Balance, balance, balance, balance. 10, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. So we people have been studying the human brain for hundreds of years, but we still have no idea how memory works. What we do know is that if we were to all sit down together in a room, kind of like this, and I pull out a list of random words and ask you to memorize those words, you're only going to be able to remember about four. And if we wait 30 seconds to talk about anything else, you're only going to remember two. Some of you just one, and we wait a little bit longer, and you'll forget every single word that we went through. But at the same time, if I asked anybody in this room how to get to the restroom in this building, you'd be able to tell me. And you'd be able to tell me with amazing detail. I could be outside, and you'd say, Chris, go into the door, front door. You'll see all the swag. Walk past the swag to your right's going to be the stairs. Take the stairs down to the bottom. When you get to the bottom of the stairs, take a right. Breastrooms are right there. Women's is on the left. Men's is on the right. You can all do that. So on one hand, our memories are horrible, and we joke about it all the time. But on the other hand, we were able to memorize the blueprint of this building, and we weren't even trying to do it. So memory athletes, realizing this, just use that same spatial memory to memorize everything. Not just bathrooms. So they're able to memorize thousands and thousands of digits, poetry, shuffled decks of cards, and we just tried to do this with 10 random words. So I started, and I was staring at my watch. We had the word anticipation. Does anyone remember what happened next? Clown and opera. Perfect. Then made my way over to the other side of the stage. Does anyone remember how I got here? In a car, right? Then I found something on the floor. What happened? What are the next two words? Discover orange. And then I went over here, was listening to something. What happened next? Balance. I heard somebody say it, good. And then we came back over to where we started. Sprint, count, and finally, everybody gave me a round of applause, right? So you just memorized, a lot of you in the room, memorized 10 random words, which is more than double the amount of words that psychologists say that you're supposed to be able to memorize. Pretty crazy, right? So we're going to see how to apply this to other things as well. The first thing we're going to talk about is names, because everybody says they're horrible at memorizing names. So we're going to just get this out of the way, because it's really easy. There are two things you need to know when trying to memorize someone's name.  I can't count the number of times this has happened even today. Like, I've met somebody five seconds later. I forgot their name, right? Our memories are not that bad. The reason you don't remember it five seconds later is because you never heard it. So this is Ryan. Everybody say hi, Ryan. Oh, sorry about that. So the first, the second thing you want to do when you memorize somebody's name is think of a word that rhymes with that person's name. So I gave you a little preview in the corner there. When I hear Ryan, I think of lion. And this is something I can easily visualize, because I can't visualize Ryan's name, right? So look at Ryan's face. Find something that stands out to you. He's made it super easy, because he's got four piercings and a tattoo on his neck, right? The first thing I notice about Ryan though is that tattoo. So I'm gonna look at Ryan's tattoo. I'm gonna think of the word that rhymes with his name, lion. And I'm gonna build a crazy story. So I might imagine a lion running in from the right-hand side of Ryan, jumping up, biting his neck, wrangling through the ground, like ripping off his tattoo. There's blood everywhere. He's screaming. It's really gross. But I will never forget his name. So every time you see Ryan, you're gonna immediately notice the neck tattoo.   Totally cool. So don't tell anybody your stories. The second thing, the second thing we're gonna learn how to memorize is a shuffled deck of playing cards. And this is awesome for two reasons. One, it is the only thing that you're gonna be able to memorize that will actually impress your friends.  It's crazy. So the second reason you wanna learn how to memorize a shuffled deck of cards is because it teaches you everything you need to know to compete in a world memory championship. So we'll go through that. Why is memorizing a shuffled deck of cards seem so difficult? The number one reason is because the cards all kind of look the same. Like a seven of diamonds and a seven of hearts, I could visualize those, but I could see how those would get mixed up, especially when you're trying to memorize 52 cards, right? So the trick is, instead of memorizing cards, you memorize people. So the seven of diamonds for me is Isaac Newton. The seven of hearts is Einstein. So now you need to come up with 52 different people that you can visualize, assign them to each of the 52 cards, and then remember those people, which is actually very easy if we use a little trick called a mnemonic. A mnemonic is a technique that takes information that's already right in front of your face that's already available and uses that information to remind you of the thing it is that you actually want to remember. So a card has two pieces of information. It has the value and it has the suit. Each of those has special meaning that's gonna remind you of the person that you've associated with that card. So we'll go through the values real quick. Every ace in the deck, every two in the deck, it doesn't matter if it's ace of spades, ace of diamonds, ace of clubs, two of hearts, whatever, these are all athletes. Ace is a male athlete and two is a female athlete. Every three and four is an actor. Three is a male actor, four is a female actor. Every five and six is a controversial person. They're sketchy, they've done something that not everyone agrees with. Five is a male, six is a female. You might see another pattern and that is every single odd card in the deck is a male. Every single even card in the deck is a female. We'll go through the rest, seven and eight. These are scientists, mathematicians, physicists. Nine and 10, these are people of power. This could mean political power, like superhuman power, whatever you want. And queen and king, these are a couple. So this could be a famous couple, this could be you, this could be somebody you know, this could be a girl and a guy, a guy and a guy and a girl and a girl. It doesn't even matter. And finally, Jack, there's four of these in the deck as well and these are all people of religion. So let's go to the suits real quick. As you know, there are four suits. Each of these have a special meaning too. So diamond are rich, fancy, extravagant, wealthy, shiny, whatever you think of when you think of diamond. That's what a diamond is. Heart, these are all people that you love. Family members, friends, clubs, these are bad asses. The way I remember this is I just think of like somebody with a club just like beating somebody to the ground, okay? So that's a club. A spade, you might have heard the expression like a spade is a spade. Spades are funny, they're comedians, jokesters are just funny at what they do, whatever. So now, knowing what the values of the card mean and what the suit of the card mean, it's easy to remember your people. So we're gonna memorize three cards real quickly just to see how this is done. Ace of diamonds. When I think of ace, I know ace is a male athlete and diamonds is rich, fancy, extravagant, right? So we want a rich, fancy, extravagant male athlete. The first person I think of is Michael Jordan. So the ace of diamonds for me is gonna be the Michael Jordan. It's always gonna be Michael Jordan and you can use anybody you want. The next card, Jack of Spades. Jack is a religious person. Spades is somebody who's funny. So we want a funny, religious person, Dalai Lama. This guy's a jokester if you know anything about the Dalai Lama. So my Jack of Spades is always gonna be the Dalai Lama. Last card we have is the Four of Hearts. Now Four is a female actor and Hearts is somebody we love. So it's a female actor that you love. We all have different people we're thinking of. This is actually my wife, though. Oh, sorry, I went back there.  