Narcissistic consumption can be harmful to your health. Hey survivors, thank you for joining me, please like the video, share your thoughts in the comments, subscribe if you haven't subscribed yet, and share the video with anyone who you believe may help. In this video, I am going to be talking about why Narcissistic consumption can be harmful to your health. What do I mean by this? When you drink alcohol or do drugs, these things can be harmful to your health. They can be toxic when consumed. They can affect your mental, physical, emotional and psychological health. They can even affect you at a biological level. It's the same thing with a Narcissist. This is something you need to take into consideration when you are dealing with them. When you are having a conversation with a Narcissist, afterwards you feel drained and lifeless. This is because they are affecting your energy and health.  Again, it is affecting your energy and health. The more involved you become with them, the worse it gets. The more contact or access they have to your body, mind and soul. The better chance they have of depriving you of the very qualities you possess and need to be who you are. Once you move to a physical level with a Narcissist, that's when you will really notice the change in yourself. With an emotionally healthy person, you will feel replenished and more alive after being physical with them.  The more intimate they become, the worse it gets for you. When you are around people, you share energy. This is normal. It is actually harmful to your health if you do not do that. You give out replenishing and nutritionally valuable energy and you are supposed to get the same back. Allowing you to maintain your mental, physical, emotional and psychological health. Of course, this doesn't happen when you are around Narcissists. You give out replenishing and nutritionally valuable energy. But you do not get the same thing back. Narcissists are not capable of giving you that energy. That's why they have to feed off you. They become dependent on you as being their life source to sustain them in their daily lives. Because they do not have their replenishing and nutritional energy which we possess. So when you interact with these people, you are giving them this nourishing energy and all you are getting back is a sugar rush. It might give you a sugar rush in the beginning. Maybe while you are having a conversation with them, but afterwards you will notice your energy levels beginning to deplete. When you have a relationship with a Narcissist, you are not only giving away your nourishing energy and getting back low quality energy in return. You are also enmeshed with them at a biological level. You share the same bacteria and residue with a Narcissist. So even when they are not around, it's still affecting you. Even if you have left them, you could still have their bacteria or residue in your car or in your house. This is why it's so dangerous to get involved with these types of people. It's not just a transfer of energy. It goes much deeper than that. There are processes which occur at a biological level when you get involved with them. Processes which affect your mental, physical, emotional and psychological health. So please keep that in mind whenever you feel like going back to the Narcissist. Do you really want to be interacting with them at a biological level? And you may think that you are missing out being with them. But all those times you went to restaurants, the beach or wherever else you go, it was only fun because of you. Think about it, they never engaged in a deep conversation with you. They never shared anything significant or meaningful with you. They don't even have the emotional capabilities to do that. They are not real human beings. Everything is choreographed and designed in a way to appeal to you and your own ideals. But it only goes so far. They can never take it to the next level and be that for real. And it's the same thing when you share affection with them, when you are kissing them. You feel your energy gradually being depleted.  It's all in your head. It's literally all in your head. They are not about any of that. You might as well be kissing a corpse because really that person is dead inside. Affection is their way of securing you as their source of supply and they can take away that just as quickly as they gave it to you. One of their favorite tactics is to withhold whatever it is you desire from them. This is a tactic they learned as children. Keeping a toy away from another child. They later became adults and learned how to adapt this manipulative tactic to adults and in relationships. It's a tactic used to get what they want from you. Most often what they want is your energy or narcissistic supply. So keep this in mind. Anytime you are sharing affection with them. It seems that when we do this we end up creating our own fantasy and we apply this to them. And they are quick enough to make us believe that's what they are. When you have sex with a narcissist you tell yourself that this person really loves and cares for you. You tell yourself that they are amazing in bed and they really know what they are doing. But if you take a step back and really look at it for what it is. It's only fun because we are there. They were just reflecting back what we put out. And I think this is something important to think about. What happens during sex is exactly the same thing that happens during the relationship. The love bombing stage. They mimic you and appeal to your own ideals. They reflect back what you give to them. They tell you what you want to hear. Show you what you want to see. It's exactly the same. Just a different scenario. And this is when they really get the opportunity to take control of your body, mind and soul. This is when they can do the most damage to your mental, physical, emotional and psychological health. Keep this in mind when you are around these types of people. Without conversations or fake affection. They cannot affect your health. They will make you believe that you need their time and energy to survive. But you don't. That's what is stopping you from uncovering from this. You need to take some time out away from these people. At least for one year. I haven't engaged in any relationships or sexual activity for over one year. For the first time in my life. And I feel great. I feel whole. Like the real me. Once you get to this level. You won't want to deal with these people anymore. You will want something more real. More emotionally stimulating to you. Because an empty narcissist can never satisfy or fulfill an emotionally healthy person. Narcissists are repelled by emotionally healthy people. They don't want to be around them. I've seen some survivors talking about what it would be like to have a relationship with another empath or healed survivor. What it would be like to have sex with them. Well, I can assure you that it will be worth all of the time and effort you put into your healing and recovery from narcissistic abuse. When you finally recover and meet an emotionally healthy person. You will soon realize why it never worked with a narcissist. I hope this video helped you. Remember to like the video and subscribe if you haven't subscribed yet. Let's spread the knowledge and awareness. And I will talk to you in another video very soon.


