For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. India is among the countries where there have been spikes in the number of COVID-19 cases in recent times. This has led to fresh concerns. Will there be a drastic rise in cases again? Is a new wave in the offing? Or are these just isolated and local outbreaks? These developments have also contributed to the debate between COVID-19 being a pandemic or being endemic? What does the future hold in this regard? Immunologists Dr. Satyajit Rath discusses these issues. We have seen over recent days that a number of places in the world here in India, but not simply here in India and many other countries around the world, there are small local growths in COVID-19 case numbers, not simply in COVID-19 case numbers, but also in what has been called the test positivity rates. And people have been asking concernedly, number one, why are these numbers going up locally despite the fact that so many of these communities have been so extensively both vaccinated and or naturally infected? And number two, are any of these optics in numbers likely to prove the harbingers of yet another wave? It's always a little risky to make predictions of this sort, especially when the virus is so widespread that the emergence of a new and extra successful variant strain of the virus still remains a possibility. And even when a new variant emerges, it's the incidental properties of the new variant strain of the virus that will determine what the likely outcomes and the directions of those outcomes can be. None of us will be able to predict that. All bets will be off, as one would say. But in the absence of a new variant or strain emerging, the likelihood is that these small increases in local situations are driven by local consequences. Many of these numbers remain more and more uncertain because testing is not as systematic either in the performance or in the reporting in very many places across the world as it used to be. Test positive rates suffer from something of the same uncertainty. But the fact remains that the virus is widespread. The fact remains that the virus currently belongs to the Omicron lineages of the virus. And the Omicron lineages are quite capable of establishing infection in people who've been vaccinated, as well as in people who were infected in 2020 or 2021. And therefore, spread of infection is not at all severely connected. On the other hand, because it is spreading in vaccinated communities, in vaccinated groups, the rate of transmission, the rate of spread is still relatively low. And the outcome in terms of illness is relatively mild. However, we need to keep in mind that this mild outcome of the Omicron lineages is not a consequence of the virus biology itself. It's not as if the Omicron strain always causes mild illness. It's much more that because it is spreading amongst vaccinated communities, and because vaccination protects against severe illness, what we are seeing is mostly mild infections. So let this not be seen as, oh, the virus is evolving into a mild version. The virus is causing mild infections in the main because we have been vaccinated. What that means is that the unvaccinated, underprivileged communities, especially in the global south at large, still remain at some substantial risk of severe illness beginning to grow in those communities, as and when the Omicron lineages spread amongst them. That said, these numbers are unlikely, these local increases are unlikely to grow into really large waves, as it were, in the absence of a new variant. What all of this is beginning to be interpreted as is that in very many places, senior figures in health authorities are beginning to describe this as we have made the transition from epidemic to endemic stage. While this is not incorrect, there are two reservations about the way that this is commonly phrased that I think public health activists across the world must keep in mind. The first is the transition from an epidemic to an endemic stage is not an epidemic today, endemic tomorrow transition. It's a slow and uncertain transition that will take place over time that it will not be easy to make a simple decision that, oh, until last month it was in epidemic stage, but from this month onwards, it is in pandemic stage. And that is because the explosive growths and controls of the epidemic stage will become numerically smaller and smaller and more and more spread out over time so that it will eventually settle into an endemic stage where the ups and downs are relatively shallow, are relatively widely spaced. That transition is much more likely to be certainly seen looking backwards and saying, oh, until six months ago, we still had measure out breaks of the epidemic kind, but now we seem to have settled into an endemic stage. Number one, number two, this transition is going to happen locally. So it's going to happen at different times in different places, suddenly in different countries and even within countries, especially in large countries in Brazil, in India, this is going to happen in different places within countries at different times. But even more importantly than that, we are beginning to think about the epidemic to the endemic transition as a way of saying the risk is over, the epidemic is over, we can go back to life as it was lived in 2019. And this would be a fallacy. One aspect of this fallacy is visible when we see that these local increases in numbers are driven by the fact that physical distancing has been largely abandoned, particularly for, to give an Indian example, particularly in urban metropolitan India, where in Delhi and its surrounding regions numbers and test positive rates of growing, because masks have been abandoned, any attempts at physical distancing have been largely abandoned. And we see the consequences of that in rates of transmission, rates of test positivity, infection numbers, and even hospitalization numbers beginning to grow up to a certain extent. This is therefore something of a concern. And therefore, so long as the virus does not globally settle down into a some degree of stable endemicity, physical distancing measures, focus on the virus, focus on non-pharmaceutical interventions is necessary. The second and the last point about this is that the transition from epidemic to endemic stage simply means that the crisis mode interventions in public health and critical care facilities that the epidemic stage demands will have receded over time. The broader, more integrated public health and policy responses that the epidemic has thrown up remain viable, valid, and of urgent concern, even in the endemic stage, except that now our responses to SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 infection must also encompass and incorporate all the other endemic infections, the tuberculosis, the influenza, the malaria, that in crisis mode, epidemic situations we've been ignoring. I think that for all of us in public health activism, it is essential in endemic stage COVID-19 situations to begin to demand an integrated public health policy response.


