So, at the May Council meeting, there was a request to have a report on the newborn sequencing in genomic medicine and public health or N-site program. Did you find you're doing that? The goal of N-site is to explore the opportunities and challenges of using genomic medicine in the newborn period of life. And Anastasia Wise, program director at Division of Genomic Medicine, is going to give that presentation. Thanks, Rudy. Okay, so I'm just going to give everyone here a brief update on the N-site program today. We're not quite as far along in the program as some of the other updates that you've heard today in part because we got a little bit of a later start. But I did want to let everyone know where we stand today. So I'll start off with a little bit of information about the background behind N-site, provide you with more details on the individual site's protocols, present you with a couple of the early findings that we've gotten to date, and then tell you a little bit about an upcoming workshop that we're planning with NICHD. So to start with the program background, N-site stands for newborn sequencing in genomic medicine and public health. So we totally cheated on the letters, but there's a reason why. And this is because this is a joint initiative between NHGRI and NICHD. And we really wanted this to represent the fact that we were looking at newborn sequencing as a technology and then trying to see how this could be applied in different settings where NICHD was particularly interested in the context of newborn screening because that's somewhere where they do a lot of research. And then in more of the genomic medicine setting as well where we were looking at how the sequencing could be utilized and if this could potentially be one of the early cases where genomics could potentially be used for the care of newborns. We have four sites in N-site. One in Boston with Allen Beggs and Robert Green as the PIs. One at Rady Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, which is with Stephen Kingsmore as the PI. A group at UNC Chapel Hill with Cynthia Powell and Jonathan Berg as the PIs. And then a group at UCSF with Jennifer Puck, Phueg Kwok, and Barbara Koenig as the PIs. And so they're a diverse group of sites and they also have a diverse group of settings. And within N-Site there were three main questions that we wanted to cover in these projects and these were all covered in the FOA. And each of the projects are addressing at least one of these questions and many of them all three in different ways. So the first of these questions was looking at the currently screened for newborn screening conditions. How could the use of sequencing data be used to either replicate or augment no newborn screening results? So can you get the same information that you do today from biochemical testing using sequencing for newborn screening? Then our second question was really building upon this to look at what knowledge about conditions that aren't currently screened for on today's newborn screening panel, could we learn from having sequence data? And then our third question was to look at what additional clinical information could potentially be used by having the sequenced information that could be relevant just broader to the clinical care of newborns. And so I mentioned that each of these projects has a different setting and the way that we've broken these up for thinking about it with N-Site is that the first of our settings is really looking at prevention and this is what we consider to be the newborn screening setting where you have a condition that you are screening for and you know that if you get a certain result that that could potentially be used for taking some action that could help with preventing a disease or condition from developing. The second is diagnostic and this is a setting where we're looking at the NICU or sick infants that could potentially benefit from having sequencing information in order to be able to help provide a diagnostic. And then our third setting is more of a predictive setting and this is where we have some projects that are looking at healthy infants and moving beyond just what you could do in more of a newborn screening setting to what could you potentially do with this information if you had it available, looking more towards the idea of lifelong genomic medicine. And then the last general piece of information to know about these projects is that for each of the four N-Site awards they were required to have three components. So each of these projects had to perform some level of genomic sequencing so they had to do something more than a targeted panel. They also all had to have a clinical research component and then each of the projects had to have an ELSI component looking at the ethical, legal, and social implications of the research because we felt that that was really important in these pilot studies for everyone to be looking not just at can we do this, but the implications of having those results. So now I'll move on to a little bit of information about the individual protocols at the sites. More details about the studies can be found in a marker paper that came out in pediatrics in February. So if you have interest in learning more about the study that's somewhere that you can find more details. So the first of the studies, if we start once again on that platform moving from traditional newborn screening towards genomic medicine is the study that's being done at UCSF. And in this study they start with dried blood spots from the newborn screening program in California so that there is less of a population bias because these are really done from the newborn screening program which is mandatory collection. They are looking at newborn screening and that's their larger cohort but then they also do have a very small cohort that's part of their clinical study that's looking at patients with immune disorders. Overall they're doing exome sequencing at a part of their study and what they're trying to do is to evaluate sequencing for newborn screening. And so they have both focus groups and some groups that are looking at the legal implications of using sequencing in newborn screening and their two projects are also both very focused on evaluating newborn screening. So they have this large cohort of the dried blood spots from the newborn screening program in California where they are looking to see can sequencing replicate or augment the known results from those tests and then they have this small cohort of immune disorders separate from the population cohort from California that they're looking particularly at the clinical implications then of having more of this sequence information available. For the UNC Chapel Hill study design they have two different cohorts. They have a healthy and a sick infant cohort, individuals that have been diagnosed with newborn screening conditions that are known conditions. They are collecting saliva samples for their source of DNA and the large focus of their project is on electronic decision aid. And this electronic decision aid is then allowing for parents to be able to make decisions about what additional information they would like to receive if they are randomized to be able to have the decision aid as part of their, part of the study. So if they are randomized to this decision aid then beyond receiving back just the information that's related to the newborn screening actionable conditions in childhood then they also can receive back three other types of information. That's childhood onset and non-medically actionable information that is adult onset but medically actionable and information on carrier status for recessive disorders. And what they're really trying to look at in their study is parental decision making and trying to learn more about the decision making process and if this type of decision aid could potentially be useful as you start looking at scaling up using genomics in medicine. The third of the projects at Rady Children's Hospital is focusing on a NICU cohort so these are all sick infants. They are all suggestive of having a genetic disease that was one of the requirements for enrollment in the study and they are then randomized to receive rapid genomic sequencing and in this case the sequencing can be done as quickly as 26 hours and typically it's done in a matter of days. They did allow crossover between the arms that was just receiving standard testing and the group that was receiving the rapid genomes and then followed this up with parent and clinician surveys and I have a little bit more data about some of the results from this study but because of the results of the study which showed that there was some benefit there seemed to be from having the sequencing done there started to be an issue with the clinicians themselves not necessarily wanting to have their patients be randomized. So they actually have a new study design that they just started recently since they have moved from Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City out to Rady and using this new study design it has many of the same elements of the first study but now the randomization is between doing a rapid exome and a rapid genome in order to be able to help maintain that equipoise in the randomized clinical trial design. And then the last of the studies to present from Insight is also looking at a healthy and sick newborn cohort out of Boston. This group is randomizing to be able to receive genomic sequencing in this case it's typically going to be exomes that they receive and then they have the option of being able to receive an indication based analysis if there is genomic sequencing. So within the sick cohort they would receive if they got the