Hello everybody, I hope you're doing well. If you're new here, my name's Habiba. I'm a full-time adventure traveler and this is my YouTube channel, Tracking Pals where I share my adventures around the world. Today I am in the beautiful city of El Jadida here in Morocco and I am right by El Jadida beach, beautiful beach. The reason I'm out here, I'm starting my adventure right here today is because it's right across the street from our accommodation. On this trip, I'm traveling with my mom. She's joining me for this leg of the journey and the hotel where we're staying is a budget hotel called Ibi's, reasonably priced, clean, but great location, literally across the street. You get access to the beach. So it's really wonderful because yesterday we took a late night walk. It's a school holiday right now in Morocco so there were a lot of people out yesterday night and then earlier this morning I went for a run, finally, which felt really, really good. Today we're going to take you inside the city of El Jadida, the old city, or what's also called the Portuguese city to show you some of the beautiful monuments that you must see if you're visiting El Jadida. But first we're going to find a cool local spot for some breakfast because it's getting a little bit late and we're starving. Behind me are two doors to access the fortress of the Portuguese city. This was built by the Portuguese in the 16th century and it's a UNESCO World Heritage. So we're gonna go inside and see what the Portuguese city looks like from the inside. This is the Portuguese cathedral right behind me, one of the main buildings right here in the Portuguese city and as you can see, it's still standing. It's called Rodin de la Sambtion, Notre Dame of Assumption, I'm assuming.  And this is right as you enter from the door right there. This one is also another important building here in the Portuguese city. It's La Citerne Portuguese and it's a great work of engineering when the Portuguese built the city. It was used as a reservoir to store the water to maintain life in the city. It's closed right now for renovation so unfortunately we can't tour it right now. But I'm going to leave some photos to show you what it looks like from the inside. The breakfast place that I intended to go to is named Lolo Cal but it's closed today which I didn't see online, it's a Monday and so we just talked to a few people next to that restaurant and they recommended a different one so we're gonna go and check it out. Fingers crossed, I didn't even read the reviews. Here it is, it's called Caliptus right there. Let's check it out. This is actually a riyadh where you can stay if you want to be here in the heart of the Portuguese city but you can also stop by to have breakfast which was really really good and I really love the view from the upper floor here. It's overlooking the water and you can see the walls of the Portuguese city, some of the residential buildings plus breakfast was super good. This was just a typical traditional Moroccan breakfast with hot beverage, cold beverage, some cinnamon and then omelette with some vegetables and olives. Thumbs up to this one. That's where we had breakfast earlier today and it's facing another minaret of another iglesia, another church here in the Portuguese city. There are some of the cannons that were used to protect the fortress right here and obviously the views over the water right here are spectacular to say the least. The wall of the city extends all the way there. These are some of the boats on the port. This building is pretty incredible. Oh my gosh, the views from up here are so incredible. You can't get enough. There are a lot of viewpoints but it's never enough. Check this one out. So beautiful. I'm not sure what this deep hole was but probably storage of some sort, I guess. Ooh, maybe storage for cannons and weapons. Could be a possibility. This city, the Portuguese city is so incredible. I believe it is the last city that was occupied by the Portuguese until the sultans kicked them out. They left cities like Safi and Agadir behind but Mazagon, which is the old name of El Jidida, was the last one that was occupied by the Portuguese. The Portuguese citadel later served as the Jewish quarter. This synagogue stands as the last testament to the Jewish community of this once-thriving trading port. Moroccan Jews from around the world visit this site to connect with their ancestors and this is their story. We are here in Morocco on a trip to the roots of our family. We just spent two magical days in Casablanca where my mother was born. My mother was born and grew up to the age of 17, my aunt was 9 years old and my uncle was 15 years old. And we really found each place, the cinemas, where they were. It was just beautiful. Moroccans are a welcoming and warm people who live in magical moments. We are so happy to be here. You can't even imagine. We just arrived in El Jidida, which was Mazagon, where my grandfather was born in 1902 in Mela. We have more details about where he lived. We feel like he is here with us and we feel like we are at home. It's amazing. Thank you, thank you to Morocco. Thank you to Morocco and Moroccans for welcoming us. Thank you very much. My name is Simone. I'm from El Beda. I'm from El Beda, and I live here in El Beda. I live here in El Beda. Who is she? When we moved to Morocco, we felt at home. It's incredible. It's incredible, but it's true. I said to my children, you can't even imagine that I'm at home. I am at home. Really, and all this thanks to the welcome of people. What did we say? We don't want to leave. We don't want to leave Casablanca. We don't want to leave Morocco. And that's it. We wish you all the best. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I wish you all the best. Welcome. Do you want to try it? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Yum. So delicious. We just arrived to Marcher-Santral. We were told that this is a better option to buy your fish and get it cooked right there instead of going to the port where it's already made and you buy it already made. So we're going to check out Marcher-Santral and we'll see if it's for the hype. We just bought some seafood from the vendors right there. As you enter the market, you will see a bunch of them on one side and then on the other side, they have little restaurants where you bring your fish and then they either grill it or fry it for you and then you can order some sides like fries or salads. This is pretty convenient and to be honest, like all the seafood look pretty fresh. So I'm really excited to get some food. Hello from La Plage de Sidi Bouzid. Sidi Bouzid is located on the southwest region of El Jadida. A little bit further out from the city but we are out here for brunch and to walk by the ocean because Sidi Bouzid is known for having this beautiful beach for swimming although beaches in El Jadida in general including Sidi Bouzid and El Housia they can get a little bit tricky for swimming because of the currents but Sidi Bouzid in addition to the beautiful beaches out here is known for having a lot of beautiful cafes and restaurants and you can make for beautiful walk, for sunrise or sunset and this morning we made our way out here. We had to catch a ride. So our driver earlier today recommended this café called La Plage and it had a wonderful view overlooking the ocean so we went there to have a late breakfast, brunch, really really enjoyed the view from there and the breakfast was very tasty. So for the rest of the day we are going to walk by the beach, enjoy the waterfront and see where our adventure is going to take us next. We just bought some figs from the vendors on the street. Delicious! It smells so good by the water.  It brings so much joy to the heart to just be by the ocean. Today is our last day in El Jadida before my mom and I hit the road again but before we do that we're going out and it's a beautiful morning for a walk by the beach. It's been my favorite thing to do here in El Jadida so I want to show you a pretty cool landmark per se. This is the Titanic of Morocco, a ship that wrecked and is still visible from the shore right here. The story of this ship is pretty interesting. This ship was transporting a good amount of precious wood to take it from Africa to Europe years ago and the ship was caught in a storm so the team decided to dock in this spot right here thinking it was the port of El Jadida. The storm was really bad, the ship wrecked and then from the shore you can still see the remains of the ship. It's been foggy the last few days but I'm so happy that I get to get a second look. I've seen it when we were driving from Asimur to El Jadida but I didn't get a chance to take some photos but there it is, you can see it right there.  There are a couple of them right there and then a bunch of them by the boats as well.  My recorder died for this part of the video but I was saying that the trainers were riding their horses because there are a bunch of horse riding facilities around the area because of the annual event in El Jadida called Le Salon du Cheval de El Jadida an annual horse show where riders come in from all around the world to compete. It's an amazing event if you happen to be in El Jadida so keep an eye out on my next video where I will be sharing with you a whole vlog about this huge horse show. Thank you so much for watching if you enjoyed this video please give it a thumbs up and subscribe to my channel. My name is Habiba this is Tracking Pals and I will see you soon on another adventure.


