one off the ground.  I think everyone's up at the same time, but clipboard guy, I love you. Bringing the energy, we all appreciate it. Cleveland State wins and again, I just find it that the defense was really weird. I don't know anything about basketball besides the basics. The coach is like, oh man, maybe that's on us.    Get out of here. Okay, coach will get him. Coach will get him. Big ol' hug by coach. Let him know he loves him and he deserves it and all that.  All right, and then our guy with the clipboard again doing his job, you know, not too caught up in the excitement here, coach. Here's your piece of paper that you need really badly and then he gets to hang out with the star. Get away from me, dude. Get out of here. Cleveland State, nine in a row, then they lost the next game to Wright State, the team that they just beat in this video and they got their asses kicked. Loud and love, I like the braids.


What's up everyone? My name is Alex. I'm one of the co-founders of MyInvestingClub.com. If you are brand new to trading or are curious about trading at all, I want to let you guys know about a free two-hour mentorship course that I put together with my mentor, Bao. It is available at MyInvestingClub.co. The link is going to be right here. This is a free webinar with limited seating every week, so please click on the link and reserve your spot before the time runs out. Also, a special bonus for all of our viewers on YouTube. So if you guys have any questions about MIC or you're curious about joining or you don't know if MIC is the right fit for you, you can now text Tosh, who is one of our head mentors and head moderators at MIC, and he'll answer any questions you have about MIC. His phone number will be in the link in the description. It'll also be right here. Thank you guys for watching and enjoy the video. This is, if my math is correct or my memory suits me, this is week 26 of the new member orientation webinar. Coddix just had random news and now we are watching it. All right, who has questions? Let's go through a couple. And then later I'll talk about a couple key topics that I think are just super cool, man, just like things about sizing or things about sector plays or whatever it is. Who would be the best to talk to about holding my positions longer? I already sized down and still struggle. So dude, we got a whole swing trading room in here, man. So swing trading. So right here, Papi, Stan's really good. Tay is really good. Yeah, Tay, so like these two people. So these are good traders that are going to help you just learn how to identify how to hold longer and or swing, you know, not everybody is comfortable, man. Not everybody is comfortable with the info on Lee. Why not long first thing? I scalp 25 cents. Maybe that was too risky. No, I mean, that's fine, man. Like here's the thing. You just don't want to chase this high. So to answer your question, David, if this would have pulled back to like a very, I don't have a line chart in front of me, but you got to see the line levels, right? Like had this pulled back to probably this level, I was looking for it, man. I was looking for a long one. I swear to God, it just didn't pull back enough. So had this pulled back to about the 220 line, man, that this kind of like, like what seems like a sport line, maybe 220, maybe right there at 208, I probably would have longed at 220 and like downwards to near two. If this would have dropped there, I would have longed and tried to get a bounce out of this just because the catalyst, but this just dipped a little bit and then took off. Hey, Tosh, can you walk us through how you would trade NNVC's death candle on January 27th? Does your cover strategy change giving the stocks fundamentals? Coronavirus news, ETB midday? That's actually a really good question. NNVC the 27th, you said. So this day, dude, you guys know me too well, man. You guys are like stalkers at this point. Hell yeah, dude, you're totally right. I wanted to get some of this, but guess what? I couldn't get to borrow. So dude, 100%, I mean, that's a drastic move. Met with a drastic stuff. I wanted to short this pop, dude. I really did. I would I would have absolutely sure that I couldn't get to borrow. But yeah, I wanted that. I definitely did. And I probably because it's over VWAP would have covered at VWAP. So I wouldn't have looked for a major move out of it. I honestly wouldn't have looked for literally too much down here. I would have literally just shorted this. And then obviously the range is enough to make you confident like that dude, you can get 100 shares can make a small account, some money in this, you know, 200 bucks to study long should I study all the long videos then practice with the simulated, stimulated practice with this. Well, you can I don't know what me practice with the stimulated man, but I don't judge. No, yes, fun. Practice with the simulator first brother when you're learning anything. I don't care in shorts, longs, options, whatever, never practice on real money. The first. And then once you practice on a simulator and you know, do anything as it pertains to you know, training wheels quote unquote, then go small size on real money and then and then yeah, man and then go real but definitely, definitely, definitely always when you're trying to learn something new guys, you know, do it on a simulator. Why not? Can you explain tape being heavy? I went through the videos I got access to still not understanding. Yes, first thing I should say about this though, Menard, I would say that if you think that tape will save you don't think that it's not the end all be all it's like it's traders the two biggest misconceptions in trading in my opinion on traders looking at veteran traders as they go, Oh, he's good because two things he uses size or he's a tape reader. It's bullshit, man. Those are tools that yes, you can have in your disposal, but you got to focus on the lines and price action first man tape should come very secondary in my opinion.    