If someone was to ask you, obviously, what their earnings were would be the 150, not the 147, right? If they're trying to think of what their compensation. But you can imagine, and in many situations you will have, a case where box one is lower than possibly box three and possibly box five often times. In that case, if someone asks you how much did I actually earn, you don't really want to be representing that with box one. And this gets kind of confusing because people often have issues when they're talking about how much they earn compared to how much possibly their spouses earned and how much tax they should be paying. Versus how much their tax, their spouse is paying because the tax rates are being kind of manipulated based on both of their income. That becomes an issue. And when they're working at their job, they need to know how much they're actually earning because they're going to do comparisons with other people that are earning whatever they're earning. And honestly, sometimes because of the complication with the way things are set up, people start to think, well, box one is my earnings. And so they're not taking into consideration the fact that they're earning more than that because you're getting compensation in the form of benefits, right? And the reason that you get the benefits is because you get a tax break on it. So it's actually you're getting more compensation because of the benefits. So really kind of box five is more closer to your actual wages. And it's good if there's a big difference between box five and box one because that means you're taking substantial advantage of benefits, which are giving you those benefits plus a giant tax break on the benefits, right? So it gets kind of messy. Obviously taxes kind of messy, make everything more messy. But let's enter something like this. So this might look something like this. So this usually happens for a higher income individual, of course. So now we're going to say box one says 140,000, right? That's what box one said. And then box two is 35,000. So I'll say, OK, 35,000. And then box three is Social Security, which it capped it capped for us once again at 140,000. It should be 140,000. But that's not right because this box is low due to the fact that we put money into the, I'm going to say that's a retirement plan. So I'm going to say, all right, so 140,000. So I have to actually manually input now 147,000. It couldn't guess the right number. Tried to guess, but it's not right because of that difference. Now that I've input that it calculates the Social Security properly because it's 6.2% of whatever the Social Security wages are. And then on the Medicare, we're at 150,000. So again, it can't really guess that number. It's taking the larger of the two, but it's really 150,000. And so now once I input that, it can calculate the Medicare because the Medicare is just a flat rate based on those. And so then we got in 12, box 12, you'll often see these little letters and you can look at the instructions for the W2. And that'll be, I believe, by a 401k plan. So if I go into like box 12, I'm going to say D, there's the 10,000. And that's kind of an informational thing saying this is why there's a difference between box one, the wages for the federal income tax and the wages for the Medicare because there's that $10,000 difference. Why is the Social Security different? The Social Security is different because it got capped at the $147,000 and possibly the reduction of the $10,000 from the federal income tax we're saying isn't a reduction for Social Security. So it got capped at the $147,000 because it would have been $150,000 then if it's not going to be decreased by that $10,000 like the federal income tax. But then it got capped at the cap for Social Security $147,000. There is no cap for Medicare. So it's at the $150,000. So you can see how this gets a little bit messy, but most of the time the W2 is populated properly. So we don't have any really issue over here. We're just really kind of calculating the federal income tax type side of stuff. Okay, so I won't put that back on over into the other form right now. I'll just run a different scenario just so we can see an example of where a problem could happen. Notice that I hit the cap here at the $147,000 with this 1W2 income. But what if they worked at two separate jobs, then you're going to have a situation where they could go over the Social Security cap. So let's say we had this W2 and then this W2 for the same person. Then they're going to have overpaid on the Social Security wages if I combined them together. So for example, I'm going to go back on over and say I have a single individual, a second W2, W22. And then this one was $40,000. And we're going to say that we withheld, let's say $4,000 we said. So $4,000 withheld. Now the issue is the total of the two Social Securities are over the cap for an individual which should be $147,000 at the cap. So that means we overpaid the tax on the Social Security by this $40,000 times the $6.2 or the $2,480. So if I go back on over then and I try to look at this, I'm going to say, okay, the first page looks like normal. But then if I go to the second page, I'm going to say, okay, the tax was calculated, okay, boom. But then I've got this item down here, a amount from Schedule 3, Line 15. Schedule 3 is now populated, Line 15. So I'm going to say that Line 15 is going to be, boom, that's going to be AdLines, Line 15 from right here, from Line 11, excess Social Security. So if you see W-2s that have large dollar amounts in them and then you see multiple W-2s for one individual, it's likely that they paid more into the Social Security than they should have because they paid over the cap. So that's not going to happen all the time. It's only going to happen when you have high income people that are basically working as employees and they have multiple places that they're working for that you might see that happen. Notice the software can help to catch that kind of thing from happening, which is great. But we would like to be able to intuitively see when that would happen and you get an intuitive sense. Well, the people are making a lot of money. I expect something like that to happen because there's two W-2s and they're high income earners, so they might go over the Social Security limit. And then when the software does do it, you want to be able to double check it and say, ah, you shouldn't just be like, well, the software does whatever the thing does. You know, you'd like to be like, well, why did that happen so that we can know what happened? And also we should be able to explain that line item to a client. So we might dive more into that when we get into Social Security in a future presentation. Now, obviously you could, if you are a single individual, you might have multiple W-2 wages and it gets messy as well when you got different kinds of income. W-2 income, dividend income, interest income, Schedule C income, Schedule E income and stuff. So we'll get into more complex tax returns later, but those can complicate things in different areas such as the Social Security, for example, because if you have self-employment income, which is a Schedule C, then you also are paying Social Security on self-employment. And if you also have W-2 income, you've run into that similar kind of situation. Now, if you have a married couple, it's quite likely that you have W-2s from the two married couple. So in that situation, it becomes relevant. We have to actually assign out oftentimes which spouse the W-2s are going towards, because now you have two different people, although married, that are paying in to do two different Social Security funds. That's one reason we still have to kind of track their income separately so that the proper amounts are being allocated to the Social Security. And if one person paid over on the Social Security, we can see that. So let's see an example. Let's put them in a married couple. Okay, so now I have married filing joint. So we've got Mr. Anderson and Jane Anderson. Why do I have a checkbox up here? And then I'm going to go down. And so now I've got that same 180,000, the same scenario with those two W-2s. But now the standard deduction is 25.9. So instead of the 12.9.50, and then on page two, tax is calculated. I've got the federal income tax withheld. But the point I want to make here is that this 2004-80 is still there. Why? Because even though married, I assumed both those W-2s I indicated on the software that they were for one spouse instead of two spouses. Now if those two W-2s were for two spouses, then I wouldn't have an issue with that overpayment, right? So now I'm going to say, okay, these two W-2s were for the same spouse. What if this second W-2 was for another spouse? You're the spouse!