genomic sequencing an indication based report based on whatever the condition was that that infant was presenting with at the NICU but also within the healthy cohort if that infant presented with some sort of condition within their first couple of years of life while they were being seen at the hospital and they had the sequencing results on file they could order an optional indication based test based on the information that they already had in the database. And they are also conducting parent and physician follow up surveys in order to be able to learn more about whether or not both the physicians and the parents found this information useful to have returned if it made any difference in their care management as well as looking at some of the economic outcomes. So then moving on a little bit to the findings to date starting with the question of replicating or augmenting current newborn screening results. The UCSF study has found that exome sequencing currently cannot replicate all of the known newborn screening results out of their first 182 exomes they got about 12 percent that were false negative so right now they're not able to completely duplicate what you found from the biochemical results and find all of the individuals who have been confirmed to be positive. However, what they have seen is that exome sequencing can be useful to be able to augment newborn screening results. So if you think about this more as potentially a second tier of testing or an additional test that could be run clinically that being able to determine exactly what gene is involved in one of these newborn screening conditions or what variant can potentially be useful in being able to make decisions about treatment and it can also be useful in distinguishing a condition. Some of these conditions that are tested for on the current newborn screening panel have biochemical test results that have overlapping thresholds so sometimes it can be difficult to be able to distinguish exactly which condition an infant is positive for and having the genomic information can help with making that call. Just looking at the question of what knowledge could we gain about conditions that are not currently screened, the UNC Chapel Hill study has been really working on this electronic decision aid for the parents to be able to inform their decision making and evaluating the outcomes from this testing. And this allows them to be able to look more in a general context at what would happen if you actually could get back all of this, these different types of genomic information from an infant's test. So beyond the fact that everyone receives back these childhood onset medically actionable conditions, the individuals who are in the randomized section have these options to be able to receive additional information and they're hoping that by being able to study this decision aid and look more at the process of how parents make decisions can learn more about how useful this information is on conditions that are not currently on the panel and whether or not parents find value in having this type of information. And then towards the clinical care of newborns, from the Rady study looking at the NICU population it appears that sequencing can lead to changes in diagnosis and clinical management. And from their preliminary study they were able to diagnose 20 out of 35 of the infants and in 13 out of 20 of the individuals that were diagnosed, the diagnosis impacted clinical management. So it was changes in medication, some of the infants were put on palliative care or there were changes in the reproductive genetic counseling that was provided to the parents. And so this is part of what drove that change in their model when they had their move. And then finally there's been some other additional findings that have come out of insight that were unanticipated. One of the interesting ones that we have a writing group working on right now is related to enrollment and understanding reasons for decline. So initially the Boston group had done a survey based on asking parents if they would be interested in receiving sequencing results back on their newborn. And when asked about this in a very hypothetical setting they found that 46% of these parents reported that they would be very or extremely interested in doing newborn genomic testing. But then when they actually went to the clinic to do this they found that at first only 7% of individuals would actually enroll in the study when presented with this in an actual setting. And so this really showed that it was similar between both the NICU and the healthy baby cohorts but they found that there were actually some slightly different reasons given where at first if you presented this to the parents the ultimate reason that they would turn this down just when approached by a nurse at the hospital after birth was that it was a logistical concern. We don't want to come back to deal with this study. We don't want to be involved in a research study right now. We just had a new baby. But that if individuals were willing to then consider being enrolled in a research study and actually talk to a genetic counselor about the consent form then you started getting individuals who were concerned about privacy and whether or not the results were uncertain and potential insurance discrimination. So they're finding some interesting results there about enrollment and due to this finding we've actually started looking across all of the different insight projects because they are doing their enrollment in different ways to try and see if we can learn more about the reasons that these parents are making a decision to either participate in research or not. And that leads into the fact that we do have some network-wide working and writing groups and insight beyond these four projects. We don't have a set coordinating center for insight but NBSTRN which is the newborn screening translational research network funded by NICHD does serve to provide some of the coordinating center services to insight they help us with scheduling some of our calls and helping out with some of the meetings and have helped a lot with the common data elements working group, collecting information and helping with getting that data into their longitudinal pediatric data resource which is a resource for researchers in the newborn screening community to be able to learn more about research projects that are going on in that space and get data for doing analyses. That is one of our two working groups, this common data elements working group. We also have a working group related to the ethical, legal and social implications and looking at the different studies that are being done across insight. And then we have three different writing groups that are going on right now. One related to enrollment as I just described. One related to the investigators' experiences going through the FDA investigational device exemption process. And then a paper looking at variant interpretation across the studies and how the different context can potentially have an impact on what kind of information you might want to return. And with that I'd like to tell you just a little bit about an upcoming workshop that we're planning. With the successful collaboration of insight between NHGRI and NICHD we're looking now to explore further opportunities for collaboration and looking at hosting a workshop in spring of 2018. And the idea would be to be able to look and evaluate the gaps and any new emerging opportunities within this space. We had a similar meeting focused on sequencing for newborns back in 2010 which kind of is what led to the insight program. And at this point we'd like to really look broader than just the sequencing and newborn context to be able to evaluate whether there may be new opportunities for our two institutes to work together going forward. So we hope to be able to provide you more information about that going forward. And with that I would like to thank all of the insight participants and their families. All of the investigators that are part of the insight program and then all of the program staff here and at NICHD who helped to make the program possible. And with that I'll take any questions. Thanks. Yeah I mean there are going to be additional presentations for example at ASHD and I think there's some additional papers coming out about just the clinical use of exomes in the NICU. And I can just tell you that you don't have 90% of parents decline. So I think there's also something about the Boston study where if it was likely they had a Mendelian condition they were exempted out and offered the testing as a clinical test. So I think there may be some additional reasons it was so low. But I do think this is an area where clinical practice is pretty rapidly moving both from the results of insight and other centers just doing it. And so I wonder how much presenting it to the families as a research question with a control group may have also influenced people as opposed to just a new diagnostic test that we're using in other children and we're recommending it for your baby. How much that influence you think might have influenced the low uptake and was how much did the uptake differ in the other centers? No that's a very good point and even just comparing the uptake from the enrollment that was done with the Boston group in their NICU population that was where these individuals were approached shortly after giving birth within like 48 hours before they left the hospital that's a very rough time for people to be approaching someone to be able to do a research study versus the way that it was handled with the Rady Children's Hospital group which is also recruiting from NICUs and had a much higher