The points that you're raising about sort of the similarity of the argument made by the documentary and made by Coleman, what I found persuasive about Radley's rebuttal to this was that both your argument and the documentary were a bit asymmetrical in terms of presenting the extent of training that Derek Chauvin likely was exposed to. And so like, you're raising these questions of like, could there have been other contributing factors to Floyd's death? Was there confusion about, what he was supposed to do in that situation? But then Radley goes into great detail about this issue of positional asphyxia, which apparently is a well-known problem among police departments. He embeds a 2013 NYPD training video, which we wanna play a little bit of just so our viewers can get a sense of what the mainstream theory is as to why George Floyd died in that position. Whether or not Derek Chauvin's knee was on his neck or between his shoulder blades, it's more about the position that he was put in for several minutes. So let me just play a little bit of that video. And then I'd like to get you to respond to the idea that you kind of left this out of the argument. I'm Dr. Charles Hirsch. I'm the chief medical examiner of the city of New York. We first have to have a basic concept of the mechanics of respiration. And I'm gonna show that to you with some graphic material. To begin with, the process of breathing in is accomplished by increasing the size of your chest. You do that in two ways. First, by raising your ribs, and secondly, by contracting your diaphragm. When a person is face down on the street, in order to raise their ribs, they have to lift the weight of their body. Furthermore, if you're face down and your abdomen is compressed, it raises the abdominal contents and makes it more difficult for your diaphragm to contract. If, in addition to your own weight, you have someone else kneeling or laying on your back that increases the amount of weight that you have to raise in order to increase the size of your chest. The greater the weight resting on the individual's back and the more severe the degree of compression, the more difficult it is for them to breathe in. What happens then occasionally is that the individual begins to have air hunger and oxygen deficiency. The natural reaction to that is to struggle more violently. The perception of those persons trying to subdue the individual is that he needs more compression to be subdued. You then enter a vicious cycle in which compression makes air hunger, air hunger makes a greater struggle and a greater struggle demands greater compression. So that kind of seems like the most straightforward explanation as to what happened here. And that was from more than 20 years ago, implying that this is a well-known problem among police departments. Isn't that fairly damning of Chauvin's behavior and why was that not included in your argument? So in my argument, I'll read it right here. I said, it's not unreasonable to think that Chauvin's actions caused the death of Floyd. That's close to, or rather, caused Floyd's labored breathing. I mean, that's close to an exact quote from my piece. I said, it's not unreasonable. And the reason I said that is because it's not the defense's burden to disprove that positional asphyxia kilton. It's the prosecution's burden to say that there is no other reasonable explanation other than explanations that implicate Chauvin's actions. Now, I'm going to give you a reasonable explanation that doesn't implicate physical pressure from Chauvin onto Floyd. And that would be Dr. Andrew Baker's explanation for his death. Now, before I get to that, let me just deal with the manner of death versus cause of death issue. So, Radley, you fault me for not mentioning that the manner of death Dr. Baker found was homicide and rather only talking about the cause of death. And you're saying your piece, I think that the manner of death is a legal determination and cause of death is medical. Baker actually says the opposite twice in his testimony, but you may be using those words differently. So I assume you're using those words differently than he is. But what Baker meant to convey by that is saying manner of death is irrelevant to the legal determination of homicide. He actually says they belong to two different worlds entirely, right? Cause of death, however, is entirely relevant because it's an element of the crime. In order for Chauvin to be convicted, Chauvin's actions had to be not just a but for cause, but according to the jury instructions, a substantial cause, which is a somewhat higher bar. And Baker's explanation of cause of death, which he explained multiple times in his testimony was that when you combined Floyd's preexisting conditions, 90% constricting of one artery, 75% constricting of another, you combine his already weakened system to begin with, with the adrenaline caused by the arrest, his heart and lungs stopped working. So that explanation does not include physical pressure from Chauvin as a but for or a substantial cause of his death. That is also a reasonable explanation of what killed Floyd. So in the context of a criminal trial, that is exculpatory or ought to be. That isn't what he says. What he says in the cause of death is, quote, that it was cardiopulmonary