Good day, fellow investors. Yesterday, I discussed how a recession is closed. However, nobody knows when it will come. Will it be tomorrow, in the next year, five years? Will it be a smaller recession? Will it be a big recession? That's impossible to know. What we can do is to adjust our portfolio to what works well in the late part of the economic cycle. And we are going to discuss investments today that are such investments that usually outperform the market in the late part of the economic cycle going into a recession. If there is a small recession, you could really, really benefit from such investments. So the first thing to look at is quality and stability business modes. Just think, if a recession comes, am I still going to turn on the light? Yes. Am I still going to eat? Yes. Are people still going to use the medications? Unfortunately, yes. So such companies, if they are cheap, if they have a good dividend and they will continue to pay the dividend through a recession, you're still going to brush your teeth, such companies are good investments in the late part of the economic cycle. If we take a look here, in the late part of the economic cycles, energy, healthcare, materials, consumer staples, utility, usually outperform real estate, financial, industrial, telecom, information technology, and other consumer discretionary stocks. Energy usually also outperforms in such a period, but then drops extremely low in a recession, because in the late part of the economic cycle, inflation starts to kick in, energy prices go up, and that's a benefit for energy stocks. However, when there is a recession, demand falls, industrial demand falls, and then they really crash, so be careful there. Then there are other secular trends that will develop, will grow no matter what happens in the economy. Those are the development of electric vehicles, the growth of the middle class in the world, 5G data, autonomous drive, growth in India, growth in emerging markets. So those things cannot be avoided. People are going to eat more in the whole world, fertilizer, so those trends are there, no matter what happens in the economy. Therefore, you really want to expose yourself to such invest, but you shouldn't overpay for such investments. Really look at the earnings, really look at the fundamentals, look at what happened in 2009, with the stock or with the company. If the company was stable, continue to pay a dividend, head free cash flows, look at the price to book value, and look at tangible book value. The price is what you pay, the book value is what's on the balance sheet. It can be tangible, real estate, cash, or it can be intangible, goodwill. Usually in a recession, goodwill is impaired if they overpaid for an acquisition, so really look for companies that are trading close to book value, because in a recession, earnings get lower or go to zero or negative, so the only thing that can protect the stock price is the tangible book value. So really be careful in choosing your picks for the next recession. The second thing to do is start to take advantage of higher interest rates. We have seen the Fed slowly increasing its interest rate, which means that also treasuries are yielding more money. If you want to be protected, if you want to have liquidity, buying short-term treasuries will give you 1%. Okay, not much, but when the next crisis comes, you will be able to buy those information technology stocks that consumer discretionary stocks at extremely low prices. So having a liquidity caution that still yields 1% is really something to think about now. The first thing to do is to increase your exposure to hedges. Those could be put options if you know what you're doing and because buying them now should not be that expensive in relation to the downside. However, I prefer gold as a hedge and especially gold miners, which should do very good if we see inflation and economic and financial turmoil. That's highly possible with the huge amount of debt the developed world has and the huge amount of money that has been printed into the environment. Now, what I just said sounds very, very easy. Simple strategy has worked in the past, will probably work in the future. The problem is that we are not going to do it. Most people are not going to rebalance their portfolio now and this is why. The answer is greed. If you invested in Nvidia in the last year, you would be up 170%. Alibaba 66%. Win resorts 42%. If you go into defensive stocks, your returns will be much lower than those in the chart. If you go into the hedges and the economy continues to grow, your returns will be negative. So even if we could lower the risk by diversifying, by protecting, by hedging, many investors prefer to stay with the aggressive portfolio looking for those hot stocks that have really the potential to grow. However, those stocks usually get burned in the recession. So it's decision, see where you are in your life, what's your risk appetite, do you need more protection or do you need more aggressiveness and you want to see what happens. If nothing happens, you will still continue with your lifestyle. So really think about where you are in this part of the economic cycle. That's even perhaps the most important thing. Where you are, where we are, where I am as a person, then what to do with your portfolio. Then it will be much easier. The good question to ask yourself is, what would I do if the S&P 500 falls 10% in the next month? If it falls 30% in the next two months and everybody is saying, okay, this is the bottom, we will recover the Fed is printing money and then it falls another 50%. How would that affect your life? How would that affect your health? So really think, okay, what if the worst happens? How would that affect me and how am I positioned for the worst happening? Do I have enough defensive assets or I'm totally aggressive and just exposed to high risks? Looking forward to your comments. If you would like to write down your portfolio and percentages, of course, I would love to discuss, okay, is it aggressive? Is it very risky? Is it defensive and how it's balanced? So I'm looking forward to your comments. Hope you enjoyed the video. Click like if you enjoyed the video. Thank you for watching and I'll see you in the next video.