My wife is not an actor, but this is a reminder that you can use whoever you want for your cards. So for some reason, when I see the Four of Hearts, I think of my wife. So I just picked it because it's the first thing I thought of. That's usually the best way to go. So now we need to memorize our three different people. Now we can do this exactly like we did in the beginning with the words. That's one method to do it. We might close our eyes and imagine like a big NBA basketball court. Michael Jordan's all the way on one end. He's dribbling down to the other side. He gets the free throw. He slam dunks the ball. But for some reason, like right below the hoop is the Dalai Lama and he's praying. I don't know why, right? But the ball comes down.  His forehead gets clogged against the ground. It splits open. There's blood everywhere. My dog comes running out of the locker room is running through the blood.  My wife, Luisa's in the stands. She's screaming, no, Max, no. So now we're never gonna forget those cards. We just remember that story. It's very memorable. And we'll remember our people and be able to bring it back to the cards. But when you need to memorize a lot of things and 52 cards is a lot of things, there's a better method to use. It's called the method of Loki, also known as the journey method, also known as the memory palace. The way this works is you take a location that you're super familiar with. So for most of us, this is gonna be our house at first.   You look at your nightstand.   You then walk out of your bedroom. You walk into the bathroom and here is where you place your second memory. So in here you would look at the sink. You look at the toilet. You look at the shower and you put the Dalai Lama in here somehow and then you walk out of the bathroom and place your third memory in the living room. This would be my wife and my dog Baxter. You look at the couch. You look at the TV. You look at the carpet on the ground.   This works really well. It works exactly the same way as you've memorized where the bathroom is. It's automatic. Now I know a lot of you are from the Manhattan area. I've met some people from Brooklyn. I've also met some people from San Francisco. I'm from Portland. So your first memory palace might look like this. You don't have nearly as much room. But there's actually a better way to build your first memory palace anyway and that is to go outside where you have a lot more room. So this is a run that I take a couple times a week and I've done this run so many times that I have 34 different locations that I've placed that I could remember things. And 34 locations may not seem like a ton after all a deck of cards is 52, right? So you're thinking I can't even memorize a deck of cards with that. But 34 locations is actually enough to memorize two shuffle decks of cards. Crazy, right? And I'm gonna show you how. Now memory athletes memorize so much stuff that they've actually devised ways to compress their memories to take up less room. So if instead of just coming up with people for each of our cards, we also come up with an action and an object, then we can compress our memories to take up less room. So the first card isn't just Michael Jordan. It's Michael Jordan slam dunking a basketball, person, action, object. The second card is not just the Dalai Lama. It's Dalai Lama praying in front of the Buddha, person, action, object. Third card is not just my wife Luisa.  So now to compress, we take the person from the first card, the action from the second card praying, the object from the third card, my dog Baxter, and we build one picture using those three things so we have Michael Jordan praying to my dog Baxter. We can then take that one picture and move it into a single room in our memory palace. So the reason why this is so awesome is our memories are now taking up one third of the space they were before and we automatically get these crazy images that we're never gonna forget. Cool.  Shuffled decks of cards and it'll time you as you try to memorize them. The GitHub repo for this is also gonna show you the associations I use for the cards. You could use that as a starting point but it's really gonna work better if you use the first person that comes to your mind. Cool. So we're gonna take the next 30 seconds as a little break. I want you to find a person in front of you, behind of you, to the left of you, to the right of you and memorize their name. Go. Okay, we're back in action. So good job. Does anyone remember this guy's name? Nice! Good job. All right, round of applause. See, if only one person got that, you woulda got a prize. But everybody got it, so really nice. Okay, so now we're gonna move on to our last thing here. This is what some people think is the hardest thing to memorize and that is numbers. Now the person who's the best at memorizing random strings of numbers is able to memorize 937 random digits in 15 minutes, which is about four credit cards a minute. That's pretty awesome, right? So the same technique that he uses in that everybody else that memorizes number uses is really simple. What you wanna do is make a grid, just like I've made for you here, it has 100 squares. Every square represents a two-digit number from zero, zero to 99. What you need to do is think of a unique picture for each of those squares, because instead of memorizing numbers, you're gonna be memorizing pictures. Now if you did what I said earlier and started with cards, then you're already over halfway done because you can reuse those people. So numbers one through 52 can be the same people that you've already thought of, so that's already done. So now you only have 48 more pictures you need to come up with. And some of those are super obvious. So zero, zero is one that's really obvious to me. Every time I see this, I see a set of eyeballs, and I can't unsee that. So you might think of eyeballs or sunglasses, maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger like putting on shades, something like that. Other numbers might have meaning to you as well. So when I see 84, I think of 1984, which is the year I was born. So I think of a birthday cake. Big candles, big flames, pink frosting, it's a very vivid image. Another number that stands out to me is 74 because in 1974, the Rubik's Cube was released and I'm addicted to the Rubik's Cube, so I'm not gonna forget that. Another number that stands out to me is 91 because in 1991, the first episode of Doug aired and Quail Man is super memorable. Anyone seen Doug before? Yeah, it's the base. Wow, a lot of people have seen Doug. Yeah, so I'm not gonna forget this. I don't know why I know this year. So we still have 44 squares left that we need to fill with pictures, but it's not that hard to do because we have another mnemonic that we can use to build those pictures. This is called the major system. It's also known as the phonetic system. The way this works is each number gets assigned a phonetic sound. So zero is the sound for z, z. One is t, t, two is n, n, three is m, m, four is r, r, five is l, l, six is j, j, seven is k, eight is f, and finally, the last number, nine is p. Okay, so all you gotta do is grab a number out of that grid that you don't have a picture for yet. We'll grab the number 83, bring it up and replace each number with the phonetic sound that it represents. So eight gets replaced with f or the sound for f, three gets replaced with m, and then you try to think of a picture. So some of you might see FM and go, oh, FM radio, right? So that's perfect, use it. 83 for you could be an FM radio. You might imagine an old school radio with big knobs, yet you're turning it, it's very visual. But if you don't see FM, that's okay. The next thing you wanna do is just start sticking in vowels and try to make a word. So the first word I saw was foam. And foam is a really good word because it's very visual. I can see myself spraying pink foam all over the room, getting on my bed, getting on my window. I won't forget that. But it's also good just to keep searching to see if you can find something better. So the next word I found was FIM. Does anyone know what FIM means in English? FIM is not a word in English. But it sounds like VIM, right? Remember, this is the phonetic system. You're looking for words that sound like it, not that are spelled like it. So 83 for me is VIM, and that's very easy to visualize. I imagine my color scheme, writing rubies, sitting in a cafe, something like that. So you go through and you fill in the rest of the squares with pictures using the major system, or if some of them stand out using pictures that you've come up with. After you've done that, the hard part's over. Memorizing numbers is now super easy. You do it just like cards. So take a credit card, you can break it down and set some two digits. Grab your image for 44, place it in the first room of your memory palace. Move on to the next two digits, 85, place that image in the second room of your memory palace. Then go to the next two