Good afternoon, my name is Peter Sharoschi and welcome from the Vienna International Center where we are sitting at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs 65th-61st session and Today we will discuss Stigma and how stigma affects the lives of people who use drugs and what this meeting can do about this problem So let's start with What words we should use because that's I think it's one of the key issues That somehow it defines who we are what words we use about people and One of the terms I think which is kind of controversial is is the term addiction and addict so can you tell me Judy like Why the international network of people who use drugs we are the executive director of Opposites the term of to use addicts I'm sure well the international network of people who use drugs have always had a problem With the addiction model and the language of disease the language of addiction which implies disease and the implication of a Disordered loss of control like this compulsion. So I think when you associate, you know Drug use and people use drugs with addiction You apply that language implies that we have no control over our lives That it's impossible to regulate or manage drug use which is not true. There are many who do So I think you know, we need to look at other words that we can use that Don't Increase the stigma of people who use drugs and imply that you know, we cannot make decisions about our own lives Or we lack agency or autonomy. So I think you know, it's important discussion To bring you know an addiction. It's not just about health. It's not about disease There are so many factors that we really need to look at and I think we miss out a lot on Reducing reducing drug use To a disease model to just a health framework What do you think about? Addiction itself because some people say it's a disease some people say it's a moral failure Some other say I think that that's just a social phenomena. So Sean Do you have any thoughts on that? Um My opinion is that the term addiction if you're going to use it at all has to be wider than drug use and we've seen some Researchers like Bruce Alexander talk about addiction in its various forms My problem comes when we use the term addict as a noun And we describe somebody as an addict because that comes with a whole set of presuppositions and ideas With it in terms of of addiction. I certainly don't think it's a disease I think it's part of the human condition We've seen a concerted effort by various international bodies to promote addiction as a disease under the guise of decreasing stigma in fact, you know, I always I always say would you have somebody who's got perhaps some sort of Bad habit around to your house Or would you rather have somebody who's been labelled as having some serious mental health disorder, you know And that question usually shows that that there's not reduced stigma Of course, there's a lot of stigma and there's a lot of stigma around mental health disorders Which shouldn't be there either but to claim that the disease model reduces stigma. I think it's just Dysingenious. I don't think it's an intelligent argument at all I think that it gives an excuse for paternalism for Putting people into coerced treatment or enforced treatment and I think that that there are a number of problems with it But most of all I don't think there's scientific data to support it The brain changes we see in so-called addiction are not that different to any other brain changes we see and the brain changes That's the way it works. So now I have a problem with with the pathologization of addiction Thank you and Actually, there are some governments who try to do something about stigma at this meeting including Canada who submitted a draft resolution on language and And the destigmatization of drug users and we have Donald MacPherson from Canada here. So don't I can you explain us? What is this resolution about? Well the government of Canada has put forward a resolution on Stigma and they're very committed to working towards reducing the stigma on That is society puts on an institutional institutional Settings put on people who use drugs And it's fascinating after after listening to to You too that that what's playing out in the debate about the resolution it's all about language and What's really interesting and I think it's really exciting at this time The language is shifting and the language has been stuck for a hundred years at least so so this Resolution which I think was put forward in good faith by Canada It had some very good wording in it It's become a focal point for exposing the debate on the old Stuck UN language that talks about drug abuse talks about drug abusers and more current contemporary language around problematic drug use people who use drugs the various Words that are being used for addiction now with substance use disorder drug dependency Addiction still gets used. So it's actually a really exciting time. I think in our field because there is language is critically important and the language is shifting and the resolution from Canada was an attempt to acknowledge the How how stigmatizing Concepts and language were to people who use drugs and created such barriers to all sorts of activities in the community so I Think now that this resolution has gone forward The language discussion is on and I don't think it's going to go away Do we see much opposition to this resolution and and who is opposing this? Yes, there's a significant amount of opposition to this resolution and a country with very fundamentalist views of What addiction is of punitive approaches of people who use drugs need to be sort of separated from society sort of treated Children and then youth have to be protected from drugs as if drugs have agency as if drugs Are going to come into their bedroom at night and infect them or something. It's it's a very very old-fashioned Non-evidence based Fear based view of drugs when in fact much of the discussion in the CND