We're going to talk about sun. Exposures impact on health and go through this in an evidence-based fashion. One of the things that I find constantly challenging with information, which is plentiful, is it's hard to get a non-bias view. You've probably heard people say, there's never been one study that showed that sunscreen protects against cancer. Or you've probably heard people make the opposite, where cancer clearly causes cancer. You hear all these extreme positions and it's hard to know where the truth actually lies. I'm hoping to uncover some of that today by navigating some of the nuance of this topic. So the outline, we'll cover the health benefits, the risks. Briefly I'll touch on vitamin D not being a substitute for sun exposure. We'll lay out some guidelines for safe sun exposure and briefly we'll touch on tanning beds. The brief part is because there's time limitations today and while I wish I could go into everything in a detail, we have to pick our battles here. So first paper, I should show you the abstract first. Great paper by Michael Holick's group, Michael Holwick and Marianne Berwick, both who have been on the podcast, both who I felt did a fantastic interview. This is their paper, The Risks and Benefits of Sun Exposure and there are several main points I want to highlight for you. To quote, studies that have shown a wide range of health benefits from sun slash UV exposure. These benefits include, among others, various types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease dementia, myopia, macular degeneration, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. So we see there's a number of conditions that can be protected from sun exposure, from obtaining sun exposure. Now in terms of ideal levels, they recommend 4 to 60 in this paper. And they also, to quote, it is apparent that vitamin D supplements are not an effective substitute for adequate sun exposure and we'll fill some of the justification for that statement in a little later in the presentation. Now here's where we start seeing a hint at some of the guidelines. White people type 2 skin, type 2 means you almost always burn and rarely tan. So this would be the lowest dose of sun exposure. At 40 degrees latitude, approximately US-ish range, mid-north US can obtain their annual requirements of vitamin D by spending about 15 minutes in the sun with face, arms and legs exposed, half that time if you're in a bathing suit, two to three times a week between 11 and three. So this seems reasonable, right? Is this an hour a day? No. But is this complete avoidance? No. Now remember that this is for the most sensitive skin type. So for the non-sensitive skin types, it will be slightly more than this. People with darker skin require more time in the sun. So let's go through some of their additional results. Melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Non-burning sun exposure reduces risk while burning increases risk. This is where some of the nuance comes in. This shouldn't really be too counter-intuitive. Burning increases risk of skin cancer. What's left out of this often is that the non-burning exposure actually seems to decrease the risk of at least some skin cancers. Sun exposure is associated with a reduced risk of melanoma, while sun burns are associated with a doubling of the risk of melanoma. It has long been observed that outdoor workers have a lower incidence of melanoma than indoor workers, according to a 1997 MET analysis. Sun exposure may protect the skin from cancer because sun exposure leads to the formation of active vitamin D in the skin, which may locally help with DNA repair. The rise in melanoma incidence is likely due to a combination of two factors. Again, this is according to the Burwick-Hollick paper, so I'm just kind of paraphrasing for you. One, less chronic non-burning exposure to the sun, plus increased bouts of high exposure and burning as in non-vacations. So we no longer condition our skin with chronic non-burning exposure, but rather overexposed non-conditioned skin episodically. Does that make sense? Yeah.  Okay, what about non-melanoma skin cancer? This is a critical distinction. While non-burning sun exposure is associated with a decreased risk of melanoma, it appears it may increase the risk of squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma. However, not all the data here agree, some studies show no association, and the relationship between sun exposure and non-melanoma skin cancer is not entirely clear. So this is where some of the anti-sun camp will pull their supports from, and they're not wrong, but they're also not right, so there's a nuance here, and we'll develop some of that nuance here in a moment. In the same Hollick-Burwick paper, this was the only factor, non-melanoma skin cancer, that showed an increased risk associated with sun exposure. All other measured parameters actually decreased in incidence upon sun exposure. And there's the quote supporting that for you. Okay, so we're going to circle back to skin cancers a bit more in a moment, but just kind of starting off with this broad overview laid out by the Hollick and Burwick paper, let's talk about all-cause mortality. A 20-year follow-up study found avoiding the sun increased all-cause mortality, those avoiding the sun had nearly a two-fold increase in mortality. And then there's the reference, and there's the quote. Another study found that sudden avoidance also increased all-cause mortality to a degree similar to smoking, hence the title of today's talk. And that, I believe, Burwick was one of the main authors on that paper also. Colorectal cancer, there's no consistent effect between sun exposure, nor vitamin D supplementation, and colorectal cancer. Breast cancer, one meta-analysis showed that a higher blood level of vitamin D was associated with decreased mortality. Two studies have shown that increased sun exposure reduces breast cancer risk. And in some cases, I'll read the quote for you guys, and in other cases, I'll just leave it up there for your own notification.  There's a lot here, and I'll just summarize this for you. A systematic review concluded the following in short. Sun exposure seems generally protective, and the protective effects are sometimes independent of vitamin D levels or intake. Meaning sun exposure exclusively appears to be responsible for the effect. Cardiovascular disease, two studies have shown sun exposure helps to lower blood pressure independent of vitamin D. And not listed in this same study that I'm outlining for you by Burwick and Hollick, another prospective European cohort study found that latitude was the strongest predictor of carotid artery intima media thickness, which is an independent risk factor for heart disease. Obesity and type 2 diabetes. Sun exposure, not vitamin D levels or supplementation, reduced risk. Again, there's a reference. Multiple sclerosis, again, sun exposure but not vitamin D levels nor supplementation reduced risk. Again, there's your reference supporting that, actually two references. Type 1 diabetes, sun exposure reduces risk, according to a Jacobson study. And liver disease, again, sun exposure but not vitamin D levels or supplementation reduced risk. So this is a great paper by Burwick and Hollick outlining the health benefits of sun exposure that may in part be independent of vitamin D levels. So their conclusion. Insufficient sun exposure has