arrest, his heart and lungs stopped working. I'm talking about his testimony when he elaborated. Law enforcement, subdural restraint and net compression. He talks about restraint and net compression in the cause of death, in the actual autopsy report. Also, I wanted to bring this up earlier. I do think it's deeply misleading to talk about Baker's autopsy as the only complete autopsy to contrast it to the one done by the Medecuzans hired by Floyd's family, which I agree was flawed, but then not to include in your piece that Baker himself determined that the cause of death, or excuse me, the manner of death was homicide and that he testified for the prosecution. Both of those things don't, neither of those things appear in your piece. You sort of build him up as the sort of reasonable, sensible antidote to public hysteria about Derek Chauvin but you don't mention that he did say it was a homicide and he did testify for the prosecution. Baker explained in his testimony, as I said, that manner of death is irrelevant to the legal determination of homicide. He said they belong to, quote, two different worlds entirely. Okay, so. Okay, I understand you said that. Whereas the reason I talked about cause of death and didn't include manner of death is because cause of death is literally an element of the crime. That's what's germane here. And when you- We also say that positional asphyxia is mentioned in the autopsy report, which is also irrelevant. Sorry? You also say that positional asphyxia is not mentioned in the autopsy report, which pretty strongly suggests that you are arguing that positional asphyxia was not a potential cause of death here. No, that's not an accurate inference at all. Again- Why would you say it wasn't mentioned in the autopsy report if you didn't want people to think it wasn't a possible cause of death? Okay, why would I want them to draw that inference but then elsewhere say in my essay, it's not unreasonable to think that Chauvin caused his labor breathing? You're failing to understand again that my whole piece is from the perspective of reasonable doubt.  I'm not claiming to have a truth here. I'm claiming that in the context of a criminal trial, the presence of a reasonable explanation is itself exculpatory because of the asymmetric task assigned to the prosecution and defense.  Like the entire concept of it as I see it is to challenge two components of the traditional media narrative about George Floyd's death. I feel like you're doing a little bit of this like throwing your hands up, plausible deniability type thing. No, no, can I clarify this because- Yeah, please. I've talked to, most people who have been to law school who read my piece understood it completely differently than how many others understood it because they're trained to think in terms of reasonable doubt. So when I say things like, it's not unreasonable that Chauvin caused his breathing, but it's also not unreasonable that his breathing was caused by this, people who are sensitized to think in terms of reasonable doubt understand exactly what I'm saying. I'm not actually definitively ruling between these two things, but the presence of multiple explanations can accept multiple reasonable explanations is itself exculpatory in our system. Whereas other people take me to be arguing for the second of those two interpretations as a definitive truth, which is not the defense's burden. I think it's close to the standard of self-reversing to say most people who went to law school read your piece differently. I talked to a lot of lawyers who were not at all happy about your column. Also, there's the other component here, which is- They may not have been, but they certainly didn't, they certainly wouldn't fault me for coming from a perspective of reasonable doubt. The other thing that's a little bit ironic here is that I don't think the free press exactly brands itself as the publication only to be read by those who have attended law school and successfully received their JD, right? That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not saying that it is, but I am saying that you're writing to a general audience. And so, I wonder whether people should be faulted for taking it as one thing. And you're saying, well, really, there's a misunderstanding here where a general audience, yes, they're not quite getting what I'm after, but those who have attended law school do understand what I'm getting after. And it's like, well, wait a second, and it's possibly not a successfully done piece if the vast majority of people perceive it as one. I wouldn't say the vast majority of people perceived it in the way that you're perceiving it. I guess I don't know what percentage of the free press's readers have gone to law school, but I thought it was a little bit more of a general audience publication. In fact, I thought it was a little bit of an antidote to sort of the elitism of the mainstream media, right? So again, my pointing out that positional asphyxia, I don't think I've said positional asphyxia wasn't in the autopsy, right? I said asphyxia in general. My reason for pointing that out, which is the genesis of this sidebar here, is that obviously asphyxia doesn't need to necessarily have signs on a corpse, right? Someone can die of asphyxia without there being signs of asphyxia, but in the context of a criminal trial again, where it's not a 50-50 debate and the defendant is presumed innocent, then it is relevant in the context of a criminal trial that the only complete autopsy ever done turned up no evidence of it. The entire burden is on the prosecution to prove that things happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So here's the context. Here's the thing, positional asphyxia does not leave signs. I didn't say positional asphyxia, I didn't say positional. I know you didn't, because my guess is that you weren't aware of positional asphyxia before you wrote this. No, I very much was.  