Hey guys, it's Julia and welcome back to my channel So for today's video, I'm just gonna be doing a another vlog for you guys So it is I believe December 7th. Yes Monday So I'm just gonna be vlogging my week like I did last week So I'll have that blog linked down below and on the screen if you want to check that out today Let's see what I have to do.  So Yeah, not not too too bad But yeah yesterday or really late at night my friend Andrew and I did a little gift exchange and he got me I know I said that really quietly, but like I love it so much like I had a wish list an Amazon wish list so That's why but it's so cute I love so And I got the nightmare before Christmas tarot deck which came out like this year and I saw it and I was like That's cool. So I put that on my wish list and he actually got it So like I have so many tarot decks now, but this one I'm so excited about so it's definitely gonna open this up Maybe today and do a reading with it like my first one Yeah, right now. I'm gonna make coffee and then just get my day started I love Saturday's world building My heritage Went to Jamaica and my family took us to Roseville, which is home to this notorious white witch and Palmer who killed her husband with the branch of magic that I Explored in my debut. So I love it. It's taboo It was dark and loved that there were witches that were part of Jamaican culture I grew up with Sabrina Teenage Witch Melissa Joan Hart version I was really excited to tell this twisty dark narrative And which is teaching old was kind of born. It went through a lot of iterations Me sort of finding my fantasy legs and figuring out how I wanted to to tell this story Yeah, so I haven't updated you in terms of reading in a bit and again I have nothing to update It's exam time for me. So I'm just not reading a lot right now But I have to just read five books to complete my good or his challenge So I will be able to do that this year anyway, especially with crime of fun coming up on the 20th Which if you don't know about that's happening. So definitely check that out my computer The fan is going off making a lot of noise, but I got done a bunch of notes for my exam tomorrow Like I was reviewing as well before but I just wanted to make these notes and they do look a little Fancy typically I wouldn't go this all out. I've actually mostly been typing my notes this semester but for the exams and for certain test reviews, I like to write them and Having them just like in a little notebook like this is super helpful. So I did all 13 units And yeah, it took forever And I have a few time-lapse videos of me doing them, but yeah, that's all done finally So it's about 9 30 So I think I'm gonna just relax the rest of the evening because I know it's like I study late into the Like if you study late before an exam, it's just like and if you get about sleep before an exam It's not good So I'm just trying to relax the rest of the night get a good night's sleep Wake up and do my exam then we'll be good to go and I have another exam the next day And then one the week after so that's all I got for updates But I hope you guys are doing well guys, so it's Thursday and it's about 11 a.m I just finished my exam. This was my first exam the one I'm kind of like the most worried about but I just did it and I feel like I did really well on it Especially like the short answer components. I feel like I killed those a few of the multiple choice I feel like I definitely got wrong, but overall, I think I did okay Which I'm glad because now that course is officially done, which it was one of my favorites. So like I'm not like Happy that it's done, but I'm just happy that the semester is finishing So yeah, and I have an exam tomorrow And then one next week, but I'm probably just gonna chill most like for the rest of the day And I'm probably gonna get back in bed because I woke up throughout the middle of the night and I was up and then I started diamond painting in the middle of the night because Go back to bed So I I've been working on this a lot and my boyfriend helped me out for a bit too um Like earlier yesterday, but yeah, this is like Really cool and it's this one's coming along a lot faster than my other one The other one took me like months and this one has been out for a few days and is Looking pretty good. So yeah, I did not end up going back to bed earlier I just stayed up, but I went shopping a little bit downtown. So I just got some like Little crisp like last minute Christmas things.  So I did that and then my exam's done. So the rest of the day I'm just gonna be chilling. I've done a lot of diamond painting. Like that's what I've done a lot of today but Yeah, hopefully I can like get an audiobook and diamond piece so I get both things done Because this vlog hasn't consisted of much reading at all, but hopefully you guys are cool with that like I'm just not Reading anything at the moment. Um, which was the last week that I read three graphic knowledge. Very interested Hopefully I'll start something though this week and finish it so that I can actually talk to you guys about a book Currently just editing and like processing the vlog that you're currently watching I'm just working on it just to get it's Friday today. So just getting um, the last five days and Editing that and then I will have today's clips and tomorrows and sundays and then I just have to add those And it's all nice if you if you vlog I highly recommend doing it this way Um, it just makes things a lot less daunting than having like so many clips and like so much footage If you just cut it up kind of thing And I'm watching um katie's vlog currently But yeah, it's currently two o'clock Yes Today is saturday. It's currently about 6 30 p.m. I Honestly today has just been a super chill day for me, but I've had honestly like a great day Just relaxing and seeing how the day goes Um, but last night my boyfriend and up my boyfriend and I were up super late just Diamond painting so it's really coming along and I'm so happy about it And it honestly is so fun and so relaxing Like there was times where it was just like, okay. This is the last color you're gonna do and then it's like, okay How about we start another one? So that's basically how that went. Um, but it's not done yet, but I'm really excited to keep doing that and then My boyfriend and I exchanged some of our gifts today. Um, not all of the christmas gifts with some of them And he got me a pokemon let's go evie. So I've been playing that today and I only played for about an hour But i'm actually gonna play more now. Um, I haven't been haven't gotten to reading anything interesting, um I honestly don't know what I want to read next And like there's some books that i'm currently like that i'm currently reading but I just I don't know. I'm not feeling it right now. So We'll see. Maybe I'll feel like reading tomorrow. Maybe on the last day of this vlog. Yes. Anyways, hope you guys are doing well Um, I feel like I say that a lot, but yeah, hope you guys are Doing okay. I'm really happy about this So today's sunday, um, I'm gonna be ending this vlog here But I just wanted to mention that I'm gonna be changing the title of this just to like not a reading vlog Just to like a vlogmas video and even though like I think I talk about books at some point But I didn't finish anything this week. So I don't want to call it a reading vlog But yeah, I really hope you guys enjoy this video regardless Let me know your thoughts in the comments down below and comment like a christmas Or holiday related emoji if you stayed till the end and I'll see you guys all super soon with a new video


What's up everybody Jason here for Jasper's case brace calm We just sold out a little filler that fills up optic basketball one two and three where you're guaranteed Three teams per spot guys and we had our early bird spot So if you bought one of the first six spots out of the nine We were selling you had a one-and-six shot to win the 10th spot for free, which is a $300 free spot right there Now again 10 total spots will take everybody's customer names only and triple them up Randomize them and whatever three teams you match up with is what you get But before we do that, I need to do the giveaway. So one two three four five six These are the top six customers that bought in that's everybody else in there Once I figure out obviously once I see who wins the 10th spot will triple up the names and then we'll just randomize them Only so we use the same dice for both. Let's go guys. Here we go roll it is a five and a one six times. Good luck top name gets a free extra spot one two three four five and Sixth and final time good luck guys Kevin Yang Congratulations, man five and a one six times. You just want a free extra spot. I think you were the first one to buy into nice that That'll be your actually. I'm gonna put a little plus sign So I should make the 10 there one two three four five six seven eight nine ten Now we're gonna triple up these names here to make 30 Three and now we're just gonna match them up with this list here cabs at number one two and three Raptors one two three Lakers one two three and then everything else down here Whatever you match up with is what you get so six times here now guys. Good luck one Two three four five and six Boom six times six Gretchen at number one all the way down to Kevin Yang your free spot and This is how it matches up guys So Gretchen you just sorry all right there Gretchen you won the calves in number one Sean you won the calves in number two Gretchen you won the calves in number three Kevin Yang with the Raptors in one your free spot got to the Raptors in two Sean you won the Raptors in three big dog Rob with the Lakers in one Sean Maddick with the Lakers in two Gretchen with the Lakers in three Gretchen with the Grizzlies in three As well as the Kings in two big dog with the Kings in three Gretchen with the Knicks in One big dog with the Celtics in two Sean Maddick with the Knicks and two Richard with the Celtics in three Gretcha with the Knicks in three as well as the Sixers in one. Gretcha with the Sixers in two. And Gretcha with the Bulls in three. Sean with the Sixers in three. Gretcha with the Heat in one. Sean Matic with the Sons in one. Sean Matic with the Wizards in one. As well as the Heat in two. Kevin your free spot with the Sons in two. As well as the Wizards too. See there, right? Heat in three. Kevin Yang with the Sons in three. And then Wizards, Jazz in three combo spot right there. So there you go guys, that's the list of names there. That'll be going into breaks. I'm going to paste those names in there and then we'll start the break right now at three o'clock guys. Number one, two and three coming up next guys. Here we go.