become a major public health problem demanding an immediate change in the current sun avoidance public health advice. The degree of change needed is small but critically important. The public must be advised to obtain enough sun exposure and vitamin D supplementation to maintain a serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D level of at least 30 nanograms. Some clinical takeaways, obtain chronic, non-burning sun exposure as a key practice for optimum health. A vitamin D supplementation may not be an acceptable substitute. It's not to say you can't supplement with vitamin D but you shouldn't only supplement with vitamin D. It should be a union of the two. Obtain at least 15 minutes or more for dark skin types of direct unprotected sun exposure two to three days per week midday during the sunny months. Some caveats apply will develop these momentarily. OK, another paper. Can UV exposure reduce mortality? This was a somewhat infamous now Swedish cohort study following a group of women for 15 years. Their main results, a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and in cardiovascular mortality were associated with several measures of sun exposure. In addition, ultraviolet exposure from tanning beds is associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality and cancer mortality. Some additional results. Sun exposure, overall mortality was reduced amongst those who had been sunburned two or more times a year as a teenager compared with those who had been sunburned once a year or fewer times. That's a proxy. Sometimes the researchers will use amount of sunburns as a proxy for sun exposure. Overall mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality was reduced among those who had taken sunbathing vacations more than once a year during three decades. Tanning beds, conversely, use once or more per month for at least a decade increased the risk of all-cause mortality compared with those who never used tanning beds. Now, there's also some nuance here that's important, which is unhealthy lifestyle behaviors may accompany tanning bed use, and that may confound the association. And we'll come back to that in a little bit. This is your Jersey Shore, folks. You smoke and drink and party and tan. I'm Italian, so I can say that. It is well established that chronic sun exposure does not increase the risk of developing melanoma, although the mechanisms for that are unclear. So we're starting to see this picture emerge that melanoma seems to be protected. But non-melanoma, there may actually be an increased risk from sun exposure, but it's a little bit less clear. Now, here's another interesting point. The authors make the note that intermittent sun exposure was associated with a 1.6 increased risk of melanoma, while chronic sun exposure is protective. Do you follow that? Now, sometimes the term intermittently is meant to describe people who get somewhat regular sun exposure. And then sometimes, alternatively, it's used to denote someone who only gets sun once in a great while. So we have to be careful with the term intermittent. I'll contextualize it for you as we navigate here through the talk, but I don't want to be overly literal with the use of the term intermittent. So clinical takeaways, sun exposure is protected against death from any cause. Tanning bed use increases the risk of death from any cause. Chronic sun exposure protects from melanoma, intermittent, or not very often, sun exposure increases the risk of melanoma. And then one more study here tying some of the health benefits home. Essentially, this was a North American database looking at the level of UV radiation in certain regions of North America and correlating that with health outcomes. What they found in areas with increasing daily average sunlight. So this is not people reporting their exposure to sun, but this is just looking at different areas of the US that have a higher or lower, I guess you could say, natural levels of sun exposure. Most cancer types see a decreased incidence, and most cancer types show no change in mortality. And here's the data that support that. I'm going to just leave that for if you want to read through it so as not to put anyone to sleep. So let's go through some of the risks. Melanoma is the less common but more dangerous form. The point here, sunburn increases melanoma risk. Here's a systematic review of meta-analysis and the results I'm giving you in the summary. Light complexion equaled increase risk. The following risk factors were identified. Fareskin color, light eye color, propensity towards sunburn. So this suggests that there may be an inverted dose regarding sun exposure and melanoma. Some exposure protective, excessive exposure detrimental. Now what this does is this is a very typical problem you see with arguments in health care, which is there may be a inverted u-distribution of the dose. And so people pick data points from different dosing positions. And then they say, well, look, lots of sun equaled increased melanoma. And then other people who are pro-sun pick studies from the lower end of the dose curve that show protection and say, no, they don't. The sun protects against melanoma. And they argue back and forth. And if we could just step back and approach us with some equanimity, we could see that it's a matter of dose. It's not a matter of absolutes. So seem to suggest that well-conducted studies support the intermittent sun exposure hypothesis. A positive association for intermittent sun exposure, sunburns, and an inverse association with high continuous pattern of sun exposure. So this is where the terminology is a little bit confusing. Essentially what they're saying is if you get a lot of sun, you have protection. If you don't get much sun, you have an increased risk, if that makes sense. You guys following with me? OK, hands up if you're confused. OK, so essentially, the way that researchers are using the term intermittent and chronic isn't always consistent, so it's challenging. But the general theme seems to be showing this inverted u-dose response, where some exposure to the sun, as long as you're having regular exposure to the sun, then that seems to be protective. If you become only occasional with your sun exposure or you start burning often, you see an increased risk of melanoma. Does that make sense? So too much not enough a problem, so the sweet spot, the Goldilocks dose, seems to be protective. And that's kind of the general theme that most of these cancer types seem to follow. Another study here, our results suggest that melanoma development in younger patients is a result of more so genetic factors, whereas in older patients, environmental factors such as severe chronic sun exposure play a major role. Do you see that delineation now? Severe exposure. So you have to really read these studies carefully. This is probably where some of the contention comes from, is if you're just pulling abstracts quickly, it's easy to get misstudied. You really have to slow down and read these things carefully and try to figure out what the dose is meant based upon the language being used. OK, so another point. Sun exposure trends toward protecting against melanoma, whereas data for non-malignant melanoma are a little bit mixed. So remember our simple concept here to summarize this. It seems that as a general rule, the appropriate dose of sun exposure protects against melanoma that likely