Good afternoon. I'm David Farrier, the Archivist of the United States, and it's a pleasure to welcome you to the William G. McGowan Theater here at the National Archives today, whether you're here in the theater with us or joining us through our Facebook or YouTube channels, and a special welcome to our C-SPAN audience. Before we hear from Dr. Jeremy Brown about his new book Influenza, The Hundred-Year Hunt to Cure at the Deadliest Disease in History, I'd like to tell you about two other programs happening this month in the McGowan Theater. On Friday, March 8th at noon, Tina Cassidy will talk about her new book, Mr. President, How Long Must We Wait, which explores the complex relationship between notable suffragist Alice Paul and President Woodrow Wilson. And on Monday, March 18th at noon, Jesse Morgan Owens tells the story of a photograph that transformed history in her book, Girl in Black and White, the story of Mary Mildred Williams and the abolition movement. Check our website at archives.gov or sign up at the table outside the theater to get email updates. You'll also find information about other National Archives programs and activities. And another way to get more involved with the National Archives is to become a member of the National Archives Foundation. The Foundation supports our education and outreach activities. Visit its website, archivesfoundation.org, to learn more about the Foundation and how to join online. Last November, we marked the centennial of the end of World War I. In November 1918, the people of combatant nations felt relief that the years of warfare and death were over. Yet another threat to life was reaching across those nations into homes and schools and hospitals. The flu. The influenza pandemic of 1918 killed more people worldwide than were killed in combat during the war. Many records housed in the National Archives here in the Washington area and our other many field locations document this outbreak in the United States. Letters, reports, patient record, books, telegrams and photographs show the reach of the 1918 influenza epidemic to all parts of the nation. These records open a window onto the world of 101 years ago and show us the human and societal costs of the pandemic. They allow us not only to look back at that time, but perhaps also to look ahead as the information they contain may help guide present day inquiries and increase our understanding of the disease. Dr. Jeremy Brown is an emergency physician and was the research director in the Department of Emergency Medicine at the George Washington University here in D.C. He is now director of the Office of Emergency Care Research at the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brown is the author of more than 30 peer-reviewed articles and three books, including the Oxford American Handbook of Emergency Medicine and a Handbook on Cardiology Emergencies. He's recently received an NIH Director's Award for his effort supporting research and non-addicting methods of pain relief. Jacob Apple, writing in the New York Journal of Books, says, Brown is clearly a man who knows the flu, not just the physiology and virus or the epidemiology of the illness, but countless fascinating and fun facts about the scourge. And William Bynum, writing in the Wall Street Journal, highlights Brown's emergency room experience. In influenza, he builds effectively on his clinical and scientific career, making the virus itself central to its story. He weaves history and contemporary virology and clinical practice together. Although his story is a somber one, Dr. Brown's account is punctuated by some humor and much avocular advice, like the best time to visit an emergency room, for instance. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Dr. Jeremy Brown. Thank you so much for those kind words. It's not every day you get introduced by the Archivist of the United States. So we're here to talk about influenza and the plague that struck us 100 years ago resonates all the way through till today. As you mentioned, more people were killed in the influenza virus than in the wars. 50 to 100 million people worldwide. Here in the United States, 675,000 deaths, civilian deaths. And of the 116,000 combat casualties, U.S. combat casualties killed in World War I, over half actually died from disease, and that was the majority of that was influenza. It's a sobering thought to think that if you take those statistics and multiply them out by the current population of the United States, those 675,000 deaths would turn out to be about 3 million deaths in today's numbers. So put that into perspective and think what that would be like to live through such a thing. Another way of thinking about it was to put the cause of this, and we're going to come back to this, but back in 1918, there was no known cause. Viruses had actually not been discovered yet. So people were dropping from this disease called influenza, but nobody really knew what it was from, and we're going to return to some of the thoughts that were behind this. I think about that, and I think about the 1980 outbreak of HIV, which was incredibly frightening, and yet we knew that it had to be a virus. It took us three years to identify it, but at least we knew what we suspected that we had a culprit right away. Back in 1918, they had literally had no idea. And one other thing to put this into perspective, as you all know, we're sadly living through an epidemic of a very different kind today. It's the opioid epidemic, which has claimed so many deaths in this country. The news over the last couple of years was actually that the death rate is so high that it has dropped the average life expectancy in the U.S. You may have seen that statistic, but if you look at the average life expectancy, because of the large numbers of deaths of younger people, the average life expectancy has dropped. That's shocking. How much has it dropped by? Well, if you look at the data, it's dropped by one tenth of a year. Now, that's a terrible statistic, but it's one tenth of a year. The 1918 great flu epidemic caused such a large loss of life that it dropped the average life expectancy in the U.S. by 12 years. 12 years, 120 times greater than what we have seen with the current opioid crisis. So again, putting it into some kind of perspective as to what this thing really was. Now, since we're at the archives, I thought it would be fun to actually look at some archival material that actually affects what shows what happens here in the nation's great capital. So this and the following few slides are all from the Washington Post. I think just tell a very brief story of a very much more complicated event. So this is the Washington Post from Saturday, September 14th, 1918. It's not the front page. It tells us that the Spanish influenza was spreading across the U.S. It wasn't really reported yet in the papers in large numbers in Washington, D.C., but it had begun to spread across the U.S. Now, the following day, the Washington Post reported that 90 people had died of influenza in Boston and that the maladies seemed to have been sweeping from east to west. It wasn't actually, it was actually probably started somewhere in the Midwest, but the malady was already sort of ramping up and the very next day they reported that 90 people in Boston had died. These were deaths among soldiers and sailors. The plague builds momentum, more and more people die. And by October the 2nd, on the front page of the Washington Post, we were told that the work hours have changed, that the federal day has been staggered to check the influenza spread and the people are to take shifts. Now, Washington, D.C. was not the only city to do this by any means. In fact, it happened in the most of the cities that were affected. The idea was that if we could stop people from mingling, although we didn't know that it was a virus that was causing this, we did understand somehow that keeping away from people was probably a good idea. So theaters were closed down in some places. Restaurants either closed or staggered their hours. Stores had staggered hours in an attempt to keep people spaced away from each other. So the working hours of the federal government changed around the beginning of October. I talk about this piece of, this reporting in the book, it's a particularly sobering one. And this comes a couple of weeks after that announcement about closures. By October 13, 1918, the Washington Post reported on this headline, the ghoulish coffin trust, that the price of coffins had skyrocketed. And that this was an example of people taking advantage of a terrible situation. In fact, they write, the coffin trust is holding the people of this city of Washington, holding the people of this city by the throat and extorting from them outrageous prices for coffins and disposal of the dead. And in fact, the Washington Post here goes on to suggest that the Department of Justice should step in and instantly put a stop to the high prices of coffins. It cost more to bury your dead because the coffin makers figured they could make a buck. By the middle of October here in Washington, 91 people, more people had died in a short amount of time. And it was suggested that the crest is now in sight. That was actually quite hopeful. There was no evidence of that. But it was hoped that perhaps we're nearing the end of it. Throughout the epidemic, both here and nationally, people of course had various remedies. And this is an example of a remedy that actually played throughout the fall and winter of 1918. And we're going to come back and talk about this, but I want you to remember these words. This is a remedy called laxative bromo quinine. And it contains a laxative. We'll come back to that. It was thought to be very, very helpful in cases of influenza. And quinine, quinine, which is a pill, a medicine that until fairly recently was the go-to medicine for malaria. It's now been superseded by others. But quinine was thought to be helpful in influenza. And so people were making this laxative bromo quinine. I find it interesting that if you look at the beginning, it says the following, as Spanish influenza is an exaggerated form of grip, one of the words of influenza, laxative bromo quinine tablet should be taken in larger doses than prescribed in ordinary grip. So it's a really big epidemic, so you better take a lot of this medicine. And we'll come back and talk about these particular remedies. So these and several others, several other tonics, were advertised both to treat the disease and also, of course, to prevent it. So again, another marketing opportunity for our business is laxative bromo quinine. By December the 8th of 1918, the Washington Post had thought that we were coming to an end and it put this little piece, this little snippet that said that Spanish influenza is more deadly than war. And that is indeed the case. We know that. But what struck me here is the placing of this piece of journalism. It's a back page, page 20, tucked in next to an ad for dining room chairs that the epidemic was more deadly than the war, stuffed in there. Why was this not front page news? What had happened? And there are some various suggestions there. Some believe that there was some kind of tacit agreement, not censorship, but tacit agreement between the newspapers and the government to play this thing down. But if you're going to put a statistic like that, that influenza costs more than the whole of World War I in terms of lives, putting it on page 20 is really not going to, I think, get the attention that deserves. So it's a little bit of a mystery and I'm sure we'll have some very smart archivists who can perhaps shed some more light on why this and other reports were sort of tucked in to the back of the papers. Finally, we hit a record. We had earlier reported that we were nearing the crest here in Washington, D.C. But unfortunately, no. More deaths than any time since the record of last October occurred. 