recruitment rate. I do think there is something that's about the difference in the way the studies were being conducted. But that's definitely one of the things that they're trying to look at in the enrollment paper is just trying to see even in some of these places where they were looking at different settings did the way that the projects were set up influenced the way that people were making their enrollment decisions. Sharon what were the rates that you... I actually I can't give you a number but it's routinely recommended for very ill, I shouldn't say routinely, it is clearly now recommended by Genetics Consult Service for very ill babies in the NICU and the decline rate is... we're talking different when you may want to comment. I mean I'm sure there are people that decline. I mean similarly in our pediatric cancer study we had 30% of parents decline and I think in a setting where the parents think it may be clinically useful the uptake is generally been fairly high. I would just say clinically you know if you exclude secondary findings and just focus on the diagnosis I'd say 90% upwards in terms of agreement. But it's not being presented as do you want to participate in this research trial and I wonder how much that influences. It's a doctor going I think this might be a useful test your baby's really ill and I think that may be influencing these rates. And that is something that we saw even within the other NICU population at the Kansas City group was that once people could actually do this clinically then they were less interested in doing this as part of a research study where you might get randomized. So once again the Boston Group is also a randomization. There were other parts of the study that you had to be willing to participate in beyond just the sequencing. So part of this was just the burden of if people can do this clinically they might not be as interested in being able to do it as part of a research study. And the field has been advancing very rapidly towards that over the course of these projects. Yes. This is such a technical question but I think I saw that not everyone's using the actual newborn screen dried blood spots. Just what percentage of sites are using that and have there been any technical issues in terms of doing that? I don't know CNVs or anything else in terms of what you can or can't get from the dried blood spots? Yes so there's only one group that's using dried blood spots which is the UCSF group and they're only using it for part of their study where they're doing the comparison between the existing newborn screening results and the results from doing exome sequencing. So they've been able to get good results back as far as the quality of the exome sequencing but they haven't looked deeply at things like structural variants or things like that at this point in time. Anastasia I have a question from Jeff Botkin who's watching this but he doesn't have a phone line to come in so he's asking is the goal of the enrollment assessment to evaluate recruitment or to enhance recruitment? Are there challenges to obtaining meaningful results from the studies due to low enrollment? Okay so the information that I presented here was some of the early data regarding the enrollment which really led to why we've started a group that is writing a paper about enrollment. There have been increases in the enrollment at the Boston site they made some changes to their consent protocol and have been able to improve recruitment there and are gonna have no problems with meeting their overall recruitment needs for the project overall. So it's not gonna influence whether or not we can meet recruitment milestones to be able to complete the study but we are interested in looking at the fact that there are such diverse settings across insight. Are there lessons to be learned about enrollment for this type of genomic medicine study that we could learn by looking across these different studies in the way that they were set up? Yeah, please. You in one of your slides you referenced frequency or percentage of diagnoses. How is the word diagnosis defined here? Is it specifically a case where the genetic or genomic information is part of the diagnosis or contributing to it? So it is a diagnosis that was made from the sequencing. May have a related question to the last one that was asked. So you gave some data on the clinical care of newborns where there were I think 20, 35 cases they came up with a diagnosis. I assume that was with whole exome sequencing? Yeah. This is actually from genome sequencing. That's whole genome and my question was whether they had a pre-test pre-test differential diagnosis or they just looked at the genome in general and follow up on that is how do we know that these diagnoses are correct? Okay, so the information about how is this done? Let me go back to the project piece because I think that'll actually be helpful. So this is the project design that those results come from. So these were individuals who were selected for enrollment based on the fact that they were suggestive of having a genetic disease. So they had clinical features that made them feel that this is likely to be a genetic condition. Beyond that the information that was used for being able to do the analysis because this is part of this rapid genome sequencing was phenotypic information was collected about the child that's fed into part of their algorithm for being able to try and make the rapid diagnoses and that's how they then come back with the information that's potentially used then to provide back to the physician who can then make the diagnosis. So it's in some cases returned to the physician before they have an official clinical report if they feel like this could potentially have a really dramatic impact on the care management of that infant where time is of the essence. But in most cases this would be the patient who has been returned back to them as a clinical report saying here are the findings from the sequencing and then the physician makes the determination of a diagnosis. Did they also sequence parents to look at de novo changes for example? They did look to see whether or not changes were de novo and look for segregation and things like that. Yeah. And the new study is particularly looking at doing trios as a potential option where they were looking at provisional diagnosis. Can you get something just from doing a pro band and then trying to see if adding the trios added additional information? I'm curious about what types of actions are taken to improve that end up improving outcomes. So in that case of the NICU you're referring to the these changes in care or management that okay. So they basically fall into three main categories for the most frequently cited changes. Sometimes it is a change in either medication or procedure that is going to be conducted. I know that in at least one case they had an infant that was being crept for surgery because they felt that there was one diagnosis. They got the sequencing results back determined that it was actually a different potential diagnosis where there was going to be a high risk of complications from the surgery. So they were able to stop the surgery. So there are those kinds of more dramatic kinds of cases. Then I would say the next large group is a change to palliative care management where they're able to determine that at this point in time they have a diagnosis and that there is not necessarily a need to continue testing and that they can switch to more of a palliative care regime. And then there's the final category that they were classifying for changes in care and management that came up frequently is related to being able to provide information for reproductive counseling being able to provide the parents with information about what the potential genetic cause was of this was this a de novo change is this something that's likely to recur in future pregnancies. What are your options. And those are the large categories. I think it is also important. I'm trying to find the abstract because I thought it was one of the one of these projects. But maybe you reviewed it and I missed it. It's not that sequencing is always better. Right. There was definitely an abstract at ACMG that metabolic profiling was far superior than exome sequencing. Yes. So that's a different study. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. No. So there's there's I just somehow I didn't think that I just want to be sure the group was aware of that that. Yes. So that's the UCSF study. And so that's that's the group that's really looking at exomes sequencing compared to the current newborn screening. So there's a difference between the findings so far in the NICU population where it seems that you can get diagnoses that potentially could actually change management and this more public health setting of can you actually replicate what we currently do with biochemical testing for newborn screening. And what they found is that so far that does not seem to directly replicate. Right. I just want to be able to I mean that the talk was quite persuasive. Like they just miss them. You know and they really couldn't find a number of these mutations even after they broke the code. They still couldn't find the genetic cause. So it was quite striking in the setting of newborn screening disorders how poorly it and I assume they did go back and confirm that. No they couldn't find them. So they confirmed the biochemical test. They confirmed the biochemical test. These were newborn screen biochemically confirmed diagnoses. Yeah they have the information from the California public health labs on both the original testing that was done on the blood spots as well as you know what whether this was you know confirmed. Did they go on and do whole genome sequencing. They have not done genome. They have not. They would like to. Yeah you look. I still struggle with what the purpose of that arm of this project was I mean you're never going to do better. It's markedly more expensive. You already have the gold standard. So I still struggle with with that because it's a question that comes up. There are a lot of believers probably including in this room that but what's the belief that the sequencing might be better and more efficient than all of all of this mass spec. I mean I assume that was the rationale for doing it. On the other hand you don't you test for but it's a set J you put your testing for a finite set of conditions. So sure for expanding outside but within the within the conditions the actionable conditions that are screened for right. And what would at least maybe this exists but I'm not aware of it but what's you know the list of what else you would screen for you know you only screen for the things that are actionable. What's the what's the broader list of things that you would screen for that aren't captured by the metabolic panel. I mean the actionable list is larger than what's screened for. Right. But is there an actionable list. Is there a list of things that there will be. I mean with time this will get that list will get larger in the cancer space. I have colleagues that have suggested we should be doing newborn screening for retinoblastoma which could never be done because of the very early onset and the attempt to save vision which could never be done by any method other than sequencing. So there are disorders for which if you decided you were going to do exomes for the metabolic disorders that you might then add other disorders which right now are not practical. Just a comment on J's thing. So the biochemical tests are are not always unambiguous. So often you get a result and you don't know what it means. It's abnormal. You don't know what it means. So perhaps this could contribute. But I'm sort of with you there. I don't think this is that's sorry the solution. The the other thing I wanted to point out since this is an open session I think in that one line on the comparing the well when you got when they claim to have gotten 20 answers out of 35 and they had the one line that said suggestive of a genetic disease or something like that. That is I don't I don't think that statement should be underestimated of the work that goes into that the clinical work and you would so in reality what they're looking at is there they're using clinical expertise to help guide who to do whole genome sequencing on and that is extremely important and different from just sequencing everybody and that should be noted going forward because you don't want to sequence just every sick infant in the NICU. Many or most of those will be infectious diseases. That's a very good point and this is a very selective cohort especially this first study of them looking like they were genetic and having a neonatologist who was willing to present the study to them and all of those things these this is a higher percentage and as they have then worked to make their enrollment criteria a little bit looser and enroll more infants from the NICU they have seen that number start to come down a little bit so I do believe you have a very good point that this is definitely including a lot of clinical information in there as well but they are definitely seeing some result from having that genomic information available as well even once they start broadening it. The role has been imposed thank you very much Anastasia.


Stories and content in Weird Darkness can be disturbing for some listeners and is intended for mature audiences only. Parental discretion is strongly advised. It may seem as if the wastelands of the deserts are completely devoid of life. With their never-ending expanses of bleak scrub and sand dunes, this all appears as if it must be a barren realm that might as well be on another planet. Yet not only does life thrum here behind the scenes, eking out a living in these badlands, but there are also quite a few reports of mysterious creatures from here of a surprisingly humanoid nature. I'm Darren Marlar and this is Weird Darkness. Welcome, Weirdos. This is Weird Darkness. Here you'll find stories of the paranormal, supernatural, legends, lore, crime, conspiracy, mysterious, macabre, unsolved and unexplained. If you're new here, welcome to the podcast and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss future episodes. If you're already a Weirdo, please share the podcast with others. Doing so helps make it possible for me to keep creating episodes as often as I do. Coming up in this episode… In 1803, London was seized by pure terror as sightings of a macabre-looking ghost haunted the area of Hammersmith. It would eventually end in bloody murder and set a legal precedent for crimes committed in self-defense. To this day, a police notice stands on the wall inside 50 Berkeley Square that proclaims that the upper floors cannot be used for any purpose. May all who see it heed its warning. Weirdo family member Cassie Murphy relates what happened when she took her young daughter sightseeing in a ghost town. No other epidemic or pandemic has claimed as many lives as the Spanish flew, not even the Black Death in the 14th century, AIDS in the 20th century, or COVID-19 in the 21st century. But a hundred years later, why have we forgotten the deadliest pandemic in history? Strange creatures have been reported being seen in deserts all around the world, creatures almost but not quite human-like. What are they? And how do they survive in these barren wildernesses? We'll begin with that story. While listening, be sure to check out the Weird Darkness website. At WeirdDarkness.com you can sign up for the newsletter to win monthly prizes, find paranormal and horror audiobooks I've narrated, watch old horror movies for free, plus you can visit the Hope in the Darkness page if you're struggling with depression or dark thoughts. You can find all of that and more at WeirdDarkness.com.  One of the most bizarre and unsolved cases of a desert humanoid creature of some sort is an enormous beast that has come to be known as the Yucca Man. The tales seem to originate in the 1960s in the vicinity of the 29 Palms Military Base located in the Mojave Desert of Southeastern California and Southern Nevada. Here, in this remote, desolate location, there would be a series of events that has remained unexplained for decades and which hints at some sort of desert roaming humanoid entity. The first sighting that really put the phenomenon on the map allegedly occurred in 1971 when a marine from the base who was on guard duty reported hearing something out in the desert scrub, which sounded like heavy breathing from some very large creature, as well as grunts and growls seemingly circling his guard station. When he warily went out to investigate, expecting to see some wild animal, he claimed to have been confronted with a gigantic 8-foot-tall hairy ape-like creature with glowing red eyes. In some versions of this account, the marine is knocked down by the beast, only to awaken hours later and find his rifle twisted and bent like a pretzel. This would be far from the last time anyone would hear of this strange creature, with frequent reports of dogs going haywire and of hikers encountering a fetid stench beginning to come in at a steady rate in the following years. And there was a spate of such odd occurrences at Joshua Tree National Park throughout the early 70s, with numerous campers telling of a large beast rummaging through their campsites and even attempting to open their tents, as well as park employees telling of sighting monstrous man-like forms prowling the desert that were estimated as being up to 12 feet tall. There were also massive footprints found and several indistinct, predictably blurry pictures of the creature or creatures were taken. Such sightings made their way into several Southern California news publications at the time and one June 1973 report from the Antelope Valley Daily Ledger Gazette described the creature and some reports thus. The creature likes to run around houses and leave footprints, that is its MO in the East Lancaster area where footprints were found around several houses recently. One woman reported that the creature ran around her house and scratched at the door. A small boy sent to tell his father supper was ready was found hours later crying near the corral. When asked what happened to him, he answered that a big furry man would not let him pass. In that year, 1973, there were many sightings of the creature in the area of Lancaster in the western Mojave Desert in California, such as a sighting made by three separate marines and other disparate witnesses as well. It got to the point where in this year there was a near tragedy when two search parties were out bigfoot hunting in the wake of the mysterious reports and almost opened fire on each other. Sightings continued and in 1979 there was an account given by an elderly couple who claimed that the beast had stepped right out in front of their car to tower over the vehicle before lumbering off into the night, leaving enormous tracks behind. In that same year, there were two additional sightings from Hemat, California of a massive 10-foot tall creature that left behind footprints a foot and a half long. Around this time there was a string of sightings of all sorts of strange phenomena near the Edwards Air Force Base, about 22 miles northeast of Lancaster. Here there were numerous reports of base personnel sighting hulking humanoid figures in the dark, which