It's what's promoted in the documentary. It's what lots of Chauvin promoters have said online over and over again. I only centered on that because it was the center of the media narrative. Okay, but that isn't what was argued at trial. Why wouldn't, if the point is that Chauvin didn't give it a trial, why wouldn't you argue that it was also about the public conversation and public understanding of what happened? Okay, well, you're really interacting between the two. Bradley, could you explain that? Because I found your kind of historical digression into this term called Birking, very revelatory or illuminating in terms of understanding why putting pressure on someone's back or neck in that way would not necessarily show up in an autopsy. Could you explain that a little bit for the people who haven't read your piece? Yeah, so positional asphyxia is this idea that you can die of suffocation or of lack of oxygen or of a spike in CO2 without someone pressing on your windpipe or without someone physically sort of restricting your airways, if your diaphragm is restricted in a way that you can't inhale deep enough for the air to get deep into your lungs or the sacs called the alveoli exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide, you can die of suffocation relatively quickly. And so when I, I mean, you can't cover police issues and not be aware of positional asphyxia. So I knew about that, but I didn't know about the history. And there's a term called Birking that's used to describe this process. And it goes back to 19th century Scotland. These two guys were selling cadavers to medical schools for dissection. And originally they were doing it by digging up graves, which is also illegal, but the medical schools kind of looked the other way. But then they discovered that they could, it was a lot easier to just kill people and sell them the bodies. And the way they did it is, they would wait for the bars to close and wait for drunk people to come stumbling out.  And within a few minutes, the person couldn't breathe.  But if you have that combined with the pressure on your back, you can't inhale deep enough to actually get oxygen into your system. And so this term called Birking has become kind of shorthand for this type of positional asphyxia. And by the way, I mean, positional asphyxia is not controversial outside of a police custody context. Kids have died of positional asphyxia in car seats, people in accidents or falls. If you fall in a way that your diaphragm is restricted and you can't dislodge yourself from that position, it's not an uncommon way to die. What's happened in police custody issues, and this is one of the things that really, I think columns like Coleman's can be destructive is that there's been this concerted effort on the part of law enforcement groups in particular acts on the company of the mixed taser to kind of wave away positional asphyxia as a possible cause of death for in custody deaths. And instead, excuse me, they promoted this condition called excited delirium, which has no real basis in science. And it's been long disputed, it's never been endorsed by the American Medical Association or the World Health Organization. But there's this concerted effort from this network of researchers paid by acts on to excuse in custody deaths by positional asphyxia as excited delirium. And excited delirium is this really broad condition that includes dozens of symptoms that you can sort of just pick and choose from. And it's become really destructive. And it's not just that it excuses officers like Chauvin after the fact, it's that it's sort of a preemptive way. They're trying to sort of get to the point where police don't even have to guard against these deaths, they don't have to move people into the recovery position because these people argue that positional asphyxia isn't a thing that it doesn't, it isn't a way that people die in police custody. And so it's basically a recipe for more deaths, more deaths that could have been prevented. And that's where I think, this documentary is particularly dangerous because it advances this idea. And I mean, look, I know I'm rambling here, but if you look at, for example, the excited delirium training that MPD gave its officers, it includes a photo of the incredible Hulk, right? Because excited delirium, two of the symptoms are superhuman strength and imperviousness to pain. Now that is an invitation for police to use more and more excessive force. I don't know what is. Now they also taught that suspect should be rolled over under their side and they also do teach positional asphyxia. But when you have these two