drugs are not the problem social condition to the problem social economic conditions Lack of community disconnection from community those are the problems, but this forum in particular Focuses on drugs as a problem, which is unfortunate and it would be great if we could get beyond that and maybe through this language discussion we can begin to open up some of those some of those Perspectives that that This is so much more about other things and drugs and we have to get beyond that So that the UN also has been discussing the issue of standardization of treatment and creating international standards for drug treatments and maybe the idea is not not very bad in itself, but the the UN UN office on drugs and crime and the WHO came out with a document this year on International standards and many organizations including input representing drug users is against That documents. Can you tell me what's the problem with that? Sure, so input You know we put input into these guidelines and then we were able to with other partners Mobilize a hundred eighty eights of society organizations and the issue wasn't the principles of the treatment guidelines We agree with developing these guidelines and I think the intention was to you know really define What treatment is and that it's not it shouldn't be compulsory, you know, some of the things that are happening in the name of drug treatment You know Torturous they're cruel Degrading in human treatment. So we definitely agree that these guidelines are needed But the problems that we had with these guidelines was again some of the stigmatizing language You know, they were supposed to be evidence-based and based on ethical standards But again, I think you know sometimes the intention behind things and the you know Maybe not looking at language enough and looking at models that we've gotten used to using such as the brain disease model that are non evidence-based increased stigma and you know falling into this idea that you know people who are drug dependent are not good employers are Not fit for parenting, you know These are some of the you know some of the language that we really need to start changing so that was one of the issues a second issue was not using the terms harm reduction because it is very You know political not some member states have a problem with it But we wanted to point out that these are supposed to be technical guidance. It shouldn't be You know subject to political biases So that was another issue that we had with it and also, you know broadening out harm reduction to look at, you know Safe injecting facilities and heroin assisted treatment Also, we thought that some of the guidelines weren't aligned with previous, you know technical guidance. So the WHO Technical guidance on key populations the injecting drug use the implementation tool obviously the comprehensive package that do mention harm reduction and Thirdly a major problem. We had with it also was the process So any WH document is supposed to go through a grade review review process Which is also supposed to involve community and have meaningful community input because at the end of the day These are the treatment guidelines are going to impact our lives. We know that they're the Intended authorship or for I guess primary audience sorry treatment providers, but in the day it affects our lives so You know, we should be meaningfully involved in reviewing the guidelines Yes, I think I come from a clinical kind of background on this and I think that and a data background and Some of the basic problems I have with it is is in particularly in the background section There's no referencing and and there's a lot of Statements there that are just not true There's no data to support them and then even in the treatment guidelines There's the promotion of short-term treatment detoxification without mentioning the risk of detoxification For certain people, you know, particularly opioid dependent people there's the promotion of Residential rehab Which there is not a single study anywhere in the world that shows that traditional models of residential rehab Outperforms spontaneous remission rates in substance use disorders not one study anywhere and certainly no well-controlled studies and You know, this is promoted and it shouldn't be in in a document that's supposed to be a scientific document On top of that a lot of the language is problematic as Judy has mentioned as well But I think it's it's almost a it's it's a document with multiple personalities and we can see in certain areas for example in the brief interventions and the This you know that that section on sort of more motivational approaches and brief interventions and screening The World Health Organization has referred to their assist tool, which is it's not a bad tool, you know But in other portions of the document it talks about the lifelong nature of substance use disorders or the ethnicity of them It compares them to other Health conditions which they very few comparisons with and we know from the data that the majority of substance use disorders If you want to use that criteria they resolve and they resolve spontaneously with our treatment That's not acknowledged anywhere in this document whatsoever and that to me is just unscientific and not clinical good practice Just to say a few things again, I don't have as much expertise as Judy and Sean in this area, but We're coming we're coming out of the dark ages not only in language, but only on thinking about what addiction is what treatment is and lapsing to the most expensive real residential treatment models that's Cover the fewest individuals in a society is is a it's very expensive type kinds of treatment. So There are you know, there are psychedelic therapies that are being developed with psilocybin with MDMA with LSD that are You know now being looked at for certain types of conditions including addiction so It's actually quite an exciting time But the doors have to open to new ways