allegedly used a series of underground tunnels to move about. Oddly there were many purported UFO sightings in the area at the same time, but whether or not this has any connection is unknown. One of the more far out reports from the base was collected by Bigfoot researcher Edwards Bobby Ann Slate and concerned one of the creatures that apparently had bright blue eyes. The report was given by a base policeman who said, heading back to the main base I noticed maybe 200-300 yards to my left, these large blue eyes. I do a lot of night hunting and it was strange. They were larger than anything I had ever seen before. The blue eyes had to be about 4 inches apart and 7 feet off the ground. I stopped the truck and sat there watching them. It was too dark to see any body shape to the thing. The blue glows proceeded toward my truck at a right angle for about 100 yards and stopped. The movement of the eyes was extremely fast. Another thing that bothered me was that they didn't bob up and down. It was like the two lights on a wire moving from one point to another. This particular creature, nicknamed blue eyes, has apparently been regularly seen by base police and has been widely discussed amongst them right up to the present. Several other personnel at the remote desert base at the time also came forward to anonymously report that large, bigfoot-like creatures had been routinely spotted through night vision equipment skirting the perimeter of the base, often with red glowing eyes walking through it or even venturing into the many underground tunnels in the area. The witnesses explained that the presence of the creatures was officially classified and that they had been specifically ordered not to fire upon them. There had allegedly been several instances of catching the creatures on surveillance cameras at the base, but this footage was labeled as classified and never released to the public. It is not even necessarily bigfoot-like creatures that have been seen, as there are reports of indistinct shadow men and even shape-changing entities from the base, as well as what seemed to be just disembodied glowing eyes. What's going on here? Also from Southern California are more modern reports of some sort of hair-covered semi-bipedal creature with glowing red eyes that has been seen loping or running along at high speeds along Highway 14 and which has come to be called the Sierra Highway Devil. Another odd red-eyed humanoid monstrosity from the same area is what has come to be called the Cement Monster, named for its appearance at a concrete mine near Big Bear Lake, owned by the Mitsubishi Cement Corporation. In 1988, the beast was seen by two U.S. Marines who were on their way home from a skiing trip to the area when they saw the creature looming over an abandoned strip mine in the area. One of the witnesses, Ken Cross, would tell researcher Douglas E. Trapp thus. From the left side of the road, something very large seemed to stand up on two legs and run across the road. The bottom half looked human, covered with hair. The top half wasn't very visible, but appeared monstrous, scary in other words.  It made it across the road in three strides. I distinctively remember seeing the arms pumping back and forth just like any of us would do if sprinting across the road in front of a car. It appeared to be eight feet tall. In the sunscorched, burning wilderness of a place called Borrego Sink, 45 miles southeast of Borrego Springs, California, there have been reported terrifying encounters between man and mystery beast. The desert may seem to be a strange place to find Bigfoot, but not only have they been reported in this savage wasteland, but they seem to be of a rather aggressive variety, especially the ones that have come to be known as the Borrego Sasquatch. One such incident occurred in 1939 when a man was camping alone in one of the many dry gulches of the area. The man was awoken in the middle of the night by a band of two-legged, hairy creatures stalking about his camp on the fringes of the camp fires light. The beasts were described as having white or silver fur and possessed piercing red eyes that glowed in the dark. The pack of creatures circled the camp medicinally for some time but seemed to be somewhat afraid of the fire and kept their distance until they finally slunk off back into the desert. Thirty years later, in the same region, a man by the name of Harold Lancaster had his own frightening encounter as he was camping in the sink. Lancaster described how an enormous, hair-covered bipedal creature stalked out of the wilderness and lumbered straight towards him in an intimidating manner. The man, fearing he was about to be attacked, fired his revolver into the air in an effort to scare the monster away. Whatever the creature was, the gunshots did the trick and the thing reportedly jumped around three feet into the air before glaring at Lancaster and running off into the brush. Borgo Sink is not the only place in the desert with its share of ominous man beasts. In a place called Dead Man's Hole, located seven miles from Warner Springs on Highway 79, a string of vicious, unsolved murders occurred back in the 19th century that have long been blamed on a malicious, marauding Sasquatch. In 1858, the first victim was killed under mysterious circumstances, followed by more slayings over the years, a Frenchman who was slaughtered in his cabin, a prospector named David Blair who was killed by what looked like a knife attack, and a woman named Belinda who was strangled and mutilated. The story may have just been chalked up to an insane killer on the rampage had it not been for a curious story that surfaced in 1888. Two hunters were out hunting in an area known as Dark Canyon when they came across a cave full of the scattered remains of various mutilated animals. As they investigated the cave, the hunters reported being attacked by a huge, man-like beast covered in matted black hair with huge hands and feet. According to the hunters, they opened fire on the beast and killed it, after which its body was apparently moved to San Diego and shown to police. At the time, a paper called the San Diego Union ran the story and claimed that the rampaging mystery creature had been the one responsible for the murders, causing quite a public stir in the process. Oddly, the paper ran the story the following day, dismissing the article as a mere April Fools joke. It is unknown if there was ever really a body, or if the creature really existed, but what is known is that the mysterious murders still remain unsolved. Another strange case involving some sort of humanoid creature comes from the deserts of the Mexican state of Chihuahua. At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, a group of teenagers were on a mission to explore the caves of a place called Cerro Pajorito, when they came across something that would haunt them for the rest of their lives. As the group was exploring one of the caves, they came upon the discovery of a dead deer and a doe that were freshly killed and exhibited three odd perforations on their necks that formed a triangular pattern. In the surrounding area, there were footprints that looked like those of a puma, but it soon became apparent that no puma had done this. The group suddenly heard blood curdling squealing sounds and the air became pervaded by a stench described as smelling like burning wood. The terrified group of teenagers looked and saw a hunched over humanoid figure crouched upon a rock outcropping about 15 meters away from them. The creature apparently started bounding toward them and one from the group emptied his pistol at it, although the bullets seemed to have no effect. As the panicked group turned tail and ran for dear life, they reported passing yet another humanoid creature that was described as being metallic green in color and standing only 80 centimeters high. What could this have possibly been? Nobody knows. The desert is indeed a very isolated domain of intense natural beauty and solitude. Anyone who has been there can attest to that. There is just something about these places that holds to it a certain mystique and allure that is hard to pinpoint and there are vast mysteries lurking here. What are these humanoid entities that we have looked at here? How or why do they manage to remain in this forbidding landscape? Are these cryptids, some sort of desert Sasquatch? Are they ghosts, demons, interdimensional travelers or something else? No one knows and they serve to add to the allure of these oft forgotten and avoided places. Up next. In 1803, London was seized by pure terror as sightings of a macabre looking ghost haunted the area of Hammersmith. It would eventually end in bloody murder and set a legal precedent for crimes committed in self-defense. Plus, to this day, a police notice stands on the wall inside 50 Berkeley Square that proclaims that the upper floors cannot be used for any purpose. May all who see it heed its warning. These stories and more when Weird Darkness returns. I'd like you to meet the newest member of our Weirdo family. Meet Syjak, a female arctic wolf. While visiting the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Kingsburg, Colorado, Robin and I fell in love with the place and their mission to save the lives of animals from abuse and neglect. I immediately felt drawn to Syjak upon seeing her and decided to adopt her in the name of Weird Darkness. Syjak was born in a safari park that couldn't care for her, but the Wild Animal Sanctuary steps in to save Syjak and other wild animals from private owners and less than ideal living conditions. Syjak now has a lifelong home in a large acreage, natural habitat near other wolves. Wild Animal Sanctuary has saved