digits, place that in the third room of your memory palace. And if you've taken the time, like you did with the cards, to come up with a person and an action and an object, then you can use the same compression for numbers. So when you see a binary number that's huge, like this, this can actually be memorized with one picture in your memory palace. Pretty amazing. The way it works is you break it down in chunks of three. So 001 is one. 010 is two, 1106, 101 is five, 111 is seven, and 100 is four. And now you're just memorizing three two-digit numbers. And you can compress this into one image using person from the first number, action from the second number, and object from the third number. Pretty cool. So now it's not quite as impressive when you hear that someone can memorize 5,000 random digits, but it's still pretty impressive. If you wanna review any of the techniques that we learned or see how to apply this to other things, I recommend you check out Domenico Bryan's Improving Your Memory week by week. Domenico Bryan has won the World Memory Championships eight times, so he really knows what he's doing. His writing skills are horrible, but these techniques are really good. Another book you might wanna check out is Moonwalking with Einstein by Joshua Foyer. A lot of you may have already read this because it's super popular. Joshua Foyer is a United States journalist. He decided he wanna learn how memory athletes memorize all this stuff. So he talked to a bunch of athletes hung out one for especially long, went to compete in the US Memory Championships and won it. So this book is about his progression, how the competition works. If you have any questions about anything memory related or anything else I've talked about, I'm Chris Hunt in Real Life and on the internet. Thank you.


Hello everyone, welcome back to another session in dentistry and more. So today we have a very easy topic that is the basic difference between primary dentition and permanent dentition. So primary dentition which is also known as deciduous dentition, milk teeth, baby teeth and temporary teeth. So let us see the difference between these two dentitions. So we all know the deciduous dentition or primary dentition which starts by 6 months that is the first tooth erupts into oral cavity which is the mantibular or the lower central incisors. Then it goes on erupting up to the second molars. By 2 years most of the teeth will be erupted that is around 20 teeth will be erupted whereas in permanent dentition it starts by 6 year that is again the lower central incisor will be erupted by 5 to 6 year. It varies based on the gender and individual to individual it may vary. So that is the eruption duration that is 6 months to 2 years this is 6 to 21 years. So the last tooth which is erupting in permanent dentition is third molars that also varies person to person it may erupt as soon as 17 years or it may delay up to 22-23 years. So let us see the difference between these two before that we need to divide our dentition into primary dentition mixed dentition and permanent dentition. So primary dentition is exclusively the teeth as only primary dentition that is 6 months to 6 years by 6 years the permanent dentition starts erupting. So till 12 years the person will be having both deciduous and permanent dentition that is between 6 to 12 years. So around 12 to 13 years most of the deciduous dentition will be exfoliated and the person will be having only permanent dentition that is 12 years onwards. So we have primary dentition that is 6 months to 6 years mixed dentition 6 to 12 years and permanent dentition that is after 12 years. It is not exactly 12 6 and 6 months it may vary person to person age, gender variations will be there. So let us see the difference between primary and permanent dentition. So as I mentioned it starts from 6 months to 2 years it starts from 6 years to 21 years. We have 20 teeth in primary dentition whereas the permanent teeth is 32 in number. So we know we have 4 categories of teeth that is we have incisors, we have canine, premolars, no premolars in deciduous we have molars. Here we have incisors, canine, premolars and molars. So incisors is 8, this is 4, this is again 8. So total 20 teeth, here it is different incisors is again 8, canine is 4 whereas premolars is 8 and molars is 12. So each quadrant we need to divide by 4. So each quadrant there will be 2 incisors, 1 canine and 2 molars. Here each quadrant there will be 2 incisors, 1 canine, 2 premolars and 3 molars. That is how it is coming 20 and 32 teeth in deciduous and permanent teeth. And regarding the crowns, in deciduous or primary dentition the crowns are very short whereas the permanent dentition has bigger crowns as you can imagine in kids mouth small crowns whereas adult mouths the crowns are bigger which has narrow occlusion table in primary dentition whereas bigger occlusion table in adult dentition. And the cervical region there will be a constriction in primary dentition. So such constriction are not very marked or very evident in permanent dentition and thinner enamel and dentine in relation to primary whereas permanent dentition has thick enamel and thick dentine. So the direction of enamel towards in cervical third in primary dentition it is towards the occlusion side whereas in permanent dentition it is towards the gingerival side. And broader and flat contacts between the teeth whereas in permanent dentition it has point contacts that is between the teeth. The regarding the color the primary dentition is more whiter, lighter in color whereas the permanent dentition is more darker and slightly on yellowish side. In primary dentition the incisors which has no mamalones and no developmental groups in permanent dentition mamalones and developmental groups can be present. But in primary dentition there will be a meso buccal bulge that is at the cervical regions of molars will be prominent. So this type of meso buccal bulge on the cervical side will not be prominent in permanent dentition. And as I mentioned ICPM that is a code incisors canines primolars and molars. Two incisors one canine no primolars two molars two one two three that is two incisors one canine two primolars and three molars. So regarding the pulp the deciduous dentition has large pulp chamber the pulp horns are more closer to the outer surface so the treatment procedures there will be accidental pulp exposure because it has a bigger pulp chamber and it is very close to the outer surface of enamel and more cellularity and more vascularity so it is just opposite or just lesser in permanent dentition. Cellularity and vascularity is comparatively low and the pulp chambers are not very big and it is away from the outer to the surface and roots are larger and slender and smaller trunks whereas the roots are shorter and bulbous roots and it has larger trunk which is towards the apical direction where the trunk is towards the cervical region and the mesiodistral dimension of roots is narrower in primary dentition whereas it has a broader mesiodistral dimension. Physiologic resorption is seen only in primary dentition because it is a natural process the roots will be resolved and permanent dentition will be replaced. Such resorption is not seen in permanent dentition and inter globular dentine is absent in primary dentition whereas it is present in permanent dentition and there will not be much ginger whitish or recession which is periodontal problems mostly it is absent in primary dentition but it is very very evident and it is present in permanent dentition so this is some of the few examples so we can have tooth-wise comparison and each category like enamel, dentine, pulp, cement and periodontal ligament so I include most of the differences so this will most commonly asked a seclusion or sometimes a shorter knot or a very short knot so if it is asked as a seclusion you need to elaborate under enamel, dentine, pulp, cement and periodontal ligament, ginger, alveoli, all the subheadings you need to include that only you will get more marks so if it is a short knot or a very short knot like three marks or five marks you can write this making a table and write the important so this includes most of the characteristics but not very much in detail explanation is given so that is about the difference between primary dentition and permanent dentition so I will come up with a new topic in dentistry demo thank you


In this area, if you're into cycling there are so many different things to do. In the summer, you have to decide, do I ride the Paul Bunyan Trail, do I ride the Cayuna Lakes Trail, do I ride some of the many road routes, do I go to Cayuna? Coming up on the next episode of Common Ground.