So, setting the scene for treatment of kidney cancer in 2014 is probably something very difficult because we still have a lot of unsolved questions. And what I'm going to do in the next 20 minutes is to give you my idea about what we know about this question we have about predictive factors, role of surgery, role of observation, choice of first line. When to switch from first line to second line, and we still have an open question here, how we should choose second line and finally what's are going to be the new targets. And of course, I mean, you will hear about all this question in the symposium, but what I'm going to try is to give you an idea of what I think here.  We have a lot of new genes coming and these genes certainly have prognostic values. So one of the most important thing is that we now have new genes that probably some of you really very well know and some of you may be here for the first time. And if you look at CTD2, BAP1, PBRM1, one of the interesting thing is that all these genes are chromosome-free, same chromosomes than VHL gene. And that's for me a very interesting observation because when you look at these genes, they seem to be quite mutually exclusive. So this is an interesting paper that was published by the Jim Brugarodas group showing that either you have a mutation on PBRM1 gene or BAP1 gene, but having both of them mutated is quite exceptional here. And that's interesting because these genes have a prognostic value. So when you look at the survival of patients, depending on whether they have a mutation on BAP1 or PBRM1 gene, and these two different cohorts, one from TCGA and one from UCLA, which validated this observation, PBRM1 gene is a good prognostic gene. So if you have mutation on PBRM1 gene, you will have a better survival. If you have BAP1 mutation, then you have a worse prognosis here. So certain and interesting observation, and this is what you have when you put all these two genes together. You can see that in the very rare situation when you have both genes mutated, and I told you it's very rare here, the expectancy of life is very, very short. So of course, these genes are probably going to become targets for new drugs in the future, and we still are waiting about knowing exactly the function of these genes. But as you see here, they are very prognostic here. We probably also have genes that are predictive of recurrence, for example, and there was a very interesting publication at ASCO some years ago, which was recently published in Lancet oncology showing that CMET genes might be predictive for recurrence here. And one of the questions is, are we going to get a signature of recurrence in these patients here? And I certainly encourage you to come at ASCO. I'm going to present, I mean, a validation study of what Brian really showed some years ago at ASCO, showing that we can take some genes and putting some genes from angiogenesis immune response and some cell adhesion gene, we can predict probably the risk of recurrence. So I will show you at ASCO that this is probably something that is going to become a very interesting test, I mean, to predict and select patients for a given trial, for example, and also for the question of monitoring patients here. So moving to surgery, I mean, there is still an open question about cytoretically nephrectomy. I think we heard very recently from the Hang and Tony Shoray consortium very interesting data at ASCO GU showing that, of course, I mean, if you look at a large database, I mean, cytoretically nephrectomy seems to be better than non-doing cytoretically nephrectomy. So I always think that this is bias, and I'm sure this is bias, but the interesting observations that they did in this presentation is that, of course, I mean, the more you have risk factor in this setting, the more the benefit is becoming lower and lower. So if you look at risk factor 4, 5, and 6 in the IMDC classification, you can see that the benefit of cytoretically nephrectomy is probably no present here. Well, if you see one of two risk factors, it seems that there is a benefit in terms of survival here, 30 months versus 22 months, or 20 months versus 10.2 months. So that's certainly a very interesting retrospective observation. I still think that in the presence of this type of patients, I don't know whether we should do nephrectomy or not, and you can see that this is a relatively big tumor, but still, I mean, the tumor burden is quite high. I'm not sure that we know exactly if we should do nephrectomy in this patient, and I still think that the carmenotrile, which is ongoing, is going to be very important to answer this question, and I hope we will finish it in the next two years from now, showing whether, I mean, nephrectomy followed by sunitinib will be better than sunitinib alone or if it will be equivalent in terms of outcome. Third point I want to speak about is observation. So what we have put in the guidelines at ESMO 2012 is that some kidney cancer are very in the long course of disease, and we all know that this is the case in some of our patients, and certainly justify a period of observation. And we have data from prospective trials. This is a target trial where we have shown that even when we delay giving seraphenium in this setting, I mean, we still have tumor shrinkage and PFS, which is very equivalent. And we also have the same data from the record one trial showing that the PFS in the placebo patients are exactly similar when you cross over to the drug, so at least we can wait for a certain period of time. So question for me is how long should we wait? And that's coming for one observation I have done recently when I recently presented data of long observation. I would like to share with you two cases which really trigger my question here. So this is a 58-year-old male. He had surgery for a clear cell gastrinoma, and he had small lung nodules in 2012. And as I always do, I mean, I suggested to do observation first. And this is a scan in 2012, and this is a scan in 2012-2013. So very, very little increase in the tumor burden here. So I still consider observation, and I had to see him three months later. But in the meantime, I mean, he had this bone mass which occurred, which I never suspected to be. First observation, so some patients do that. Second observation, I mean, same kind of man, I mean, 59-year-old right nephrectomy, great free tumor. He had a rejection of a lung nodule, and he developed lung nodules in March 2012. So very slow-growing disease. In October, I mean, he had not really significant change in size of these nodules. And in March, I mean, started to tell me, I mean, I would like to go to treatment. And in fact, I mean, the increase in lung nodules was very minimal at that time. And I said, okay, we're going to start treatment, and I tried to enroll this patient in a clinical trial.  It was absolutely asymptomatic. So it was, for me, a question of when should we stop to observe patients here. And one question is, is tumor burden a potential predictive factor? And I think we have done a very interesting work with Roberto Jacovelli when he was in my institution, looking at tumor burden as predictive factor of prognosis here. So what we did with Roberto is to look at patients in Gustavoci who were screened for two big trials, the record one trial and the target trial. And we look at whether tumor burden was prognostic or predictive. And interestingly, when you look at this, at this court of patients, first of all, I mean, of course, I mean, tumor burden is becoming higher when you are in higher risk of classification by memorial classification. Of course, tumor burden is higher when you are PS1 versus PS0. But interestingly, it still is an independent prognostic factor here. And when you have a big tumor burden, you have PFS and OS, which is absolutely different. And what we've shown in this paper is that every one centimeter increase in tumor burden increase the risk of death of 5%. So that's certainly a very important observation. Does it mean that there is some of ratio of tumor burden where we should start? We still don't know. But I think we need some prognostic factors to determine, I mean, when we have risk to develop new site of disease, when we have any risk of rapid progressive disease. And certainly, I mean, I would push you to go to Brian Rainey's presentation tomorrow and certainly at ASCO, because he had a prospective observation study, which is very interesting. Let's move to first choice, to first line treatment. And of course, I mean, we have three drugs which can be used in first line. And I'm not going to spend time about the best map with Sint-Affron, because if you wake up tomorrow, I mean, you will hear about my view about the best map tomorrow. But what about Sunitil and Pazopaneel? And of course, I mean, we have some comparative studies which have just been shown and you are all aware of the compare study and of the PICE study, compare showed that these two drugs are very equivalent. And I think the other ratio of 1.047 is quite convincing for me that these two drugs are equivalent in terms of PFS. And then we learned this PICE study showing that when you look at patient preference in patients who receive these two drugs one after the other one, I mean, there is a strong preference for Pazopaneel in this situation. Question is, I mean, these studies are not perfect. And you certainly have heard a lot of contradiction and discussion about these two studies and their interpretation. And question is, compare as bias? I would say yes, they have biases. Certainly they have. But still, I mean, overall survival is not biased. I mean, survival is absolutely similar in more than 1,1100 patients. So that's very convincing for me that these two drugs are very similar here. Some people would say PICE is as biased, I would say no, that's not bias. It has limitation. And of course, I mean, we compare 10 weeks of treatment and it would have been better to compare one year of treatment, but that's not feasible in