competing theories of excited delirium and positional asphyxia, and police can sort of choose from one and one's clearly legitimate and one isn't, I think it's dangerous to spread the idea that positional asphyxia is not a common way for people to die in police custody. Okay, I think I have one point in here. So as I've said before, it is not unreasonable to think that Floyd died of positional asphyxia. But it's also not unreasonable. And I want, I'd like to get a really direct response about this to think that he died of Baker's full explanation. So yes, the top line cause, Baker says, you know, law enforcement, subdual, so on and neck or strain and so forth. And when asked to expand on what that meant, multiple times in his testimony, he said that he believes the arrest led to an adrenaline surge, right? The arrest and the struggle led to an adrenaline surge which taxed Floyd's cardiopulmonary system and led him to expire. The adrenaline was the sense in which the law enforcement subdual caused as a, and he used the analogy of, you know, taking heart medication and being allergic to it. So caused in that sense, in the sense that it wouldn't cause in a normal person the death. So this is an explanation. This is another reasonable explanation that does not include the physical, the level of physical pressure being applied by Chauvin. Except when Baker was specifically asked about positional asphyxia, he said that he would defer to pulmonologists on that matter, that he wasn't qualified to make that diagnosis, which, you know, I think is a very humble and good thing for a medical examiner to admit. And this is one of the things I point out is that this, you know, I think Coleman and other people are right and that Chauvin was treated differently than most police officers are in these cases. But he was treated differently in the sense that they did bring in pulmonologists. They did bring in experts beyond the medical examiner. They consulted with people because they, there was a lot of public pressure to get to the truth in this case. Okay, but was there, what was there, it should get that doesn't, what's relevant when the bar is raised to reasonable doubt is, is there another reasonable explanation? Okay. And was there evidence, persuasive evidence presented at trial that ruled out as a reasonable explanation, the idea that the arrest and the struggle caused an adrenaline surge, which killed Floyd. I don't think there was. Well, one, yes, one medical examiner mentioned the adrenaline surge. He also did not rule out positional asphyxia and other witnesses said, again, that's not the standard in a criminal trial. In a criminal trial, when you have multiple reasonable explanations and you've concluded that they're all reasonable, you have the guy, the only guy that did the autopsy saying it was the adrenaline from the struggle mixed with the underlying conditions. Well, that is supposed to be a set of facts, which is exculpatory on the issue of causation, which was not just but for causation, but substantial causation. Okay, so I don't think there's a, I don't think that there's a great counterargument to this point. The fact that he wasn't an expert in positional asphyxia doesn't rule out that his explanation was also reasonable and did not involve physical pressure and physical weight as a but for a cause from Chauvin. But he didn't say that was a but for a cause. What he said was that in his, but for what he found in the autopsy, but he also said he wasn't qualified to make a determination on what actually killed him, that he would defer to a pulmonologist on the issue of positional asphyxia. You're interpreting Baker's refusal to diagnose positional asphyxia as him ruling it out. I'm not, I'm not, no, no, no, no. It's not for the defense to rule out positional asphyxia. That's not the defense's burden. The defense can admit positional asphyxia is reasonable. I'm saying the medical examer that you're quoting didn't rule it out. I'm talking about from the perspective of a jury, not from Baker's perspective. The jury has now received a reasonable explanation from the guy that did the explanation. No, you're saying it's a reasonable explanation. You don't think it's a reasonable explanation that the adrenaline taxed the cardio. You don't think Baker's explanation was reasonable?  I think he's saying that that was... Well, that's his leading theory. That is his leading theory. Oh, he was explaining what he found in the initial autopsy report. But then after he read, he looked at the videos, he determined that it was a homicide. And so you're taking one very, just like you did with the training on the MRT, you're taking one point of his testimony that came during defense questioning and sort of giving it much more... No, no, I'm not. Well, the jury... I'm really not. Which really gave it more, it didn't find it reasonable. Oh, well, that's a circular argument. Juries can get things wrong. Of course they can. Or else I wouldn't be arguing this. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our show, Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here. And please subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel and the Just Asking Questions podcast feed for notifications when we post new episodes every Thursday.