of thinking about what this phenomenon is. It's a really complex phenomenon treatment is is is works for some it's a complex process and We have to we have to that the document should be way better than it is given the state of knowledge If they had have had a really comprehensive Group of people looking at that they could have come up with a much better document But again, they elapsed to sort of the same old same old way of thinking and that's what the document tends to reflect Judy mentioned abuse in the name of treatment. So Can you tell us what kind of abusive forms of treatment and rehabs are around the world? Can we do a body? That's a difficult question So, I mean, you know some of the abuses that do happen in the name of treatment There are compulsory drug detention centers the government run They're very prolific or used quite very widely in Asia Particularly in China in terms of the numbers. I believe there's between like 200,000 to 500,000 people in compulsory drug detention What happens in there? You know people are picked up by the police They're put in these detention centers for anywhere up to six years So some of you know being detained in the name of treatment is sometimes a longer Sentence than being detained in prison So we assume that you know when things happen under the rubric of health or the you know regulatory powers of health Sometimes they're less we assume that they're less Abusive but that's not necessarily true and then within these centers not only is the their Deprivation of liberty or liberty, but there's also been physical and sexual abuse You know lack of Say treatment services for HIV hep C military drills so this whole gamut of Interventions that happen under the name of treatment, but I think you know also There's this growing trend towards that. There's you know in Latin America. There's these in Nepal There's private privately run rehab and they happen under the name of rehabilitation and unfortunately these type of measures get More funding and financing then, you know harm reduction approaches and you know evidence-based approaches So, you know, that's something that's usually problematic with Treatment and compulsory treatment. So, you know, we can't put we can't just assume that treatment or the health framework is necessarily always a good thing We always need to be interrogating, you know, what's happening Underneath that so you are from South Africa. So Can you tell us the situation there? Like are there also abusive forms of treatment and are there evidence-based programs available? So South Africa has had a long history with struggling with terms around harm reduction, for example We've had an extensive lobby against the term harm reduction organizations such as doctors for life have Had enough political power to stop us Using the accepted definitions of harm reduction and so our last national drug master plan had the description of a Localized version of harm reduction that focused purely on treatment Of people who who were using drugs and the presumption that all people who use drugs Were doing so in a way that that required treatment, which just wasn't true It's delayed the the rollout of opioid substitution therapies or opioid agonist therapies as I prefer to call them It's delayed the out the rollout of needle and syringe programs With the result that in certain cities, we've got a prevalence of hepatitis C of up to 93 percent 40 plus percent of HIV prevalence amongst people who inject drugs and all of this is preventable Fortunately the South African Policy landscape is changing for the first time ever last year. We had consultations between our central drug authority and People who most who are most impacted by drug policy in South Africa. We are seeing the World Health Organization basket of services as in their technical guidelines being introduced We still have a battle ahead of us because for example methadone is up to 30 times more expensive in South Africa And it's only available in the private sector for those that can afford it But we've had some successes in rolling out low-threshold programs And we've got one of the cities to find a low-threshold program, which is proving very very successful So we're hopeful that that the situation is going to change But where we do have a lot of abuses in the criminal justice system So people who get arrested for possession of drugs do not get any legal aid whatsoever They get automatically remanded or forced to sign an admission of guilt Which gives them a criminal record for the rest of their life making them virtually Unemployable for most sick formal sectors of the economy and and that's a form of subjugation of people and one of the points That I try and make is that in South Africa we've taken the resources that were used to police apartheid and And we've taken those resources and put them into the war on drugs And so we've got the military insert being used as an intervention in certain areas We've got a lot of police action We've got you know stop and searches and and a lot of people are ending up in jail you know because they simply happen to be in possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use and That becomes the perfect recruiting ground for gangsters and it increases the levels of marginalization and social exclusion Which drives drug use as we know so the the so-called solution is becoming the problem We activists are often criticized that we are always criticizing what we Rarely speak about the ideal word which or ideal system which we envision So my last round of question to all of you is that how would that ideal word look like and how would how would how would be people who use drugs treated in an in an ideal words and And drugs how would how would the government's treat drugs? Well, it's it's it's it's complicated, but it's really not in an ideal world drugs will be regulated We go through a process. That's what we do. We regulate drugs We regulate hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of drugs except for a very few that creates this huge market Underground market where the substances are full of toxins and you can't count on what you're getting and all that sort of stuff So ideally we would and that that is a major problem It has to happen in Canada the good example right now. We are having lots of harm reduction expanding treatment But it's not keeping up to the fact that the drug supply under prohibition is absolutely toxic That is a key driver of the overdose crisis in Canada So if people were using regulated drugs, there may be some overdoses there may be some problems for sure, but it There would not be the level of overdose deaths that we're seeing So to me all the treatment all the harm reduction in the world is not going to solve the problem if People are ingesting things that will kill them. They don't know the quality of so we have to start there And and of course we need good harm reduction good treatment good prevention all that sort of stuff But if people have to lapse to a toxic illegal market to get their supply of drugs there they're really It's it's hopeless Sorry to be so so hopeless I I hate using that word Um, no, I mean we definitely agree with you know the need to move towards regulation I'll just focus a bit more on the stigma and discrimination part I do think you know in terms of drug use it really has to be normalized and the fact that we don't normalize it creates Increasing stigma and discrimination so this vicious cycle of more marginalization which you know drives problems in people's lives And I think you know we really have to Start to realize that simply people have always used drugs and the you know these global architectures We used to control it has only happened in very recent times You know opiate use in China was very normalized for hundreds of years And there wasn't you know the level of problems until there was Western you know intervention kind of in that but Yes, I think you know we really need to start shifting our attitudes and yes, some people need You know assistance and access to medical services and social servers just as Everybody does and we all should have the right to that But I don't think we need to focus on you know drug use as the problem I've got two endpoints that I'd like to see The first is a world where people are most of the time able to make conscious informed decisions about the way In which they use drugs when they use drugs and which jokes they choose to use in a policy landscape That doesn't make those drugs more harmful or less beneficial That's the first one the second one is I'd like to see a world where drug policy isn't used as an excuse for the continued marginalization of people and exclusion of people and where the marginalization and Exclusion of people doesn't make drug use the most salient Option or the most important or the most meaningful option for people who use drugs where where they're able to participate fully in society And as a final point, I'd like to say we cannot achieve any of this as long as we've got the words evil Linked to addiction and to drug use as they are in the single conventions While we've got that language there We cannot hope to have a Constructive drug policy landscape because it's like building a house on a cesspool. It's gonna sink And I don't think I need to say more than that, but but really it's a big problem for me Thank you very much for joining me and thank you for those who watch this


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical overlord here let yesterday John Carpenter shared some news with consequences of sound he had an interview where he shared some information with them regarding like his future Involvement with another Halloween sequel. He said he would like to return to direct or not that he would like to return to direct But he would like to be involved with the composition of the next film if if and when that does get announced Because it hasn't been officially announced always been hearing right right now It's just rumors and rumblings about talks going on and Blumhouse wanted to do a sequel and then Then wanted to wait to see how this film that came out last month or in October wanted performed rather So we know based off of that that a sequel is coming Based off of the information that we know and stuff that we heard from Blumhouse prior to its release We know that a sequel to Halloween 2018 is inevitable. We just don't know When exactly an official announcement will be made there still hasn't been an announcement on who's even pinning the movie If the movie is even going to be an actual thing so far What we're hearing is that because outside of John Carpenter We've heard that Jamie Lee Curtis will be down to return if David Gordon Green and Danny McBride I mean if David Gordon Green returned to direct We still don't even know if David Gordon Green or Danny McBride will even be involved in the film Which is something I find highly suspicious because these two have said they have ideas for a sequel And I would imagine that you would want to keep behind the same creative team You would want to keep the same creative team that helped make this recent Halloween movie such a success Halloween 2018 was pretty much a Not a not a overall well accepted film, but it was pretty much accepted for the most part by Fans and the critics and it did pretty well at the box office. It broke it broke records This movie brought back Jamie Lee Curtis. It brought back Nick Castle who hadn't even appeared in the series I think since the 1970s original John Carpenter was brought on as executive producer This is actually the first the first film that he scored In a long time this was his first film to score how this Halloween 2018 sequel and Honestly, one of the main reasons the film did so well and it got so over with the audience is because of the score That John Carpenter put in this movie the score in this movie I think