I want to return to one of the questions that was asked at the beginning, and suggest some of the answers that I've heard throughout the day. There's a background idea, which is often mentioned in conferences like this, that hasn't been here. There is more total political true information available to the public in this country, if Ethan's radically important caveat aside, than probably has ever been available. So the concerns that are expressed are against a backdrop of at least more available true information. Ellen and Micah are partly responsible for this mass of information, as are many others in this room, and yet there's a dream of even more available true information. So the puzzle here is not, and the concerns here are not, the relative lack of available true information about political actors in America. What are the kinds of concerns we've heard? One that Rashad was just talking about, which we haven't talked about as much today, are concerns around bias, and systemic bias, and bias moving through media. Another, Josh and Ellen, and to some degree Craig, are still concerned that, although there may be, that people don't know enough true things, that there still should be more true information. We may have a rough sense of how Coca-Cola influences senators, but we need to have a very, very precise granular understanding about the relationship between Coca-Cola, Senator, and Bill, and what, and a Bill, and once we have that really precise information something will happen. There's another concern, which I think many of those involved in journalism have expressed, which is some sort of sense that journalism as an institution still exists, and it can be better. There is a possibility of a better institution. What I was interested in is sort of listening to different degrees of what are the false, there's two kinds of ideas. One is lies that people believe, and the other is things that people don't know. So Ellen and Josh are largely talking about things that people don't know. What kinds of lies are we concerned about, or what kinds of falsehoods are we concerned about? I don't think, and I could be wrong, one possibility is that we're concerned about false beliefs no matter what they are. So to test yourself, are you concerned if 70 percent of Americans believe that Stephen Colbert went to Dartmouth? So there's a, if there are false beliefs that may or may not have any sort of action impact, is there a concern? We may or may not be concerned, and people are going to have different sets of thoughts about this, about randomly distributed false beliefs. So if everyone believes five percent false things about political life, but they believe different false things. So I believe wrongly that John Tester is primarily funded by Coca-Cola money, and Ellen believes wrongly that Hastert has no relationship to agriculture. We have different wrong beliefs, there's no correlation between these beliefs, but we each individually have wrong beliefs. If you're concerned about that, you may be more concerned about sort of individuals' own relationship to truth, and less about systemic truth. My hunch is that people are not concerned about systematic false beliefs about Stephen Colbert, or non-systematic randomly distributed false beliefs even if they're about the political system. There does seem to be then a few different concerns that have come through. One is mass disbelief that has an obvious social impact that matters. If most people believe the death tax kicks in at $100,000, they might then make choices about that. There also seems to be a few mentions of mass disbeliefs or false beliefs about historical facts, which is interesting, because they don't necessarily have impact in the same way belief about Martin Luther King, belief about the Holocaust, sort of a mass misunderstanding of history, and I suspect that has to do with a sense of some way it might matter now or some relationship to bias. I think there's different people of different views about false beliefs that are briefly held and then rebutted in fact. There's been discussion about the difficulty of rebutting information, but if they're briefly held, is there sort of a wrong there? All of this to me suggests that it may be that the anxiety that is expressed here is an anxiety about falsehood, but it may in fact be that this is not actually anxiety about information. Several people have suggested this, but rather anxiety about power. If the anxiety is about power and not information, then the kinds of responses are different. Now historically, when in this country we have thought about anxiety about power in the context of political information, it's been the context of campaigns and lobbying, for what it's worth, and these have been relatively successful or unsuccessful, the kinds of strategies have not been tools but law. So kinds of tools in the 19th century are making lobbying illegal, or the Supreme Court refusing to enforce contracts to lobby because although that's information, true information in most cases. We do not want to, as a structural matter, allow this kind of true information to flow because we're concerned about power. Other kinds of structural reforms are limiting kinds of coordination between powerful entities, corporations, who can then play in telling true information about candidates, requiring some kind of disclosure. I am, you know, this is... I'm Nick Romney, and I approve of this message. Yes, Nick Romney approves of this message. That kind of disclosure, which you could then, again, I don't know how this would work in the other information space, or actually breaking up power, requiring not allowing subsidiary ownership. So I just want to sort of open up the space for kinds of solutions because I think there's a liberal tendency, and I use the liberal and the small L tendency. Paul Tillich, one of my favorite theologians, talks about this a lot, the sort of temptation, the seduction of always wanting to have more information and sort of the infinite search for more information before we act as opposed to looking at perhaps power and action. With that, I'd like to open it up to questions for our panelists, primarily, although... Or conversation. Or conversation. Yes. Or I'll call one. Yes. Melanie. I think in some ways, that theory you have about false beliefs or mass disbelief runs into one big problem that I see right away, which is religion, which is all about a whole lot of, depending on your point of view, false beliefs, mass disbeliefs, or some people's false mass disbeliefs. This is obviously a big problem for Romney, for example, and yet this is something that's a worldwide issue, so it's not, can't be, and also there are a lot of power issues tied in with religion. So I think that that can't be exactly right, so maybe then it has to be more limited to we're concerned about falseness more in the political sphere rather than falseness in general. Chris. Really thank you for laying out those distinctions. So two of the kinds of false beliefs are also different psychologically. You know, if you got the date of Mother's Day wrong and someone corrects you, you're not going to resist. You kind of want to get Mother's Day right. The kinds of misinformation that I'm at least interested in are the kinds of misinformation where when someone corrects you, you come up with an elaborate justification of why you're still right. And when you do that, that means that it must have some kind of deep identity significance to you. And that's why people not only believe these things strongly and won't let them go, but why they become associated with political views and associated with political parties and ultimately influence policy. So I'm absolutely interested in that kind and they're psychologically incredibly different in terms of how they play out for people. Yeah. I wonder if in talking about, in those last two comments we've come across with apologies to Ethan Zuckerman, a cute cat theory of misinformation. A lot of what we've been talking about in terms of individual solutions to misinformation have come with the obvious failing that the people who employ these tools are not the people that we're trying to reach. What we want to reach are people who aren't going to know that they need correction on political misinformation, but may really want to get the date of Mother's Day right. Mike. Mike Lux? Mike, use the mic. Just a thought about what Zephyr was talking about with historical information. I'm a person who tends to believe that narrative matters a lot more than specific facts, at least in politics, at least in sort of public dialogue. And because of that, I really believe that if you get history wrong, you get certain, even certain factual things about history wrong, a lot of times it deeply influences the way you think about politics, but it influences the narrative.  Interesting. Does anybody know people who are working on tools? You know, we've been talking in this tools context, tools about sort of history fact-checking. Because I know there's a lot of critiques about... I have a question, actually. I want to push on to... Oh, no, go ahead. Go ahead, here. Yeah, to your last comment about fact-checking. When you get into history, it gets a little different, little trickier. Different nations have different versions of history, so actually you will find many consistent stories depending on your nationality, so I'm not sure if you can do anything there. So I actually want to throw a question back to two of our speakers, Craig and Josh, who gave us both... Do you have something to respond to this? I'm sorry. On the point of history, the desire to have misinformation around history certainly is important to many people who wish to misinform, right? You've referenced the textbook conversation, but it is a not-small part of folks who want to particularly undo civil rights protections, but a lot of them want to roll it back. Changing the history is deeply important. So they banned ethnic studies in Arizona, so they swore... Mother Jones did some great reporting on the lengthy and systematic effort that folks did in Texas to get on the Texas School Board because the textbooks... Texas is to education kind of like New York and California are to environmental law. If you've got to write a textbook that works in Texas in order to have a national textbook business. So if you can get misinformation into those textbooks, they become a national one. So history is deeply relevant to misinformation, certainly to those who have an effort. So there's a challenge for those at the hackathon tomorrow. All right. Back there. Andrew Puddingham from Global Partners in London. I mean, I listened to the conversation today as a bit of an outsider, so I offer you an observation as an outsider that the U.S. is thought to be the developed country with the highest level of religious belief and a level of religious belief that is normally only found in peasant societies rather than in vast industrial societies. And religious belief is really based on faith, not evidence. You know, the whole basis of... testing your belief in the deities that you... the evidence is not the basis on which you adopt that belief. So if you take a society which is deeply rooted in profound religious beliefs and in faith and add to that the political system of wash with money, uncontrollable corporate money on a scale never before seen in the history of the world that I can see, isn't that the key problem that you're all really talking about? That's what I'm hearing. It's about the religious rights in America and the combination of that with corporate money and I don't see that that's a problem that's fixed by a technological tool. That's a profoundly political problem to do with the national identity of the society you're living in and a technical tool isn't going to convince someone who is a deep Christian that there is evidence that suddenly makes them reconfigure their personal belief system. So I just wonder if it's the conversation in the right place to address some of the problems you're raising. It's really a question from someone coming from the other side of the Atlantic. So just to respond, part of me wants to sort of crawl up in a little ball in the fetal position. But on the other hand, I think of the way that attitudes in the United States have changed even with the description not contesting your core argument there completely. And so for example, public attitudes towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians have shifted dramatically in just a few years. Now that's partly politics. That may also be generational. I mean, it's a variety of things. I think the question that we're