numerous other wild animals from abuse and neglect – lions, grizzlies, tigers, panthers and more. Visit WildAnimalSanctuary.org to learn more, donate to the sanctuary and maybe adopt an animal of your own like we have with Syjak. That's WildAnimalSanctuary.org. Through November and December of 1803, London was seized by pure terror. The Hammersmith District had been plagued with sightings of a macabre-looking ghost. Every night reports of a malevolent apparition flooded the police station. According to most accounts, the specter was determined to frighten anyone nearby. It was described as wearing a white shroud or calfskin and having large, glassy eyes. One of the most alarming encounters concerned an elderly woman and her younger, pregnant friend. The two women were allegedly so scared upon seeing a ghost, they died a fright in their beds a few days later. Another sighting occurred and caused a wagoner to lose control of his horses. His 16 passengers were injured. Finally, a brewer named Thomas Groom claimed to be strangled from behind while strolling through a churchyard. After grappling with his assailant, Groom turned around in time to see the ghost vanish behind a row of tombstones. Local speculation eventually traced the ghost to the restless spirits of a man who had slashed his own throat 12 months prior. As a suicide case, his soul was unable to rest peacefully, so the theory went. But skeptics in the village believed they were being victimized by a prankster and quickly formed a vigilante group. On December 29, members of the group, including night watchman William Girdler, spotted a shrouded figure lurking about the area. The group gave chase. Halfway into their pursuit, the figure dropped his shroud and escaped. Four days later, everything changed. Thomas Millwood, a 32-year-old plasterer, was returning home along Black Lion Lane on the evening of January 3, 1804. Having just come from his parents' home, Millwood was still wearing his white work clothes, an apron, waistcoat, and trousers. One of the vigilantes named Francis Smith spotted Millwood and immediately shouted, Damn you! Who are you and what do you want? I'll shoot you if you don't speak. Without waiting for a response, Smith fired two gunshots, one of which hit Millwood in the face, killing him instantly. Hearing the shots from her house, Ann Millwood called out her brother's name in the street, but did not get an answer. She ran into the direction of Black Lion Lane and found him sprawled across the ground, covered in blood. Once it became evident that Millwood was the victim of a mistaken identity and that Smith had fired his gun in haste, Smith surrendered to police. Millwood's body was taken to the Black Lion Inn and examined by a local surgeon, where it was confirmed that a bullet wound to the lower left jaw and subsequent spinal damage had been the cause of his death. Two days later, a man named John Graham came forward and admitted to being the Hammersmith Ghost. Graham stated that he'd created the ruse to scare his apprentices who had been frightening his children with ghost stories. Still, his reasoning did not explain why unrelated people had been attacked. Unsure about how to deal with him, the judges granted him bail while they deliberated. No records of further legal action against Graham exist. At a coroner's inquest, Francis Smith was deemed responsible and sent to New Gate Prison to await trial. A week later, Smith pled not guilty despite admitting to firing the shot. Because no one had actually witnessed the shooting, there was a greater burden of proof on the prosecution. Smith compounded his plea by justifying his actions as self-defense. Several character witnesses attested to Smith's good standing. Surprisingly, Millwood's mother-in-law, Phoebe Fullbrook, testified that Millwood was aware of the Hammersmith Ghost and that she had warned him against wearing white clothing in the street night. She further testified that he ignored her suggestion. After a lengthy analysis of the facts, the Lord Chief Barron leaned toward conviction. He reminded the jury that Smith was not acting in self-defense and that the shooting was not accidental. Taking this into account, the jury found Smith guilty of manslaughter. But the Lord Chief Barron would not accept the verdict. Instead, two additional judges, Justice Rook and Justice Lawrence, spoke to the jury and implored them to reconsider. The jury held a second meeting and subsequently found Smith guilty of murder. He was sentenced to be hanged and dissected the following Monday. Crying hysterically, Smith collapsed and had to be carried out of the courtroom. The Lord Chief Barron, either in a moment of compassion or in recognition of the public backlash that might ensue, referred Smith's punishment to King George III. That evening, the King commuted Smith's death sentence to one year of imprisonment with hard labor. On July 14, 1804, he received a full pardon. In the years that followed the Hammersmith Ghost case, similar instances of mistaken identity were brought to trial. It was determined that there was little defense for a person who committed a violent crime while actually believing they were acting in good faith. This legal haziness would not be settled until 180 years later, in 1984, when Regina vs. Williams was brought to the Court of Appeal. Though the Hammersmith Ghost and Thomas Millwood have long since disappeared from view, local legend maintains that Millwood's spirit is not at peace. Every 50 years, his ghost is said to appear in the bar that now stands on the location of his death. Ironically, the very man gunned down because he appeared as a ghost is now said to haunt the site where he died. The late Georgian façade of 50 Berkeley Square seems harmless enough, but it was once known as the most haunted home in all of London. Today is better known for being one of the oldest unaltered buildings in England's capital city. Although its reputation may have faded, this four-story townhouse was at the center of stories about a nameless horror that took the lives of the foolhardy and unlucky alike. To this day, visitors are warned away from the topmost floor and the dangers that still dwell within. The brickwork building at 50 Berkeley Square was designed and built by William Kent in the late 18th century as one of many in the well-to-do Mayfair area. Almost immediately, neighbors began telling stories about its sinister residence. The most common story was of a young woman named Adeline who jumped from the uppermost floors to escape her abusive uncle. From that on, people would see her white figure throwing herself from the top floor window before falling and disappearing. Other stories arose about a Mr. Dupre who locked his mad brother in the attic room and kept him there, feeding him through a hole in the door. Later, residents reported seeing the spirit of a little girl in the attic as well, who'd supposedly been killed by a sadistic servant. The first long-term resident of 50 Berkeley Square was Prime Minister George Canning, who lived there until his death in 1827. Canning was the first to experience the haunting in the form of inexplicable sounds and psychic phenomena. After his death, people moved in and out of the house through the 1850s. However, at this point, the house came to life when a maid who spent the night on the top floor was found screaming the next morning, her face a mask of fear. She survived, but later passed away at a sanitarium. Rumors began to circulate around London that only the bravest of souls would dare to spend the night in the haunted house. Shortly thereafter, a young man with no fear of ghosts offered to stay the night. After setting up a bell system, one ring for fear, two rings for help, the man went to sleep. But after the bell began shaking rapidly, he was found dead of fright. Eventually, an elderly woman named Miss Curzon calmly passed away the last of her days in the sinister townhouse. But the horror at 50 Berkeley Square was merely lurking in the shadows, waiting for the discount bearstead to purchase and lease it to a young man on the verge of marriage named Mr. Myers. After his fiancee jilted Myers, the gentleman isolated himself in the home he'd furnished for her and became a recluse. On occasion, neighbors saw him taking walks at night, his lone candlelight drifting from room to room. It's unclear what happened to Myers, but soon enough, the former prime minister's home had become derelict, with a reputation as the haunted house in Berkeley Square. In 1872, the aristocrat, Lord Littleton, decided to stay the night and brought his shotgun with him. He claimed to have fired at a brown mass of tendrils in the shadows, but there was no trace of it in the morning. In 1873, the local council summoned its owners over back taxes. When neither Myers nor Bearstead came forth, the townhouse's formidable reputation led to the charges being dropped and the building lay vacant for years. In the meantime, neighbors reported unearthly moans and screams, along with the sounds of furniture being dragged, bells ringing and windows slamming. Despite its grimy brickwork and piles of waste, 50 Berkeley Square was purchased by a man and his two teenage daughters in 1879. Upon moving in, the eldest daughter noted a musty smell like zoo animals in their cages. During preparations for the arrival of her betrothed, a captain Kentfield, a maid servant was found collapsed and in hysterics in the guest room, the same haunted room on the top floor. She reportedly cried, don't let it touch me over and over before being sent to a sanitarium. Meanwhile, only a half hour after the captain's arrival, screams and a gunshot were heard before he was discovered