also holds true for non-malignant melanoma, but the data there are a little bit less clear. There's a little bit more data supporting that the sun may be a detriment toward the progression of non-malignant melanoma. So to summarize again, one more time so we're all on the same page, there's more data showing that sun exposure is protective for melanoma. There's less data showing that sun exposure is protective for non-malignant melanoma. Does that make sense? OK. Now part of the reason why there may be this inconsistent association to non-malignant melanoma might be confounding variables like alcohol consumption and drinking. So this is another challenge, because many of the studies looking at sun exposure are just observational. And we don't know if people who are more prone to drinking and smoking are also more prone to being in the sun. So this has to be included in a regression analysis so that we don't see a false observation coming back to the whole Jersey Shore tanning bed association. So again, coming back to malignant melanoma, lifetime sun exposure appeared to be associated with a lower risk of malignant melanoma. And non-malignant melanoma, lifetime sun exposure was predominantly associated with an increased risk of squamous cell and to a lesser extent, basal cell carcinoma. So again, I'm showing you the nuance here because you need to understand this to be able to navigate this conversation responsibly. There are data showing that sun exposure may be problematic in provocating non-malignant melanoma. That is the thorn in the side of someone who's trying to argue the position that sun is good for you across the board. So hang with me because I want to arm you with the knowledge to be able to have a constructive argument about this. So with melanoma, it's fairly clear the sun protects from melanoma. With non-malignant melanoma, the data are more mixed. So keep those two pillars in your head and we'll keep developing those. So here's the kicker. Statistical significance was not always reached after adjustments in this case for age. So some of this association, so if you're trying to persuade your friend that sun exposure is healthy and they say, well, there's a study that showed that sun exposure increases non-malignant melanoma. One of the things that you can come back with is did they control for the impacts of smoking, age, and alcohol consumption? In this case, age, when that was controlled for, weakened the association, there was no longer that association, all right? Okay, hang with me. I know this is a little bit complicated. So more on non-malignant melanoma. Remember, this is kind of the thorn in the side of the sun advocates. So it's important that we understand this. Point, non-malignant melanoma may also follow this inverted you-dose relationship. Intermittent or weekly sun exposure may protect, burning appears to increase risk. So an intermittent pattern of weekly sun exposure was not associated with squamous cell carcinoma. Three plus blistering sunburns to the site was positively associated, all right? So even though some of the details here are confusing and I wanna provide you those nuances so that you can really have a granular conversation about this, when we zoom way out, that inverted-dose curve seems to also apply for non-malignant melanoma. And interestingly, the use of sunscreens and hats has shown an inconsistent effect. Okay, now to build this inverted you-more, the skin type seems to matter. The darker the skin, the less risk is associated with exposure to the sun. That makes sense, right? I'm sure we all know someone who is very fair-skinned, who's had many things they needed to have burnt off or cut out, right?  If you're lighter-skinned and you're getting the amount of sun a darker-skinned person should have, you may have gone over the line for that optimum dose. Subjects with pale skin and red hair had an elevated risk of squamous cell carcinoma. Subjects whose mothers were of Southern European ancestry had a reduced risk of squamous cell carcinoma. Are you starting to see some of the nuance here? All right, so the individual matters in this argument, the individual dictates where they should be on the dose curve. After accounting for pigmenting factors, no association was seen between squamous cell carcinoma and cumulative lifetime exposure. Does that make sense? So what they're saying here is once you factor in for someone's skin type, the association is attenuated. Meaning what we were probably seeing was this artifact projected into the data, which is we see this association between sun exposure and skin cancer, but when we parse that out by skin type, that association fades away because it was the highly sensitive people that were skewing the data set, right? It's almost like maybe you could say people who are very much so carbohydrate intolerant would make it look like everyone has to be in a low carbohydrate diet, but when you parse out the people by insulin sensitivity, you can see that insulin sensitive individuals could thrive on a higher carbohydrate diet, whereas insulin resistant people couldn't. So same kind of concept that we're probably used to grappling with in other areas. Another point, exposure in adulthood carries more risk for non-melanoma compared to children. So the age matters, right? And this is true even after adjusting for confounding lifestyle factors. And why might this be? Well, when you're older, your cells are less able to repair. So you can get away with more when you're younger, and this may be comforting to parents.  I mean, don't be irresponsible either, but the dermis in children may be more protected against just naturally due to age the potential delterious effects of excessive time in the sun. So this study reveals an increase in non-malignant skin cancer risk associated with adult UV exposure with no effect for childhood UV exposure. So I think the implications of this are somewhat important where we don't have to be as concerned with children. Okay. Occupational sun exposure is associated with an increased risk of non-malignant melanoma. So remember, there are data, that's the thorn in the side again, there are these data showing that non-malignant melanoma risk may increase with exposure to the sun, right? But as I mentioned earlier, adjusting for confounding variables may attenuate or make that relationship disappear. And if we focus on, and we look at just those who have fair skin, that may make the association look more severe. Does that make sense? So I'm just kind of, it's the same concept I'm just trying to repeat this because I know it's a little bit hairy, but once you kind of get it, hopefully you won't forget it. Okay. And I'll turn to, like I said a moment ago, when they adjust for smoking, that may seem to attenuate the relationship and there's the references for that. Okay. And here's one more example of adjusting for the confounders. And this was actually in a fairly well-performed meta-analysis. They actually found, and so this is a good counterpoint if you want to argue the other side that sun exposure protects against non-malignant melanoma. When they put this meta-analysis through what's known as a meta-regression, so you take data and if you do a regression, you're controlling for the variables, right? When you do a meta-analysis, analyzing all the data, you do a meta-regression, right? So when they did a meta-regression, when