trying to address here is is the digital, the network public sphere, the internet in its commercial and non-commercial forms, can it make the problem more tractable or less tractable? So to keep the focus on that. I was going to go back and just ask a question to the speakers in this group, Craig or Joshua Rashad. Each of you mentioned that in one form or another the possibility of the market part of this system responding and that either newspapers might do a better job of debunking things because it improves their relationship with their readers and presumably that helps their bottom line or you can conduct a campaign against a bad media actor by trying to influence their advertisers to move a particular polluter of the media scape off his podium. And I was wondering if you could just, any of you or anybody else, how much of this is about sort of a market, you know, trying to influence the market for information and how much of this is outside of the market where, you know, foundations like Ford or others, you know, where the non-commercial side of the space, we are not going to clean things up. We shouldn't trust the, let me rephrase it, we shouldn't trust the, expect the commercial media marketplace to fix this problem much. Yes, no, disagree, agree. Yeah, go ahead, Josh. I think in a lot of ways to think about this sort of urge to defeat truthiness as a market force, similarly to how you can think of, say, international reporting and foreign correspondence. It used to be that market forces were such that it made sense for a significant number of newspapers to have foreign correspondence because the financial models work well that way. What the Internet has done is essentially disincentivize the Atlanta Journal of Constitutions of the World and the Dallas Morning News of the World and the Chicago Tribunes of the World from having those sort of folks, but encourage the New York Times' and the Reuters' and the folks who can appeal at a larger level. And I think in a lot of ways, you know, when I think about what I'm concerned about as journalism evolves, I actually don't worry all that much about political information at the national level. I feel that there's going to be a very vibrant space for lots of information, lots of reporters, some motivated by truth and justice and some motivated by political desires and all the rest. I really worry about the state houses and, you know, the city councils and the school boards because when you get down to that level, the market forces simply aren't there to encourage that higher, that sort of, you know, flight to quality. It just doesn't exist in the same way. Joe, and your question? Oh, yeah. All right. We're going to try and bring... I actually think they are what we have seen in readership surveys that have been done. So Politifact has 12 news organizations around the country that we partner with and several of them have done readers surveys about Politifact and what they like or don't like. And readers love it. And in fact, in Atlanta, you mentioned the AJC, Atlanta is advertising Politifact, not as an online product, but as a feature that you get in the paper. So they have TV ads that say the Truth-O-Meter exclusively in the Atlanta Journal Constitution and because their readership surveys show readers want that stuff, they want to see, you know, what did the mayor get? What did the Jacob County Commissioner get? And so I'm very encouraged by that because our, you know, our growth and our revenue has come more from state partners than it has from a lot of other sources. So I think, I think the market is there because people, particularly if it's done in an accessible way, I think people want this kind of journalism. I was just going to add to what Josh said that when he originally made the presentation my thought was, he said it's more happening at national level, but, you know, there's fewer journalists working in New Zealand since they first started taking the survey in 1978, you know, in local newspapers. People have cut a, it's since 1983, fewer people have cut it in newspapers since 1993, since you've been collected. And so the idea is, and more and more these local newspapers, when it comes to national stories, are picking up just copy wire, you know. So you have, I think it's problematic you only have three people covering Iraq and the Chicago Tribunal doesn't cover it because it helps to spread lies even faster if there's only a few people relying on a couple of people to actually, that's what the whole Associated Press Cartel when it came up, joined the US-Mexico-American War to spread lies, you know, in the 1800s in the mid-1850s. So the fact that they were losing the number of journalists, you know, my issues with journalism, you know, but the fact that we're losing the actual number of journalists, particularly, as you said, Josh, the local level, I mean, that's what I'm really concerned because most people, that's what they get the news from the local TV station. There aren't local news outlets really, I mean, you've seen experiments in local, in the local markets with online Jones, but people, they're not really gravitating to that still. They're still going to the main source of news, the daily paper, and the TV station. So the local level, I'm really concerned about this. Okay. Yochai, you were waiting? Yeah. I wonder the extent to which there are two very different conceptions of what we care about and that they're at war with each other. In the sense that when you focus about fact that is amenable to fact check as the anchor, is this a fact? Hmm. It's critically, probably more important than one particular factor or another or a hundredth particular fact because it's about the power to shape a shared narrative of what sort of way of thinking and talking is off the wall and what's not. But it's an act of power to pick up the phone to the newspaper and say, write the different word because I have testing that says that that makes people like me more. That's an act of power. An act of power we agree with or disagree with as a matter of political belief. But I wonder to what extent the focus on fact checking, the imagination that you could have a checklist at the end of which you would be a clean professional who's done their job. Not acknowledging the necessity of normative evaluation as a component of storytelling may be a problem. We may be building tools to let people spend another five to ten years feeling good about their profession. When they're profession, look at the story you told this morning Melanie about Berman. Comes from mass media, not from the net. When you say you can pick up the phone to so-and-so general manager of blottyblotty.org who is an employee of Berman. That comes out of an institutional demand to say, find someone with a respectable sounding name. With a respectable sounding organization on the other side, then you're clean. The fact is right, this person said this. That's the correct fact. This person is in this organization called this way. That's an example. After that I'm clean. And that institutional acceptance within traditional generalistic modes of that being, that's how I maintain my professional integrity is what pushes this idea of truth being about fact check. As opposed to the relevant question being about how we shape the narrative. And I think we need to not only keep those separate but understand that an emphasis on one undermines the possibility of seeing that the real action, if that's what we think that the where the real action is, is entirely in the other. Response, yeah. Denise. There's one other part of the story we keep forgetting that the onus on determining truth and toothiness is not just in technological fixes but also education, particularly of young people. We want to remember to get people while they're young and help them learn for themselves to determine how to evaluate information. Tom. Hi, I'm Tom Stites from the Vanyin Project. It strikes me that if we put this in a broad historical context about journalism, it begins to take on a bigger frame. It wasn't really until about World War I that most newspapers had reporters. The whole idea of checking facts of verifying information was essentially not there. The introduction of propaganda techniques in World War I actually drove the invention of the idea of reporters as something that's part of our journalism today. I think where we've found ourselves is in a cultural and social situation where the propagandists of today operating in our culture here now have become so sophisticated that they have captured the journalistic model that has been essentially in effect since after World War I. And they have wrecked it by essentially manipulating, he said, aspect of the culture. This idea of disengagement, of dispassion and all the other stuff that we actually know isn't true. I think that we're dealing here around the edges of an extremely large shift in what journalism is. And I think that, okay, it hits it on the nose. Is this facts? Is it narrative? Is it all of these things? I think that all of these questions are in process of becoming something we don't quite know what it is yet, but it's wonderful that we're in this room poking at it and maybe some more truth about what journalism is going to come out of exercises like this. Other comments? Wendell, you got the first word. You're heading into the last word section of the day. Thank you. I think it's important to keep in mind is that a lot of money is paid to manufacture these lines and a lot of money organization like the ones I used to work for. And part of that money goes to make sure that those lies or this misleading information tags an emotional wall. That's why you have race-like death panels and the government will take over that area. And a lot of time is spent to make sure that those terms do resonate emotionally with people. What we're trying to do here is a bit of a disconnect. It may be one of those tragic problems, but when you're trying to overcome someone who has taken as belief something like a death panel and trying to communicate facts, it's kind of like this. You're trying to refute some emotional, emotionally-received information. With factual information, it's just not like getting through, I hope, to really persuade people what they have been led to believe is true. Where we're going with this, I think that there probably needs to be a greater work by journalists than others to expose where this is coming from and to determine can the internet do anything to try to counter the lies that are crafted that way in language and in a way that people can actually understand and understand how they're being misled. Again? It gets a little... to respond to Ethan's challenge of action. What it means is that we can select from the various set of tools. So when Paul Resnick talks about clustering of stories and identifying stories by cluster in one tool and talking about diagnosing as left or right certain characteristics when we talk about the journalism code.uk of the mapping of the stories in terms of the press releases. These are ways that don't focus on facts but are efforts to try to combine tools like the one from Yahoo Research in Barcelona that I used to show which was right-wing and which was left-wing searches on Yahoo. They tried to diagnose a pattern of words, a pattern of stories, a pattern of means and map them both to political parties to press releases to lobbying efforts so that the armor that we walk with us or perhaps the persuasion is one that is aimed toward trying to diagnose memes and linguistic moves and narratives and similarities and stories onto a particular position. So we know who is trying to persuade us with these things. It's a very different cluster of tools in terms of what it's trying to identify. There's one more comment, Sasha. Sasha, I think it's our last comment. Yeah, it's just sort of, I guess, a provocation for tomorrow's hackathon. So one of the things we've been doing in the back channel is extracting all of the proposals and ideas people have and putting them into the matrix of things we'll play with tomorrow and that one way, a thought experiment that I'd like to invite people to do even if you can't come tomorrow is also trying to consider sort of flipping it on its head. If you were going to attempt to spread falsehoods, what tools and mechanisms would you use? What tools would you want to design to do that? And that might be an interesting way for us to enter into a conversation about how we would counter it. Great. All right. Okay, thank you. Thank you to our panelists and we're going to hand the baton off to our hosts. So we're going to bring some confusion.