Spy the quarterback for when he rolls out, we descend him. I mean, dude, we're not going to get any pressure here, boys. Last play of the game, and we decided we just want to take the playoff. Here we go, sap.


We meet again. So the other day, I realized that being short has a lot of disadvantages, but we have a lot of advantages as well. And you know, I feel like all of us always look at the bad side, but we don't talk about the good parts. Here are some of the things I've experienced that made my life better because of being short. Number one, crowds. Every time you take a group picture, they will always put you in the front. Always.  And you're watching a game, which I don't really do because I'm not sporty. Usually they let you go with the front because you can see better. Number two, clothes. 90% of the time, all shops will have your size. And if they don't, you can go to the kid's store and guess what? They're cheaper and I've done that before. I can look at my wardrobe and I can still find things that I've worn in fourth grade that still fit me to this day. And this, this is my sister's. She's 25. I feel like everyone's learning like secrets. Number three, you live longer.  But slowly, like some guy can be six foot and their knees be really bad because they have so much weight to be put on. And I'm five, four. So I'm right below the level. Number one, number one, two, three, number four, hide and seek. Look at your friend group and tell me how many of them can fit in lockers. I can fit in a locker. I'm the best at hide and seek. I will always win. I can go under my bed at times. I've gone under desk. I've gone inside like safes. Boy, that looks like a pretty big safe, but you get my point. You will be excellent at hiding if you're short. Number five, your house. If you are short, name one time when you said, I can't fit on my bed. I can't fit on this couch. I can't fit on a chair. Never happens. This bed, I've been in this bed since I was five. I'm still inside it today. My chair was my dad's and now it's mine because I'm the tallest in my family. Shoes who needs them. You don't grow at all. You have the same size. We save money guys. Take notes. Number six, trigger treating. If you're really short and you have a baby face, I can swear to you, people will think you're 10. If I really want to go trigger treating when I'm 18, I will, but I'm probably going to be at parties. But still, you can abuse that power. You have a right to cause you're short. But if you're 50 years old, that's kind of weird. So maybe you shouldn't, okay? Number seven, seat room. If you're in a car, on a bus, on a plane, on a train, whoo, that rhymed. You will always have room. I can sleep on a bus.   You get to see your friends bump their head. Number seven, your significant other. Some people have purposes that they want their boyfriend or girlfriend to be taller than them. And I have that. And the good thing is 90% of the boys are taller than me. And I remember when I was really little, I worried about being tall because like, oh, I have to be taller than the girl because that's a stereotype. Now that I'm gay, it doesn't matter. Also, short people are going to be really good at hugging because perfect fit.  Those are the perfect ones. And lastly, number nine, and I don't have another one because I can't think of one, crowd weaving or swerving through people. I'm in middle school. We had breezeways. So everyone always went down them and all of them were tall. As a short person, you look three seconds ahead and you plan out how you're going to weave through people and you always get to your class on time. And it's a skill you learn when you go into cities and there's a lot of people there downtown finding your friend after like a football game and everyone's going out and getting lost. And then you don't know where your parents are.  So yeah, those are a couple of the perks of being short. And yes, there's disadvantages and that can be another video.  And subscribe because I post videos every Saturday and now I do daily live streams daily. I love you guys and everything is less than three. Okay? Okay? Watch. I can make this like really, really bright. Oh.