they tried to control for all these factors that may skew the data, they actually found an inverse relationship between sun exposure and non-malignant melanoma. Does that make sense? So the sun protected when there was appropriate adjustment for the confounders. But the reason why I'm giving you kind of both sides of the argument here, and if you're having a little bit of trouble following the argument, I apologize, but I'm trying to articulate, thank you, that there are data on both sides of this argument. So we shouldn't bull into this conversation thinking because you saw one reference supporting what you think that you're completely supported in your position. There are really data on both sides. The most contestable point is with non-malignant melanoma. We've covered data showing that sun exposure increases the risk of non-malignant melanoma, but we've also covered other data that shows that that association may be an artifact of confounding variables like age, smoking, and skin type, all right? So here's kind of what this sums out to. You have your health benefit or your health detriment, and you have increasing sun exposure. Light people will go up and down on the inverted U at an earlier level of sun exposure than medium-skinned people compared to dark-skinned people. Does that make sense? So this is a major reason how we can account for some of these contradictory data. Also, if we spackle in their smoking status and alcohol consumption, perhaps BMI, although I haven't really seen much that associates BMI to sun exposure, although I guess it logically would make sense that the higher BMI, probably the less you'd want to be in the bathing suit, but maybe not, but I've never seen it. I haven't seen that written anywhere. Maybe nobody wants to jump on that grenade, I suppose. But anyway, we see this association where the darker-skinned people may need more time in the sun. They may be able to take more liberties, but they also may need more time in the sun to experience the health benefits. This may be why we see Hispanic and African-American populations having a harder time, at least according to some of the preliminary data associated with vitamin D deficiency and sunlight insufficiency. Okay, okay. So vitamin D is not a substitute, but it can help. I just want to mention that. There's no case I'm going to bill. I think we already made that case earlier in the presentation. So some guidelines for safe sun exposure. Chronic, non-protected, bounce of exposure are important. 15 minutes up to X for darker-skinned types, two or three times per week. X is really going to be the X factor you're going to have to determine. Back to the Burwick-Hollick paper, they were suggesting part of the reason that underlies increased skin cancer is people are not getting chronic exposure to the sun, and thus learning their skin, and rather they're going out once in a while and getting a ton of exposure, and, oh, I got burned. Well, yeah, because you don't know, you don't have that sense about how much you can tolerate and how much is too much. So chronic exposure, nothing crazy. You have to make sure you stay underneath that threshold where you burn or even feel like you're close to burning.  These are the two most common sites for skin cancers. Cover or use block during longer-term exposure, right? So, again, we want to be careful not to exceed the positive position in the inverted U. So if you're going to be in the sun for a long period of time, block or cover. And condition and get to know your skin. The lighter your complexion, the less time in the sun you should obtain. In healthy, good health of you, I detail some inferential sun exposure dosing goals, and these are based upon the 2011 Innocent Society position paper. I'm not going to read through these. You can, you know, they're up there. You can read through them at your leisure. But essentially, I lay out some guidelines for how to dose your sun exposure either as a maintenance dose or a treatment dose if you're low in vitamin D, and also kind of stratifying that dose based upon if you're in a bathing suit or if you're just exposing your arms and your legs. Okay, sunblock. Sunblock can reduce UV damage and prevent burns, but the data supporting this are weak and somewhat contradictory. So the people who say there's never been one study showing that sunblock helps, they're not wrong, but they're not right. And they're actually more wrong than they are right because there are some data that support that. But the data are weak and the data are contestable. Okay, to quote here, there is no consistent evidence that interventions are associated with improved sunburn frequency in children or adults, and this is just a study in sunblock. But all the studies in sunblock report markedly reduced UV induced damage. So there is a protective effect, whether that protective effect translates to less burns and its effect on outcomes is a bit unclear. Some data show no protection from sunscreen. And this is actually a Cochrane database systematic review, so this is very high level science. We were unable to demonstrate from the available evidence whether sunscreen was effective for the prevention of basal cell carcinoma or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. So there are that data there. But I'm gonna skip forward here. Part of the reason that the sunblocks were not able to show positive effect was they may not have accounted for misuse, formulation type or the total UV dose. So this study did not address four important concepts, sunscreen abuse, meaning you're over the exposure yourself to the sun and thinking you're spending five hours out in the sun and using sunblock and thinking that's your ghetto jail free card. Misuse of sunscreen, not using the appropriate SPF, not reapplying at the appropriate intervals as examples, and cumulative exposure. So that's important to keep in mind. There's also this other theory that the people who are at most risk for skin cancer are most prone to use sunblock. So perhaps it's hardest to show benefit because just like certain diets, right? Sometimes they say, well, maybe the reason why diet sodas don't show any weight loss benefit is because everyone who's drinking diet sodas is already overweight to begin with and they're working against an unfavorable genetic hand. That's not actually true, that example, but it just gives you an example. So it's important to factor that into the conversation. Now, there's this pivotal study by Green at all in 1999. Some cite this study as showing protective effect, others report it did not demonstrate protection. So the Cochrane Database Systematic Review found no protective effect. And a Cochrane Database Systematic Review is very high level scientific evidence. However, part of this appears influenced by the follow up window when Green's study window was extended and effect was shown. This is one of the challenges with skin cancer research is that it's not like a weight loss trial where you track people for eight weeks, right? The cancers don't form for a latency period until after the exposure, right? So you may not have caught the preventive effect if your follow up window was not long enough. So in another follow up analysis of Green's data or Green's cohort, 10 years after trial cessation, melanoma, the conclusion here, melanoma may be preventable by regular sunscreen use in adults. And