In this talk we are going to analyze the quantum security of Fiat-Schaemier non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs and Fiat-Schaemier signatures. These objects are actually constructed in two steps, which we will each separately analyze. Namely you have the Fiat-Schaemier transformation, which we apply to a sigma protocol. I will in the first part of this talk talk about the security of the Fiat-Schaemier transformation, where I can already give away that the main issue here is how to deal with superposition actions to the random oracle, about which we have seen two talks already. And then in the second part, Chi-Peng will talk about how to prove quantum security for the underlying sigma protocols. This separation also allows me to give a quick comparison between the two papers. In the first part, we both have a reduction, the only difference lies in the tightness of the reduction and interestingly also in the methods that we used. And in the second part, both of our papers formulated a new property and we demonstrated that this property is sufficient for quantum security. But on top of that, Neon Zandri also develops some extra technical tools that allow to prove that certain schemes actually satisfy this property. Right, so first about the Fiat-Schaemier transform. In a nutshell, it takes away the interaction from a sigma protocol. So given a sigma protocol, which is an interactive scheme, we apply the transform to obtain these non-interactive objects that I mentioned before. And of this transformation, it has long been known that classically it is secure in the random oracle model in the sense that any security notion ranging from computational soundness to statistical proof of knowledge, name your favorite one, if the sigma protocol satisfies this property, then we can prove that the non-interactive Fiat-Schaemier transform version does so as well. Well, up to recently, the quantum setting looked quite different. We had only one positive result here, namely by Dominik Ungru in 2017. But this security proof applied only to the case where the underlying sigma protocol is statistically sound. So only one of the possible properties and actually one that is not typically found in cryptographic applications. For the other properties, the computational ones, for example, it was unknown whether they are carried over, proof of knowledge, which happens to be the one that is crucial when you want to prove unforgibility for Fiat-Schaemier signatures, also unknown. To make matters worse, there were even some negative claims as to the possibility for a security proof regarding these properties. However, the main result of both of our papers is that indeed also in the quantum setting the Fiat-Schaemier transformation is secure now in the quantum random oracle model. Exactly as in the classical case, any security notion that you can think of is inherited with the only difference being that we now get a Q-squared security loss or even a Q-to-the-9 in the paper by Leeu and Sanderi compared to the linear loss that we have in the classical case. Nevertheless, this result allows us to conclude that if the underlying sigma protocol is quantum secure, then we have unforgible Fiat-Schaemier signatures. The condition in itself is already non-trivial. Chi-Peng will have more to say about that in the second part. Right, so I will first tell you a bit more about the technical details of our results, for which I will have to explain a bit about sigma protocols and how the Fiat-Schaemier transformation works. I'll also say a bit about how to extend this paradigm to obtain signature schemes. Then I'll give you an intuition for the classical proof and the quantum issues that we find in the Q-ROM and finally the technical results that we have to overcome these issues. Okay, so a sigma protocol is an interactive proof of a special form that does not reveal anything beyond the truth of the statement. This letter property, as you probably know, is what we call zero knowledge. The famous example being where somebody wants to prove that two graphs are isomorphic without revealing the isomorphism. Well, a sigma protocol is a particular kind of zero knowledge proof, namely one that works as follows. If some prover wants to prove the truth of a statement X using his knowledge about a witness W, he can do so by computing something we call the commitment, which it sends on to the verifier, who then replies with a uniformly random challenge. It always has to be uniformly random, which the prover then in turn can use to compute a response, which he sends over to the verifier. And if this response satisfies a certain relation with respect to this commitment and this challenge, then the verifier accepts. Technical detail that I should mention by P1 and P2, I of course mean two phases of the same algorithm. So implicitly, they are allowed to share states, which is something that will become important in Chi-Peng's part of the talk. But for us, this suffices. Now, the Fiat-Shamer transform, as promised, it takes away the interaction by replacing the challenge from the verifier in the second round with the hash of X and the commitment, which the prover can compute by himself using some publicly known hash function, of which you can find the code on Wikipedia or whatever. The main point is that it has to be one in the same hash function that is known to all parties. Which it then again uses to compute a response. And now the prover sends over the commitment and the response in one single step. So these two objects together now make up the non-interactive proof. And to verify it, the verifier has to do one extra thing, namely recompute the challenge himself, which he does by looking up the same hash function, and again checks if the proper relation holds. Right, so to get signatures, a very simple extension of this idea, namely include a message that you want to sign in the hash. And to make the picture complete, we have then a public key and a secret key consisting of some X and some W from a heart relation. So W must be hard to obtain from just X. Right, the challenge is now defined as the hash of the message that you want to sign X and the commitment, and the signature simply consists of this non-interactive proof that we have. As a small motivational note, I'd like to point out that we have currently three signature schemes in the second round of the NISPOS Quantum Standardization Project that actually make use of this framework. Okay, now we get to the proof in the classical case. What do we want to do? We want to reduce the security of the non-interactive scheme to the security of the underlying SIGMA protocol. How do we do that? By assuming that we actually have some adversary who making Q a polynomial amount of queries to the random oracle is able to break the non-interactive Fiat-Shamier scheme. Then we are going to play the SIGMA protocol, not using the honest proofer but using some reduction algorithm who is going to use black box access to this adversary in order to break the security of the SIGMA protocol. And here breaking the security, it can mean anything. It can mean that the reduction can convince the verifier without knowing a witness. It can mean that he can convince the verifier on some statement X that is not in the language. It really doesn't matter any trick that the non-interactive adversary can do. We will show that the reduction can do as well in the SIGMA protocol. So how does that work? Well, using its black box access to the adversary, the reduction is going to run A while implementing the random oracle himself, which just means that he's going to execute the adversary and during every one of these Q queries reply with some arbitrary random challenge up until a certain point where a randomly chosen query where the reduction says, okay, hey, now I'm going to carefully look at what the adversary is querying. It will be some X and some commitment.  Then of course, the reduction will get a random challenge from the verifier, which then will pass on to the adversary again. So technically we say that the reduction is going to reprogram the random oracle on this particular input to the particular challenge that he obtained from the verifier. Then all it has to do is just simply continue the run of the adversary, now answering every query with the new reprogrammed oracle and just wait until it finishes its computation, pops out some non-interactive proof, comp-prime and some response. And then it takes this response and presents it to the verifier who will accept if this commitment in the final output happens to be the same that the reduction found halfway when looking at this random query. Because by assumption the adversary can produce a valid non-interactive proof on some commitment and if it's the same then the verifier will accept, which obviously will happen with probability one over Q, so hence the linear loss in this reduction. Right, in the quantum setting, however, we require a proof in the quantum random oracle model where H is still a classical uniformly random function, but now we allow the adversary superposition query access to H. And I want to emphasize also maybe for the people that just did a switch break, track switch, I mean, that it's really important in post-quantum applications to look not just at the underlying hardness assumption, which of course has to be post-quantum secure, but also we have to consider an adversary that makes these superposition queries. And the motivation for this model comes from the fact that as I explained, H is this publicly known hash function of which the code of which you can just look up in some place, which means that in real life, the adversary is not interacting with some magical oracle. It actually has a circuit on its quantum computer to evaluate the hash function, which means that he can also evaluate this function on a superposition of inputs. Okay, but what does that do to our picture in the reduction? If we now want to reduce the quantum security, we again assume that we have an adversary that breaks the non-interactive scheme, this time making Q quantum queries to H. And suppose we wanna try what we did before, have this reduction run the adversary and try to read off one of its queries, well then we run into what Mark just called the observer effect. Trying to look at the quantum query can potentially destroy or at least disturb that disturb the query state, but with it also disturb the internal state of the adversary. Right, so if we were to do such a measurement, then we can no longer in general predict what the adversary is going to output because its internal state might have been disturbed too much. Now, the contribution of our papers is that we have a technical result, which in full generality says that for any Q query quantum algorithm which produces some pair X and Z, where X and Z satisfy some particular relation, wait, I'm sorry, I said particular, I meant just any arbitrary relation with respect to the hash of X, then if we measure one of the queries at random, just like in the classical case, a small caveat in Leon Sander's analysis, you should either measure one or three, but that's just an artifact of the proof. If we do such a measurement, find an input to the oracle X and then reprogram again as in the classical case, reprogram or oracle at this input to some fresh arbitrary but uniformly random value theta, then we can still continue the run of that adversary and at the end find some output X prime Z where X prime actually equals the X that we found in the measurement and furthermore this X prime and Z now satisfy a relation with respect to the newly programmed random value theta. Well, that's just a little bit more abstractly the thing, exactly the thing that we need here, namely we wanted to measure one of the queries of the adversary, find some X and commitment and continue the run and hope that we find some non-interactive proof where the commitment come prime actually equals the one that we found halfway in the measurement. So, yeah, applying the results to this situation, we find that the response in the final output still does a good job now with probability one over Q squared. Okay, so interesting to note is that both of our papers obtained a very similar result using quite different methods. In our paper, we used only elementary techniques, very basic quantum, very basic quantum formalism and some simple medical tools and we obtained this Q squared security loss which we believe is optimal. And the other paper by Leo Insandri used the compressed oracle framework which Marc just talked about which is a more general and strong tool but in this particular example, it had a less tight, it made for a less tight reduction. Right, so to recap the take home message from the first part of this talk is that we now have managed to reduce even in the quantum setting any security notion