16 deaths from flu in a single day in the city of Washington. Again, this was also tucked away near the real estate and legal record recording. So, again, it was reported. It wasn't hidden. But you'd have to sort of look for this to really understand what was going on. And the final slide I want to share with you of reporting from our, from the Washington Post was on exactly this day, March the 5th, 1919, exactly a century ago. Exactly 100 years ago today. This was a small report that was in the Washington Post that cited two Washington boys who volunteered to go up to Boston and to take part in some experiments that were trying to understand the cause and the methods of transmission. During the recent influenza epidemic, we read men voluntarily submitted to experiments to, for doctors, there's a typo there, naval doctors in determining the cause and method of transmission of the disease and preventative, I guess that's meant to be preventative measures. Now, that's really quite another remarkable side of this story that people would volunteer to be involved in research on this very deadly epidemic that was not understood, and for which there was no cure other than the bromolaxative quinine tablets, which I don't think people really look forward to to cure them. So I think an example of everyday heroism, of people putting their own lives to some degree on the line in order to try and understand what was actually going on, what was this terrible disease. So these are just a few examples from the Washington Post that tell us a little bit about what happened here in Washington DC. I'm just going to switch here to a second slideshow and this one will run itself. So if it all works fine, you'll see some images as we talk through. So for today, what I'd like to do is focus on three areas of research that I describe in the book. The first looks at how our treatments of influenza have evolved. What did we do 100 years ago to treat this terrible, deadly disease and what do we do today? And I think you will find that actually it's changed less than you would have hoped. The second focus is going to be how our understanding of the influenza virus has changed over the last century. What was it that we thought caused influenza 100 years ago and what do we know about that same virus today? And there I think we can all agree there has been an absolute remarkable evolution and leap in our understanding of exactly what's going on. And finally, we're going to look at how we can prevent ourselves from catching the flu in the first place by looking at vaccines, what vaccines were like back then 100 years ago and where we are today and we'll find again that we still have a lot of work to do. So let's start with the treatments. So the treatments were not terribly effective. They included mercury, tree bark, inhaling factory gases. Yes, that actually happened. People were reported in the south of England to be taking their families and their children to local gas works, actually munition factories, where the toxic fumes were thought to somehow reduce the likelihood of getting influenza. Actually, this turns out not to be as crazy as it sounds because many of these gas works actually contain chlorine. Chlorine gas was used during the war and we know that chlorine is a great antiseptic. It kills everything, including people. So very likely the chlorine, in fact, and some work that was done showed that factory workers in these places had influenza at slightly lower rates than other people, probably because, yes, they were inhaling little bits of chlorine and the whole atmosphere was bathed in the chlorine gas and that probably reduced the amount of free virus floating around. So it wasn't a completely crazy thing to take your children to inhale factory gases. There was some upsides of treatment back then. Whiskey was extremely popular as was Champagne. These were prescribed by senior physicians and so not everything was difficult. As we said, enemas were used, enemas actually were used to treat everything. Back then, there was really very little you could do, so an enema was thought to be clean everything out. So enemas were quite popular and one of the most remarkable things is bloodletting. Now, bloodletting is the process by which blood is removed from the body and the thought is that with that removal of the blood, you are taking out the bad humor, the bad thing that is in the blood causing the disease. It dates back to at least the 5th century BC and George Washington was probably killed by bloodletting. As he lay dying from a throat infection, his senior doctors suggested that we let blood. Now, the junior people were less into this idea and there was a little bit of resistance from them, but no, as usual, the senior people won and blood was taken from George Washington as he lay dying on his death, on his bed and he passed out or entered a swoon and it was caused as it was called then and within a few hours he was dead. So our own President George Washington underwent this procedure. The doctors then tried to think about reanimating George Washington by using, and I'm not making this up, sheep's blood.  But what is remarkable to me is that bloodletting was used in the great flu epidemic of 1918 and not just by what we might call quacks today, but this was prescribed by mainstream physicians. And in fact, this was one of the things that sparked my interest in the story of influenza then and now. There's a report in the Lancet, one of the leading medical journals in the world, one of the leading medical journals in the United Kingdom. And if you think about it, the name the Lancet is named after the device, the little hollow tube that you would take blood from. So leading medical journal today is called the Lancet to Remind us of bloodletting. And the report mentions that in 1916, that's two years before this great flu pandemic. There was a there was another pandemic, another epidemic, excuse me, in some of the military camps in Great Britain. And the doctors have tried everything, including they said, including bloodletting. So it was 1916. Now this is the lifetime of my own grandfather. In 1916, physicians were trying bloodletting on these poor patients. And of course, it didn't work. But the physician said, it didn't work. But we think that it didn't work because we tried it too late. And had we tried bloodletting a little bit sooner in the clinical care of these soldiers, that that maybe it worked. And then there were reports in the in 1918, the height of the epidemic of bloodletting. And in fact, the reports were that yes, sometimes bloodletting works for for influenza. So you can see, if it wasn't the enemas that got you, the bloodletting might get you. And it was a really a quite a nasty array of medicines that we had to try and treat this. We saw earlier an ad for concoction that contained quinine we as we've said it was a useful drug for malaria, but useless as a treatment for flu. Because it's a useful drug in malaria, it reduces the the fever cycle. And the idea here was, well, if quinine reduces fevers in malaria, then it will reduce fevers in influenza, obviously to quite different mechanisms of disease. But that was the thought process behind it. But of course, a completely useless drug and incidentally dangerous in inappropriate doses. As I've said, anybody, everyone was prescribed enemas. And one of my favorite discoveries when I was researching the book was from a published paper from I think the grand the grandchildren of a patient who had influenza not in 1918, but in 1936. So 18 years, almost two decades after the great influenza pandemic, the family had preserved the nursing records of grandfather, found them in the attic and actually published them. And I'm going to read a little bit, a passage that describes what this person went through. So over a period of three weeks, he was treated with a punishing battery of barns, mustard plaster, a home remedy rubbed on the skin, aspirin for fevers, codeine for cough, phenolphthalein, a cancer causing laxative, cough medicine, camphorated oil, seven enemas, seven, rectal tubes, don't ask, milk of magnesia, another laxative, God help him, yourotropine, a bladder antiseptic and tincture of benzoin. These were all administered to this patient in 1936. And actually, in the in the paper that was published, you can see the arrows along the timeline where all these various things were given. The patient received at least five prescribed doses of whiskey. So there is at least that and 14 doses of castor oil. Actually, his seven enemas may have been medically necessary, because he was given at least 39 doses of codeine, which suppresses coughing, but also causes constipation. So that's what life was like when you had influenza back 100 years ago or so. What about today? How do we do today? Well, for the vast majority of us, the vast majority of us influenza is a little bit of a an inconvenience. It's not life threatening. And it's something that we generally deal with at home, a friend or a family come round, give us some hot soup. We have a couple of days in bed. And usually that's it. But of course, some of us end up in the emergency department. And over my time as an emergency physician, I got to treat many, many, possibly hundreds who knows, maybe thousands of patients with with influenza over the many years. And there we have things that we didn't have 100 years ago, right? We have an emergency department. We have blood tests that can tell us what's happening. We have x-rays so that we can actually get a real good look at the lungs and see if there's any evidence of secondary pneumonia or even primary pneumonia, we can get people intravenous fluids. Sorry, we can give people intravenous fluids and treat them in that way. And of course, we have antibiotics today. Now let's be very clear, antibiotics should not be given to patients with influenza. They do not work. We all know this, even though they're prescribed unnecessarily often even today, they don't work, but they do work to help treat the secondary infections, the pneumonias, the bacterial pneumonias that come as a result of the primary viral influenza. And we have those antibiotics today. They were not available. They weren't really not available to the early 30s. And it it's a remarkable thing that today we believe that the majority of deaths that occurred in the great flu epidemic were second were caused by secondary pneumonias that we would be able to treat today. So that's good news. We also have other medications to treat fevers, not quite in. We have medications like aspirin or Motrin or Tylenol. But I came across a very interesting study that suggests that perhaps we shouldn't be giving medications for people's fevers quite as often as we do. This was a study out of McMaster University in Canada. And they looked at this a modeling. And they said, what happens if you give tens of thousands of people with the flu some medicine to reduce their fever? Well, many of them will feel better quicker, right? Because having a high fever and shivers and shakes and chills that's miserable, they'll feel better quicker until they'll get out of bed quicker. And what will happen? Oh, they'll come downstairs