fact. Of course, I mean, not all patients were eligible for primary and point. But still, I mean, these two studies show that for me, I mean, Pazopaneel is not inferior to Sunitine. And that patients do prefer Pazopaneel. So that's for me an important question. But what's going to happen with the new schedule of Sunitine, which are certainly very attractive one. And I'm certainly confident that this is going to change the scene. And that's actually an open question and I still don't know the answer to that. So next question for me about treatment of kidney cancer is when we should switch to second line. And that's a very open question and we don't have any recommendation in the guidelines. I'm sure that racist progression is not a good choice. I think when we interrupt VGF inhibition, we have tumor growth increase. And the question is, can we look at this tumor growth increase? And this is something that we did with one of my fellow, which is Charles Ferté, and we published this observation recently in European neurology, is to look at how treatment changed tumor growth. And how interruption of treatment changed tumor growth here. So the idea here was to try to look at tumor growth rate. So you look at tumor burden and then you look at change in tumor burden over time. Then you look at what happened during treatment. And then you look at what happened at the time of progression. And when you stop progression here. So of course, it's looking at change in tumor growth here. And what we observe, this is with Soraphine, but that's the same with Verolimer, that's the same with Sunitine. Is when you give treatment here, so this is placebo, this is before treatment here. On treatment, you have change in tumor growth. And then when you start to progress, you have, of course, an increase in tumor growth. But when you stop the drug, although it was progressing, you have an increase in tumor growth here. And this is very significant at the time you stop treatment here. Which means that if you interrupt VGF inhibition, then you are going to see the tumor growing faster than if you continue on tumor inhibition. So for me, the consequence of that is when you switch, you have to propose a second line, which is active enough to do better than slowing the tumor growth. And of course, I mean, you have to define some patients where you have no question. I mean, primary refractory disease, I think for me, is a good reason to change. New site of disease with progressive resist is certainly a good reason to change. Outside of that, I still don't know whether we should switch or not or continue on. So if we switch, which second line should we use? I think after cytokines, I mean, every TKI is active. Certainly, acetylib induces a longer PFS. That's certainly what we observe with the access study. But interestingly, overall survival is not better than with seraphimib. The question is, I mean, is PFS important here? Or is OS the most important in second line? I still don't know, but certainly you can use every TKI you have in your hand after cytokines here. So what about after VGF inhibition? We have in the recommendation and the guidance, I mean, two drugs which are recommended. One is everolimus. One is acetylib. And you certainly know the data from these trials here. So how could you select? Of course, I mean, the idea would be to have a direct comparison between acetylib and everolimus, and we don't. So although we should not do indirect comparison, I did it. And that's what I show on this slide, looking at acetylib PFS, OS, seraphimib PFS, OS, and everolimus PFS and OS. So this is the access trial. This is from the record one trial. So if you look at post-soonitini patient, which is the only situation where we have TKI data in this setting here, you can see that the PFS, 4.8 months, is certainly better than with seraphimib. It's probably not so much different from everolimus here. So 4.6 is a retrospective analysis on pure second line patient from the record one trial. If you look at overall survival here, you can see that's really in the same range. And even seraphimib, although it's not significant, has a higher number than all the other one. So very difficult to have a good idea here. And of course, I mean, everyone has been looking at this interesting study presented by Tom Hudson and recently published in J.C.O. looking at 10 serolimus versus seraphimib in second line patients. And of course, it's not everolimus. It's not acetylib, but it's an mTOR, and it's a TKI. Only soon it treated patients, 500 patients, so quite a large number of patients. And that's the data which comes from this study here. PFS was very similar, but OS was statistically different in favor of seraphimib. So very interesting data. Should this comparison be put exactly the same for acetylib and everolimus? I think probably not. But in other hand, I mean, we have here some data which supports that TKI after TKI is active and might be a good choice here. Also, I mean, if you look at the data, and I added in the previous table the seraphimib data from the intersector trial here, you can see that seraphimib is certainly an absolutely acceptable option in this setting here. And you can see that the survival in these two studies very similar, 16.5, 16.6 months. So it raises the question whether, I mean, acetylib, everolimus are really better than seraphimib. I still don't know. I'm still not sure of that. And that's probably an interesting observation from this trial here. So to summarize second line option, I think everolimus and acetylib remain standard of care because that phase three data. I think seraphimib has no quite interesting data in second line which supports that it might be a good option here. I think probably differences in toxicity profile are some things that you have to take into account when you choose. And I think intersex study, although it should be interpreted with some caution, supports the use of TKI after TKI more than anything else here. So to hand, I want to speak about new targets and I think the reason why we all are interested in new targets is not only because it's new, but because we have the feeling that we have reached a plateau with our drugs. We have seven drugs, but the PFS in every new studies is plateauing at between eight and 11 months. So OS, I mean, has been very much improved in the past 10 years, but now we are in the range of 26 to 39 months. So we think that we need new targets, of course. So you are going to hear in this meeting about two targets. One is PD1, PDL1 pathway. No question. I mean, the activity is promising. This is a slight problem. Most of you have seen at least once, maybe 20 times from David McDermott about activity in phase one of PD1 antibody, and this is quite interesting. You hear this long, long response and quite important tumor shrinkage here. And this is one of the patients which really impressed me because patients who had received Sunitinib, Saurafinib, Hasidak inhibitor in a phase one study. And you can see here that a very important tumor shrinkage over time and this response lasted for a very long time from what I heard here. Also, if there is some suggestions that some biomarkers will arise. So probably you will hear about this question here, but at least, I mean, we have an indication that maybe PDL1 might be one indicator. It's probably not the only one. And I've heard from many people that some PDL1 negative patients will respond to the drug. But still, there is a strong trend that PDL1 positive patients have more chance to respond to these agents here. I think we'll have new biomarker, but this kind of biomarker are going to be very important in the future. And of course, I mean, we have an ongoing phase three and the enrollment has been completed here. Nevolumab has been compared with Averolimus and we are to all of you, I mean, expecting the data from this study where overall survival is going to be the primary endpoint. Probably next year or at the end of next year, we might have the data from this study here. Second pathway, which we are all interested in is a CMET pathway. There is a strong rationale, I mean, to use CMET inhibition. And the reason is that CMET is overexpressed in many clear cells, not only papillary tumors. You will hear about papillary tumors in this meeting, but in clear cell, especially when they go over time, I mean, CMET is overexpressed. CMET expression is induced by VJF inhibition. So if you put VJF inhibition on tumor, I mean, you will induce CMET expression. So strong rationale here. So there is a promising activity of one of the CMET inhibitors we have in our hand, which is Cabosantini band. This has been, I mean, presented at ASCO by Tony Schwiery. Very impressive activity in very highly treated patients. Of course, small phase two, but good enough and convincing enough to go to a large phase three and the phase three is actually recruiting patients. And probably some of you are part of this study called the Meteor Study, which is going to look at Cabosantini compare with Vavorolimus, exactly the same inclusion criteria as in the Nevolumab study. And the primary endpoint by difference to Nevolumab will be PFS. So to promising pathway in 2014, Nevolumab and Cabosantini, the question is, will we get a winner? And the question is, maybe we'll hear the data from these two studies next year or early 2016, and we will probably have a winner, which will be the first drug registered for second line. And that's probably going to be a question here. So to conclude my lecture, I think RCC in 2014 is a lot of drugs, is a lot of questions. It's also a lot of hope. And that's certainly something very important for someone like me who has been in the field of kidney cancer for more than 20 years now. I mean, we have a lot, a lot of hope and a lot of change in kidney cancer, of course. So what will be in 20, in 10 years from now, I think you will have the answers tomorrow. I'm sure that Martin is going to give all the answers tomorrow. Thank you very much.