that you can think of from the non-interactive fiat-sharmier scheme to the underlying sigma protocol which poses the natural follow-up question how can we prove a sigma protocol quantum secure which is what Chi-Peng is going to talk about. Okay, okay. Thanks a lot for the first part and I'm going to talk about the second part which is about quantum rewinding. So quantum rewinding is a technique which allows you to prove special soundness implied soundness or in other words, it's help you to prove certain sigma protocol is a proof of knowledge. So first, we give a definition called collapsing which is a property for a sigma protocol as long as the sigma protocol is collapsing we can do quantum rewinding. In other words, it is a proof of knowledge or an argument of knowledge. And also we gave two classical sufficient conditions which implies a sigma protocol is collapsing. And also we prove this is collapsing which means the Ludwitschewski signature is post-quantum and it's even held for polynomial queue which means we don't need a large parameter, we just need to make the parameter slightly bigger. Okay, so let me talk about our definition of soundness. So for a sigma protocol, it's always easy to generate a pair of transcripts with commitment, challenge, and response because it usually satisfy honest verified zero knowledge. So for soundness here, we actually mean there's no algorithm without the witness can produce a valid response after the commitment is made and the random challenge is also selected after the commitment. And for special soundness, which means there's no algorithm can come out with two valid pairs which like under the same commitment but different challenges. So here's what we do for classical rewinding. Assume we have an algorithm for like which breaks soundness. The algorithm has two parts. For P1, it's produce a commitment for P2. It's actually an algorithm for getting a valid response. So after outputting the commitment, let's assume the internal state of the algorithm is ST. And give a challenge, it runs the algorithm P2 over the statement X, the commitment and the random challenge. And let's assume with 100% probability it actually produce a valid response. So that's the algorithm for breaking soundness. So if two random challenges are given, we simply copy the state ST and we run P2 twice. That is we run P2 over the challenge CH and then we get a valid response for CH and then we rewind by just restore ST and we run P2 over the other random challenge CH prime. In which sense, we can get two pair of valid transcript under the same commitment, which breaks special soundness. This is how we do classical rewinding. But however, for a quantum algorithm, this stage is actually a quantum superposition. So we cannot follow this cloning technique because we know it's hard to clone quantum superposition. So inspired from Uru's work, the collapse biting commitment scheme, we show that collapsing is, the definition collapsing is enough for quantum rewinding. And also we give two classical division conditions. So I will introduce the definition collapsing Sigma protocol and I will mainly focus on the first classical sufficient condition, which is called LASI function. Okay. So here is the definition of collapsing Sigma protocol. So there's no adversary A can succeed the following game with more than half probability. So here is the game. We have algorithm A, which outputs a commitment first and gets a random challenge from the verifier. Then it propels a superposition over our valid response. I mean, for valid it means it's valid respect to the commitment and the challenge. And it sends the superposition to the verifier. Then the verifier flips a coin. If the coin is one, it measures the superposition. Otherwise it does nothing. Then it succeeds if and only if the adversary can get the coin. In other words, the game means like collapsing Sigma protocol means there's no adversary can guess if the superposition is measured or not. So with collapsing Sigma protocol, we can actually do quantum rewinding. Here's how we do that. So I assume we have a quantum adversary A also with two stages, P1 and P2. Assume it breaks soundness. After outputting the commitment, let's assume the algorithm has its own internal state, which is a superposition ST. So given the first challenge, it just simply runs the algorithm over the statement X, the commitment, and also the challenge. So for simplicity, let's just assume it's a unitary. The algorithm just select a unitary based on X, com and CH and it applies the unitary over the internal state ST. And we just make it even simple. We just assume after that we got a superposition over our valid response. Then the next thing to do is just measure the superposition and we get a valid response. And because we know the Sigma protocol is collapsing, which means A have no way to tell if the superposition is measured or not. In other words, a measured superposition is basically indistinguishable from the original superposition. So we can easily get back to the original internal state just by applying the inverse of the unitary to the state. And because of the indistinguishability of collapsing, we can just go back to the internal state ST and by giving another challenge CH prime, we can just do the same because we have already got back to the internal state ST, we can apply the unitary again, but under a different challenge. And by assumption, that's a superposition over our valid response prime, which is valid under commitment and the new challenge. So in which case, it produces two valid pairs under the same commitment, which breaks special soundness. This is how we do quantum rewinding, okay? So this is one of the classical sufficient conditions for having collapsing Sigma protocol, which is called lossy function is also a generalization of URUS work. So the basic idea is very simple. Let's assume there are a collection of functions which is defined over our valid response with respect to a fixed commitment and the challenge. So for the injective mode, the function is the injective function over the domain. And for constant mode, it's just constant function. And also there's no post-quantum adversary can distinguish which function is picked. In other words, it cannot tell if it's a function from injective mode or constant mode. And this is some intuition about why lossy function implies collapsing. So assume we have a superposition of over valid response, which is not measured. It's exactly the same as we apply a constant function over the response and we measure the function register because the second register is constant, measure that does not affect our first register. So they're exactly the same. And from lossy function, we know that they're indistinguishable. So we can apply the injective mode instead of the constant mode. And finally, because the function is injective, measure the second register is exactly equal to measure the first register. So which we have the superposition measure is indistinguishable from the superposition that is not measured, okay. So here's how we rewind the sigma protocol quantumly. We can first, we can either prove the sigma protocol is collapsing, just follow the definition, which requires some knowledge about quantum, or we can prove the sigma protocol has compatible lossy functions or separable functions, which is purely classical condition. For example, we prove that the Lubbyshevsky signature, the valid response are cis solutions. We prove cis is collapsing by showing there are lossy functions and separable functions. Okay, so in conclusion, we show that a sigma protocol with special sound plus collapsing property gives you proof of knowledge. And for honest, verify their knowledge, proof of knowledge plus field shemir, it unconditionally gives you non-interactive, their knowledge, proof of knowledge and unforgeable signature. And as an example, we show Lubbyshevsky signature is post-quantum secure. Thanks. And we have time for a couple of questions. Just a quick question. So as part of the innovation, you mentioned picnic, dilithium and MQDSS. MQDSS is, yeah, shemir-based, but it's a five-round identification scheme, not a three-round standard signals that still work there with any kind of loss of parameters. We are actually currently working on extending the proof that we have for sigma protocol for the three-round schemes, two multiple-round schemes. Okay, so there's more that's going on that you have to kind of handle, I guess. Yeah, yeah, it takes, yeah. It's a non-trivial extension, but we suspect that it should be possible. Okay, great, thanks. So you showed that a large class of sigma protocols that are collapsing are quantumly sound. Is it known if there are any sigma protocols that are not quantumly sound that are like standard, classically sound but not quantumly sound? Are there any such examples? I'm sorry. Are there any examples of sigma protocols that are not collapsing and are also not quantumly sound? You mean like, is there any example which is like not collapsing, but also not like sounding quantum? Yeah, it is. Oh, yes, there is some example showing previous work, yeah. Yes. Okay, last call for questions. All right, let's thank Yela, Shuking, and all the super-extremist sessions. Thank you. Thank you.


The Oregon State government says it is doubling efforts to regulate and enforce rules on a variety of building collapse in the state. The Commissioner for Fiscal Planning and Urban Development in the state said the government is set to introduce what he termed a non-destructive test for all new buildings in the state. Our Oregon State correspondent Habibat Ajayi reports. 2021 saw a number of building collapse in the country. In Oregon State is not an exception. A classroom building of Nazarete High School recently collapsed during school hours at Emequafo, Oregon, SW, killing one pupil. A report shows that in the last 10 years, spanning 2009-2019, the SW recorded 34 building collapses, representing 60.71%. Commissioner for Fiscal Planning and Urban Development in Oregon states Olatuji Odolami argues that the building collapse has been under-reported. The other cost is like sustainable materials, use of quarks on building sites. It is a source of work. We discover that in the market, other as a result of high costs of procurement of those materials or determinants of people to cut quarks, there are a lot of, so that the materials can stay in the towns across the states, across from the building states. Now, where the building state is that every block that will be used on building sites in the state will have a stamp of the owner, of the maker, of the block there. So that we are already working to ensure that in a new state, the plants that will be cut in the soil may or that will be sold in the soil may will meet the specifications. Stakeholders are challenging the regulatory authorities at all levels to rise up to the responsibility of eliminating quarks in the industry, as masses are the worst eats. So we need to ask ourselves how effective are regulatory agencies to be able to ensure that the industry stays in the soil, so that even if there are some other blocks in the sustainable materials and sites, the person who has engaged quarks to establish his building, regulatory agencies should be able to come and say no and not use this material no, this person is not satisfied. Ogham State is restating its resolve to put its eyes on the quality of plaque, block and order building materials produced in the state to ensure they meet the standard. Abibat Ajayi plus TV Africa Ogham State.


My name is Willie Mutunga. I was Chief Justice and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya. I joined the University of Nairobi when Kenyatta was still alive. But there was a clear dictatorship. The third floor, that's where my office was. That's where I was picked from. But we took a stand and paid for it. I was detained for 16 months. I was lucky to be alive. A lot of people died during that period. So there were consequences that make it very difficult for you to feel comfortable with a system that does that to you and your family. And then you realize it's not just you. In that way you get fellow travelers.  You are not alone. At some point you know it would just be normal for people to support gay rights movement. Decriminalization means aligning the statutes to the vision of the Constitution which is about rights equality. Empathizing with different identities is a space for all of us. You realize that when you start fighting for the right to food, we are human beings, we are not going to look into sexual identities. We want food, we want health, we want education because we are all a human family. The moment we allow ourselves to be divided on the basis of sexual orientation, we will never be able to achieve the humanity we require in this continent and in the world.


Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to present our work on immune checkpoint therapies, which anti-CTLA4 is the first in class. Anti-PD1 comes next in this class of immune checkpoint therapies. And I'm going to go through some of the background and I apologize if it's a little bit repetitive from what you may have heard already this morning. So one of the big questions I guess we've been asking, and this has been ongoing for years, this is nothing new, I think centuries for the basic immunologists and those of us in the clinic who have been trying to apply immunotherapy, why immunotherapy? And for a long time the room would empty out as somebody else mentioned whenever immunotherapy was mentioned because we really didn't have clinical efficacy to talk about, but why were we so insisting on pursuing it? And one of the things we know clearly is that the T-cell responses are pretty powerful.  So it's capable of recognizing the antigens, it's capable of producing memory cells, and it's capable of producing a response to another antigen. So if you get a second virus that's not even related or a bacterial infection, it can recognize multiple millions of different antigens. So why is it not recognizing the tumor antigens was really the big question. So if we knew how to harness the power of the immune system, which we already do in the infectious disease process, if we could do that in oncology we would really have a home run winner here. So this is just an electron micrograph showing you that these little T-cells can actually recognize the big tumor cells and eradicate them. So the rationale really for developing immunotherapy treatment for cancer patients, we have many pieces of evidence that we've been putting together through the years. We know that tumor infiltrating lymphocytes associate with good prognosis in a majority of tumor types. So if you look at colorectal cancers of ovarian cancers or melanomas, you know that clearly the larger number of T-cells, CD8, T-cell, CD4 T-cells, these tend to portend good prognosis. We also know that there's expression of tumor antigens on many of these tumor types that the T-cells can recognize. If you take the T-cells in vitro, they will recognize the cancer cells in vitro. Why isn't that happening in vivo? We also know that for cancers, you really need mutations, right? I mean that's how cancers are able to escape all of these therapies. They have multiple mutations in the cancer cells that allow it to grow and survive. These mutations really represent new antigens. They're no longer self-antigens. They're new antigens. So why isn't the immune system capable of now taking all of these new antigens and eradicating these tumor cells? That really is what it should be able to do. And again, it doesn't matter if it's a driver or passenger antigen, right? I mean, we're having this big discussion in the world of mutations. Is it the driver, a mutation, or a passenger? The T-cells don't care. It's a new antigen and the T-cells should be able to recognize it. I think the problem that we really have to face and deal with was that we were initially just focused on one T-cell receptor. I'm going to try, oh, sorry. We were really just focused on this one piece of how T-cells function. We really thought that it was all about the T-cell receptor recognizing the antigen in the context of MHC. Unfortunately, this is just one signal. So for those of us who spent years and decades just given a vaccine, a peptide vaccine antigen to our patients, hoping that that peptide vaccine was going to initiate a T-cell response because the T-cell receptor could recognize it in the context of MHC, I think we all read the papers. Those vaccine clinical trials did not lead to clinical benefit. And that's because we really did not understand the basic biology of T-cell responses. So it's not sufficient to give the antigen. That will get the T-cell receptor going, but that's all. You will not get anything else going. You really need to now figure out how you get the second signal, which is co-stimulation in CD28. It is a basic response. Every time you get a viral infection, it's T-cell receptor and CD28 that work together to help eliminate that infection. So those two signals are what are important. But the other thing that we have to recognize, and we only recently recognized, is that every time there's an on signal, the on signal drives an off signal. So in your T-cell, my T-cell, and everyone's T-cell, every time we get an on signal, there's a transcriptional regulation that then allows for the off signal, which is CTLA4. So your T-cells have a programmed amount of time to do their job. And then there's homeostasis and return to balance, where the off signal tells the T-cells, we're done. You've had enough time. This may work very well for the flu infection. It may not work so well in large tumor settings, where the tumors are continuously trying to evade the immune response. And now the T-cells have lots of CTLA4 on the surface, because they've seen the antigen for period of time. And CTLA4 is the only thing now that's preventing these immune responses from eradicating the tumor. There are other off signals. And I think this was the biggest point we learned in basic immunology. They're on signals were what we were trying to drive the entire time. The off signals actually are very, very important. We have to learn how to block them. CTLA4 is only the first that's been recognized. There are other ones, such as PD1, as we've learned. So now how do we start blocking the off signals? And how do we now allow the immune system to really take off to eradicate the tumor cells? Jim Allison's group was actually the group that identified the T-cell receptor protein structure. It was also the group that identified CD28 co-stimulation, and also the group that identified CTLA4 as an inhibitory molecule. All basic immunology. Now we can take these pieces and put them together in the clinic. His group proposed that if we used an antibody to block CTLA4, we would allow the on signals to continue without any off signals. And that would allow for tumor eradication. And so they developed this antibody against CTLA4, and they did a lot of beautiful preclinical models, which I'm not going to show you, and published the data and mouse models that any tumor type could be rejected just by blocking this one molecule. The antibody was then developed by Metarex and Bristol Meyers Squibb and was taken into clinical trials. And in the phase one clinical trial, one single dose of anti-CTLA4 was given initially. And so this is a patient from the phase one clinical trial, where you can see there's metastatic melanoma in the lung, and the patient received one dose on that phase one trial, and the disease was eradicated in that swan patient. The patient never got another therapy. This is now 10, 13 years later. This patient is perfectly fine without any recurrence. Again, speaking to the IDA that if you can get the immune response going, there is a memory component that can keep this disease under control for years. So anti-CTLA4 does not work on the tumor cells. It works on your T cells. Every patient's T cell, your T cell mind, they all have CTLA4. So if you get anti-CTLA4, it's working on your T cell. That means you can use it to treat any kind of disease. Okay, you can use it to treat prostate cancer, melanoma, kidney cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer. Technically, it's about getting the immune response going. So here I'm showing in a prostate cancer patient this large prostate mass, and the patient also had metastatic disease. This patient participated on a clinical trial where they received anti-CTLA4. And again, this patient had a complete response where all disease was eradicated. The phase three clinical trial when anti-CTLA4 was completed in melanoma. And the one thing, although everybody is very excited about this increase in median overall survival, thing I really want to point out to you is this tail at the end of the curve. Everyone else in the control is dead. The tail at the end of the curve after the patient's finished therapy continues. So now four years, five years, six years out, there are still patients alive who had metastatic melanoma and received treatment anti-CTLA4. They're not receiving any additional therapy because they completed the trial, but they're still doing very well and surviving. So in summary, we found that CTLA4 blockade has a consistent anti-tumor response rate of approximately 10 to 20%. There's durable partial and complete regression of disease. The survival benefit was now seen in two phase three clinical trials in patients with metastatic melanoma. FDA approval of the drug was provided for melanoma in 2011. So this is a kidney cancer meeting. So just to let you know, there has been data in the phase two setting for patients with metastatic kidney cancer, and this was published previously in 2007 where they did see by research criteria these partial responses. But the important and exciting thing is that we have an understanding of the basic immunology. And once you have the basic science, there's so much you can do with it now, right? So CTLA4 is the first. The next one to come along is PD1 because now we know we have to start looking for the inhibitory pathways. Now we understand that. It's not just about driving the T-cell receptor with a particular antigen. You have to now block the inhibitory pathways. So when we blocked PD1 in patients with metastatic kidney cancer, this is what we saw. There's a patient, this was published data from Julie Grahamers' group, and you can see that the metastatic disease goes away. And not only metastatic disease in visceral and soft tissues, here's a bony met. And this resolves with anti-PD1 therapy. And as they obtain biopsies, you can see that the patient goes from not having a lot of T-cells in the tumors to having tons of T-cells within that tumor tissue to allow for the tumor eradication. This is the same type of data that we saw with anti-CTLA4. So we know that anti-CTLA4 increases the T-cell infiltration and T-cells produce interferon gamma. Interferon gamma, it turns out, actually up-regulates the PD1 and PDL1 pathways. It up-regulates PDL1 expression. So now if you block with anti-CTLA4, not everybody responds, only some patients. But the reason not everyone's responding is because a second inhibitory pathway comes into play. So now in the mouse models, Jamalison's group again showed that if you use anti-CTLA4 and combine it with anti-PD1 or combine that with anti-PDL1, the mice do much better. And now you're able to reject even more tumors, you're even able to cure more mice. This was then taken to a clinical trial where we now combine anti-CTLA4 with anti-PD1 and granted this is in metastatic melanoma, but it's also ongoing in kidney cancer where we're combining anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1. But this data was published in melanoma and for those of you who are familiar with these spider plots and the waterfall plots, you can tell that this is really dramatic responses that we're seeing in stage 4 patients in a phase 1 clinical trial where these patients are having phenomenal clinical responses, 50% activity of this drug for these patients now. So what are the issues that we have to address? So we really need to understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved in the anti-tumor effect. Can we identify predictive, prognostic and pharmacodynamic biomarkers? What are the best standard of care therapies that we can combine with these immune checkpoint therapies? And then can we identify new targets? What are the other inhibitory pathways that we need to consider to help improve the responses? So for doing this, we really have to move efficiently between the clinical trials and the laboratory interrogation. And so just to remind everyone that in the lab hypothesis testing is wonderful in mouse models, okay? They're