dead afright. An article in the Mayfair magazine recounted the entire affair and the nameless horror was soon known throughout the United Kingdom. By the late 19th century, the haunted townhouse had been long abandoned. Unfortunately, two sailors on leave from the HMS Penelope on Christmas Eve 1887 could not have known what awaited them in its dark interiors. Edward Blunden and Robert Martin were merely looking for a place to spend the night after a night of celebration that left them bereft of money for lodging. The two stumbled upon 50 Berkeley Square and settled into one of the upper bedrooms. At some point, Blunden began hearing ghostly footsteps before Myers' menacing ghost entered their room. Martin awoke to his compatriot and snared by spectral tendrils and dashed from the room. Upon his return with the authorities, they discovered Blunden dead. Although the story has changed over time, with some claiming the sailor was dismembered in the basement or impaled on a fence, the horror had taken its last life. For now. Since the death of Robert Martin, only an elderly couple and an antiquarian book dealer have inhabited the sinister house at 50 Berkeley Square. With the closing of Mags Bros. antiquarian book dealers in 2015, though, the stories have returned of objects tossed about or of a shapeless brown mist that reaches from the shadows. To this day, a police notice stands on the wall inside the townhouse that proclaims that the upper floors cannot be used for any purpose. May all who see it heed its warning. This next story is from weirdo family member Cassie Murphy. So this happened about 10 years ago now. I have to start by saying I am a mother of two beautiful girls, both born by C-section. I know, a strange detail, but it's important. When my eldest daughter was around three, a friend and I decided to take both girls to a ghost town near the little town we lived in in Idaho. Everything was going great. Most of the buildings were roped off, so you really couldn't get too close to anything. It hadn't been a ghost town for very long. In the window of one of the houses was a land before time VHS tape. But it was fun. We were almost done walking through the paths when my little blonde baby looked at me and said, You are not my mom. I told her I am your mom. I have the scars to prove it. She looked back at me and then said, My mom and dad were shot by bad guys. She looked so serious for a three-year-old.  Then I got the creepy baby out of the ghost town as fast as I could. Took me another 10 years before I would let her anywhere near another ghost town. This last time went by with no creepy incidents.  Still gives me the shivers. No other epidemic or pandemic has claimed as many lives as the Spanish flu. Not even the Black Death in the 14th century, AIDS in the 20th century, or COVID-19 in the 21st century. Now, more than 100 years later, why have we forgotten the deadliest pandemic in history? That story is up next on Weird Darkness. Hey Weirdos, my next email newsletter winner gets the winterized Weirdo prize back.  I'm proud to be a Weirdo crew-neck sweatshirt with your size and color choice. Plus, a Bigfoot Aliens and UFOs ceramic coffee mug along with a travel mug of the same design to drink your favorite hot beverage in. I'll be choosing a winner for my winterized Weirdo prize pack in March, so sign up for the Weird Darkness email newsletter at WeirdDarkness.com and you'll automatically be in the drawing to win. No purchase necessary, see details on the contest page at WeirdDarkness.com.  Though it was 1918 and World War I still raged in Europe, these men had not been shot in the trenches or poisoned by mustard gas. They had died from an infection just outside of Boston at Camp Devons, and the disease was spreading. By late fall of that year, Vaughn solemnly stated, if the epidemic continues its mathematical rate of acceleration, civilization could easily disappear from the face of the earth. Humanity did not perish that year, yet it is easy to understand why Vaughn thought it could. International death toll estimates for the Spanish flu pandemic, that is a global epidemic, range between 20 to 100 million, or about 5 percent of the world's population, with cases on five continents. These fatalities included an estimated 675,000 Americans, or 10 times as many as who died in World War I. On the centennial of this health disaster, it's worth asking, why isn't the 1918 flu better remembered? Lost scars are family trees. The visuals of that year remain haunting with faces hidden by protective masks, and the streets left deserted as crowds became associated with death. Schools, theaters, and even churches were shuttered, as people waited for the illness to pass. Schools and private homes were turned into makeshift hospitals, while a popular ski rope rhyme was ominously sung by children. I had a little bird, its name was Enza, I opened the window and in flew Enza. Austrian painter Gustav Klimt, his protege, Egon Schuyl, and French poet Guillaume Apollonier all died from the 1918 flu. Edward Monk painted a self-portrait after the Spanish flu in 1919, in which he is gazing haggardly at the viewer, drained but still alive. Even President Woodrow Wilson got the flu, its symptoms taking their toll as he participated in the 1919 negotiation of the Treaty of Versailles. Rich or poor, rural or city dweller, no one was safe from the Spanish flu. In Pale Rider, the Spanish flu of 1918 and how it changed the world, Laura Spinney notes that there are very few cemeteries in the world that, assuming they are older than a century, don't contain a cluster of graves from the autumn of 1918, when the second and worst wave of the pandemic struck, and people's memories reflect that. But there is no cenotaph, no monument in London, Moscow or Washington, D.C. The Spanish flu is remembered personally, not collectively. There were three waves of the Spanish flu, with two in 1918 and a third in early 1919. Spanish flu is something of a misnomer. The countries involved in World War I were reluctant to publicize their own struggles with influenza, lest they be perceived as weak. Spain, however, was neutral and didn't censor this news. Scientists and researchers have theorized for years over the actual origin of the disease, from Camp Funston in Kansas to China, with no consensus except that it was not Spain. Wartime restrictions on communication had deadly effects, including in the U.S. President Wilson's Committee on Public Information and the Sedition Act passed by Congress both limited writing or publishing anything negative about the country. Federally-issued posters asked the public to report the man who spreads pessimistic stories. John M. Berry, author of The Great Influenza, the story of the deadliest pandemic in history, writes in an article for Smithsonian Magazine about a particularly tragic consequence of this militant protection of morale. In Philadelphia, doctors pushed for the Liberty Loan Parade on September 28 to be canceled as they were concerned the concentration of people would spur the disease. They convinced reporters to write stories about the danger, Berry writes, but editors refused to run them and refused to print letters from doctors. The largest parade in Philadelphia's history proceeded on schedule. Two days later, the epidemic had indeed spread, and over just six weeks, more than 12,000 citizens of Philadelphia died. The Spanish Flu is now identified as a form of H1N1 influenza. It still has outbreaks, but the clustering of soldiers in camps, the density of urban areas and the newly global connections of ships, railroads and other transportation meant it had prime conditions for a pandemic in 1918. This was also before flu vaccines and treatment options were limited. Eating or wearing onions, drinking whiskey and praying were some available prescriptions. Posters issued by Alberta Canada's Provincial Board warned there is no medicine which will prevent it, and instead gave instructions on how to make a mask. A U.S. public health ad declared the disease as dangerous as poison gas shells. Shaking hands, borrowing books from the library and spitting on the street were all warned against. In New York City, Boy Scouts patrolled the streets, handing spitters printed cards that read, You Are in Violation of the Sanitary Code. Many infected people got better. Many did not. In the book, Flu, the story of the great influenza pandemic of 1918 and the search for the virus that caused it, Gina Colada relates the grisly death by Spanish Flu.  You start to cough up blood. Your feet turn black. Finally, as the end nears, you frantically gasp for breath.   