Try not to. I try to be perfect. Is it going? Oh, okay. Well, everybody can hear me saying I try to be perfect. So, consider the reaction. This one's number 11 on the practice exam three. Consider the reaction between C7H16 liquid plus 11 oxygen gas goes to 7 carbon dioxide gas plus 8 waters. Delta H negative 4130 kilojoules, okay? So, how much energy is released when two moles of C7H16 are burned? Well, how many moles are being burned in this reaction? Just one mole, right? So, if we had, and this is how much energy is being released in it, so if we had two moles of it, what do you think the amount of energy is going to be? Just double that, right? So, the way to do this is delta H for two moles and equal 2.080.


The biodegradable high-strength supermolecular polymer-strengthened hydrogel composed of cleavable poly and acryloid II glycine, PACG, and methacrylate gelatin, gelame, PACG gelame, was successfully constructed by photo-initiated polymerization. Introducing hydrogen bond-strengthened PACG contributed to a significant increase in the mechanical strengths of gelatin hydrogel with a high tensile strength up to 1.1 mPa, outstanding compressive strength, up to 12.4 mPa, large Young's modulus, up to 320 kPa, and high compression modulus, up to 837 kPa. In turn, the gelame chemical cross-linking could stabilize the temporary PACG network, showing tunable biodegradability by adjusting ACG slash gelame ratios. Furthermore, a biohybrid gradient scaffold consisting of top layer of PACG gelame hydrogel MN2 plus and bottom layer of PACG gelame hydrogel bio. This article was authored by Fei Gao, Ziang Su, Qingfeilang, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Over the past week, thousands of landless women workers in Brazil took part in mobilizations in defense of land, biodiversity, and the rights of the working class. These women, who were organized by the landless workers movement, the MST, were agitating against the pro-corporate policies of the government and its alliance with imperialist international capital that threatens not only their livelihood but the very planet itself. In this episode of Around the World in 8 Minutes, a show by People's Dispatch. We look at this mobilization as well as protests in France and Algeria. The most significant protest in Brazil took place on March 9, Monday, when women workers occupied the Ministry of Agriculture in the capital, Brasilia. 3,500 workers from 24 states in Brazil participated in the protest, which was part of the national days of struggle of the landless women. The workers condemned the distribution of individual titles for plots of land that are meant to be settlements as part of agrarian reform. They also condemned the far-right-wing Jair Bolsonaro government for cuts in public investment and the unchecked spread of agrotoxin. The issue of individual titles is significant as it regularizes the selling of plots that have been redistributed as part of agrarian reform, thus hitting at the heart of the process. It also enables the National Institute of Colonization and Land Reform, INCRA, to control collective areas in the settlements, where schools and centers of political education are organized. The MST for decades has been in the forefront of the land reform process by organizing land occupations by collectives, where a lot of emphasis is placed on community efforts and spaces. Schools and community centers are an integral part of these occupations and the settlements that come around them. And a step by the government is being seen as an attack on the community-based nature of land reform that has been pioneered by the MST. The protesters also condemned the sharp dip in investment in various social programs. This sharp dip is about 46 billion rears in about six years. The MST pointed out that during this period, unemployment has led to steep rises in the number of people without homes and food in Brazil, and the country has returned to the hunger map, a study done by the FAO. The situation has been worsened by laws such as the one that weakens the National Institute of Colonization and Land Reform. Similarly, the decree also ends the national program of the education of agrarian reform, PRONERA, and other programs that give incentives to people living on settlements and self-sustaining communities. A similar fate awaits the program of food acquisition, which is likely to see a budget cut of around 80 million rears according to the MST. This year, the budget is estimated to be only rears 101 million. The MST also condemned the determination of the Bolsonaro government to privatize land in a manner which will promote environmental destruction. A recent law, for instance, excludes from environmental protection 4,745 hectares of flora in the states of Amapa and Urima, thus opening the wave of mining in these lands. The law will also make rules about regularization more flexible, which would enable large-scale land grabbing where criminal elements the MST pointed out. Similarly, according to the Ministry of Agriculture itself, 474 agrotoxins were liberated in 2019. This is the greatest number released in the past 15 years. The landless women workers of Brazil are said to continue these struggles in the coming months, standing firm against the anti-people government of GER Bolsonaro. In our next story, researchers in France have initiated a massive protest against a new multi-annual research programming law or the LPPR that has been proposed by the French government. The national coordination of the faculties and labs in struggle started a research strike from March 9th. More than 100 universities and schools, nearly 300 laboratories and 145 scientific journals in the humanities and the social sciences have expressed support for the protests called by the National Coordination Committee of Researchers. So what is this LPPR? The law aims to convert research vacancies in the country into limited period posts based on the duration of the projects carried out by research institutions. Such a move is likely to affect those who work in regular posts and has also created widespread discontent among tens of thousands of researchers and students who currently work in contract and temporary vacancies. This is because with this law, there will be no possibility of regular or permanent jobs in the future. Before the strike on March 9th, another protest on March 5th saw tens of thousands of researchers launch a mobilization against LPPR across the country. 20,000 people participated in the protest in Paris on March 5th. The law was first announced by Prime Minister Edward Philippe last year. The ministerial consultations for the law have concluded and the government is expected to introduce a draft bill soon. The secretary of the Union of Communist Students, Anais Fili, told People's Dispatch that the law sought to bring about neoliberal reform to the university space. She said that it would deepen inequalities, increase competition between researchers and degrade working conditions of both teacher researchers and students. She pointed out that a key aspect of the law was to anchor contracts only on projects while not funding public research or allowing these projects to be spread over a long time. Research work would thus become more precarious, she pointed out. The student activists drew connections between this protest and the massive countrywide movement over pension reform and added that faced with this scientific and social regression, the French university community is mobilizing with university staff, doctoral students and professors on the front line. It is clear that this blatant neoliberal reform from Macron will face stiff resistance from the students and the faculty of France. In our final story, the Algerian police on March 7th arrested at least 10 anti-government protesters, including Samir Ben-Larbi, a prominent activist who was part of the Iraq. The arrests were made during a protest march in the capital Algiers, which saw the participation of around 300 people. The police attempted to disperse the protesters in a heavy crackdown, preventing them from marching. Protests were also organized in cities like Constantine, Anaba and other larger cities in the eastern part of the country. The protesters condemned the endemic corruption plaguing the country and the government's attempts to curtail the citizen's right to free speech and expression. They also criticized the media, both the state-owned