in bread and the disease is homogeneous. The question though is how do we now find out what's happening in the patients to really answer these questions that I posed on the previous slide. The patients are polymorphic and the disease is heterogeneous. So the most we're going to get out of the clinical trials is hypothesis generation. We're going to generate some hypothesis. It's correlative data. And the important thing to do is really go back to testing it in the lab so that you can now really say this pathway does this. And then how do you take it back between basic immunology and the clinic, which is really the important step that led us to having clinical benefit now. So to rethink the clinical trial design, we've now proposed that when we're doing these phase one, two and three clinical trials, which you're all aware of, phase one being the safety and dose escalation, phase two being the efficacy and phase three comparison standard to care, we've now integrated phase one and phase two eight trials. And these are trials that they're built really to answer the questions of biomarkers and mechanisms. They're not really built to answer the clinical endpoint question of is this drug going to give you a certain number of PRs or CRs. So for example, this trial was conducted and completed. It's a pre-surgical clinical trial with anti-CTLA4 because again, the pre-surgical part I want to stress, we need the tumor tissues if we're going to understand what the T cells are doing, what all those immune cells that you just heard about, what are they doing in the tumor microenvironment, how is the therapy affecting them and what can we come up with next for combination. So it's the tumor tissues that guide us in terms of the biomarkers. So here patients with localized bladder cancer receive two doses of anti-CTLA4 before they went to surgery and then we were able to collect all of the blood and tumor tissues for the analysis. Similarly, again I told you anti-CTLA4 is not specific for tumors.  These are patients with localized prostate cancer and because we're trying to identify ways to combine these immunotherapies with standard of care therapies, here we did a clinical trial where we combined anti-CTLA4 with hormonal therapy in these patients and so they got one dose of Lupron, two doses of anti-CTLA4 and then these patients went to surgery. This is a third trial. This is the pre-surgical trial in patients with kidney cancer and in this trial we have anti-PD1 alone, anti-PD1 plus Bevacizumab or anti-PD1 plus anti-CTLA4. So it's a three-arm trial in patients with metastatic RCC but all of these patients are scheduled for nephrectomy. So we're going to have all of those tumor tissues and then they can continue on their therapy after completing surgery. But now we have the tumor tissues and the blood samples for all of the immune monitoring that we need to do. And just to show you again we have access to all of the tumor tissues which are very important if you're going to get the infiltrating T cells because that's the only way to get them out is to actually have tumor tissues to sort them from. We have non-malignant tissues as comparison and the prostate again we're able to have tissues from both bladder and prostate. And this way we can then start with unbiased analyses. So for example we start with an aphymatrix analysis where we compare controlled tissues and again controlled tissues being stage match patients who go directly to surgery because that's a standard of care. They go directly to surgery, they don't participate in the clinical trial but that's our control and we sort the T cells again and we can sort the tissues and we can do gene array analysis. We can then ask for what's the overlap between an anti-CTLA for monotherapy plus an anti-CTLA for plus hormonal therapy or an anti-CTLA for plus anti-PD1. We can start to do all of these overlap to look for the immune response gene signature that's coming out with these different immunotherapy agents. And then we can rank these pathways and genes based on an ingenuity analysis and when we did this initially we came up with this list and you can see at the top of the list is this pathway called the ICOS pathway. So ICOS really stands for inducible co-stimulator. It belongs to the same family actually as CD28, CTLA4, PD1, PDL1 and L2. It's actually only expressed on T cells and its expression is increased on activated T cells. It interacts with a ligand that's expressed on the antigen presenting cells and has a very diverse role that's been reported but not really a role that's been established in anti-tumor immune responses. So we sorted these T cells. First we looked at the T cells in the bladder and prostate here and you can see in non-malignant tissues versus untreated tumor tissues and then anti-CTLA4 treated tumor tissues. By flow cytometry you can see that there's very few ICOS positive CD4 T cells in the non-malignant already untreated tumor tissues. But after treatment in anti-CTLA4 there's this increase in the ICOS positive subset of cells and that was seen both in the bladder cancer patients as well as the prostate cancer patients despite this combination therapy which is telling you that it's really a result of the immunotherapy treatment. We sorted these ICOS positive T cells, we went back to the patient's tissues and here you can see that these T cells are in the tissues. These tumor tissues express this antigen known as NYES01 which is a tumor antigen and when we sorted these T cells out we could show that they really do respond to this tumor antigen. They produce interferon gamma, TNF alpha and MIP1 beta. So these are antigen specific T cells. We now had an idea from the tumor tissues what to focus our studies on in the blood and that's the important thing because lots of us collect peripheral blood but what are you really going to focus on with the peripheral blood? There's so many things you could do with it and then the data becomes really muddy, you don't know what to make of it. The tumor tissues allowed us to focus in on the blood what to look at and here we went back to looking at ICOS and so you can see in the pre-therapy sample versus after the first dose of anti-CTLA4 and the second dose of anti-CTLA4 there's this dramatic increase in the ICOS positive CD4 and ICOS positive CD8 population. So it's both CD4 and CD8 T cells that are increasing ICOS expression. So our changes in ICOS expression associated with clinical benefit and to do that we did a retrospective analysis in patients with metastatic melanoma on the phase 3 clinical trial that was completed and in the small retrospective analysis we could see that patients who had a sustained increase in the ICOS positive T cell subset did much better than those who did not. So now we've finished the clinical trial data and we've generated some hypotheses. The first is the ICOS-ICOS ligand pathways necessary for effective anti-tumor immune responses in the setting of anti-CTLA4. So to test this hypothesis we went back to the mouse models and in ICOS knockout or ICOS ligand knockout mice because you can knock them out in mice, not in patients. It's very nice to do it this way. You can see the wild type mice really have improved anti-tumor responses compared to these controls but if you knock out ICOS or ICOS ligand you can see now you have impaired anti-tumor responses indicating the importance of the pathway in generating this anti-tumor response. The second hypothesis we had was that this pathway could now be targeted to improve the anti-tumor responses and to target this path will we combine an agent of targeted ICOS and the ICOS ligand with anti-CTLA4 and here you can see any of the monotherapies really did not give you that dramatic an increase but once you combine targeting ICOS and anti-CTLA4 now you have improved anti-tumor responses and tumor rejection. If you do the same experiment that you did in the wild type mouse now do it in the ICOS knockout mouse you really lose all of these responses indicating the importance of this pathway. So we have another molecule that we could target the ICOS-ICOS ligand pathway but what I want to point out is that since we now have this new understanding of the immunology that's important for T cell responses here are all the other pathways that have been recently identified. So CTLA4 and PD1 yes they're important but as you can see there are a lot of other pathways and on this slide there's not a single tumor cell. This is a T cell antigen presenting cell B cells and K cells macrophages none of this is targeting the tumor cell. So it's now really going back to understanding how these pathways function and how do we target these pathways not just for kidney cancer but probably for a lot of other tumor types. What we're hoping to do is that we've all been used to this survival curve you increase the median overall survival but everybody dies at the end and that's not what you want. Anti CTLA4 gives you this sort of survival curve you can see about 20 to 25% of the patients with these long term survival and what we hope to do is improve that as you saw with the anti CTLA4 and anti PD1 combination so that we continue now to really target multiple immune therapy checkpoints and as well as multiple other standard of care therapies to give you this improved survival. So thank you there are lots of people to thank they're all listed on this slide because the work I showed was both the lab and the clinic and I'm very indebted to all of the surgeons pathologists and the clinical folks that we work with. Thank you and of course the patients who participate in these presurgical clinical trials to let us do these types of studies thank you very much.


Welcome to Drinks Made Easy. Today we're taking a look at a non-alcoholic soda that you can make at home that isn't a generic flavor. Now, maybe you're doing sober January, maybe you're taking a little time off drinking, maybe you can't drink for a number of reasons, or maybe you're not old enough yet to drink. We have a perfect soda for you, the pomegranate grapefruit soda. And if you haven't already subscribed, why don't you go ahead and do that right now, because you never know what we might release next week and you don't want to miss out. The first thing we need to do is make our syrup. So into a medium sauce pan, we'll add one cup of sugar, half a cup of either pink or red grapefruit juice, whatever your preference is, and half a cup of pomegranate juice. Next, we'll add two pods of star anise and sometimes the pods can break up, so if you don't have two perfect pods, don't worry about it. Just make sure you have the equivalent of two pods. Over medium heat, we're going to bring this to a boil, allow it to boil for one minute, and then remove it from the heat and allow it to cool. This should take about 30 minutes, after which we will strain it, but it's important to allow it to cool for that full 30 minutes, because we're still extracting a lot of flavor using the heat. Once you've extracted the solids, you've got your syrup. And now to make the soda, we're going to start with an ounce and a half of our syrup into an eight ounce glass full of ice.  Now, at this point, you could start to integrate the syrup and the soda water, but the ombré looks really nice, and you can just give it to your guests in this way and let them start and have a little fun integrating the flavors. Add a garnish of grapefruit, a couple of pomegranate seeds, and there you have the pomegranate grapefruit soda. This is really nice. It's not quite as sweet as a standard soda would be, which I really like. I tend to prefer things that are a little bit drier, and you can pick out both the flavors of grapefruit and pomegranate, which is nice. And also, best of all, I think this would hold up really well to some gin if you're not looking for a non-alcoholic soda, but that's probably not why you're watching the video. But it's always good to keep in your back pocket.