I've heard better from John Carpenter, but the score in this movie is still showing that John Carpenter still knows how to Make the perfect sounds for movies. He knows how to create an atmosphere in the film with his score alone I do think in the film itself that some of the some of the some of the pieces of his score They didn't match certain scenes. That's my opinion But the score itself we're just talking about the score alone the score itself I would give it a solid eight eight out of ten because John Carpenter. He's known as the master of horror for a reason. He's been composing Movie scores for quite some time now. He didn't return on his own for this one He had his son Cody help him out with the soundtrack for this movie The soundtrack for this movie, I thought that was one of the better better aspects of it I agree. I agree that this played heavily into the overall success of the movie I'm interested to see what John Carpenter can cook up for another Halloween film because While this new movie was teased as the final confrontation That's the way it was built up as like sort of like a final bow between Laurie and Michael It's nice to know that perhaps it may not be over and that we could see them return in the future I Don't think that we need to but of course every time they return it's nice to see that Michael Myers and Laurie So they're gonna go at it again I don't think there needs to be a see what happened between 18, but it's gonna happen And it's nice to know that John Carpenter will be alone for the ride If you're wondering that article that I had at the beginning of the fault of the video That's an article that I personally wrote at on the screen rant website I'll leave a link to that article down in the description so you can have like an official source But yes, that article that was up there. That's an article written by me. So yes I am the source for this information provided at the beginning The information I got came from consequences of sound and I just added it on to our official website But if you guys are excited to know that John Carpenter would like to return for Halloween 2018 sequel to do it Soundtrack, let me know down in the conversation below. Do you think there needs to be a sequel to Halloween 2018? Let me know down in the comment section below if you haven't already subscribed return on post notifications So you never miss a video in the description. I have links on my social media accounts I'm on Facebook Twitter and Instagram You can mention me there to let me know what movie news or reviews you would like me to post on this channel With all that in mind guys, I will see you in the next video


It's not justice. It's Punisher. Woo! That's a hot mug, guys! Hey guys, Jeremy here with a review for the second season of The Punisher. Now, I know I'm a little bit late to this, but to be honest, I actually stopped watching it. I did start it when it was released, but I got to about the third episode and I couldn't watch anymore. I actually had to take a little bit of a break. It was when my brother had finished it. He said it gets a little bit better. I continued watching it and obviously all the Netflix Marvel shows have suffered from pacing filler issues and season two of The Punisher is no exception. It has a entire storyline that is basically filler. When it comes to comparing it to the first season, the first season is clearly far better structured in terms of its narrative, its characters, and its arcs. The second season was made in record time. I think Stephen Lightfoot had barely a year to make a second season, which is obviously very different from the other shows which had years, sometimes almost three years to work on their next season. This one has a very weak story, unfortunately. There are two narratives happening. One with Billy Russo coming back as a anarchist sort of chaos version of Jigsaw. Rather than a criminal element, he's just an agent of chaos and greed. Whereas the actual main story, or at least what they try to tell you, is there's this girl who is part of a black mailing ring and she gets caught up in something way above her head and Frank just so happens to be there, kills the bad guys and then it forgets itself. This storyline with this girl is horrible. I'll straight up say it's horrible. It is so unoriginal. It is so boring. It actually in fact is so unimportant to the show that they will go with this storyline to about the fifth episode and then they drop it almost entirely and it doesn't really come back into meaning until the second last episode of the season. There's way too many episodes. Honestly you could put this whole season into eight episodes and there would be no difference in terms of actual importance of what you see. John Barenthol is good. He's good as Frank Castle but he's still not the fully realized Frank Castle. The most punisher-esque sort of performance in terms of motivations, in terms of character, psychology, was what he was in the second season of Daredevil. However, in the first season of The Punisher, he's more of this moral guy who's totally willing to kill people but he's got guilt on his conscience. And if you know who that is, it's because it's the Wolverine. He basically is the Wolverine with guns. The Punisher has no guilt about what he's doing. He has no compassion towards these criminals and he has no regrets when it comes to murdering gangsters by the dozen. And we never really saw that in this show. And John Barenthol is limited to what he can do because he's not playing the character that he set out to be. He's not playing this morally empty sociopath. He is playing a guy who is meant to try and have these feelings when he's trying not to. And it leads to him just being like, Ruh! Ruh! Ruh!  Ruh-ruh-ruh-ruh-ruh! He mumbles a lot in this season. Then there's this girl. This girl is terrible. She kind of gets a little bit more bearable later on, but she's horrible when she's first introduced.  