and the private channels, for not covering the protests fairly under governmental pressure. Protesters were seen waving the Algerian flag and carrying posters with the portrait of jailed political activist Karim Tabou. Tabou has been charged with contributing to weakening the army's morale and has been jailed for the past five months. People also demanded the release of Youth Action Rally President Abdel Wahab Farsoui and express concern for Taufiq Hassani, a policeman who was arrested for supporting the Iraq movement and could be dismissed as per police laws. Hassani was released last week and is now facing trial. After his release, he participated in the protests in Mauriz Adin Square and expressed his solidarity with protesters. Algerians have been on the streets for over a year, demanding drastic changes in the political and social systems. The massive protests known as the Iraq were successful in overthrowing long-time President Abdul Aziz Butafleqa in April last year. However, while the president resigned, his regime continues to wield power and his close associates occupy key posts in the country. The Iraq has been demanding that all vestiges of the Butafleqa regime give up power. That's all we have in this episode, around the world in eight minutes. To know more about these stories, visit our website, peoplesdispatch.org and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Thanks for watching.


Well hello and welcome to Understand Men Now. I'm Jonathan Assey of JonathanAssey.com and I'm so excited to be shooting this short video for you today. Our topic this gains men's respect 99% of the time when you do this. Really quickly if you're new to my YouTube channel please hit the subscribe button, hit the bell so you can be notified of new content. If you like this video please hit the like button at the end. I'd be truly grateful. Okay we're gonna talk about gaining a man's respect and I think this is on some level this might seem obvious but I gotta tell you from where I sit as a dating and relationship coach for women I just I just don't see this very frequently so I want to lean into this because I think this is an important topic and that is this misconception first and foremost that if you're vulnerable authentic and transparent with a man if you're vulnerable authentic and transparent with a man that he will run away. There's this fear that when we open up and are vulnerable authentic transparent what I mean is even when we share our insecurities with someone they're gonna run away. Now it's one of the reasons why when I wrote my book what the heck is self-love anyway one of the chapters in the book is talking about speaking your truth speaking your truth and why this is so critically important is our truth is how we feel about things it's not necessarily the truth it's just how we might feel about something including the relationship or facets within the relationship and so when we lean into speaking our truth we're being we're being in integrity with ourselves being an integrity with ourselves I didn't grab the book I typically have this handy but if you're not familiar with the book called the four agreements the four agreements one of the agreements is to be an integrity with yourself to being your best to always being true to oneself by the way if you're interested in any of the books I recommend check out the link below to Jonathan recommend books and my book is called what the heck is self-love and it's all in the description and I want to share with you in a few minutes what really gains a man's respect 99% of the time especially when you're dealing with an emotional grown-up man an emotional grown-up now this is critically important because the vast percentage of humans are emotionally stifled they're emotionally immature because they haven't learned the skills to actually lean into their own sovereignty their own self-worth their own self-love it's because the reality is is the vast majority of the population is riddled with this fear of I'm not good enough I'm not lovable and I'm not likable men and women alike so that fear of not speaking your truth is a very common one and I'm also here to say that if you want to shift the perspective in your relationship that it's incumbent upon you to speak your truth and I'm about to share this aspect that's going to gain man's respect very quickly in a second because there's another chapter in my book called if it's sincere and from the heart you can never say the wrong thing to the right person if it's sincere and from the heart you can never say the wrong thing to the right person so my point is if you being vulnerable you know I'm looking at my shirt it looks way too tight I put on weight since this pandemic and I've got to go back and really drop another five or ten pounds I'm so ah anyway I'm feeling a little um see I was being vulnerable right there I was literally stopped in the middle of this video to be vulnerable and that's not a sign of weakness that's not a sign of my insecurity well sure there's an element of feeling insecure I'll be rejected if I'm fat right that's that inner voice but it's also leaning in it takes a level of I like what Brene Brown says it takes a level of bravery and courage to be vulnerable do me a favor check out Brene Brown's work um on wait do I have that book handy no I don't check out Brene Brown's work on vulnerability and I just shared an example of that with you right now because if you really want to shift the perspective if you want to shift your relationship then it's incumbent upon you to do the following if you want to gain someone's respect vulnerability authenticity transparency but more so in relationship is establishing your standard what is your standard what it is that you want when you're exploring this time together what do you really want and I'm here to say that most women and sometimes I yell I'm yelling because because imagine a child is about to touch their hand in fire right there they're they're about to burn themselves I'm yelling because I just want to wake things up shake things up and one of the things I'd like to encourage you to do is read this book called Eight Dates by Dr. John and Julie Gottman Eight Dates by Dr. John and Julie Gottman the link below to Jonathan recommend books lists all my books that I recommend why this is so important is because it's going to help you establish the standard of what it is you want in relationship ladies this this haphazard way of dating is of just let's just have fun let's just have fun it's all about having fun let's just have a lot of fun and then what happens later is you get attached to someone who's not compatible with you or doesn't want the same things with you same doesn't have the shared vision of a relationship with you so I want to incumbent be I want to encourage you to establish what it is you want in relationship and express it very early on because when you're vulnerable authentic and transparent only the wrong guy is going to run away now if a man isn't ready for commitment you're not saying I want commitment today you're saying this is why I'm exploring a relationship with you I'm well I would like everyone to say this on the next time you're talking to a brand new guy write down the words would you be interested in exploring a relationship with me not not the first or second you know date but at some point because that takes a whole different shift of perspective and only a man who will who likes you and respects you will lean into that conversation you don't need to lean back and just be all in your feminine it's I mean I'm I'm encouraging everyone to be kind compassionate nice that's not masculine or feminine that's just being a good human being and I want to encourage you all to do that but I want you to really lean because we can call the following masculine when you set your standard right off the bat we can call that masculine but guess what we're gonna get you're gonna gain a man's respect if he genuinely likes you and he's an emotional grown-up at the same time is this sinking in I hope it is I'm only yelling because I want to make sure it sinks in all right thanks for allowing me to share this with you I'm gonna wrap up this video as I always do first off giving myself a big gigantic John the bear hug of self-love I'm gonna reach into the camera and give you a hug of love if that's okay I'm gonna ask you to turn to someone or a pet or a teddy bear or we'll get salty this time we'll grab salty this time hey give it a hug of love because hugs are a great source of love and we can all use more love in our lives thanks a bunch bye bye now