Family Theater presents Lisbeth Scott, John Payne, and Bonita Granville. From Hollywood, the mutual network and cooperation with Family Theater presents The Promise, starring John Payne and Bonita Granville. To introduce the drama, here is your hostess, Lisbeth Scott. Thank you, Tony Loprano. Family Theater's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives if we're to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families, and peace for the world. Family Theater urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. And now to our drama, The Promise, starring John Payne as Pat and Bonita Granville as Alicia. It was the quiet after the storm. We'd set every mean word we knew, every hateful, mean word. I wasn't gonna mean what to say. I was driving. There's nothing left, is there, Pat? I remember when just to be with you like this, driving somewhere was enough. Let's skip it, huh, till we get home. You're tired and I'm sore. No matter what we say, we'll only keep hurting one another. All right. But it's all over between us, and we both know it. I think... please don't drive so fast. I'd like to get there in one piece. Okay, okay. You want to be in Frisco in the morning, don't you? The road's stopping, and you can barely see through the windshield. One mistake and we'll be... Talk about mistakes. This whole trip was a mistake. I thought I'd drive to Salt Lake City for a special broadcast, and, well, then on the way back, I'd get some time to talk with you alone. Time to patch up differences. Time to say the words I want to say like I used to say them. Nothing you've said so far sounded very reminiscent to me. That's because the words get all tangled up and come out pure poison. Do they? You know they do. Look, Alicia, for six months, I've been trying to get up courage to ask you this question. Is there anyone else? No. There never could be.  Success. I'm sold on success, Pat. I want to be somebody with a capital S. A radio personality as important as Joe Stafford or Dinah Shore. Tops. I see. And you think you can climb faster alone. Is that it? That's it. All right. You can divorce me if you like. I won't stand in your way. But you might have waited another week before you told me. At least till after Christmas. Let's leave the holly and mistletoe out of it, shall we? Sure, sure. Let's be realistic. Let's be modern. Kick cinnamon the teeth. Well, that way it's easier. And if you ask me a lot more civilized, and it'd be easier on my nerves right now if you slowed down, we're coming to Snow Creek Bridge. It's right after this turn. I know the road. There's a car coming. All right, I see it. See if you can stand. Well, that's good. Take it easy, darling. Lucky thing I could open that door. Pat, are you all right? Oh, forget it. It's you. Look out, she's starting to slide. Oh, Pat. Never down there. Oh, forget the car. I've still got you. Wait, I take that back. I'd forgotten. Come on, let's get off this muddy slope and back to the road. Grab those bushes. They'll help us climb. Lisey, wait. I think I see a light down the canyon. Are you sure? Look, see it? There it is again. You wait here. I'll go down and see. And freeze to death? I'll go with you. All right, give me your hand. It's a bad slope. Here, this way. Here it is. There's the light there in the window. Looks like a traveler's beacon. But the house is like an overgrown doll's house, only built of stone. And the funny little fence. Pat, I'm frightened. Don't be. Let's go in. There's a gate. Oh, here it is. Uh-oh, dogs. Pat, who's that? Don't be afraid of the dogs. They mean no harm. Welcome. Oh, hello. My name is Adams. This is my wife, Alicia. Hello. A hit-run driver knocked us off the bridge. I know. I heard the crash. I've been expecting you both. Come in. The white-haired old man held an oil lamp above his head, leading the way. He was very old, but his face was gentle, kindly, but strange. The room was pleasant enough, arranged as a company were expected. A cheery log fire burned on the wide hearth. I'll get you coffee. You mustn't go to any trouble if we can just sit here until morning. I always make coffee for them. It's very comforting.   The first time I had a good look at our clothes, what I saw astonished me. The sleeves of my jacket were slashed from shoulder to wrist. Alicia's shirt was ripped, her stockings and ribbons. Her coat torn across the back between the shoulders. I looked at my jacket. It was a big, jagged tear right over the heart. I don't understand. We're not scratched, either of us. They never understand at first. They go on thinking they're alive. What? I try to tell them, but they won't believe me. Well, we're alive. You can see for yourself. Wait here by the fire. I get some goat's milk for you. I keep it fresh and cold in the creek. He thinks we're dead. Yeah, I know. He's a little crazy, I guess. Just for a minute, I couldn't help thinking we might be. Oh, nonsense. Well, if we are, it would be sort of wonderful, wouldn't it? No pain or anything and being here. When I was a kid, I had a storybook. There was a picture in it I've never forgotten. A room like this. Pat. Yeah? Kiss me. See if I feel it. We're strangers, remember? Hey, you know I bet that old man built this place himself, stone by stone. Look how solid it is, rooted deep like a tree. Why can't all houses feel like this? It is solid, isn't it? You know what?  I could work here by that book of mine right itself. Alicia. Yes, Pat? Suppose I could talk the old man into renting us this place. Oh, well, not for long, a year perhaps. I've got a thousand in the bank. We could toss our jobs over the moon and really live here. Would you do it? Would you be happy? I'd be bored to death. Yeah. Why do you ask? To make me seem selfish? He's back. I brought the milk and the crock of cheese. Oh, you're so kind. And we're complete strangers. No, you're guests. My name is Peter Fauner. I came from Switzerland when my young wife died. I couldn't bear to be near the scenes familiar to us. I roamed all over the world. When I discovered this canyon beneath Snow Creek Bridge, I knew I'd come home again. It's so peaceful, except when there's an accident like tonight.  They all come here. I remember the first two. A middle-aged farmer and his wife from Kansas, they were frightened, like lost children. How long did they stay? A few hours. In the morning, I asked them what they wanted to do. They said they hoped to go to heaven. Well, what did you do? I asked myself, where is heaven? I'd never given much thought to things. But I supposed it was up in the sky. What then? I cut them some staves and carved their names on them. Beth and Joel Burnett, I remember them well. It was March the 10th, 1920. What happened? I led them as far as I could to the summit of Old Whiteface. That's 6,000 feet. They thanked me, said goodbye, and went on. I stood in the snow watching them for some time. They seemed to climb a trail of light up and up until I could see them no more. Yeah, well, I hope they made it all right. They always do. There have been many, you say? Many. Men, women, and children. The children were always afraid until. Until what? Someone always came down the trail to meet the children. I'm taking the milk and cheese back to the creek. Would you like to come with me, son? Oh, yes, I would. Here, let me take that crock. Be careful, son. The trail is narrow. But there aren't any obstructions. I've worn it smooth with my comings and goings. I'll just follow you. Hey, what's that? Oh, don't be frightened. They are my creatures. Perhaps they think I've come to feed them again, but it's not time. But they come so close. Look at these deer. They're so close right now, I could touch them. I thought they could sense a stranger. It isn't that you're a stranger. What is it then?  You weren't gone long, but the dishes are done. I've stacked them here near the cupboard. Is there any place we could sleep for a few hours, perhaps till daybreak? There are no beds, but I'll bring some quilts. Here, I'd put them near the fire. I'm really tired. I'll just drift off, I know. I must carve your staves as I did for all the others. I keep a supply of poles, one for Alicia first, then yours. How long will they take? They'll be ready when you awaken. Rest well. I'll sleep the sleep of the dip, the just. Lay there with my eyes closed, but I didn't go to sleep right away. Scenes kept running through my mind like strips of a motion picture film, but backwards. Back to the time I first saw Alicia. I was in France. I was in the 47th Tank Battalion. She was a singer with a USO troop that came at the front. She was so beautiful that my heart began playing hopscotch. And when she sang, well, I won her, it wasn't easy. Now it seems so unreal. And now I was losing her, and that was unreal too. And this old man, was he real or was I just dreaming it? The accident and all. Maybe we were dead. Suddenly I heard myself screaming, Alicia. What is it, Pat? I guess I dosed off. I dreamed we were being buried in the same grave. Hey, where's that old man? He's outside. I heard him go out. Perhaps he's gone again to the creek. Look, he's finished the staves. They're lying there already for us. Let's get out of here fast. It's too spooky. But, Pat. Don't stop to argue with me. Here's your coat. No, Pat. We can't go. What can we tell Peter? Well, tell him he's mistaken and thanks, but we've got to get back to our jobs. Oh, you're up already. Good. It is time for you to start your journey. Are you ready? What? Oh. Oh. Yes. We're ready. Here are your staves. I've marked your names. I see. Thank you. You've gone to so much work. I will come with you, a part of the distance. It is a beautiful morning. Come.  That was some climb. How much farther? There is white face. If you climb the west flank, you will have no trouble. You should reach the summit before nightfall. You're coming with us, of course? No. I am an old man. My heart is old and rusty and tired. Then it's goodbye. Only for a little while, I'll be coming along myself on Christmas Eve. Oh, no. Surely you are mistaken. Oh, no, my friends, I am not mistaken. I wonder if you would do something for me. Well, anything I can, of course. Would you be willing to speak to God in my behalf? But we'll explain to him that I am old and tired, that I did not sell many of my carvings in the town this year. Now with the great storms coming, I do not have much feed in my sheds for my wild creatures. On Christmas Eve, I myself must climb the mountain, tell him this. I will be gone and my sheds will be empty. He will understand. He will send someone to take my place. I have no doubt, no doubt at all. We'll deliver your message. Yes, Peter, we promise. Thank you. Thank you both. Now I must go down again. God speed you. We'll be seeing you then. On Christmas Eve. And that's a promise too. We watched him go slowly down until the turn of the mountain carried him from sight. The Elysia broke the silence. What a wonderful old man. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We lied to him. Did we? Oh, Pat, you didn't really fall for that nonsense. You did. Maybe for a minute. He was so sure. But in this day and age, for a moment, I forgot to think straight. What came over us? I don't know about you, but I'm going to the top of that mountain. Pat Adams, you... Now who thinks we're dead? I do. We couldn't be. But I feel so alive. Don't you like being alive? I do. I can think of a thousand reasons why, particularly now. Name them. Oh, music and coffee. Hot baths, hats and spring, flying. And you. On the level? Uh-huh.  