The message that I'm going to title today is called the living dead, not the walking dead, not the fear of the walking dead, the living dead. If you have your Bible, we will be in Romans chapter six. And in fact, I'm just going to go ahead and read a few verses first. And then we're going to digest Romans chapter six and verse two. Actually, in verse one, he's talking about, you know, should we continue and sin so that the grace may abound? And in verse two, he says, by no means, how can we who die to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Verse four, we were buried, therefore, with him by baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in the newness of life. Verse five, for we have been unified with him in a death like this. We shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like this. We know that our old self was crucified past with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing that we might have no longer, no longer enslaved to sin. For once who had died has been freed from sin. Now, we have a problem. As a humanity, our problem is not the sins we commit. It's the sin as a principle, as a machine, as a, I would call it like a spider that keeps making spider web. Sins are the web. Sin is the spider. You don't get this sin by sinning. You get it with birth. This sin is like your last name. You didn't earn it. You didn't vote for it. It came with you at birth. And the only way it leaves you is by death. You can become an American citizen. You still I'm still subject, even though I'm in America. I'm still subject, even though I am married or you can change it by marriage once you married your last name switches. And so your nature, that nature doesn't disappear. So we have two big problems. One is we have sins. Somebody says sins. So that's the things we do, we think, attitude. And then we have a problem with a sin. Sin is that thing that makes the sins. And so in most of us, we come to Christ and Christ takes care of the sins by His blood. But then we only have another problem is because the sin continues to make sins. So we keep on coming to be cleansed. And sometimes we feel like, man, if somebody could decommission this factory inside that keeps making the sins, it would be so awesome. And so Paul even uses that. He says, this thing lives in me, dwells in me. And he says, it keeps making bad stuff. It's kind of like this. Let's say that we outlaw alcohol right now in the United States. We make a law, no alcohol in the United States. We go break every bottle of alcohol, every bottle of wine, every bottle of beer, Jack Daniels, all of this stuff. We break that, smash it and have a big party. But see, the problem is that if you have a factory that produces alcohol, still operational, then very soon we will have alcohol back on the streets. And see, most of the Christians, they broke the bottles but never decommissioned the factory. So what I want to talk to you today this morning is about what the cross does. The cross provided the blood. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from sins. But the cross of Jesus Christ removes the sin. Okay, let's talk about the blood first. Something we all know. Jesus shed His blood. The Bible says for the remission of sins, meaning to cleanse us from our sin. The blood, if you take your notes, write this down. The blood does three things. First thing is the blood. It clears our record with God. God needed the blood first to satisfy the righteous demands of His justice that we broke. Have you ever used a calculator and you were doing one of those longer formulas like 100 minus 80 plus 60, divide by three, multiply by seven? And then you got lost in one of the numbers, you mixed up with numbers and the calculator doesn't have this thing where you can go back. Because once you mess up a number on the calculator, what do you have to do? There's this thing on the calculator called clear.  See what happened 2000 years ago is God used the blood of His Son as the clear button for everything that you've done. So you tried one good thing, you did two bad things and then you kind of got lost in the formula and God couldn't just clear it without somebody paying for it. So the blood of Jesus Christ went and hit clear. So that's why God doesn't remember your sins anymore. Why? Because He cleared them. They're gone from the record and that's what the blood is. Somebody say, God, praise you Jesus. Come on, somebody. The second thing that the blood does because see you can have, you can get forgiveness from sin and God has peace toward you and you have peace with God but you don't have peace within you. In fact, most of us never struggled with guilt until we got saved. Because when we were lost, our conscience was so dead that what we did, we didn't feel bad about it. And now you got saved. Your conscience becomes awakened and it's so sensitive. You do something bad and it judges you. You do something bad and it condemns you. And you know God has forgiven you. It's the fact that your own conscience now woke up. When it was asleep, you're like, you know what, at least I could enjoy my sin. Now you can't enjoy your sin, praise God. And one of the reasons Christians do not enjoy sinning is because you have this thing called conscience that's been quickened and your conscience doesn't care about you.  That's all your conscience does. It's a judge. It's not there to make you feel good. It's not Gary V. It's a conscience, it judges you.  That means that I can apply the blood toward not only to me. I'm not talking about forgiving yourself. I'm talking about applying his forgiveness on yourself.  But that's not the only thing the blood does. The blood not only clears my record, cleanses my conscience. Because see, when God is against you, you're in trouble. When God, you're good with God through the blood and you're not good with yourself. And then the blood helps you to be good with yourself, have peace. And there's one more person that shows up on the scene, the woman you took care of these two. And that's the devil. When God is at peace with you and you're at peace in yourself, the devil comes from the outside and starts using the memories of your past, using what you've done and says, look how messed up you are.  So when the devil comes like the flood, God raises a standard against him. And that standard is the blood of the lamb. They overcame him by the blood of the lamb. That means when I have peace within me, I have peace with God. And the devil comes to disturb my conscience and he comes from the outside and says, well, look what you did.  I would say devil, listen, get behind me, take the list of all my sins and put the blood of Jesus on it. I've been washed, I've been sanctified, I've been redeemed, somebody give God some praise right now. Hallelujah. Last Thursday, I had the opportunity to interview Brittany Della Moore. And she, I heard her testimony first in 700 Club. And then I found out that she was reading one of my books and her husband also reached out. I was on her podcast. So Brittany Della Moore was a stripper at the age of, I think 18 to pay for her college.  They told her she's gonna make a lot of money. She went into porn industry. She won a lot of awards in the porn industry. She was part of this and part of that, over 300 films that she recorded. She eventually became even the prostitute. And to deal with all the shame, the guilt, the craziness, she actually had to take drugs. And though she made a lot of money, she had spent all that money to deal on drugs. Her grandpa invites her to church. And she is in church. She accepts Jesus Christ. And she experiences the blood that cleanses her. But see, she didn't experience the revelation of the cross. And didn't fully understand the full gospel. So she, after accepting Jesus, went back into porn industry to make more films. And then three more years, she was making porn films. And when she got saved, somebody gave her a Bible. So one of those times, three years later, after accepting Jesus Christ, is that Brittany, she goes to Las Vegas to record, to, you know, be in the film. Decides to read the Bible and decides to read the book of Revelation. Chapter two, where God rebukes the church for allowing Jezebel to rule and reign in the church that causes sexual immorality. She's reading it and she's seeing herself as that Jezebel that's causing perversion. She says, in the airplane, she says, the conviction of God hit me. And I realize, and there's a warning there that says this. He says, and I'm giving this Jezebel time to repent.  And she's like, God just, it's like something hit me. I got into the bathroom in the airplane. I got on my knees and I said, God, I'm so sorry. Please give me a second chance. I repent. I know I have prayed a sinner's prayer, but I didn't repent. I need to repent, forgive me.   And somebody who's been in that kind of world, somebody who's been that messed up, you might say, how can this person, you would think this person now will be second-class Christian, but she's married to a pastor. They're both pastors now. They write books on purity. How could that happen? Because there is so much blood. It's precious blood. It's powerful blood. It's holy blood.  Even if you've been addicted to drugs, even if you've been addicted to alcohol, maybe you committed adultery, maybe you practiced homosexuality or you were confused for a season not knowing your own gender and you bought it to the lie of the enemy, what the culture sells today. I can tell you something. The gospel is this. Jesus died for you. There is blood that can cleanse you. No amount of meditation, no amount of inward looking, no amount of charity can remove the weight of sin because the sin has to be dealt with the blood. The sin has to be dealt with death of a man who was pure and who was righteous and that's something that no religion can offer you. When we were in Egypt, we got a chance to get to know some good Muslims. It was funny because a lot of them smoke and I remember I was a Bukeh and one Muslim. I'm like, are you supposed to be smoking? And he's like, I'm a good Muslim with a bad habit. Then they have to pray five times a day. They're so devoted because see, Muhammad did not die for a Muslim. These five pillars that they have, they have to faithfully, they live for this, why? Because there is no blood. There's only your sweat in Islam that you have to give to God. See, Christianity is different because there is blood. Therefore, your sweat is unnecessary. Therefore, you're trying to earn your salvation is unnecessary. You're trying to do good to outdo the bad, it's not necessary. Only the blood can cleanse your conscience, clear your record and give you a weapon to fight against the voices that rise against you. Can somebody say praise the Lord? Praise the Lord. So that's the blood. But the second thing, so the blood deals with my sins. Somebody say the blood. Blood. Deals with my sins. The cross, somebody say the cross. Deals with my sin. Meaning the principle, the spider, that thing. It deals with my sin. Now, a few things I want you to write down if you're taking notes and we're gonna dive in even deeper. Fasting does not kill the flesh. It suppresses it. The cross kills the flesh. A lot of people think that if I fast, and I fasted 40 days on water and I can tell you one thing, you suppress the flesh through fasting, you don't kill it.  