our 2011 where SiliconANGLE.com is checking out all the news around the web here, but we're live at HB Discover with theCUBE, our flagship telecast where we go to the events, go on the ground, talk to the smartest people, executives, bloggers, thought leaders, whoever has the smartest knowledge that we can extract and share that with you, that's our goal, and we're here with David Scott and Carl Eschenbacher. Welcome to theCUBE. Thank you, John. David Scott, Senior Vice President of the Storage Group, formerly the CEO of 3PAR. Great to be here, John. Godfather of thin provisioning, which everyone copied, and Dinah here, what's next, and Carl, you're the co-president, recently part of the promotion of all the new president, co-president role at VMware. That's accurate, thank you. Welcome. You guys were having a meeting before you came on. Can you tell us what you were talking about? Plans.  We are, yeah.  So this should be fun. So VMware, actually, at VMworld, we were at theCUBE there, it was our first big production that we had, kind of continuous multi-day coverage. And Paul laid out his plans for what is essentially a cloud operating system from what we were analyzing it. And you guys have,


Start off with what your name is and where you are from. Okay, my name is Susana and I'm from Kennewick, Washington. Okay, Susana, can you go ahead and tell us what you, when you came to our church, when did you come to the church and what did you experience when you came to our church? Well, I knew about this church from my brother. I didn't really knew nothing or was interested in knowing anything about it because I grew up with the Catholic family. But, I mean, my family and I started noticing a lot of good changes on him, positive changes. So, one time, I did tell them, I was like, hey, you know, I'm kind of interested in knowing more about your church. And this past summer, we were talking about it. And he actually told me, you know, you should come one of these days. And I'm like, yeah, you know, but that was it. And, you know, we didn't talk about it, you know, after that.   And ever since I've been coming to church. Wow. So, let me get this straight. So, the person who invited you was brother Luis, right? He invited you to church and, you know, first you were kind of like, oh, I don't know, but then you started noticing positive changes in him, his personal stuff, his lifestyle has changed from the way he was living. And so then you said, you know what, maybe I should come to church. I want to see what this is all about. Is that correct? Okay. When can you say that you decided, you know what, this is it. I want to serve God. I want to live my life according to his word. Well, again, you know, for my brother, just seeing him, the first day that I came here, I did feel like weird because, I mean, not knowing anybody, but just seeing him, how the body he was praying, preaching, it got me very emotional, especially, you know, I get emotional when it comes to my family.  I'm like, no, you know, I can't do it.    He died for us. He forgave all of our sins. He baptized us into his family. And he's leading us into, you know, he's learning more about his gospel. So that following week, when I came again, I was nervous. And yeah, my heart was pounding. It was beating really fast. And I just said, you know, I want the same thing as my brother could do it. You know, I want, I want the same feeling as my brother's having. Okay.  I'm going to serve him. How has your life, would you say, can you tell everybody, how has your life changed ever since that day, ever since you started coming more often? Well, growing up in, with the Christian family, it has made a lot of changes, especially because this church has made me feel loved and acceptance. I mean, everybody is just amazing.  I've seen a lot of, you know, good changes in my life, you know, not only me, but also in my family. And it's just an amazing feeling. Yes, that is good. One last question before we let you go is, what are your plans, maybe your goals that you have set maybe for yourself to say, you know, that you want to do maybe in church, that you want to get involved with, maybe that has, maybe that's aligned with the vision of our church. What are your goals? My goals is to get closer to Jesus, to feel closer, to learn more, to study the Bible, to meet new people, and just encourage them to come to church.


This is stock number 10446. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and use heavy-duty truck and RAM headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2014 RAM 2500 crew cab short box. This truck has a 6.7 liter Cummins diesel and from this HD video you will be able to tell that this truck is extremely clean all the way around. This one has been fully safety and inspected by our server shop. Has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off. This truck is 100% ready to go. Black clear coat is the color we shoot all of our videos in 1080p, 60 frames per second. So if you have HD capabilities on your computer, tablet, or smartphone device, turn them on right now because it is like you're right here looking at the truck with me. And definitely your best way to check out the vehicle quality and condition wise before seeing it in person. If you want to check out more pictures of this truck in the upper right hand part of your screen is a link right to our website. Click that and check us out there. It has 20 inch painted alloy rims with the chrome inserts. Open Country Toyo AT LT30550R20 tires with about, I'd say 80 to 90% of the tread left so lots of good tread left on those tires. It does have a suspension leveling lift kit on it. It has a projector lamp headlamps, the LED running lights. Front bumper is in excellent condition, I didn't see any dents or dings on that. And the hood is in really nice condition, I didn't see any dents on that either. Passenger side fender is in excellent shape. And the passenger