and cough over their friends and their children and go to work and cough over them. And the suggestion from this group at McMaster University and listen to this was that by treating a fever for patients in, let's say the emergency department, you might increase transmission rates by by about 1% and given the enormity of this disease, they suggested that you might actually get an additional 500 deaths per year in the United States as a result of treating people's fevers. Now, if you come to the emergency department with influenza today, and your doctor sees that you have a fever of 103, and she suggests that you probably shouldn't get some something for your fever because she says, there's a paper from McMaster University that's theoretically, you know, this could increase the death rate by maybe 100. You will probably say, doctor, please give me the medicine. And I know I would. And I know I've prescribed and probably would continue to prescribe something for for people's fevers in the presence of influenza. But there is at least this kind of other way of thinking globally about what we're doing locally and how that might affect transmission and spread. So we have those those medications as well to help us. Then there are some specific medications that treat the flu. Those are namely things like Tammy flu, and the new kid on the block a medication called block severe. These are direct antiviral medications. I'm not going to go into those directly now. Perhaps we can talk about them later. But they're also out there. They probably don't work anywhere near as as efficiently as they should as they've been touted to work. But we'll leave that for later. Alright, so that is the treatment. Enemies, bloodletting, laxatives, whiskey 100 years ago today, the emergency department will stay at home.  And in fact, I opened the book with the story of a young lady, mother young mother of two who came down with influenza extremely quickly. She ended up basically in a matter of hours being medivac from her from her small town to Pittsburgh where she was put heart lung bypass machine for several weeks until she recovered from the flu. I mean, that's the miracle of modern medicine today that clearly was not around 100 years ago. So the treatment. Let's now think about the cause of influenza. What do we know about the cause today? And what did they know 100 years ago? So I think in many respects, this is the most frightening aspect of the great influenza pandemic that they just didn't know what it was caused by. Now there were some suggestions. Among those suggestions included the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. In fact, the conjunction of the planets. In fact, that's where we get the name influenza from. It's from the from the Italian influenza, meaning influence. And the earliest thoughts were in the 15 1600s, or that this disease and it was an entity that you could identify. This disease was caused by something up in the stars. So there was this theory going around and we still have this buried in our history when we refer to influenza today. So perhaps conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn rotting animal carcasses were thought to be one possible explanation. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions were suggested as possible causes. If fluvia of that word if fluvia discharged into the air from the bowels of the earth and people really didn't know what it was. In fact, at a meeting that occurred in Chicago, public health officials early in the influenza epidemic of 1918, one public health official said the following, we may as well admit it and call it germ X. We have no idea said the leading public health officials. We don't know what causes it and where we are now. An example of a cause that was really not a cause was a discovery in 1892 in Berlin by some microbiologists and they found a bacterium on the lung samples of people who had died from the flu. And they said, aha, this must be the cause of the flu because it's everywhere. And they called this bacterium, they called it bacillus influenza, the influenza bacillus. The problem was that it was not the cause of the disease. It was a secondary pathogen that was found. It was a secondary bacteria. And that that that thought that they found that the bacteria and it turned out not to be correct. That happened several, you know, in several different instances in the history of flu. The the bacillus was later changed its name. It was called not bacillus influenza, but haemophilus influenza. And some of you may have heard of haemophilus influenza. It's a nasty bug. Fortunately, we now have very good vaccines against haemophilus. But for many years, I had no idea as a physician, why am I looking or treating this person with what we call H flu? This is nothing to do with the flu. Well, it turns out, 100 years ago, it was thought to have been the cause of the flu. And it was inappropriately named one, one of the historians, Alfred Crosby, one of the historians of the of the great flu called this discovery of bacillus influenza and an authoritative sign pointing in the wrong direction. So yeah, so that was bacillus influenza, secondary pathogen. Now, in 1889, there had been there had been a small epidemic, but there's still a severe one in Great Britain. And it was so severe that actually parliament commissioned a report on the epidemic. And this was reported in in the in 1889 by by Henry Parsons, Henry Parsons, and he was a very, very smart person. And we'll see why. He spoke about various theories that may have caused this 1889 epidemic. One of the theories at the time, and I'm not making this up, was tainted Russian oats. The suggestion was that the Russians were bringing their disease from the east through Europe in these tainted Russian oats. Now, every society actually blamed the outsider for this. But it strikes me as kind of weird that today when we're still blaming the Russians for pretty much everything back in the back in the great flu epidemic and earlier, perhaps the Russians were behind it as well. But Parsons, as I said, was smarter than that. And he dug a little deeper. So he suggested he said, Well, it could be the weather. Perhaps there's something floating around in the air. And that is, of course, partially true. There is something in the air, although it's person to person contact more. And he suggested that maybe it's a non living particulate matter, which is actually a remarkably accurate description, isn't it, of what a virus turned out to be a non living particulate matter. So it was a little prescient there in describing the the possible cause of the flu. So it was could be Russian tainted oats. It could be a poison in midair. Then he suggested, Well, what if it's a person to person contact? It's not spread by oats or volcanoes or stuff in the air, but one person gives it to another. And here I think Henry Parsons really showed the right way for us to think about things. He said, Let's get some data. If it's person to person contact. So what he did was he looked at the illness rates on the British railway system. And he compared the rates of the engineers who were feeding the steam engines, the coal who worked outside, but far away from people. And he compared those influenza rates, how many people reported sick from that group of workers, he compared those to the rates of influenza among the clerks inside, who are selling the tickets. And of course, they are inside, so they're not exposed to the outside, but they're in constant contact with people. And he simply compared the two. And he found that, of course, it was the clerks who had an increased rate of influenza illness, because they were in contact with people. And the railway engineers driving the train standing outside, feeding the coal into that big steam engine, their rates of flu were really much lower than the clerks, even though they were outside exposed to the flu via and who knows what from volcanoes. And from here he suggested that really it's really probably nothing to do with the atmosphere, but it's more to do with person to person contact. So from a simple look at some records, this guy Parsons figured out that probably we're on to something in the person to person sphere. And then he said the following. He also suggested that perhaps animals have something to do with it. And here he was really on the side of the line. He suggested that perhaps birds or horses or dogs had something to do with the spread. And he goes into this in some detail in his report. And of course, we know today that birds are intimately related to the spread of influenza and new strains. So back in 1889, Henry Parsons, I think, was really onto something when he discussed the possibility that birds were involved, that birds were involved. So there's an example, I think of people trying to think this through in a fairly logical way. And almost coming to the right conclusion. Now, today, of course, we know what causes influenza. There is no doubt.  We were able to take photo micrographs of this when the electron microscope was developed and able to be used around 1839. And so we have pictures of influenza, the influenza virus pictures and diagrams. In fact, scientists today know that the genetic code of the influenza virus, how it's eight viral genes work together, what its viral coat looks like, the proteins on that viral code, what those proteins do, and how they make us sick. And so the degree of advances, I think, from this suggestion that it's something in oats, to something that we can see and identify and know a lot about is really, I think, a remarkable example of the progression of science for over a century. Now we can identify the viral particle down to its genetic makeup, its genetic construction. So in that respect, I think we've come a long way in understanding the cause, the cause of the disease, which brings us to the last part now, which is the way that we've changed in terms of vaccines and prevention. So there were attempts to produce early vaccines to influenza. Now Louis Pasteur back in the 1880s had, of course, developed his own set of vaccines, most famously to rabies. And that doesn't necessarily mean that he knew what the virus was, but he had a suggestion that it was something that was in the nervous tissue, and he managed to propagate nervous tissue and take samples and make them weaker and weaker and weaker until he figured out that what he had now was a weakened thing, he called a virus. And that's how he produced his rabies vaccine. So we know that people were producing vaccines back then. But of course, what they were using were bacteria. That was secondary pathogens and not the primary pathogen which was influenza. So for instance, in early 1919, Edward Rosinot from the Mayo Clinic isolated five different kinds of bacteria from patients. And he mixed them all together. And he managed to inoculate over 100,000 people with his, with his vaccine. We're not sure what the clinical outcomes were, the records aren't great, but he certainly tried to do something. Now in Boston, at the Tufts Medical College, Dr. Timothy Leary made a vaccine. Now, he made a blended vaccine using the strains from the Chelsea Hospital, the Chelsea Naval Hospital, a nurses nose from the Carney Hospital, and the infected wards of Camp Devons not far from Boston. And he made a concoction and gave them to people. And actually, this his, his vaccine ended up being sent to San Francisco, where 18,000 people were inoculated with his vaccine. So that's Dr. Timothy Leary. And in case you're wondering, yes, the answer