I know we like to say, oh, fasting kills the flesh, it doesn't. It suppresses it.  Deliverance from sin is more biblical than victory over sin.  When we think of sin, when I say sin, I don't mean an act. I'm talking about this power within a person that wants to do bad. That's sin. You don't get a victory over it. That means you can't become stronger than it. You only get deliverance from it. Listen to this very carefully. God does not give you power over it. God kills it. And that's the only way you're free from it. That means you will never be able to get more power over it. You don't get victory over it. You get deliverance from it. If God himself in his wisdom could not find tools to give you strength to beat that thing, why are you still trying to fight it? You can't. So if you got sick and tired and if you were exhausted for trying to beat it, I wanna tell you something. God already has saw that and he has declared that you cannot beat it. You can only kill it. Now, so we have few options. One of them is we're deliverance church. Well, I have a solution. If I get delivered, that is removed. See, deliverance from demons doesn't mean deliverance from... When he said that again, church, deliverance from demons removes a demon. It doesn't remove the sin. What removes the sin is death. How do you end Savchak? The same way. How did Savchak came into being through birth? How does it go out of circulation through death? There's only one way to remove Savchak. Now I can change the last name, but who I am, there's only one way to remove me out of circulation and that is through death, which is why many Christians secretly behind the scenes hope and wish for the day they die when all the problems with sin will be over. Or instead of looking forward to our death, we can look backwards to his. I read to you guys, it says we died with him. Talking about past tense, it's not saying you will die one day for him. The blood was in the past. You may say, how is it possible for me to die in my past? Well, think about it. How was it possible for him to shed his blood for all your sins and all of them were in the future? 2,000 years ago, you didn't exist. When he was shedding his blood, you haven't even been born and committed any sins. So the blood and the cross doesn't work in the time. It works by faith.  I finally stop having this man. I look forward to the day they'll bury me and it's gonna be over.  See, Jesus's death meant two things. It was substitutionary death, meaning he died for me. Somebody say, for me. Substitutionary death, he died for me. The second one is his death was inclusive. Somebody say, inclusive. I died with him. Did you catch that? So as a substitutionary death, he died for me. That's where the blood cleanses me from sin, clears the record, gives me a weapon to fight against the accuser. Jesus's death was also inclusionary, meaning I died with him, which means that the sin, the flesh is God. You might say, well, Vlad, that's cool. But I found it. It's like right there. Like this is really cool on Sunday. What do I do on Monday? I'm so glad you asked. I'm gonna share with you very practical four things that you need to do with this revelation right now to see change in your holiness. This is the biblical way of living a holy life. This is the gospel way of living a holy life. The first thing you must do to apply the cross, write this down, is know. You have to know. In Romans chapter six, it says this, verse three, do you not know? And I'm not gonna ask for raising of hands, but a lot of people in this room, you actually did not know that your old man was already dead. You may say, well, Vlad, if it really died, it wouldn't be bothering me. If you don't know, then it's like having soap. You have it, you're just not applying it. How many of you know you don't stop stinking just because you have a truckload of soap in your garage? The stench is gone when you apply that soap. When Jesus died on the cross, you can still live in guilt if you don't apply the blood. When Jesus took you in himself on the cross, you can still live with this residue of your old nature if you don't know, because the Bible says you shall know the truth. It doesn't say you shall have the truth. Meaning you can have the truth within your hands and never know it. That's why I want to encourage you to live in the book of Romans until Romans starts speaking to you. I want to encourage some of you to pause your reading plan and move into Romans from beginning to end. Read it 50 times and ask the Holy Spirit, say, Holy Spirit, reveal this to me because this is the foundation of what it means to be a Christian. This is a foundation of what Jesus did on the cross. He died for me, I died in him. I know it's simple basics, but it's the simple basics that can change your life. You have to know. If you read a little bit further in the Romans, chapter six, verse six, it says, we know. Now, most of us, we don't. But he says, we know that our old self, it didn't say it got crucified when I fasted. It says it got crucified with him. It didn't say it got crucified when I prayed. It says it got crucified with him. So not future, but in the past, we know. But honestly, can we be honest right now? Most of us don't. If you go a little bit further, it says verse nine, verse nine of chapter six, we know that Christ being raised from the dead. So Paul says, we know. We have to know. That's number one. So before you go, it's like, oh no, I know what I need to do.   I need to control my mouth. I need to change my attitude. I need to speak better to my wife. I need to speak better to my kids. I really need to turn off my Instagram. I need, that's it. I'm getting rid of TikTok. Before, that's not the solution.  It's the death. Only death, not discipline, not denial can get rid of the flesh. And you have to either wait for your death or you have to go to his death.  We know. Do you not know? So you have to know. Read Romans until Romans reads you. Number two, not only we have to know, we have to reckon or some of our Bible says consider. And this is the verse 11. So you also must consider yourself. Somebody say consider. So first one is what? First one is what? We have to know. What is the second one? Reckon or consider. That's an accounting term. An accounting term means, for example, let's say you have $25 in your pocket and on your spreadsheet you're putting $25. So the first one is the know, meaning I have death in Jesus. I died with Jesus. That's the knowing. That's the money in my pocket. Now I have to go to my spreadsheet and put $25 in the spreadsheet. So Paul is saying because of this fact that has happened, he says now you have to consider. Meaning you have to view yourself, think of yourself, see yourself. Not as I have flesh. I have an old man. I have the devil living inside of me called sin. I have all of that. You have to start thinking yourself. Now this is what New Age does. New Age does mental gymnastics where New Age says if I think it, I will be it. But the problem with New Age, it never leads you to new life because there is no groundwork for it. It's like me walking around and saying I am a bird. If I think I'm a bird, I'm a bird.   There's no surgery in the world that can turn him into a monkey.  No amount of meditation, no amount of drugs. So I want to tell you something. Forget about the New Age. Why? Because that stuff doesn't work. There is no blood, there is no cross, there is no death, and there is no salvation there. Jesus gives us new life. So we don't think it into being. He dies, I believe it. Now I consider. I go from a fact into a reality instead of from a thought into creating a reality that doesn't exist. Are you with me? So the second one is we consider or we reckon. There's a third step that we must do. We have to do it on Monday, actually start tonight. And this is this, is that we have to present ourselves. And that is verse 13. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for righteousness, but present yourself. Somebody shout, present. Somebody dropped it in the chat, present.  So the first thing that we do when we know this truth is that we know. The second one is we reckon ourselves dead, meaning we think ourselves on that level. Not because thinking produces reality, it's because reality has to change our thinking. Fourth one, the third one is we present, meaning we take our body and we say, Lord, I offer my hands, I offer my eyes, from this day forward, they are gonna be yours. One St. Augustine was walking by and a woman that he used to sleep with was behind him. He said, hey, and she called him, hey, Augustine. And so he turned around and he says, do you remember me? And he says, he said, that man is gone. He said, that man doesn't exist anymore. And he says, the man that you're talking to remembers you. He's just not here anymore. He says, what do you want? He says, there's a new me.  He's like, I would love to, but I landed my hands to Jesus and he doesn't wanna play that game. So it's not about me trying, it's about me surrendering now my body to Jesus. So, but it doesn't start with surrender. Please understand, the mistake Christians make is they start with surrender. It starts with death. I know. I think that. And now I present my body. And the last one is we are led by the spirit, meaning we walk by the spirit. Write this down, we walk by the spirit. Because see, when you were in the flesh, when you came out of Adam, the flesh lived inside of you. It dwelled inside of you. If we take Book of Romans chapter seven, so chapter six talks about us dying, but in chapter seven, Paul talks about this thing. He keeps saying verse 17, but sin that dwells in me, verse 20, but the sin that dwells in me, he talks about a person who is under the race of Adam. And when you are born in Adam, meaning Adam is your great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather, you carry his nature, his name, you carry his last name, you have a sin dwelling in you. Sin is the principle that wants to do bad. But see, in chapter eight of Romans, Paul keeps talking about the spirit dwelling in the Christian. Why? Because when Jesus came on this earth, he ended Adam's race and started a brand new race. That's why we have to be born again. Because when we are born again, we're born into Christ's new humanity. I'm gonna show you this verse in first Corinthians, chapter 15. And we're gonna have it right behind me. First Corinthians, chapter 15. It says, first Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 45, it says, but it is written. The first man, Adam became a living being, but the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. Somebody say Jesus is the last Adam. Meaning the Adam's factory that was producing little atoms ended with Jesus who was born out of a woman, but he was not sinful like every atom was. And Jesus threw his death, because remember, you end the flesh, you end the sin through death. Jesus ends the race of Adam. And if you go to verse 47, it says the first man was from the earth. So Adam not only started a race, he was also the first man was from the earth, from dust. The second man, meaning the second man that starts a brand new race. Adam started a race on this earth and all the people following him were sinners. Jesus ends the race of Adam being the last Adam and becomes the second man who restarts humanity on this earth. See, some of us think we need to die to go to heaven to experience transformation. You don't understand. Jesus came on this earth, set the kingdom of God on this earth, becoming the last Adam and the second man. Meaning he created a brand new race. Now, when Adam started his race, everyone born in Adam got flesh dwelling in them. When Jesus starts a new race, he ends this race, starts a new one.  