All right. Well, thank you very much. I'm going to talk a little bit about the baby-seek project, but by way of some of the work we've done over the last 10 years, because I think that the aggregate message is really interesting. And the aggregate message I'd like to talk about today is the case for preventive genomics. So while I'll be thanking everyone, including all of the baby-seek investigators for the data that we will be showing, I won't hold them responsible for some of the opinions that I'm going to express that they may or may not fully agree with. I do want to share my disclosures thanks to the NIH for support of this and other projects and my advisory roles to several companies and a co-founder role for a technology-enabled telemedicine company, Genomemedical. So the context for my remarks, I think, is this notion that genomics, and particularly multi-omics, may be the tip of the spear toward the promise of prevention rather than treating disease. The idea that we could really revolutionize what we mean by health care in a way that prevents and keeps us healthy, prevents disease and keep us healthy. Now genomics is only one small part of this, as is very clear. The whole arenas of proteomics, metabolomics, transcriptomics, and so forth are going to add much big data complexity to this. But genomics is the portion of this that we have the most experience with. Some of that experience is helpful, but some of that experience, I believe, is sent us in the wrong direction. Some of that experience arises out of Huntington disease, being the first disease to which we use genetic testing. Some of that experience arises from the notion that we see a child with a phenotype, and we use a genetic test to make a diagnosis. And as we've heard, some of that experience arises out of a very specific, particular form of public health mandated screening, which we all agree has been successful in terms of newborn screening. What I'd like to suggest is a different kind of model for the way we think about sequencing healthy individuals for the prevention of future disease. I'm not sure what the name of it should be, but it's not quite diagnostic, because they don't have a phenotype. And it's also not public health screening, because we're not imposing it within a public health context. I guess the question to bring it down to sort of our everyday lives is, why isn't your own doctor today using preventive genomics in your daily care? And if you believe that's where we're going, as most of us would, I think, say, we're going there, what is it that's preventing us from getting there sooner rather than later? We're a strange specialty in genetics. We have created quite a lot of barriers for the implementation of our own technology. And some of these have arisen out of the elements I've been talking about. The notion that, for example, genetic information is somehow toxic, that it will cause dramatic distress, that patients and providers will misunderstand genomic information, that genomic information will never change behavior, nothing will change behaviors, or that they will change behaviors with severe iotrogenic consequences, and that there will be unwarranted costs that accrue from the multitudes of genetic information. Now, you've heard that there's lots of cute names for all these studies, and our studies are no different. Our program at Brigham Women's Hospital has helped lead a lot of studies, including reveal PgN, MedSeq, BabySeq, MillSeq, PeopleSeq, and PopSeq. We're going to talk mostly about BabySeq today, but I want to show you a few slides from MedSeq, the first randomized trial of whole genome sequencing in adults to lay the groundwork for that. In fact, I'll start a little bit farther back. Over 10 years ago, maybe 15 years ago now, we asked the question, would receiving genetic information for a severe, untreatable diagnosis like Alzheimer's disease cause unwarranted distress? And remarkably, the answer was no. People who learned that they were at increased probabilistic risk for Alzheimer's disease were glad they had the information on average, were not overly anxious or depressed, and were not made more anxious by the information, and they did do things with it. They tried exercise and vitamins. They changed their insurance purchase patterns, and they did things with their families that they would not otherwise have done. The whole arena of personal utility was born. We've also reduplicated that in the MedSeq project, where we showed that people learning the results of whole genome sequencing did not have increased anxiety or distress. And in fact, there was something we didn't quite expect. The people who received their genomic results were happier, more empowered, and more relieved than the people who wanted them, and were not able to get them because of the randomization. They'd say things like, I'm definitely trying to modify my exercise and eating habits. Now, we all know it's hard to change those things, and maybe they didn't, maybe they didn't. But they were trying. They said it was better to know this than not to, so that they could get their families involved, and they were often relieved when a comprehensive evaluation did not reveal a risk for a future disease. And then there's a question of whether patients and providers will misunderstand, act inappropriately, or fail to act appropriately. And our data from various studies before MedSeq really indicated over and over again that the vast majority of people who sought out some sort of elective testing, whether you're talking about direct-to-consumer testing or even whole genome sequencing, were not grossly misunderstanding what they were giving back, what they were getting back. Not only that, but they were not changing their prescription medications in contradistinction to what their physicians had ordered. And they were reporting that they were going to improve their diet and exercise. Again, I'm not naive about how hard that is and whether or not they succeeded, but they did report that they were choosing to attempt to. Mu and Kuri and others have sort of spoken to some of these results as a teachable moment where clinicians and providers can kind of reinforce different public health messages that we all know we should be following. Now when we would find rare diseases in MedSeq, we actually gave those directly back to primary care doctors and rated them with these colors, you can see green, orange and red to denote whether they made mistakes in communicating them or taking action. And indeed, very few mistakes were made with only a few hours of orientation. So this notion that you have to have an army of geneticists, you have to have an army of genetic counselors before you can unleash this information on the populace, just may not actually be true. And when you think about the medical benefits and costs, one of the things we did was we made the decision from the very beginning of both MedSeq and BabySeq to analyze all the genes that we possibly could that were scientifically valid, meaning they were scientifically well evidenced to show association with a particular condition. We didn't worry about actionability. And with some exceptions, we didn't worry about age of onset. We just said, is the association real? When we did that, we were examining between 3,000 and 6,000 genes. Some of them, of course, for extremely rare conditions. And in MedSeq, we found that 21% of us, that's 20% of the people in this room, are walking around with a Mendelian disease variant, either a monogenic dominant condition, also function mutation, or a biallelic recessive. That's incredible. I almost can't believe it, except that we validated this as you'll see in BabySeq and other studies. 