it is the same Dr. Timothy Leary. In fact, this is the uncle of the famous Dr. Timothy Leary in Boston. He who wanted us to turn on tune in and drop out. It's his uncle who created this attempt at a vaccine 100 years ago. So that's attempts at vaccines back then. What do we do today? What do we have today? Well, we do have vaccines against the flu. Many of us in this room have will take them every year. And you know, those of us who are involved in health care have to get the flu vaccine. It makes sense for us to try and prevent the transmission. But it's really not a very good vaccine. I mean, if you think about it, right, mumps, measles, rubella, polio, you get them once or twice as a kid. And you're done, right? You're done. You're finished. That's it. You're good to go. You won't get the disease ever. But in terms of flu, we get we're told that we need to get it every year. A new flu shot. I just had it last year in the year before. We're dealing with a vaccine that is really not on the same on the same level of effectiveness as these others. In fact, in a good year, in a good year with the wind blowing in the right direction, the flu vaccine is about 50 to 60% effective at best, at best last flu season, it was less than that was in the 20 to 30% range. So So why is this right? Why is this flu vaccine so hard to create? And the answer is that that we have this hollow ball that creates the eight that contains the eight genes of the flu virus. And it makes these proteins on the surface and it's against those proteins that the virus, the vaccine is created. The problem is that flu is such a good disguiser, a master of disguise that it changes the the makeup of those surface proteins very, very quickly, very, very quickly. And it mutates from one kind to another. So that when we think we've got, we figured out what kind of flu is going to be around with species A, well, it turns out the species A then sort of mutates in and the vaccine is no longer effective against species A. Oh, and by the way, we didn't realize that species B and C were actually going to be the ones. So we didn't include those in the vaccine. And, and therefore we weren't, you weren't vaccinated against those, which is the reason, incidentally, by the reason that some of us get the flu vaccine and we end up with the flu. Right? It's because not because the vaccine didn't work against that particular strain, but because there were either other strains that we weren't vaccinated against, or because the original strain changed its surface structure just that bit so that it was like changing an overcoat from a brown overcoat to a black overcoat, and the immune system didn't recognize it. And that's what's going on with the flu vaccine. It stays one step ahead of us all the time. And this is a similar story with HIV, right? The promise of an HIV vaccine was we'd have it within a year or two, so we were told in 1980. Still not there. These viruses are very clever at changing their surface and at hiding from the immune system. And so we still don't have a good influenza vaccine. The way we make the vaccine, incidentally, is we have about 120 or so laboratories across the world run by the World Health Organization. They look at samples that are sent to their lab and try and figure out exactly the kind of flu species that is prevalent. We look at Australia and what they had in their most recent influenza outbreak because it's there, you know, in their winter is our summer. And we try and figure that out. And incidentally, they do the same for us. So it's that they look at see what happened in the northern hemisphere and adjust themselves for the oncoming flu season in the summer. And then doctors make the best educated guess they can. And they say, well, based on the evidence that we have, the most likely species are going to be this and this and this. And we're going to make the vaccine. And into this day, the majority of the much of the vaccine is produced using eggs. The vaccine is very hard to grow. So it's actually grown on eggs, which is the same thing that was used a century ago. There is some vaccine that is made using cell technology. And that allows us to have a vaccine that is not created on eggs. But still, those those are simply the methods that we have today that are that are left over from us 100 years ago. So so the majority of the vaccine is still to this day has something to do with with eggs and needing to be grown on that medium. So in many respects, we're really at the beginning of the of the fight here against against influenza by preventing it and creating a vaccine. Now, while that is all true, and it's not a very effective vaccine, we must remember that in certain groups, in certain age groups, it's extremely important to get the vaccine, the high risk people, right? So those are children, the elderly, those with immune compromised conditions, people who've been taking steroids or may have undergone chemotherapy, pregnant women, extremely important for pregnant women to get the influenza vaccine. For some reason, there are the slightly more that are an increased risk of complications from influenza. And so those are some of the high risk groups that should certainly be vaccinated. There's no question there. In terms of everybody else, the data out there is is harder to really find an effect on the flu. In fact, for instance, in the United Kingdom, those high risk groups are targeted. And everybody else can sort of well, if you want one, you can get one, go talk to your primary care doctor, but there's no campaign, right? Here in the US, we have a campaign, the CDC says everybody over the age of six months should get vaccinated. Period. That is that is the advice that we're given here in the United States. It's just worth pointing out that this is not the advice that is given overseas. And we can talk about why that might be another time. But it's a big it's an important difference, I think in the way we think about about the flu. So for high risk groups, it's very important for healthy, otherwise healthy adults, the evidence is that influenza vaccine doesn't really do a whole lot. So what do we need instead? Well, we need a universal flu vaccine, a vaccine that will work from year to year without having to get it again each year, a vaccine that will work in all age groups, and a vaccine that will work in all geographic areas, right? Regardless of what specific strain of flu is is is running rampant in your area. So that is the goal of the universal flu vaccine. Right. And to do that, we have to target that flu virus, which we understand very well, and find a bit of it that doesn't change. Find a bit of that flu virus that we can target and and that our then our immune systems will recognize and latch on to it and we will kill that virus, no matter what particular strain of influenza it was. It sounds easy. It's a very hard thing to do in reality. And we're still not there yet. But I will say that, for instance, the National Institutes of Health where I work, and I just want to pause and let you know that I'm not here representing the federal government's views on the great influenza epidemic of 1918. I'm here on my own time, and these are my own personal views. But the NIH where I work is actually very, very focused on on trying to find a universal flu vaccine, pouring a lot of money and a lot of research time and effort into that. There is in fact an NIH sponsored trial of a of a of a possible candidate produced by a company called buy buy on Vax from Israel. There are other companies out there that are doing this that is underway right now from the NIH. And who knows? Will this work? Will it not work? Will we will we see a universal flu vaccine? I don't know. I don't know if we'll see one soon. But that is certainly the goal of what we're trying to do with the vaccine. So we certainly have a long way to go. So if we look at where we were 100 years ago and where we are today, the treatments are very different, thankfully, but there's still we still lack real good treatments for influenza. We understand the virus in a remarkable and deep and profound way in a way that was unimaginable a century ago. But are we able to use that knowledge and then build the vaccine? Not quite yet. We're not there yet, although that's where the research efforts are going. So my hope then looking forward is that we really will be able to see influenza as not just a story of the past, but as a disease of the past in the way that we think about smallpox as a disease of the past, a disease that was eradicated. It's important to try and move towards this goal. The CDC estimates that anywhere between 30 and 50,000 people each year in the US die of influenza. It's a soft number. It's not a great not extremely accurate number, but that's the sort of the ballpark figure. So a lot of people still get this disease and die from it. It's in the high-risk groups predominantly where that happens. So we really have to try and think about ways that we can improve our own vaccinations so that we will be able to hopefully make a one-day influenza a thing of the past. Thank you for your time. Any questions? We're happy to take your time. Thank you. Somebody made a lot of money with face masks back then and we see those today. And in this culture we don't see them as commonly as we see in Asia where they wear them when they get a cold or don't want to give a cold to somebody else. My question is how effective are those? Because there was a train picture you showed of spit causes death and if you get spit in your eye I would assume that would probably be uncomfortable as well, potentially dangerous. Can you talk about that perspective in regards to what you're measuring or is it just a comfort on all of ours and back then to use masks or is this a reality of something that can help prevent spreading of that? Sure, that's a wonderful question. Thank you. So of course masks do something, right? Masks do something. Even the cheap masks that you can buy at the local pharmacy have a filtered mesh so that if you cover it you will be breathing through that mesh but that mesh is going to stop something. Now the question is what is it stopping? Right? It might be stopping your secretions if you cough and the mask captures the literally the sputum that you're coughing out. Does it stop the viral particles that someone else has coughed out from creeping through the mask? Almost certainly not. And the other thing about face masks is that after a short amount of time they become clogged, right?  