Maybe this had to happen to put us straight with ourselves. If I were alone, I'd keep my promise to Peter. I'd go on.  It's wonderful. Okay. Let's just see how wonderful it is. What's the Webster State Highway Patrol? That job pleaded accordion down in the river? He can see us. Yeah, so he can. Look, mate, is that your crumpled car down in the river? How did you guess? Well, look at your clothes. What happened? Hit and run, driver. Why didn't you report it? Where you been? We've been dead. What? Oh, I get it. You've been at Peter Furners down there in the canyon. You know him? Of course. Say, what about him? He's a security, isn't he? Is he? He claims he sees ghosts of people killed on this bridge. He's harmless, though. He looks at that car down there. You barely escaped being ghosts of that. I guess you're right. You got a license? I haven't lost it. No, here it is. Patrick Adams, San Francisco. Who's the lady? My wife, Alicia. I'm Alicia Adams. Alicia Adams? He must be the gal that sings on the radio. And I've got to sing from San Francisco this very afternoon. Could you possibly get us there? Well, for you, lady, anything is possible. I'm one of your fans. The cop was as good as his word. He flagged down a bus. In San Francisco, we changed to a taxi and headed toward the studio. Our name is Adams. You're on the air. In 40 seconds, I'm on the air. Alicia, wait. I've got to know something. I'm on the air. Let me go. No, no. You've got to tell me now. Are you fool? I've got to go in. Answer me, Alicia. You've got to tell me now. Yes. Yes, I do. That was the split-up. Alicia didn't come home. Instead, she phoned. It was wonderful while it lasted. But I... I guess I'm just not cut out to be a wife. And then she was gone. I read later in the trade papers she'd gone east. Television, I guess. She certainly had the looks for it. Can I have another of the same? Look, Pat. This is a filling station, but I think your tank's about level. What's the matter? Am I money any good? Sure, Pat. But you can't drown nothing big in one of them little glasses. All right. Get a big glass, then. Nah, Pat. Nah. Use the whole bean. You don't want to be fogged up with Christmas coming? Hmm? Christmas? Yeah. Tomorrow night's Christmas Eve. Yeah. Hey, Fred. Yeah? Do you believe in anything? Sure, I believe in lots of things. Now, now, now, get this. There's a mountain, see? Yeah? You can't see it, can you? No. But if I can make you believe it's there, it is, see? It is? You don't get it? Get what? I'm talking about faith. Faith is coming up for a test pretty soon. How is that? Well, the scientists are working on it. Final test of faith, bigger than the atom bomb. You better watch out, Fred. You better have faith, or else. You got it? Hmm, sure I got it. All mountain full of it. I wasn't making much sense. You got me in a cab later, and the cab, he put me to bed. Next morning my head was the mountain, but after breakfast I felt better. I saw in the papers there was a blizzard in the Sierras that made me think of old Peter Fauner. He said the storms would be heavy. Maybe I could be of some use up there. I went to a neighborhood garage and rented a car. It was a long, lonely drive, rough going in many spots, but I made it. I crossed Snow Creek Bridge and found a place to park on the other side. The trail down to Peter's was choked with snow, but I started down anyway. Old Peter's place was twice as pretty in a setting of snow and was ringed around with animal tracks. Then I noticed there was only a faint whisper of smoke from the chimney. Barely a trace. Peter's beacon was out too. I shouted, Hey Peter! Peter Fauner! I called again, but there was no reply, so I went on in. The dogs didn't growl much. They were at his feet.  Aren't you going to welcome me? Then I noticed the staff leaning against the fireplace. It was beautifully finished and the name was carved in. Peter Fauner. I went back and touched his folded hands and they were cold. I lit the beacon and then went out to the door. Just then I saw a flick of light coming down the trail and I waited. I thought you'd be here. I had to come. I couldn't stop thinking of him. Is he all right? He's dead, Alicia. Oh Pat, he did know, didn't he? That he'd go on Christmas Eve. And look, isn't his staff beautiful there by the fireplace? Uh-huh. You'll think I'm silly. This morning I went to church and prayed. I prayed what he asked us to say. Please send someone to care for Peter Fauner's creatures. Pat. Yes darling. We've been sent. Don't you see? I did get through. I was heard. We're here. I'm going to stay here all winter. I am too. Oh Pat, can I give myself back to you as a Christmas present? With all my love. You're the only Christmas present I want. Ever. We got our second chance, didn't we, to be together to make our marriage work. It will darling. It will, Alicia. Look, Peter's staff was over there by the fireplace. It's gone. This is Elizabeth Scott again. For centuries many thousands of good-hearted people have been working toward that great and honorable goal, the brotherhood of man. It would be a wonderful accomplishment, a state of human relations in which all human beings treat each other as brothers and sisters. The real brotherhood of man would mean an end of war, a minimum of deprivation throughout the world, an upsurge in the benevolent sciences and a host of other wonderful benefits. It would really be a magnificent achievement for the human race. It can never be achieved by any purely human plan. The brotherhood of man can never be anything more than an impossible dream until we first acknowledge that its success depends on our acceptance of the fatherhood of God. A brotherhood of man based on the fatherhood of God would be good in lasting and it is possible. Prayer is the means through which it might be accomplished. Through prayer we acknowledge our dependence on our Heavenly Father. Through prayer we can turn seemingly impossible dreams into actuality. And when you pray, pray together as a family and you'll be strengthening the bonds of kinship in your own home as well. But the family that prays together stays together.  From Hollywood Family Theatre has brought you The Promise starring John Payne and Bonita Granville. Elizabeth Scott was your hostess. Others in the cast were Norman Field, Tudor Owen and Leo Cleary. This radio adaptation of Mildred Cram's Beloved Story was by James Roach. Music was composed and conducted by Harry Zimmerman and the production was directed for Family Theatre by Joseph F. Mansfield. This is Tony LaFranco expressing the wish of Family Theatre that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home and inviting you to join us next week when Family Theatre will present Walter Brennan and Gigi Perot in The Land of Sunshine. Join us, won't you? Family Theatre is broadcast throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studio to the world's largest network. This is The Mutual Broadcasting System.


Hey guys, Brian here from freesalanaeducation.com with step 5, your 14 steps to becoming a better hair colorist. Today, I wanted to go over a little bit of the foundations of foiling. Not going to get into any crazy placements or anything like that because I trust all of you to take the knowledge that you have and create that yourself. I just wanted to go over a little bit of the understanding of why and when we bring foiling into our toolbox of hair coloring techniques. First off, I think you need to understand that the point of foiling is to segregate and or incubate any hair that you want to color or lighten. It keeps it away from the other hair and it will help if you're using lightener just to give it that little bit of warmth and that incubation that you're going to need to really amp it up and get that nice bright tone. There are two ways to go about placing the foil into the head. There is the slicing technique and then there's the weave. It took me a second. It's the visual that helps. The weave technique and the slice technique. The slice is going to come out more like a sheet of blonde and the weave is obviously going to be a nice woven, more of a sporadic, banded effect through the head. I wanted to show you guys just a couple of the ways that I like to make sure that my foils are in there nice and secure because I do a lot of coloring in between my foils so I've found that this method of placing the foil in the hair is going to lock it into place really well so that you can move that foil back and forth without worrying about it sliding. When applying foils to the head you're going to want to always start from the bottom of your panel towards the top because that way any hair, you won't have to worry about your previously done foils getting in your way. If they're at the bottom then it's out of the way so that we can go ahead and move on to the next section. As we move up here we bring our section down keeping in mind that however much hair you put into the foil obviously is how much lighter that hair is going to be if you're using lightener. What I mean by that is if you foil over 50% of the head then over 50% of the hair is going to become lighter and you're going to have a greater shift in their natural base color when you're done. So we're going to come, use your tool, I like a chopstick whether you prefer to use a chopstick, foil comb, kitchen knife, I don't know, whatever makes you feel best. We're going to take that section, I bring my foil in, lift that section up nice and high because that's going to allow you to get right into that root so that you can get that foil as close as possible, pull down, remove the tool and then you can see you've got that foil right in up against the scalp so that when that you won't have to hear from that guest can you get the foils closer next time because you got it as close as it can possibly go. Take your lightener, as you're pulling the hair down taut to hold it up against that foil, I'm going to start around the upper part of the mid shaft and then slowly work my way towards that root making sure not to go overboard or too close to prevent any bleed marks. You're going to apply that all the way down if this is the second time that you're or if this is not the first time that you're highlighting that hair there's a chance that you're not going to need to highlight those ends or want to so I'll come down as far as you want that highlight to come and I like to fold my foils in threes so with those ends not being done I'll lighten down to where that first crease is going to be so here's that first crease I'll pull the hair out of the side lock that down and then I'll fold again bringing it all the way up to the top now that those are lined up we're going to come in lock down those sides and now we're not compromising the integrity of the ends but now that foil is locked in there nice and tight so it can be moved back and forth should you need to move it for coloring in between or just moving it out of your way whatever you need to do so I hope that helps keep in mind you've got a nice round shape so I want to see some really cool techniques that you guys come up with about applying your foils to the head so be sure to subscribe to us on YouTube check us out on Facebook that's where I hope to see your pictures Instagram everything on social media just find us and show us what you guys got thank you very much and stay tuned for step 6 and 14 steps to become a better hair color