92% of people carrying a recessive carrier variant, and 80% of people carrying an atypical response to at least one set of pharmacogenomic medications. And when we circled back, and this is very relevant to what we also saw in BabySeq, when we circled back, we could see that in some of these unanticipated monogenic disease variants, there were fragments of the syndrome that had never been recognized as genetic. We even did polygenic risk scores and found that the doctors were more likely to order things for polygenic risks than they were for monogenic risks. So how does this all relate to BabySeq, the reason that we're here today? Well, Francis Collins, back in 2012, said whether you like it or not, a complete sequencing of newborns is not far away. And indeed, as we've heard, consumer-facing companies, and just the natural curiosity of information-seeking parents as they encounter new technologies that may provide health benefits to their children, is leading to the notion that if sequencing reveals health risks at any point in life, and that if that's good, then it's better to do it early. Because there's more time to capture the track that you can help a child or an adolescent before the conditions of those disease take place. Now as with the other in-site trials, we had to go through quite a gauntlet of our two IRBs and the FDA oversight of the BabySeq project. And I mentioned this not to feel sorry for us, but because there is a certain kind of bias that gets injected into clinical trials, when you have to over-elaborate the risks in an over-elaborated consent process, and I think that's really important to think about as we're trying to ask the question, how do these technologies play out with regular people in regular situations? You make people climb the mountain in order to get into a trial, you're only going to get the people in the trial who are capable of climbing mountains. And that played out in our recruitment issues for the BabySeq project. If you look at the light blue colors here, you'll see that the vast majority of people who declined participation had just had babies. They were a little concerned about fatigue and logistics and getting back for the follow-ups portion of the study. Or they just said, look, I just had a baby, I don't want to have anything to do with research. And that was kind of an interesting experiment in itself in terms of almost a population-based query as we walked from room to room to room on the newborn baby unit, saying, would you like to participate in the research study, and before we could get the next words of our mouth, they would say no, or would you like to participate in a research study about in which your child might get their entire DNA sequence tested? And we did get a chance to sit down and talk to them about the studies you can see from the lighter blue bars, I'm sorry, the darker blue bars. You can see that insurance discrimination and privacy issues in general weighed heavily on their minds. I think this is in part because those are legitimate concerns, but it's also in part this notion that if you lay on concerns within the consent process too heavily, you actually engender these concerns in people to a degree that may make it difficult, more difficult for you to enroll in important clinical trials. But here's the guts of the medical benefit from BabySeq. Out of 163 newborn sequins, we found again a surprisingly higher percentage of unanticipated monogenic findings, 11%. Not as high as the 20% in adults because we had cut the list down in deference to our IRB to include mostly child and adolescent onset conditions. So you would expect the percentage to go down. But still, would you ever imagine that 11% of babies would have a monogenic result, but they're putting them at risk for a monogenic disease? And when you dug down into that 11%, we found that several cases actually explained observations that were already been made but had not been associated with a genetic condition, and several actually were clues to babies with phenotypes that had never been diagnosed. So in particular, a child with a partial biotinidase deficiency was discovered and treated, and a child with a supervalvular aortic stenosis which had never been suspected was diagnosed through this DNA-first entry point. We also found a number of cases where the discovery of the mutation actually prompted discovery of an enriched family history. Family history has been held up as the gateway to genetic testing, but family history is notoriously imperfect. People are poor historians, families are small, people forget. Just the reminder, oh, you've got a cardiac risk variant here. Are you sure you told us everything about heart disease in your family? Gave us an opportunity to get an enriched family history from folks. As we saw before, there was a tremendous, tremendous number of carrier findings. Babies had, 88% of these babies were heterozygous for one or more recessive alleles, an average of two per infant range of zero to seven. And the anecdotes that came out of this were quite interesting. Many people saw and learned about these variants in their children and realized that they, its parents, had been rolling the dice because the only preconception testing that they had been exposed to was not really preconception at all. It was during pregnancy, by their OBGYN, if anything, and it was for a few variants or at most if they were Ashkenazi, for a few more. In fact, we had one family who decided to get both parents tested on the basis of a single heterozygous variant in the baby for a very rare genetic condition found by crazy coincidence that both were carriers, that there was nothing in the baby's genome that actually suggested that. They just went looking and then used reproductive technology to avoid having a child with that condition all through the exposure of the recessive carrier trait in their infant. And the behavioral conditions were presented earlier in this meeting, but I'll just go over them briefly for the audience that hasn't seen these yet. This is where the randomized clinical trial format for baby-seek really came in handy because as we saw from the recruitment diagram, the people who jump into this study are not characteristic of people in general. So the control group is really important when you're trying to ask questions about behavior. And in our randomized controlled trial, there was no difference in perception of child vulnerability by randomization arm, no difference in perception of child vulnerability even among those with the monogenic disease risk. There was no evidence of parent-child bond disruption by randomization arm and no evidence of parent-child bond disruption even among those with a monogenic disease risk finding. Now costs are important and we're fortunate to have Dr. Kirk Christensen, a young faculty member who is developing international expertise in this sort of new field of econogenomics. And his analysis of the baby-seek project suggested that while there was slightly higher costs associated with one of these monogenic findings, it was really not as high as you might have imagined. This is only a short period of time, we're not sort of extrapolating this out over a lifetime and that's a fair question. But it does suggest that quite a lot of the concerns about exorbitant explosion of downstream healthcare costs might be overblown. And even if there are increased costs after using a kind of broad, comprehensive, elective screening of infants, the real question is not whether it costs us more money, it's whether what we're able to find and what we're able to prevent in those children and subsequently those adults is worth the money that we would spend to find it. And you know, he's been able to do some projections, decision modeling of lifetime benefits and costs and all you really have to do is move historically from $10 per gene to $7.5 per gene to $5 per gene down to two and a half per gene or even lower to see that you do eventually cross this threshold, which is a generally accepted value, good value for what is considered to be life years saved in terms of children or adults. Now there are a lot of assumptions in models like these that many people can take issue with, but the point is if we all believe that sequencing and its interpretation is getting cheaper and better, there will be a point at which these thresholds are crossed. But it's really the individual stories that emerge out of this multi-domain kind of testing that grab you and make you wonder, make you really uneasy with a situation where people aren't at least having the option to do this. This little girl is the girl I mentioned with the partial biotinidase deficiency. And what we know of this biotinidase deficiency is that her enzyme levels were less than 50%, more like 30 to 40% of normal. We don't know that she would have ever had a full-blown syndrome, but we could imagine that she would have some sort of reduced IQ. And now she has a simple vitamin supplement that could prevent that. In another case reported by Ingrid Holm, we do look for a limited number of adult onset conditions in the baby seat project. We found a child with a BRCA2 mutation, and that child is way down here in this corner.  