side rim, no scuffs or scrapes on there. As you go down this side of the truck you can see just how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror like that paint is. We take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by just cannot make a trip down you can still see the truck, hear the truck and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here. So that when you do get here there's absolutely no surprises. To that effect we offer a Summit Auto Fastpass option in the upper right hand part of your screen, a link where you can apply for financing, get pre-approved, get a payment quote. We're going to praise the trade all right on our website so click that and check us out there. The frame and underbody is exceptionally clean on here and it has all the remaining factory exhaust. You have the wheel to wheel side steps and all the lower rockers look really good. And the back tires have just a little bit less tread than the front tires but I'd say at least 50 to 60% on the back tires and this back rim, no scuffs or scrapes on that. They did put a nice chrome tipped exhaust on here and as we come around to the back of the vehicle rear bumper is in absolutely perfect condition, no dents or dings on that. It does have the backup parking sensors, full towing package which includes receiver hitch, 4 pin and 7 pin wiring and the tailgate's in pretty nice condition as well. It does have a Truxedo soft roll up tonneau cover. I didn't see any rips or tears on that and it does have a spray and bed liner and a gooseneck turn around hitch. It is a Rhino line and it goes all the way on to the tailgate there and it's in really nice condition. Tailgate shuts nice and solidly. It does have a backup camera as well and down this side of the truck just as clean as a passenger side. Just take note of how nice and shiny and reflective that paint is. Very nice condition. I want to give the most accurate representation of the vehicle as possible so when you get here there's no surprises and this back rim is in excellent shape as well. Down the rest of this side of the vehicle, very very clean, didn't see any dents or dings in the doors and it does have the heated fold out tow mirrors. So these fold out like so and they also fold in and as we look inside the vehicle you can see that it has the black leather interior part of the Laramie package. You get the Laramie embossed backrest side current airbags. There are no rips or tears on the seats. Pretty nice condition and memory driver's seat and lumbar. Factory all-weather floor mats throughout, auto headlamps, audio controls on the back of the steering wheel, power windows, power locks and power mirrors. As we hop inside the truck here you can see that this one has 50,794 miles. You get the digital speedometer, outside temperature, compass, time and current MPGs. You can change those corners to whatever you want. Comes with the heated leather wrap steering wheel, cruise controls on the right, Bluetooth and information center controls on the left. You do get the six-speed automatic transmission. This one has the 8.4 3C radio which gives you the factory navigation, AM, FM and serious XM radio capabilities. You can do your heated and cooled seats and heated steering wheel buttons right there. This is also where your backup camera shows up.  What's cool about this radio is if you don't like the buttons up there they got all the controls for your climate down here as well as the heated and cooled seats and heated steering wheel button.  It does have the 115 volt, 150 watt plug-in, passenger side floor mat and seat are in excellent condition, no rips or tears on them and the headliner is in really great shape. You can see it does have the alpine speakers up there, part of the alpine premium sound system and this one does have the power sunroof. Map lights, power slide and rear window and your home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lighting systems. 911 and assist in the rearview mirror and just to show you that it does have the alpine sound system, there's your badge right there. We'll take a quick look at the back seats and then we will check out under the hood. The back seats are just as clean as the front seats, no rips or tears back here.  Power sliding rear window, those seats are in excellent condition. They fold up like so and it does have the load floor which is a nice feature. If you've got pets you can put both sides down, they got a nice flat place to lay. Muddy boots, tools, put them right on there, you're not going to get your nice seats dirty.  Has in-floor storage on each side, one on each side and then these are removable bins for easy cleaning so you can put ice and drinks and stuff in there.  We'll take a quick look under the hood also has the child safety locks in the back doors. I'd personally like to thank you for checking out the video today and hopefully from this HD video you have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around inside and out under the hood much of the same 6.7 liter Cummins diesel engine base very clean runs very smooth this truck has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and topped off the truck has been gone through mechanically 100% and is 100% ready to go. To see more pictures of this truck on one of our other 450 new and used cars trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, halftones, recoder tones, one-tons you name it we got it go to our website www.summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summitauto.com if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there in fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left a link to more heavy-duty truck videos like this one on your right if you have not been to our website on the bottom a link to this vehicle on our website click those check us out and we really look forward to helping you with this super clean 2014 Ram 2500 crew cab short box Laramie Cummins diesel thanks again