Oh, I hope that was a good explanation. I just explained tape and numbers with lettering. Now that takes a real talent. Kesh, when you trade low hanging fruit do you only wait for outside lines to short or what to see if you want to get in short. Yep, every time buddy. Every time. So codex for example today my line my first line was right here. I always love this. This is a good example for you guys. This is just a kind of like a good guide. Here's a here's a trick for you. Low hanging fruit. If it gapped up at all and then broke down pre-market. I'm looking at that level because now there's bag holders literally even today of the people that maybe thought that this was going to run and jump and blah blah blah on top of the relief pop that is already should occur for these guys to get out the day before. So this is just extra bag holder mentality. Got you quick follow up to the NNBC death candle. Does your cover strategy change given the stock's fundamentals. Oh, not necessarily. That's not necessarily based.  But you know, I'm really looking for a quick move out of that and then just rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. Yeah, of course guys like I'm here to answer your questions man.  This is reestablishing and reaffirming what I need to focus on in my trading every single day. Tosh why position size is usually measured in number of shares and not dollar amount. Wouldn't it make sense to trade with the same money size $2 stock and $6 stock. No, the reason why SGM is because here at least let me tell you the reason for me. The reason why I'm always going based on shares and not a position size is yes, Joe Kelly just said it is range. It's going to be way, dude, like NNVC versus Codex, bro, the range, look at the range. And simultaneously, I don't want to be thinking how much money I've got invested in this.  Dude, I'm going to be like, wait, what? What am I risking five grand? I'm risking 50. What? Like, what's happening here? You go by share count because you can so easily identify how much you're willing to lose. We all have those tickers that just remind us of a terrible day. I've got them, Joe's got them. Alex definitely has them. Dude, Alex's biggest loss in his trading career is actually his biggest win. Drives.  Fuck, dude, there's too many of them. Mara, this is my biggest loss ever. Cryptocurrency back in 2017, I thought I could take on cryptocurrency in the start of that sector move.   And Mara was my biggest loss. Me and Alex talked about something very specific last night in the trader clinic. So I'm not going to go too much into it because I don't want to, you know, make it make it like the trader clinics is just free open public. It's not, but I will say one thing from it. And sizing is not your answer. So any trader out there that's, you know, not consistent, not profitable, trying to figure this game out. And then they're like, oh, man, like I'm only using a thousand shares right now. And I make some, give it back. I'm not consistent, blah, blah, blah.  It's not going to be what saves you. It's not going to be what makes you. It's not going to be what makes you money. It's going to size is a privilege. You've got to earn it. You've got to learn it. You've got to go by small increments up. I used to trade with this guy. This is just for fun. I will not name his name, but he's an older gentleman and I wish him the best. I still wish we were friends, but you know, it is what it is, man.   Older trader and he said back in the day, you know, he'd be at work and he would follow alerts and follow alerts of a really good trader. It was kind of like a buddy, right? So it wasn't like, you know, a pump alert room or anything. It was like shorting. So he was he'd be at work all the time and then there would be a noise on his computer when his buddy would alert because like he ran a service or something. I don't really know all the details, but his wife would get in on a stock that was alerted and he'd win all the time. It was more of a swing trading room. It wasn't even really. It wasn't really day trading. So he said one day he comes like he's in the other room or something. His wife takes a short position and he's like, babe, short 5,000 shares. The chick shorted 50,000 shares.  I don't understand. He was shitting himself.  All it did was uptick like five cents. He was up like five cheese. I'm like and dying dude.  Literally 50,000 shared, bro. All you need is like a couple cents will make your day. So the point is is like that was an accidental thing. Thank God I'm only like fat fingering in like an 800 starter or 1200 starter. But back to size, guys, if you are shitting your pants in a position, it's tooth, it's twofold. Your size too much or you don't know what you're playing and you don't know how to manage it. So size down, size accordingly, do the necessary things that you need to do. But just there's you got to always have a plan. Thanks for watching the video, everyone. If you have any questions about joint MIC, you could text Tosh directly using the number here. Also, if you're liking our content, you want to stay up to date with our content, please subscribe to our YouTube channel by clicking this button over here. Also, stay up to date with some of our newest videos by watching them by over here.