His name is the Holy Spirit. That's why every Christian has the spirit dwelling inside of them. You know how easy it is to sin? How easy it is? Easy, you do nothing. Do you know how easy to live holy life? It's very easy. You let the spirit do whatever he needs to do. To live a holy life is so easy if you stop trying. The gospel is this. He died for your sins. You died with him. Your sin died with him. That's where the cross came. The cross didn't just break the curse, it broke the sin. Now, you can keep on living with cheese and crackers, so you can benefit from the gospel right now. There is no power in your discipline. There is no power in your positive mentality thinking. There is no power in your yoga stretches. There is no power in your therapist who is on the sixth marriage already. There is no power in medicine to break this. Medicine can alleviate this sickness and that. It can't deal with the core machine inside of a human being. Because this machine came through birth and it only dies at death. So why not stop waiting for your death and trust in his? The blood already took care of your sins. The cross took care of your sin. But Vlad, I don't feel it. Why? Because you'll never rise or fall to the level of your feelings. You'll be always to the level of your knowledge. That's why the Bible says we know, we consider, we present and we walk. Why? Because something else dwells in me now. It wants to do good. It's not me. If you think that's new you, there is no new you. There is him who conforms, changes you into his image, likeness and you're led by the Spirit. The sons of God are led by the Spirit. You become filled by the Spirit. You live by the Holy Spirit. And your new man is not Adam, it's Christ. And Adam, I was a sinner, wanted to sin, suppressed my sin. And I came to Christ so that his blood washed me. But see, I found myself sinning again and again and again. And almost like I wanna wait until my funeral but Jesus says, did you know, when I died, not only I paid for your sins, I included you into. That's why Jesus gives the church only two ordinances. One is the communion. Why communion reminds us of the power of the blood. And the other one is baptism. It reminds us that we died with him, buried with him. Rose again, when he rose again, he didn't rise alone. That's why the Bible says, with Christ Jesus, with Christ Jesus, somebody rise to your feet, give God some praise right now.  Thank you for the gospel. Thank you for the cross. Thank you for my new birth, God. Thank you for the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Hallelujah, hallelujah. Freedom in this room right now. I feel freedom in this room right now. God is setting people free right now.   Not only he took care of your sins, he included your sin in him. And when he died, you died. That's why you get water baptized, is to identify with Jesus. You no longer identify with your last mistake. You don't identify with your divorce or your adultery.  You don't identify with what somebody said about you. You don't identify with your degree. You don't identify even with your gender. You don't identify with the money you have in your account. You were buried with Jesus. You died with Jesus. You rose with Jesus.  Jesus is your identity. I don't care if you're missing a limp. I don't care if you're blind in one eye.  Your identity is not in your body. Your identity is in Jesus. You are part of his body. Korra ma sandeleba klebobo sandaya. Oh, God, I thank you for Jesus. God, I thank you for his death. God, I thank you for the cross. God, I thank you for redeeming me. I thank you for killing sin in me on the cross. I thank you. I don't have to battle sin by myself. I thank you for the Holy Ghost that lives inside of me. I don't have to try harder. I surrender. Hallelujah, hallelujah. That is the gospel. Hey, thanks for watching this video. If you enjoyed this content and this was a blessing to you, would you help us and hit thumbs up so that it could help more people to discover this video. It costs you nothing, but it can go a long way to help with the algorithm. As well as if you're not subscribed to our channel, hit subscribe, click on the bell so that you can be reminded each time that we upload videos. Thank you so much for being a part of this community. If you're interested in learning more about Hungry Gen, our internship, our conferences, deliverance, and so many other things, go to HungryGen.com for more information. And as always, remember, better is not good enough, the best is yet to come.


Well, if we look at history, this isn't true. If you have largely capitalist economies based heavily on free markets or whatever, they produce good results some of the time. Some of the times they produce not so good results. Some of the time they produce terrible results like the Great Depression or the recent crash. Some of the time they produce results which threaten the very existence of the society that they're in. So if you want to get a model that will reflect or make possible or incorporate the actual good news, bad news about market economies, you have to have sets of realistic assumptions about market economy. If you're allowed to make fairytale assumptions about market economies, right? We know the future, the markets work perfectly, everything's good, nothing bad can happen. That's the only way you can get the conclusions that the profession is seeking, which is markets work perfectly. You can't get that with a realistic theory. Right. But as you're arguing in the paper, the next part of this argument of Milton Friedman's is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is, you have to look at the empirical evidence. And if the empirical evidence proves the theory or is consistent with the theory, then you can make the inference that the theory is correct. So can you talk about the empirical evidence in support or not in support of efficient markets theory apart from pointing to one crisis or another? Can you talk us through a bit of that? Sure. What should we say about that? First of all, you can't use just the predictions of a model to test the realism of the model because if you want to test predictions, let's say in the early 1980s President Reagan came in and we had supply-side economics and said if you cut taxes on corporations and the rich, then the economy would grow very fast. So what do you need? You need to predict what will happen if this was in 1982, say what's going to happen in 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. So what happens if you get data from those the next decade and try and see whether or not the economy has grown because of the tax cut? Well, basically what you'll have to do is say, well, maybe it didn't grow, but that was because of other reasons, bad things happened. Or maybe it did grow, but that was because of changes in the economy. So you have to have a complete set of all the things that might change, economists use the assumption setter as parabas to say if everything doesn't change, this would happen. But everything always changes. So essentially you can't use simple prediction, you have to use econometric testing. But econometric testing is unreliable for a number of reasons. For one thing, we now have advanced technologically enough so that if I have a hypothesis about something changing will cause something else to change and I want to test this statistically, I can run three or four million regressions to test it. And just by luck or random chance, some of those regressions will in fact be consistent with the hypothesis. So that's no good. Secondly, there's something, it's just maybe a little subtle, but in terms of the methodology, there's something called the Duem coin problem in hypothesis testing. That is, you have a theory, a neoclassical theory, mainstream theory, which basically says that every agent will do the best they can under whatever circumstances they are presented. So then you have to put in the circumstances they're presented. So suppose you want to say that if you're going to cut taxes, then you're going to get increased economic growth. So you have to then create a model. You have to create what people's expectations are. You have to put all kinds of things in the model, legs into the model and whatever. And none of these things, the expectation formation, the legs, the quality of the production functions or whatever, none of that's part of the theory. So you have ideas from theory joined with all kinds of assumptions about expectations or legs or something or other. If the thesis turns out to be rejected, it may not be because the thesis is wrong, it may be because the subsidiary hypotheses are wrong. So econometrics can't just bear the weight of this. So what we actually need to do is to use all the available ways of trying to evaluate whether theory is consistent with reality, including whether it's hypotheses or main assumptions are consistent with the world. We need to study the institutions and facts of the world and use those. And yes, we can use some econometrics as well. Now, what some economists would say is, OK, a lot of what you said is true, but this is the only methodology we have. This is the only way we can study the world. But in your paper, you say that's not true, that there is an alternative tradition of studying these things that we can apply to financial markets. Could you say a bit about what you call the Minsky-Keynes approach? Yes. There's an alternative methodology, which let me just associate with Keynes at the moment. In the paper, I have some citations from Keynes to kind of back this up, which is what your mother might tell you to do. If you say, I want to study how the world works, and she probably would say, well, the first thing if you're going to build a theory would be you should probably get the facts of the world right. So the most important or maybe the single most important thing is that the assumption set that you have ought to be at least demonstrably sensible or reasonable or have some relationship to what you study. If you want to study financial markets, and you want to study agents operating financial markets, you should assume that people don't know the future. But they have to make decisions anyway. So they have to come up with some ways to guess about the future, and they're going to use kind of rules of thumb and certain tendencies to extrapolate what's going on in the recent past into the future and to have more or less confidence about this or whatever, that a realistic set of assumptions is the foundation of a useful theory. And so we should test the usefulness of a theory by the realism of its foundations and econometrics and any other tests that we can use as opposed to ruling these all out and relying solely on econometrics which can't bear that burden. So Keynes' main innovation or his most important assumption is that we don't know what's going to happen in the future. So