So I think that what we're seeing is an interesting idea. In other words don't sneeze over people, please. Don't cough over people. That makes sense. But the suggestion that we're really going to stop this by wearing a face mask, I think you may have seen that picture of the happily married couple, husband and wife, hugging each other wearing face masks. So I mean that's clearly I think a PR example and something that probably does very very little. But we do know that one of the most important, perhaps the most important thing that you can do to prevent flu, isn't to go out and get an antiviral medicine from your doctor. It's to not turn up at work when you're sick. It's to wash your hands if you're helping somebody look after somebody with the flu and it's not to cough over people. So the masks I think remind us of what we need to do when we have the flu. But in terms of an intervention, these small paper masks are almost certainly doing very very little. Over there. Thank you for the talk. I'd be curious to hear you say more about you mentioned the cultural differences between the way the U.S. encourages everyone to get vaccinated whereas in Europe sometimes they don't. So why is that and which approach do you think is correct? Okay. Yes I go into this in some detail. So to be clear, in the United States the CDC's recommendation is that everybody over the age of six months gets vaccinated in the UK and in parts of Europe. High risk groups only everybody else. You can if you want but it's really not being pushed. I think that the difference is how we approach the flu. If you look on the CDC website for example, you will read that influenza and I'm paraphrasing here but influenza is a serious disease with complications that include death. Since that's the case everybody over the age of six months should get the vaccine. Now if you go on the websites, I was looking at some of them recently from for instance the National Health Service in England. I'm going to paraphrase again. It basically says the following influenza is a bit of a nuisance. You're going to be up, you're going to be feel unwell for a couple of days. You don't really have to go see your primary care doctor about it because probably there's not a whole lot she's going to do but you know if you need to you can but stay indoors and you're going to be fine. That is basically what the National Health Service view of influenza is. And if you have these two very different approaches to describing a disease it's a potentially dangerous disease that can kill you versus it's a bit of a nuisance but you'll be alright right. Those are two very different ways of approaching what we should do about the disease. So the CDC says well if it's a potentially deadly disease even though the influenza vaccine isn't terribly good let's use it at least something. Whereas in the United Kingdom they say look it's not a terribly good vaccine so let's use it where we really need to use it but most people won't need it right. Which of those two is correct? Well they're both right aren't they? Influenza is indeed a potentially deadly disease but that's only for 0.001% of the people who are going to get it and in those tiny number of people who are going to get it proportionally to how many people get sick it's only those who are increased risk from the disease those high risk populations. And the United Kingdom's approach it's a bit of a nuisance but that's about it. That's also correct. So which of these two messages drives us is going to decide I think how we respond to the vaccine and we have decided in the United States the CDC has decided that this is the best public health approach. I think the data as far as I read them and this is purely a personal observation the data really is that in high risk groups people should get it it's still not terribly effective but it does something but in everybody else so let's talk about that group as the you know the young healthy middle aged adults probably does very very little and yet as you know beginning of August you will see signs in your pharmacy saying we're ready to give the flu vaccine here come and get it we'll give you a coupon or something like that. So two very different approaches is that a dead potentially deadly disease is a bit of a nuisance and that I think drives how we look at the how we look at the the vaccine and of course I think this is a bit of a larger discussion which the question is well if it kind of works we should use it right that seems to be the approach of many many aspects of the American health system if it works put it out there right even though it might not work terribly well even though there are problems with it it works get it out there in the United Kingdom are much more circumspect in fact I talked to the chief medical officer of the UK vaccine program who who's the person who sort of leaves the discussion and he said in the United Kingdom they think about things beyond how well the vaccine works they include things like is it makes sense economically to do this and if you add up the numbers he said it just doesn't make sense economically to have a big campaign for healthy adults to get the influenza vaccine when so few of them proportionally are going to end up getting sick and taking time off work so we'll just leave it as a very different approach to these in the two different cultures separated by a pond. Yes sir. Hi I got good afternoon Dr. Brown my name is Derek Stroop I'm a history graduate student at George Mason University so suffice it to say I'm quite a stickler on sources so I was just curious at what sampling of sources you used I know you had mentioned newspaper articles and some medical diaries but I was actually more specifically interested in your use of secondary sources to kind of bolster your own medical knowledge that you already have. Sure well when you it's a good question I think I might get in trouble now there's a historian in the room so well the truth is I used both obviously I began with whatever secondary sources I could I read pretty much everything that had been published in the last decade or so in the popular literature there are several books very good books out there on influenza and I was actually talking to Dave just before we came in but now you have the resource of this thing called the internet and I don't know that this was available to the degree that it is with the other books that came out you can do a search for hundreds through hundreds of newspapers for the keyword influenza you can do it by city, by state, by time and you can get these gems of information like I showed you just now so those are primary sources I don't think anybody has actually really dug dug into I've never seen that for instance the fact that the Washington Post reported that the death rate for influenza was greater than the death rate in World War One and it was on the back page of the Washington Post I've actually never seen that as a reported observation and what it tells us about how we approach the flu so thankfully and sure as a historian you're also grateful for this and here we are in the remarkable archives right the National Archives a gem of history here we have a lot that is available to us with relatively simple tools the nice things of course is when the historian discovers something that no one else has found it's hidden away in a box and of course there's a historian I think you and others are very keen to find that but a lot of primary sources going back reading the original articles teasing out the medicine from those like those earlier reports of bloodletting in 1916 they were of course mentioned in secondary literature if you go back and read the primary literature you can get a different view on things so thank you for that question okay we are out of time ladies and gentlemen so thank you very much for your time and for your attention and I hope that each and every one of you will stay healthy as we end this flu season


Hello and welcome to the session the given question says without using trigonometric tables evaluate the following so this we have to evaluate let's start with the solution here we shall be using that sin 90 degrees minus theta is equal to cos theta and tan 90 degrees minus theta is equal to cot theta and here theta lies between 90 degree and 0 degree where 0 and 90 degrees are also included that is theta is less than or equal to 90 degree and theta is greater than or equal to 0 degrees and here 0 degree is less than theta s less than or equal to 90 degrees here we have to find the value of 2 times of sin 68 degrees divided by cos 22 degrees minus 2 times of cot 15 degree divided by 5 tan 75 degrees minus 3 times of tan 45 degrees into tan 20 degrees into tan 40 degrees into tan 50 degrees into tan 70 degrees whole divided by 5 now let us use these two identities here we have 2 times of sin 68 degrees which can be written as 2 times of sin 90 degrees minus 22 degrees divided by cos 22 degrees minus here we have 2 times of cot 15 degrees and in the denominator we have 2 5 times of tan 75 degrees which can be written as 90 degrees minus 15 degrees then we have minus 3 times of tan 45 degree is equal to 1 so into 1 into this can be written as tan 90 degrees minus 70 degrees into tan 40 degrees can be written as tan 90 degrees minus 50 degrees and then we have tan 50 degrees into tan 70 degrees whole divided by 5 now by using these two identities this can further be written as 22 degrees divided by cos 22 degrees minus 2 times of cot 15 degree divided by 5 times of cot 15 degree minus 3 tan 90 degrees minus 70 degrees is cot 70 degrees into similarly here we have cot 50 degree into tan 50 degree into tan 70 degree divided by 5 now here on cancelling we have 2 here we have 2 divided by 5 which we get on cancelling cos 15 degree by cot 15 degree and now since theta into tan theta is equal to 1 therefore cot 70 degree into tan 70 degree is equal to 1 and cot 50 degree into tan 50 degree is also 1 and the denominator we have 5 so we have 2 minus 2 divided by 5 minus 3 divided by 5 or this is further equal to taking 5 LCM we have 10 minus 2 minus 3 which is equal to 10 minus 5 divided by 5 or this is equal to 5 divided by 5 which is equal to 1 thus on evaluating we get the answer equal to 1 so this completes the solution by intake queue


I am pretty convinced that whoever is going to end up being the seventh official Eon James Bond is very likely still going under the radar and isn't going to be a high-profile actor you typically see on the list. We know Eon haven't even started their casting yet, so nobody knows, at least of all bookmakers. That said, living in this awkward period of Eon seriously taking their time for Bond 26.  We may as well talk about the potential actors you see mentioned for Bond all the time, and I picked five of them I could see as 007 and five of them I don't, and I will zig-zag my way through them. Let's go. First off, no potential Bond actors list would be complete without Henry Cavill, and I never made it a secret in countless previous videos that I would totally be up for Cavill as Bond. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as saying he's the current best man for the job, despite being a high-profile actor and being Superman. But Cavill just has that Bond factor, more so than any other actor on the list. You know how everybody seemed convinced Braxton had the potential and deserved to be James Bond back in the 80s? People saw him as Bond before he even was Bond, and I feel that is very similar nowadays with Cavill. Smooth with the ladies, badass when he needs to be, he has the perfect look, he could do the outlandish, but you could also do the gritty with Cavill. Or a little bit of a mix of both. Definitely an actor who should be Bond. Another actor that always seems to be on these lists is Idris Elba. For one, he's the oldest on the list, currently 50 years old. I also did a whole video on should Bond be Black that I don't want to get into for this video. But in short, I do believe having a Caucasian Bond matters for the identity of the character of who James Bond is. That said, and of course that's just my opinion, Elba's name does seem to have been linked to Bond for such a long time, and I do think he could still be a fantastic addition to the franchise in another part. Maybe as the villain in the same way they used Sean Bean for 006, who was also in the running to be the next Bond in the 90s. Elba has a very commanding voice and intimidating presence when he needs to, and he could be a fantastic physical threat for 007, but I just don't think he's right to be 007 himself. Here's an actor I mentioned in one of my videos as far back as seven years ago, or my current topic, Aiden Turner. I mean, if Craig doesn't return, I really hope it's gonna be this guy. I look back at the footage of that video and I have to say, I haven't really changed my opinion on him that much. You look at Aiden Turner and you just see the Bond qualities ooze through. He just has that classic Bond look, the Connery-esque brown hunter eyes with a hint of danger in there. Classic handsomeness, he's at the right age, and he still isn't an A-list star, which could definitely work in his advantage. As much as Henry Caffill is currently my top pick, he's probably also a bit of a dream joist, and I think Turner is likely a more realistic pick that Eon might just set their eyes upon, and I for one would still totally be happy to see that happen. I never really understood the appeal to Tom Hiddleston as Bond, though. I look at him and I just don't see it. He seems to lack the classical handsome look I associate with James Bond. In a way, Craig doesn't necessarily fit that category either, but he's very physically strong and charming in his own way. With Hiddleston, he doesn't seem to really fit those categories either. I struggle to find any Bond-esque qualities Hiddleston has to be suitable for the part. Maybe others can totally see it, but I'm simply not among those people. Another certain Tom H from England, Tom Hardy as Bond, would work particularly well when paired up with Christopher Nolan in my opinion. Obviously, Hardy is getting on a bit as well, and especially considering the current pace in which Eon is releasing Bond films. But if they were to somehow pick up the pace and do a preset trilogy, much like The Dark Knight, released in a tight schedule, then I feel Tom Hardy is such a brilliant choice. Tom Hardy is like Al Pacino and Johnny Depp in the sense that he always completely changes his appearance when he's playing a character. He wouldn't look like Tom Hardy in a tuxedo, he would completely transform into Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. For his age, I think he still looks fantastic, and if Eon were to ever offer him the part, I have no doubt that Hardy would absolutely nail it. I think he would have that same effect as Daniel Craig did, where nobody can see him do it, but once he actually gets to do it, he would blow it completely out of the park. Aaron Taylor Johnson was only featured on Bond lists since, well, this year, really, and he currently is quite the popular choice. I'm still not completely convinced, though. I look at him and I still see that same geeky kid he portrayed in Kick-Ass, but now just with a beard on it. There's something still quite boyish about him that I don't think suits my idea of James Bond. That said, I also believe Aaron Taylor Johnson probably has the potential to change my mind and convince me otherwise. After all, I was among the people that didn't think Craig was suitable to become James Bond back in 2005. He definitely proved me wrong, too. For now, though, for me with Aaron Taylor Johnson, it's still a no. Richard Madden has been on the list for quite some time, mostly for his performance in The Bodyguard and recently starring in the new Amazon spy series Citadel. For me, I'm kind of in between on him. On the one hand, he does possess most of the qualities. He's still very young, he's good looking, physically in shape, and he can be very convincing portraying a suave spy. On the other hand, and I can't really put my finger on this, he doesn't necessarily scream James Bond for me yet. I think he can do it, though. Again, he does tick a lot of boxes, so for me it's a bit of a benefit of a doubt that approves him. It's very flattering to be involved in that conversation at all, but it's all just talk, and I'm sure next week it'll be someone different. I absolutely love what Terran Edgerton did with the role as XZ in Kingsman. He was super funny, convincing, badass, and smooth when he needed to be. I definitely hope to see him return in the next Kingsman installment. But for me, he's a perfect XZ. He's not James Bond, at least not for now, not yet. He's still way too boyish. It will be good to see how he ages, and perhaps we should reevaluate him in a decade or so. But for now, he's a fantastic XZ, but no James Bond. As for someone who is a decade older, let's talk about Luke Evans. If Eon ever did decide to go with an older actor for Bond, and again improve their pacing in which they released Bond films, then I'd say Luke Evans is also great and perhaps an overlooked pig. He didn't necessarily come to my mind as a top choice, but I certainly wouldn't hate it if he became Bond either. I can see the headlines of first gay actor to play Bond and stuff, but as long as he plays a straight Bond as the character is intended, then yeah, who cares? I can see it. He's in great shape, he looks good, he can do the suave-ness. I think he would be a bit of a Craig-esque Bond that would pull off the light-heartedness too if he needed to. Lastly, Killian Murphy, who I think is a brilliant actor, but is also getting on too much for the part of Bond, reaches his 50s now. But much like Idris Elba, I think he would make for a superb Bond villain. I can picture him in sort of a Lashif type of part, or maybe more of the evil Twisted Genius type. I would still be very excited if he was ever brought on into Bond, just not as James Bond himself. So that was my very quick look at five actors I can approve as James Bond and five I can't. Obviously there were way more actors to consider, but these were just some I wanted to share some quick thoughts on. I'm very curious to see who your favorite pigs are to portray the next James Bond, whenever that ever happens. Thanks a lot for watching, please subscribe if you didn't, and see you guys in the next video.


Happy Monday, friends. And boy, do I have the juiciest of mysteries for you. But before we go any further, you know what to do. Hit that subscribe button and give us a like. I also again want to take a moment to shout out to our producer, Tiffany Monroe. She is a Reiki master here in Atlanta, Georgia. She owns a nonprofit called Healing Hands Reiki and Spiritual Development. She offers courses as well as one-on-one treatments. If you're not from the Atlanta area, but you are interested in contacting Tiffany regarding some of her services, please follow the links down below. And you can work something out with her to do something perhaps over Zoom. And if you would like to become a producer at Esoteric Atlanta or join our Patreon, follow the links below to help support the channel. All right, let's get started. Welcome to Esoteric Atlanta. My name is Bryce and today on Mystery Monday, we are going to be talking about the Juicy and the Notorious Circleville letters. I saved their Notorious, but in fairness, I didn't even know about these letters until I stumbled across them doing research. But apparently back in the 90s, this story was a pretty big deal because it was aired on Unsolved Mysteries. The letters revolved around a few of the residents of Circleville, Ohio. Now, Circleville is south of Columbus, Ohio. And what's interesting about the letters is that all of these letters were mailed from Columbus, Ohio, not from Circleville, Ohio. Our story starts in 1976 and revolves around a local bus driver by the name of Mary Gullipsby. It seems that Mary started to receive anonymous and harassing letters, accusing her of having an affair with the superintendent of the local school. Now, Mary claimed that this affair at this time was not true, wasn't happening. For a long time, Mary kept the letters to herself, even though the letters started to threaten her own children. It wasn't until her husband, Ron, received a letter himself that Mary had to come clean and tell Ron that she was in the process of being harassed by some unknown stalker from Columbus who thought she was having a non-existent affair with the superintendent. It appears that Ron's letters were a little bit more threatening, though. You see, the stalker told Ron that if he didn't in the affair that his wife was having with the superintendent, that not only would their children's life be in danger, but Ron's life would be in danger, too. But everything came to a head when they got another letter saying the stalker was going to go to the local media and tell the whole entire world that Mary was involved in this affair. He was going to put billboards up, go on radio shows, everything. So Ron and his wife, Mary sat down with Ron's sister and her husband, Paul and Paul's sister and talked about what they should do. Ron's sister and his brother-in-law, Paul, along with Paul's sister were the only three people outside of the immediate family that knew about these letters. You see, Mary thought she knew who the person was that was harassing them. So she had Paul, her brother-in-law, write a letter to this individual asking them to stop. And it seemed to have worked because the letter stopped coming for a while. But then on that fateful day of August 19th, 1977, all hell broke loose. You see, Ron got a phone call. And remember, this was the 70s. There were no cell phones. There were no cordless phones. It was all landlines with no caller ID. So he gets this phone call and it's the stalker. The stalker proceeds to tell Ron again that the affair needs to stop. He also threatens Ron and tells Ron that he's been watching Ron. And he's also going to be surveying Ron's truck.  I guess he knew by hearing the voice on the phone who this supposed stalker was. Well, it was a little while later that they found Ron's truck crashed into a tree. And unfortunately, Ron did not survive. Now, the interesting thing to note is that the gun, Ron's gun had been shot one time. Now, the officer on the scene declared that this was an accident. That Ron was driving drunk. Now, the thing is, is Ron's blood alcohol level was high, but this wasn't apparently common for Ron. Things grew even more intense when all sorts of residents of the town not involved in this supposed affair, all of a sudden started receiving letters from this stalker claiming that sheriff Dwight Radcliffe was involved in the coverup of Ron's death. You see, apparently the sheriff at first glance thought that there was foul play involved in Ron's death, but then quickly decided that that was not the case. But then our story takes a whole other twist. Remember the whole subject around these letters, the whole point of the stalking was the fact that the stalker claims that Mary Gillespie was having this affair with the superintendent of the school. Now, she claimed that this affair never happened. However, after Ron's death, she then changed her story. And she claimed that the affair happened, but only after the letters started coming in, because I mean, that makes sense, right?  