You get one scene where he teaches her how to disarm a person. And that's it. That's the only connection I would say they have. Billy actually is a cool character in this. The amnesia thing is kind of bullshit, but they work it well because it is a psychiatrist character. And the moral and psychological and just the ideologies between these two characters are pretty cool and how they mix it in with Frank is kind of interesting. Obviously, the Punisher is known for gunfights and violence and action. There are three good fight scenes in this whole season. The first one is in the first episode in the bar. The second one is with the Russian guys in a gym, and the third one is in the tenth episode. There are some very boring gunfights in this. There's one point where they have the standoff at a police station in Ohio, and I think in the third episode, it's the most boring gunfight I've ever seen. They have one that's in the middle of the street at one point. Extremely boring gunfight. I was very surprised at how boring the gun action was in this in comparison to the first season, which had so much more production value put into it. Again, when you don't have a lot of time to create something like this, you can't go for that visual spectacle. So unfortunately, this whole season suffers from not enough time to make it, way too much goddamn filler, and a possible knowledge of the overhanging doom of this show. I full on regret putting my time into watching this because I will not remember any of it. It was very unoriginal. It was very boring for a large portion of it. It did not stand to be 13 episodes, and unfortunately is a very negative note for the show to go out on. So in the end, I'm gonna give the Punisher Season 2 a two out of seven. Honestly guys, I did not enjoy it. I was very bored. So I'll bunch of people talking about how this was a somewhat better season than the first. Yeah, I'll admit that the first season was kind of unoriginal too, but holy shit, at least it was entertaining. This was boring. Anyways guys, hope you liked this review. If you did, leave a like and if you're interested in more, maybe subscribe. Otherwise, that's all for me. See you guys next time. Thanks for watching the video. You're probably wondering who I am. My name is Nitz, and you might remember me from the animated cult classic TV show, Undergrads. It's been a while, but I'm happy to say the click is finally getting back together in an all new movie, thanks to a successful Kickstarter campaign. But we are still asking for your support. You know, Nitz, you can't get more money unless you offer questionable favors. Yeah guy, unless of course those favors involve the ladies guy. By support, I mean getting the word out guys. Oh, well, couldn't you find a better means than this guy? All he seems to talk about is supernatural or hold a coffee mug real awkward. Why didn't you ask a Kardashian or something? Yeah guy, get in with the ladies guy. Hey, he's trying to help out. Like you've been trying with Kimmy Burton? I've seen Jabba the Hutt finish a marathon faster.  To see any and all updates about the upcoming Undergrads movie, be sure to check out and like the Bring Back Undergrads Facebook page. And with any luck, we'll see you guys soon.


In this lesson, I'm going to demonstrate how you can schedule your batch epics. So basically this example will show you the combination of batch epics with schedule epics. So in our previous lesson, I implemented one batch epics for a opportunity processor. So this is a batch epics class, which is implementing database dot batchable interface. And here we implemented start then execute and then finish methods. And here we are creating the opportunity records and like all the opportunity records will be processed in batches and this will be the process that will be executed on those opportunity records. Those will be queried here. So this is basically a batch. Now, if you don't create any scheduled epics, then you need to manually execute this batch. But if you want to run your batch on daily or weekly basis automatically. So for that purpose, you can basically schedule your batch epics. So what you can do, you can simply create new epics class. So for example, I am labeling it as opportunity processor scheduler. And here I need to implement schedulable interface. Now inside this scheduled epics class, I'm going to write public void execute. So schedule label context and variable name is SC and now inside this execute method. So this execute method is basically of scheduled epics class. Now inside this execute method, you can create instance of batch epics and you can call that. So what we can do. Let's say a batch class name is opportunity processor. So OPP process equals to new PPP processor. And here I can call database.execute and I can pass this as in parameter. So this way. First I created batch epics and then I created scheduled epics. Inside scheduled epics, I'm calling this execute batch method of batch epics. So now from the UI, like if I schedule this, so this schedule epics will be executed. This execute method will be called and internally this execute method will be calling this execute batch method and instance of opportunity processor batch epics will be passed here as an argument. So this way you can call batch epics into scheduled epics and simply you need to implement its test class as well. So what you need to do, you need to create the records, whatever you are processing here. And after creation of records simply you need to create instance of this opportunity processor scheduler class. And you can pass cron expression and the instance of this opportunities a processor scheduler and automatically this execute method will be run and it will internally call the batch epics execute method. And this way in real time scenarios whenever you create batch epics and if you need like that batch should run automatically on daily or weekly basis so you can try this demonstration.