he says about such matters, about the things that will happen in the future, what will be the profits in the future, what will happen to financial markets in the future, he says, I'm quoting, we simply don't know. But as people have to make decisions, we have to do something about this. So that the basic assumption set we would associate with a Keynesian or later on, Hyman Minsky picked up on this in the 20th century in the latter part of the 20th century is to say that what we have to think about is the following in markets. People don't know, but they have to guess. In order to guess, they tend to more or less to think that what's happening in the recent past is going to happen in the future unless something changes their mind. If they make these guesses by extrapolation, this expectation is formed by extrapolating the trends that are going on and it turns out to be useful like it works, which happens in a boom. People become more confident that the extrapolations or expectations that they're forming are actually useful or accurate or good. So how much risk someone is willing to take, for example, will depend on how optimistic they are about the future through these expectations. But also how confident they are in their optimism. So as a market begins to pick up and a bubble begins to form, people begin to extrapolate what's going on. They think things are going to grow, the prices are going to grow, people aren't going to make losses. They become much more optimistic. They become more confident in their optimism. More people want to buy, fewer people want to sell, prices get driven up. What about risk aversion? Is that just exogenous? People are just born with a certain degree of risk. Well, if you start to take what seemed like some risk in an economic expansion, you buy some stocks or you put more stocks in your portfolio than bonds and more risky things than safe things, then it all works out. Then you're going to think this kind of risk thing is pretty good. Either I like the risk or there isn't as much risk as I thought. All of that's indigestly developing kind of in the market. The people in a financial boom who make the most money are those who are most aggressive and those who begin to borrow money to make investment. And so they're the people who make the most money and they're the people who get richest and people want to emulate them. So I think I should do what they do. So people then begin to say, OK, so I want to take more risk and I want to borrow more money. And through not anything that happens from outside the system, but from what's happening in the system as it moves through time, indigestly, as we say in economics, by its own forces. We can see where economic booms come up, where financial booms come up, where things get overpriced, where people take too much risk, where households borrow too much to finance things, invest in things that are actually too risky and can't sustain themselves. Where financial institutions actually begin to take too much risk, which happened in this last thing. So this is the kind of vision you get once you get rid of the assumption that everyone knows the future and it's stable. Once you get rid of the idea that people's attitudes towards risk has just given and doesn't change. Once you get rid of the idea that people can't default on debt, that's not risky. When you get rid of all that, you begin to get theories which say there's an indigestly generated instability in financial markets, which is the reality that we actually observe for hundreds and hundreds of hundreds of years. It's an amazing feat to have observed centuries of instability in financial markets and come up with a theory that said they can't be there. Thank you very much. You're welcome.


Okay, let's get started. Good afternoon to all of you. I'm Lydia Kavraki, and I'm a professor of computer science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. I will be coordinating this next session on artificial intelligence and computing together with Professor Theodora Varvarigou, who is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens. It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, Dr. Joseph Cifakis. We'll start with the keynote and we'll proceed with the panel as the other sessions did. Dr. Joseph Cifakis, EOSIF Cifakis, is Emeritus Research Director of Verimag at Grenoble, France. Verimag is a leading research center in the area of embedded and safety critical systems and is affiliated with the National Center for Scientific Research of France, the University of Grenoble-Apple and the Grenoble Institute of Technology. Dr. Cifakis is the founder of Verimag and served as its director for 13 years. He was a full professor at the Cold Polytechnic Federal de Lausanne for the period of 2011 to 2016. Dr. Cifakis is a leading figure in the fields of model checking and embedded systems. His recent research focuses on rigorous component-based design and the design of trustworthy autonomous systems, self-driving cars in particular. Dr. Cifakis' work over the years is characterized by an unusual recurrent pattern. The problem is first studied from an abstract foundational point of view which leads to methods and techniques for its solution which in turn leads to an effective implementation that is successfully used in multiple industrial applications. In 2007, Dr. Cifakis received the Turing Award for his contributions to the theory and application of model checking, the most widely used system verification technique. The Turing Award is the highest distinction in computer science and it's colloquially known and often referred to as the Nobel Prize of Computing. In his career, he has received numerous distinctions. I'm just going to say that he's the member of six different academies. He served Greece in multiple capacities including being president of the Greek Council for Research and Technology from 2014 to 2016. We are honored that Dr. Cifakis has agreed to discuss his view on the topic of computing and artificial intelligence, the topic of our session, and we will follow with a discussion on how this topic is being shaped in the Greek landscape. Dr. Cifakis. Thank you for the introduction. It's a great pleasure to give this talk about computing and artificial intelligence. I will say nothing specific about Greece. Hopefully, we will have some discussion about that in the panel. I would like to start by saying that computing and AI evolved in parallel and they have undergone transformations. Computing was driven by technological conversions with different application areas and you see here a list. And AI has studied systems that mimic human cognitive abilities. Initially, it focused more on symbolic approaches and then a connection is prevailed and you see a list of sub-areas of AI. But today when we talk about AI, we mean mainly neural networks and machine learning. I would like also to emphasize that there is currently a lot of confusion about how intelligence is, how it is achieved. And of course the spectacular rise of intelligence is fueled by some of the optimism by the media, large technology companies that suggest that human level AI is only a matter of time. We know also this mythology that has been developed around ultra-intelligence and some believe that machine learning and its developments will enable us to meet the intelligence challenge. Of course, this is not my opinion. I think that despite all the spectacular achievements due to neural networks today, we have only weak AI. This gives the building blocks for building smart systems but a lot needs to be done to be able to build intelligence systems like we build bridges and the buildings if ever this will be possible. I don't know, I doubt. But a big step toward the general AI is to develop autonomous systems that are systems capable of replacing human agents that work in complex organization. And this is something very central in the vision of the IOT. And of course, this is what I'm going to explain, building transquartion autonomous systems requires the convergence between conventional computing and AI because we have to integrate database techniques and model-based systems engineering. So this is an outline of my talk and without delay, I will start talking about comparing human and machine intelligence. So probably you know that this is a problem that Alan Turin has addressed with his famous test. So how goes the Turin test? You have a computer A and a human B in a room and an experimenter that sends questions that are written questions and receives back answers. And Turin says that if she cannot tell us which is the computer and which is the person, then of course the machine is as intelligent as the person. And the reason I'm talking about this is because we hear quite often claims that the system just passed the Turin test, okay? And they say, alleluia, this is a great achievement. I think that this is technically nonsense.  And of course you can have a lot of bias by choosing the set of test cases. And also another argument is that the test cannot be a question answer game only because human intelligence is much more than a conversation is interaction with environment, speech, movement, social behavior. So instead in some paper we propose another kind of test I believe is more useful to compare human and machine intelligence. I will say that the machine is as intelligent as a human performing a task in a system if I can replace the human by the machine in a seamless manner. So for instance I can say this machine is as intelligent as a driver if I can put the machine in the place of the driver and I have the overall, I mean the same behavior. And of course for this kind of test success can be based only on technical criteria. And also, and this is a problem I think for some people this requires not only computational intelligence because in order to build such a system that replaces humans we should also implement sensory motor functions and this is a very important problem. Now another way to compare human and machine intelligence is to think about how we produce and develop and apply knowledge. So a very well known fact is that our mind combines two types of thinking, fast thinking and slow thinking. Here I'm using Kahneman's technology for the famous book and fast thinking is non-conscious, automatic. This is a kind of thinking we use when we work, we speak, we don't understand how it works but it works and slow thinking is the source of any reason knowledge. Now it is important to emphasize that there is a very interesting analogy between the two types of thinking and the two types of computers we have today. We have conventional computers that we program by using algorithms and this is model based knowledge and we use on the other hand neural networks. These are circuits that we train to distinguish say cats from dogs exactly as children do but the problem with these systems is that they cannot be verified. So they produce a type of knowledge that is different from scientific and technical knowledge and here I would like to explain that as engineers we deal with different types of knowledge and it's important to understand the differences. This is illustrated by this pyramid here so the blue area is non empirical knowledge, knowledge that you produce by reasoning and below you have empirical knowledge knowledge about the external