But once we discovered this and changed our protocol to allow us to return it to the mother, she was able to go explore her family history, realize that these cases were there, and then take her own precautions for creating a prophylaxis plan for herself. And there are unexpected consequences and unexpected benefits that are discoverable in the genome. A young investigator named Bill Lane has worked with us in MedSeq, BabySeq, and MillSeq, in which he has discovered and created an entire algorithm for predicting the 300 red blood cell antigens and 33 platelet antigens that differ between individuals and that contribute to serious and sometimes fatal transfusion reactions. And so he's developed an algorithm and published this now in a variety of places that can do this rapidly and accurately from whole genome sequencing alone. So to conclude, I think there's much more aggregate value in the genome than we've been thinking about, in part because we balkanize our medical care into OB-GYN, into pediatrics, into adult onset, into cardiology and so forth. But I think if you try to bring those elements close together, you realize that the potential for reproductive health alone is extraordinary. Why when we have the historical examples of Tay-Sachs disease in the Jewish community, when we have the historical example of different blood diseases in the Mediterranean countries that have been dramatically improved by screening programs and preconception testing, why are we not moving more rapidly to investigate preconception testing to our entire population of people who are going to have children? We've talked about somewhere between 10 and 20% of people having a Mendelian risk variant. Now we talk about this in terms of screening and the language quickly goes into prior predictive value, prior probabilities and predictive value positives, but I don't think that's the right analogy. I don't think that we should consider this as a screening test for a diagnosis at a point in time. I think we should think of this as some sort of risk stratification that moves people into different layers of surveillance, just like we would consider a family history, just like we would consider a physical complaint. In fact, you could almost think of examining your DNA as almost like part of the physical exam rather than a laboratory test, and it makes a better analogy for I think the ways that we're going to end up using it. About 80% of people have an atypical pharmacogenomic reaction, and with all of the recent publications about polygenic risk scores, even if you just took the top 2% of people as some of the recent RFAs have encouraged us, and you multiplied it by multiple conditions and found only the top 2% of people who are at highest risk, for many of these conditions you're in a category where it's three or four or five times the risk of the general population, and anything that gets us to three or four or five times the risk of type 2 diabetes or heart disease or multiple sclerosis or atrial fibrillation, certainly we should be paying attention to and trying to prevent. There are blockers within our current healthcare system that are kind of working together to make this difficult. High prices for genetic testing have historically restricted physician ordering behavior, therefore there haven't been that many, particularly in healthy individuals, that have allowed us to collect evidence to create practice guidelines without practice guidelines. It's very hard to get insurers to cover, and so this cycle goes round and round. But I do believe we're at a tipping point, and it's partly simply because decreasing costs for both sequencing and interpretation, and of course for the better quality interpretation that all of our speakers today are contributing to. And the more and more people who can start to afford this, even in a self-payway, creates pathways for physicians to order sequencing, even for healthy individuals, which then allows for the collection of evidence that could contribute to practice guidelines. And we're already seeing that, Amy, with ACMG committees and so forth, which can start to prompt insurer coverage, we've got lots of interest now from insurers, but also almost as a sort of orthogonal direction, we have more and more employers who are bypassing the whole medical care system with insurer coverage in order to provide genetic benefits to their employees. And as they do this, and they are, of course, the ultimate customer for the insurers, this is going to move the insurer industry to include these policies. So finally, I'd just like to conclude with this slide where I remind us that I think our data as well as data from many other directions and many other investigators suggest that what we have always seen as genetic disease is very, very much a small percentage of the true genetic disease burden that is contributing to disease and morbidity. And the genetic information, though, characterized for decades as somehow rare, even precious, highly complex, is far more relevant to public health than was previously understood. And I don't think, and this isn't really my opinion, but I don't think diagnosis or screening is the correct context for risk identification and preventive genomics. I think we actually have to invent a different language to talk about this. And partly that's because the more genes you analyze, the more risks you discover. Partly it's because actionability, despite the heroic efforts of the groups we just heard from, is still often somewhat subjective in that what one clinician believes is actionable, maybe different from what another clinician believes, and is definitely different from what different non-medical professionals believe is useful to them. And indeed, this whole concept of actionability, which is sort of top-down, expert-driven notion, is somewhat in tension with evolving concepts of patient autonomy, because we see over and over and over again that patients and customers want as much genomic information as we can give them. It may be that our only responsible course is to give them whatever information they want and just make sure that it's accurate. And finally, we need a new vocabulary and a new way to examine benefit and cost effectiveness, because both the benefits and costs aggregate over multiple domains, which do not often work together, multiple generations. All these tests are the gateway to family cascade testing, and multiple decades, because it's not so much that a cardiomyopathy mutation is a false positive. It's that it's a risk factor for the next 30 years that you may develop cardiomyopathy. That's different than being a false positive. So, as I say, the opinions are mine, but the data is a team effort, and I want to thank the rest of the BabySeq team here, this extensive BabySeq team, as well as the teams that have contributed to our other research. We are starting one of the first preventive genomics clinics in the country, where individuals can come in under an appropriate medical supervision, have comprehensive whole genome sequencing with in-depth interpretation of all of the scientifically relevant and medically relevant variants they want without any kind of limitation due to our perceptions of actionability. And looking forward, we do have an NIH grant to study the outcomes in persons who elect this, take this kind of elective sequencing, and I'll look forward to sharing that with you in future sessions. Thank you. Thank you, Robert. And that concludes the first portion of our public session today. So, folks can join us back here again in half an hour at 3.30 Eastern, and we will start up again with one more presentation from the Insight programs, and then we'll move into our panel discussion. So, thanks, everyone.


One digital pain point that you would want to see addressed at the earliest. So I think one pain point, it's more of a journey, is just measurement, measurement, measurement, and to make sure that we are able to integrate digital really well into offline measurement systems and vice versa. What is that one advice you would like to give to viewers on understanding digital marketing? Yeah, keep it simple, execute at scale would be the point. Thank you.