But you're just going to go ahead and have the affair anyway, because that's logical, right? I think it was Shakespeare who said, oh, the tangled webs we weave when first we start to deceive. Of course, I think any logical person now believes that Mary had been having this affair with the superintendent. This was not a fake affair. This had been going on. Told you this story was juicy. Anyway, it's not over yet, because in February of 1993, which just to side note, that's the month and the year that I was born was February 4th of 1993. But as I was taking life, Mary was up in Ohio, continually being harassed. Her husband is now dead. So I guess she can date whoever she wants to because like her husband's dead. So she's technically a free woman now. But anyway, she's driving her bus home and she's a bus driver for children. This is a school bus. And all of a sudden she starts passing all these billboards and these signs that are put up on the side of the road to try to demoralize her and shame her. Well, when the billboards become threatening, Mary decides to take action and do her own hands. She gets off of the bus and she starts to pull the signs down. Well, apparently the stalker, whoever put the signs up, decided it would be cute to tie a pistol to the billboard. So when she pulled it down, a string would pull and a gun would fire. Now, fortunately for Mary, the bullet missed her. So I'm sure she got the scare of her life, but she survived. When Goodell, Sheriff, Dwight Radcliffe picked the gun up and examined it. It was apparent that the number, the ID number had been scratched off the gun. But never fear technology, even in the 80s, was up to scruff. It could pull up the number of the gun and see who it belonged to. And now we take another twist. The gun was registered to Mary's brother-in-law, Paul, who had been married to Ron's sister. The gun belonged to Paul. But then Paul was like, hold up, y'all, my gun was stolen on the 25th of February of 1983. I did not have it in my possession. But of course, now Paul was on Sheriff Radcliffe's radar, right? This is a small town. We know everybody in this town. Who else could it be? So he had Paul come into the police department and take a handwriting analysis. Now, I'm going to remind you at this point in the story that Mary and Ron had Paul write the letter in the beginning to who they thought was the stalker to ask the stalker to stop. On October 24th of 1983, Paul was arrested for attempted murder of Mary. He was not arrested in relationship to writing the letters. However, at his trial, the handwriting expert tried to use the letters against Paul. We also had testimony from Mary herself. Now, Paul and his wife, his wife, who was Ron's sister at this point were going through a divorce. And Mary claimed that Ron's sister came over to Mary's house and confided in Mary that she believed her husband was the one writing the letters and harassing Mary. We also have to point out that Paul's boss testified at the trial that Paul was not at work the day of the attempted murder with the billboard signs. Now, even though that doesn't look that great for Paul, there could be many reasons why he wasn't at work. Throughout this whole trial, Paul always maintained his innocence. I personally believe that Paul is or was innocent of these crimes and we'll get to why I believe that in just a minute. Unfortunately, Paul was found guilty by his jury and he was given a seven to 24 year sentence for his crimes. This is important for anybody interested in this case to note because after Paul went into to jail into solitary confinement, the letters kept coming. Paul got letters to the letters from the stalker saying that they were going to try to keep Paul in jail for as long as possible. Other residents of the town also received letters saying that Paul was innocent and continuing to harass Mary for this affair with the superintendent. There is no way Paul could have written these letters. We also need to note that again, these letters came from Columbus, Ohio. This is according to the post office stamp stamp on the letters. Now, Paul was being kept in Lima, Lima, Lima. Not sure if I'm saying that right, Ohio, which is a ways away from both Columbus and Circleville. And again, guys, he's in jail. He can't drive to Columbus to go to the post office. He's in jail. And even though we understand, like common sense, the dude was in jail. He could not be the writer of these letters. In 1990, the parole board denied Paul's parole because the letters kept coming to the town. It's situations like this that make me think maybe Sheriff Radcliffe was involved in this because like even a five year old would logically understand that this scenario, the court had set up with Paul and his guilt was complete BS. But in happier news in 1994, Paul was paroled. Now, Paul continued to proclaim his innocence. And I think most people can acknowledge that he was innocent. Now, on November 11th of 1994, unsolved mysteries aired his story. They're trying to find out, again, who is the actual person writing these horrific letters? Now, what's funny is that the network and the producers of unsolved mysteries also received a letter from this dog or threatening them. But by the time they received the letter, they had already filmed the episode and aired it. So it was a little too late. Unfortunately, Paul died in 2012. Now, there are people that have dedicated a lot of time to this case and they have a few suspects in mind because, again, like Paul's innocent. I mean, he's innocent. So who are these suspects that people have in mind? Well, one of the suspects is the superintendent's son. People believe that maybe the superintendent's son was so upset by this illicit affair his dad was having with this bus driver that he started this whole chain event of harassing letters. Another thought was that it was perhaps Paul's wife, Ron's sister. Apparently their marriage, Paul and her marriage was pretty dysfunctional. And if there's some personality disorder there, then it very well could have been Ron's sister who who did this. Another theory was that there was a co-worker, another co-worker of Mary's. Not superintendent, but another one that was obsessed with Mary. Maybe this co-worker knew that Mary was having an affair with the superintendent and this co-worker wanted in on that action. And so they started threatening because that always gets you what you want. Right. And the final suspect on our list of suspects is Mary herself. And I know people must be thinking, oh, you're crazy. Like, how could Mary do this to herself? Well, let me tell you something. I have been privy to another stalking incident within my own life, within my own community, where it is believed that the person doing the stalking or being stalked is actually stalking himself. That's a theory a lot of us have. And and this person has narcissistic personality disorder, which this is totally something a narcissist would do. Now, I don't know Mary. I have no, I don't even know what she looks like. I can't find any pictures of her, but I am very suspect of Mary because if she is a narcissist or if she is a borderline or if there is some personality disorder and and she wants out of her marriage with Ron, why not start stalking herself and she knows her kids are going to be fine.  I don't know. Maybe it's farfetched, but I'm very suspicious of Mary. It's also interesting to note that Mary turned down unsolved mysteries. She did not want to be interviewed. Maybe she was afraid of being called out for inconsistencies or the possibility that she was the one doing the stalking, or maybe she was filmed with shame because her testimony was part of what got an innocent man locked away. And now, of course, this is all my opinion. Again, I don't know Mary. I don't know anybody involved in this case. I'm just a civilian who's interested in this story, this juicy story. But what do you think? What's your opinion? Have you heard of these letters? What do you think actually happened in Circleville, Ohio back in 1976? I do want to say rest in peace to Paul. I hope the afterlife is a lot nicer to you than your living life. All right, guys, tomorrow, once again, I'll be on David Zublik's channel. His channel is now on Bitshoot. If you missed any of my past interviews with David, the Canaanites or the Halloween episode with David, please go to Bitshoot and you should be able to find him there. You can find all those episodes. Please make sure to subscribe to his channel on Bitshoot or on Rumble. He also has his channel up on Rumble, too. Again, thank you to Josh McCabe for doing our music. There's also a link in the description box, as always, for you to be able to purchase our opening song. And thank you to Todd Fraudrich for helping me produce this episode. And as always, you can find Todd's band on YouTube as well by following the link below. All right, guys, I will talk to you soon. We are in a huge week here in the United States. I hope everybody gets out there and votes. If you live in a big city, please be careful. Watch your back. These are historical elections. And so everybody, just please be careful and be safe. God bless lots of love to you all. And I will talk to you soon. Bye.


Dear Mrs. Jacobs, it is with the deepest regret that I write to you today. Your son, Mickey, has been killed in action in the course of his duties under my command. The loss of a child is difficult for any parent, yet you should know that Mickey Jacobs was one of the finest men I ever commanded. Mickey was dutiful and kind with an easy smile, a smile he professed on several occasions he got from you. The impact that his loss has had on us can only be a fraction of that which you must now be experiencing. His devotion to the principles of honor and self-sacrifice lived in every part of his life and it was self-sacrifice of the highest order that led to his death. It is left to me, then, to provide my fullest devotion to the principle of honor and is that honor that demands from me a truthful retelling of the events which led to his passing. First, in the interest of frankness, your son was not a security guard for a lumber company. Your son was a hero. On August 18th of this year, your son was stationed at one of our organization's facilities in South Alabama. A security breach occurred in one of our high-risk sectors and your son was sent in as part of a team of individuals to stop the threat. Your son was at the front of a formation of seven agents when an automated door sealed him inside the facility without his team. No support and spotted communication. Your son made his way towards danger providing fire support for the site's security staff on one of the lower levels. He was then tasked by the site director to rescue several of our research staff from the monsters that now roam the site. He was killed during the final rescue of these staff. Today, a dozen of our best minds are still alive because of your son. I cannot begin to understand the sorrow you must now feel, but know that your son's death was not in vain and that he will be remembered by all those who knew him as a brave, dutiful, and honorable man. Sincerely and most remorsefully yours, Agent Jonathan Bradley. Site 88's Infosec AI has detected an attempt to disseminate classified materials, intercepting, redirecting, and replacing with Infosec-approved cover story. Agent Jonathan Bradley is to be reprimanded for this attempt. Dear Mrs. Jacobs, enclosed as the remainder of Mickey Jacobs' severance pay, as you are listed as Mr. Jacobs' emergency contact, we trust you to remit this payment to him and our stead. It should be noted that despite Mr. Jacobs' recent problems with drug addiction and sudden disappearance, we will be willing to provide rehabilitation services at any time should he return. Thank you for your time. Chief of Security Jonathan Bradley, Southern Crosscat Pines.


Creating groups within your library is a good way to manage your references. To create a new group, select my group and create group. Give the group a name. Now you can go to your references and select all the references you wish to add to your group. Simply select them and drag and drop. The selected references are now in your group. That is the end of this demonstration.