And a significant number of the dead were not young or elderly. They were in the prime of their lives between 20 to 40 years old and generally healthy before they caught the flu. As the sickness accelerated, there was a desperate need for doctors and nurses, many of whom were occupied by the war effort. Medical workers often contracted the flu themselves, and there was reluctance to volunteer around this contagious disease. Then another crisis emerged, how to bury the dead. Alfred W. Crosby, in America's Forgotten Pandemic, the Influenza of 1918, chronicles the burial crisis in Philadelphia, where by mid-October the problem of first priority was not a shortage of volunteers to keep the living alive, but the inadequacy of existing means to put the dead into the ground. There weren't enough coffins, and gravediggers couldn't keep up. One manufacturer said he could dispose of 5,000 caskets in two hours if he had them. At times, the city morgue had as many as 10 times as many bodies as coffins. At Dublin Union Hospital in Ireland, coffins were stacked 18 high in the mortuary at the pandemic's peak. In Spain, the usual two to three-day-long funeral ceremonies were suspended, and village church bells, which had told for the dead since the 16th century, were stopped in order to not further demoralize the population. In Oklahoma City, on the Sunday of October 13th, the church bells were also eerily silent, as the city commissioners shut down the schools, churches and any public space where the disease could spread. Just as World War I was splitting countries apart, the earth was united under a dark shadow of death. Some places were hit worse than others. In western Samoa, now part of the independent state of Samoa, an estimated 22% of the population died. Maury people in New Zealand also suffered, with a death rate of about 50 per 1,000. Mawer Elder, Waina Cooper, as quoted on the New Zealand History site, later described the horror at Pangru Hokeonja, my father was the first to die, I couldn't do anything for him. I remember we put him in a coffin, like a box, there were many others, you could see them on the roads, on the sledges, the ones that are able to drag them away, dragged them away to the cemetery, no time for tanges, the Maury funeral rite. These cemeteries, whether in New Zealand or Kansas, are where we can remember the Spanish Flu. There is no major Spanish Flu monument, no Spanish Flu Museum. It's likely you didn't learn about the Spanish Flu at school, even while studying the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in World War I. Go for a walk in your old local cemetery, read the tombstones, look for dates in 1918. You might find whole families who died within days, or maybe one big monument for a large field of grass under which hundreds were interred when there was no time for individual headstones. There were unmarked mass graves dug for the pandemic's dead. One was found during 2015 road construction in Pennsylvania, but many came to rest in these cemeteries and are still there to discover and recall what popular history has forgotten. No other epidemic or pandemic has claimed as many lives as the Spanish Flu, not even the Black Death in the 14th century, or AIDS in the 20th century. Its obscurity may be an urge to move on from this massive, seemingly inexplicable catastrophe. The individual losses were mourned, not the collective toll. Yet collectively is how people can make it through these disasters in the future, whether it's getting a flu shot or supporting accessible healthcare to support a healthy whole. A flu pandemic could happen again, and unlike in wars, there are no winners in pandemics. Only survivors. Thanks for listening. If you like the podcast and you haven't already subscribed, be sure to do so now so you don't miss future episodes. And also, please, tell someone else about the podcast. Recommend Weird Darkness to your friends, family and co-workers who love the paranormal, horror stories or true crime like you do. Every time you share the podcast with someone new, it helps spread the word about the show, and a growing audience makes it possible for me to keep creating episodes as often as I do. Plus, telling others about Weird Darkness also helps get the word out about resources that are available for those who suffer from depression, so please, share the podcast with someone today. Do you have a dark tale to tell of your own? Fact or fiction, click on Tell Your Story on the website, and I might use it in a future episode. All stories in Weird Darkness are purported to be true unless stated otherwise, and you can find source links or links to the authors in the show notes. Desert Humanoids was written by Brent Swancer for Mysterious Universe. The London haunting that led to murder is from the lineup. The haunting of 50 Berkeley Square is from the Occult Museum. You Are Not My Mom is by Weirdo family member Cassie Murphy, and The Forgotten Year of Death is by Allison C. Meyer for the Order of the Good Death. Weird Darkness Theme by Alibi Music And now that we're coming out of the dark, I'll leave you with a little light. James 1, Verse 22 Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial. Because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. And a final thought, develop an attitude of gratitude. Say thank you to everyone you meet for everything they do for you. Brian Tracy I'm Darren Marlar. Thanks for joining me in the Weird Darkness. Official Weirdos You'll get the commercial-free version of the podcast each day, exclusive news and content. And I'll also be able to upload videos there, schedule live stream events and live chats. And it allows you to interact with other official weirdos by posting your own content and opinions, commenting on what others post, share what you like on the page with others, and invite them to the community, etc. It's kind of the best parts of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Patreon, but without the worst parts of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Patreon. This is a free speech community. No overly sensitive or politically correct fact-checkers removing content because they don't like or agree with it. If you want to join me, I'm giving the first 1000 people free access to give it a try and play around in there with me. Just go to WeirdDarkness.locals.com and use the promo code Weird1000 to get your free access for a full month. That's WeirdDarkness.locals.com promo code Weird1000. Looking forward to hanging out with all of you who want to become official weirdos.


Are you mainstream or are you alternative? These categories have been with me sort of automatically as a way of thinking since growing up in the 90s when it was alternative rock against mainstream pop and it became this statement of identity To be alternative Another word was Indie Are you mainstream or Indie? So it became the statement of you know, I am alternative. I am not like the mainstream. I Am you know, I think for myself, you know, I'm I'm part of this different thing side stream you might call it adjacent to the mainstream And I always Felt a little bit uncomfortable with this Division because on the one hand I love being an eccentric original So I clearly don't feel allegiance to the mainstream and I always enjoy hearing from people that are Just completely different and see things in different ways Rather than just saying, oh, you know, oh, that's weird You know, you just just be normal that that to me is very boring to just say, you know, just being normal So I feel that attraction to the alternative view But then, you know meeting a lot of these alternative Indie people They have their own kind of club of particular beliefs that Make them, you know that that they see as correct and So it becomes almost like It's own mainstream. It's like, well, you know, you have to know these are the good bands and these bands are sellouts You know, so you can't like those you have to like these bands and on these ones, you know They're just that's this mainstream so it becomes almost like this kind of like shadow mainstream where you have this particular set of things that are now considered to be normal and correct and Things that are outside that are just as weird and bad as The mainstream people might see the alternative people So yeah, I'm sort of left out It just being an eccentric original and that's okay I know there's others of you out there eccentric originals who just try to think in their own way and Don't necessarily fit into either mainstream or alternative It has some things about mainstream. I think are actually good. I mean, there's a reason like a lot of Mainstream pop music. Oh, it sounds good because you know, it's just because a lot of people like it There's a chance that sometimes a lot of people are right and doing normal things a lot of things that are normal are Normal for a good reason because they work and they're basically good.  Yeah, I wonder how much it's still You know a thing now, but I think this is something that comes back every generation possibly with some different terminology, but you certainly see it now to a big degree with The whole issue of news and current events. You know, I've been using the example of music, but with current events we see this sort of mainstream consensus and then you have alternative so I Have this same issue of being stuck in between because you know mainstream news telling us certain stories in a certain way with a certain narrative and a lot of it I find is clearly mistaken or not the right way to look at things and So I object to the mainstream. So then I'm a drawn to the alternative, but then what do you get into the in the alternative? so many different Views some of which are I think like completely wrong So, you know, you have some people will just say like oh, you don't believe this particular theory.   It's absolutely sure and That clearly You know anybody that Disagrees with that view is denying science Okay, then I mean that's clearly a very simplified line. It could be described as propaganda since it's clearly trying to encourage people to get vaccinated by Telling them a simplified picture of it's all settled. It's all fine.  I'm not mainstream there but then I see some the anti-vaxxers and I think anti-vaxx is a dead end and there's no There's no point. I can see I have some sympathy for the the choice to not take the vaccine and I appreciate that, you know, it's it's a break from the standard line of everything's perfect but at the same time I think it's not actually helpful and I it's probably more useful for most people to get the vaccine. So I Am stuck in no man's land Once again when it comes to these views So I'd be curious to hear what you think about this Where do you stand on? Alternative versus mainstream