world. You have very simple knowledge like events and conditions the temperature today is 35 degrees and then you have common empirical knowledge that's like system one knowledge that is data based. This allows prediction but there is a big difference between this type of knowledge and I include machine learning there and that analytics knowledge with scientific and technical knowledge. Why? Because for scientific and technical knowledge we require explainability using mathematical models. Remember when Newton developed his proposed laws he developed also differential calculus to justify to explain his theory, to explain his law. Okay so here in this slide I would like to illustrate the difference between the type of knowledge generated by neural nets and scientific knowledge. So this is a standard experiment of Galileo so does some experiment and through generalization and abstraction he guesses that this is the model that describe the relationship between force and acceleration. Now if I want to train a neural network to distinguish between images of cats and dogs I take images, I have an experimenter, a human experimenter who will label the images and you will train the network. But of course now the important question is how you can characterize this input-output relation of the neural network and this is the issue of explainability that is a very, very important issue in AI. Okay so just a more pragmatic argument regarding the comparison between human and machine intelligence. Probably you've seen information of this kind and autopilot mistakes, moon for the yellow traffic light for instance, okay. And this can happen to neural networks but this will never happen to humans. Why? Because humans contextualize sensory information and understand that the traffic light cannot be in the sky. And the reason for this is that the human mind is equipped with a semantic model of the external world and we don't understand how this semantic model is built but this is the model we used to interpret sensory information and natural language. And human understanding in fact goes bottom up from sensor level to semantic level and top down from reasoning from semantic model to perception. Just to give you another example if you see this photo here you'll say oh this is a stop sign. And perhaps you've never seen a stop sign covered by snow but you know what is snow and what is a stop sign. And of course if you want to train neural networks to recognize this situation you should train neural networks for all the variety of weather conditions. And this is another example. This shows a sequence of images. If you see it you say oh this is probably an aircraft accident. And this is something very, very hard to infer by neural networks. Why? Neural networks can analyze an image but cannot find the causal relationship. They need some model of the external world. So to summarize humans are much superior in a situation where as a machine and the challenge here I think this is a big challenge of AI today is how to combine learning and reasoning. How to build a semantic model of the external world and be able to interpret the world. Okay I'll stop here. Now let me talk about autonomous systems. Why autonomous systems are important? Because in my opinion this is the result of the convergence between computing and AI and this is an important step toward the general AI. And I take as an example self-driving cars because this is an example easy to understand. So here I'm showing the behavior of an agent that controls a car. So the external environment you see here the environment is like that. This is an electromechanical system and you have sensors and actuators. It's obvious how it works. And of course you need some module for situational awareness, understanding what happens and for decision making. Situational awareness means that I perceive I can analyze what the sensory information I perceive. I find obstacles. I know the kinetic state. I build a model of the external world and based on this model I will see which goals are applicable and I will pick up a set of applicable goals and I will generate corresponding plans. Okay so these are standard ideas that come also from robotics I think. And another idea is to have here this module of self-learning to be able to learn from what we observe here and create some knowledge that will allow us to increase predictability and also to make better decisions. I have no time to discuss this. All I would like to emphasize is that we don't know how to build these systems today. And because there are problems, complexity problems, complexity of perception this is well understood, complexity of uncertainty because we cannot predict the behavior of the environment, complexity of decision because you deal with many different types of goals and the goals have different time constants in fact. It's a very complex problem and for each plan, okay I mean the complexity also for plan generation is maybe huge. But what I would like to emphasize is that in addition to autonomic complexity in order to build the autonomous systems you have to solve some very hard systems engineering problem. I have a concept called system complexity. It's the product of component complexity and architectural complex. My point of view is that to build autonomous systems these are the hardest systems that you can imagine because components are cyber physical systems and architectures involve time, space, organization, dynamism, organizational dynamism. Now something that is very important that is not very important for intelligent systems like language translators or personal assistants is that you should guarantee their safety, their transphophilis. So for small critical systems, we have theory, we have standards about how to do that and methods. I will not explain this in full detail. What I would like to show is that we follow design flows with predefined steps and at each step we use models to justify our decisions. And based on these analysis we make of our design flow you can say for instance then that the flight controller has no more than 10 to the minus nine failures per hour of flight. And this does not work for obvious reasons. And this explains also the fact that some big companies like Google and Vidya develop solutions for autonomous, for self-driving cars based exclusively on neural networks. So they bypass all this, they forget about that. So what's the situation today? We know how to build, apply the classical conventional approach to build the components that are reliable and then on the other hand you have these companies that come with self-driving platform. So the self-driving platform here is a huge neural network that receives frames, it's trained by simulation and generates a steering angle and breaking and acceleration, deceleration signals. Of course you can buy such a platform but of course nobody believes that it is reliable enough and additionally you have all the problem of the integration in an electromagnetic system. So I think that in my opinion we should start to define design flows that are I call hybrid so the idea would be to try to mix components that use neural networks and other model-based components and of course this is not an easy problem, I don't know how to deal with that but I think this is the way to go and if you have questions I can, okay. Now last slide's about the future. So the impact of intelligent systems. I said that we should break with the traditional techniques and still have guarantees of trans-worthness. Design cannot be entirely model-based and also design correctness cannot be achieved at design time so if we want to design a system today it is checked and then it's closed, you cannot modify if it's a critical system you cannot modify a line of code and you know that for Tesla cars for instance you have updates of critical software over here. So this is a problem I don't know but I think this is an important trend you should take into account. I talked already about hybrid design and also something very important that in new systems engineering practice would be that we should find global system validation techniques and okay so probably also you've seen that some companies say that we've driven so many billions of miles and our systems are safe and this is not a technically valid argument just because we don't know how the simulated miles are related to real miles you need some theory about that I don't have time to discuss or to finish about autonomous systems there is a big gap between automated and autonomous systems and we will need some time to if we ever can reach a full automation. Something else I would like to discuss concluding is that intelligent systems could help us overcome some limitations we have in the development of knowledge. You know that human mind is limited by what we call cognitive complexity all the scientific theories we have involve a small number of independent variables elements et cetera and often we study complex phenomena like economic phenomena by doing some simplification this is a very well-known phenomenon in economy they don't model the human factor just because they cannot they don't know how to do so I think that by using supercomputers and AI we can build what I call neural oracles so neural net cost with millions of parameters that we can try to predict to predict some complex phenomena I know for instance a project that is also supported by Google for predicting earthquakes predicting earthquakes I think that with little science and many data perhaps they can do better than theoreticians we will see. Of course using such kind of science will pose some problems and in particular we understand that knowledge production is not a privilege of humans and of course the question is the division of work between machines and humans in this process. Finally, and this is the last slide I would like to say that our progress in building autonomous systems will ultimately depend on our ability to deepen the mind-brain relationship and I think I know that some people say mind is not important and mind does not exist you know the philosophical debates around the body-mind problem I think I don't care if mind exists or not mental phenomena are very important to understand the human behavior just as software is very important to understand what your computer does so I hope that in the future we'll have more projects that will focus not only on the study of the circuits of the brain but on the relationship between the brain and the mental system of humans and I know that projects that have promised a lot about say investigating unraveling consciousness and things like that and they did not give anything concrete and finally I have written text about that so I would like to finish with that I think that we should invest more money to create interdisciplinary projects to explore what I call the big bang of consciousness as we explore the big bang of cosmology why the big bang of cosmology is more important than the big bang of consciousness I think this can be discussed I think that and here we have a list of questions so I think I'll stop here and if we understand how intelligence and consciousness have evolved and have been created during evolution this will be something very very important also for humanity so I would like to thank you for your attention thank you