another analysis, after eight years of cessation, regular application of sunscreen has prolonged preventive effects on squamous cell but no clear benefit in reducing basal cell carcinoma. So this is why I say that people, they're not wrong, but they're not right and they're probably more wrong than they are right. Tanning bed use. There are clear data suggesting the risk associated with tanning beds. Due to limitations, I'm not gonna detail these. I'm just gonna kind of give you the summary, which is we have to factor in for confounding associations and the inverted U. This is a great paper on the issue. Sun exposure is self-promoting. You know that tanning bed use may or may not pose a health risk. The data up here are mixed. This might be confounded by unhealthy lifestyle factors, accompanying tanning bed use, the Jersey Shore example from earlier. Dose may also be an important variable. Light use of tanning beds, less than 12 times per year, may pose minimal risk and even be associated with benefits. Use of 12 times per year or more or use once per month or more may pose health detriment. Tanning bed use should be discouraged, and this is my opinion on my summary. Tanning bed use should be discouraged or use cautiously slash minimally, focusing on sun exposure instead until more complete data are available, using them only in non-sunny months and not exceeding 12 sessions per year. I think that's a pretty reasonable conclusion. That's the maximally progressive conclusion. I shouldn't say it reasonable because this is not conserved. This is the maximally progressive conclusion. I think we can come to you based upon the data. Here's a few resources. A lot of this comes from our clinicians newsletter which summarizes this data, but there's a number of links there for you. And I think we have a few minutes for questions. Okay, all right. So we have about six minutes for questions if there are any questions. But thank you guys, hopefully. I know this is detailed, but this is a contentious issue and I hope you can see that the contention comes from the fact that the data here are not clear in one way or the other. There are some important nuances and if we factor those into our conversations, our arguments or our guidelines, I think we can really help people navigate this effectively. So thank you. You've seen the proposed like model that was explained, I think it's partially explained a lot of these correlational data put out by Gorham and Garland from the UC San Diego I think. They've seen it low by midi in least regards to cancer that the low by midi weakens the tie junctions between cells. And when the tie junctions are released, therefore a somatic mutation doesn't alert its neighbors that it's becoming pre-canturous. And so the neighboring cells can't call in the police force to attack them. Actually, it's very interesting model, but I don't know if you can see. No, I really had to keep my focus kind of at the outcome level on this. Because as you can see, it's even challenging to get a read on the outcome data. If you start peppering in mechanism and conjecturing for mechanism, it's probably close to impossible. That makes, I think there's a number of mechanisms that make sense. But for me, again, what I wanted to do was try to see what the outcome data shows. I think a mechanism like that is absolutely plausible looking at the fact that we see the protective effect. And perhaps there's a certain saturation point where sun exposure can help enhance tide junction function, but too much sun exposure, perhaps through oxidation, then leads to a diminishment of tide junction function. And maybe that is part of the reason why we see the inverted U.


How can we make certain our farmers have access to modern internet capabilities, take full advantages of these new technologies, and what role does spectrum policy play here? Yes, Senator, spectrum policy can play an important role in promoting a variety of uses like precision ag in rural areas. We've already seen precision agriculture make use of the CBRS spectrum ban under the third tier general access authority, which means they're hopefully working in concert with the, under the standards that work in concert with the prioritized incumbent prioritization, but still makes great use for rural farmers in pursuing precision agriculture. We're also seeing Wi-Fi used in some areas through TV white spaces in order to promote precision agriculture. So setting up options into the future that make sure that sharing unlicensed and licensed options are possible, given the lack of greenfield spectrum that we have is critically important.


Well welcome folks, this is Tom O'Brien at TFNN. We have five days a week, we go seven hours a day, we go 24 hours a day on the internet at TFNN.com. Always remember folks, whatever you think about, you bring about whatever you focus on, grow so that everyone's having a great day, safe day, making a great night folks. Be impeccable with your word, manifest your true intentions. Regardless of what language you speak, your intent will be manifested through the word, what you dream, what you feel and what you really are, will be manifested through what you say, each and every day. Mockin' wise, let's take a look at it out here. We have the Dow Industries up $3.48, Nasdaq's up $2.64, S&Ps are up $0.60, Gold Contract trading up $3.20 cents at $17.39 notes. You got Silver Flat, $19.17 cents an ounce, Platinum up $22 bucks, $8.63 an ounce, Lightsweak crude up $4.50, $102.91 a barrel, notes and bonds. You get the 10-year note, down 25 ticks right now, trading $18.08, the 30-air for full point and a half at $138.13 and King Dollar. King Dollar right now is flat, trading out at a price point of $107.36. The Euro is at $101, the yen is at $136, and the British pound is at $120 to $1 US dollar. Our phone number's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Give us a call, folks. One note's going on in your world and the world of the S&Ps. Let's take a look at them. What do you have? Well, you get priced, there's no doubt about that, but guess what, the contraction and volume is pretty dramatic. So you got 40 million shares trade today, and what you're gonna have here, you're gonna have a contraction even from yesterday, which is pretty intense because yesterday was light volume. Did 70 million yesterday doing 40 and I'd probably do 55, you know, the swing has 86, the top of that swing is that 393, and I suspect that's, we'll go for tomorrow. I mean, I think what you're gonna see here is more than like we're gonna hold price and you know, come into Friday, you'll have even more contraction and the real question is gonna be, what does it do with that swing? You know, bottom line, we'll see whether it gets above it closed underneath, it gets above it stays above it and the ratios there, how they go folks, if it gets above it and closes underneath it, that's gonna be a fatal price on volume, you'll go right back downtown. If we stay above it on price, that's gonna go fill the gap. So the top of that is 393, that's the swing, the gap is 401.44. NDX 100, we take a look at the NDX, set it up the same way. The difference with the NDX is that the NDX had some strength yesterday, it had some volume yesterday, guess what? No more volume today, man. You get 39 million shares traded yesterday, we did 63, bottom line, the swing up there only has 54. But guess what, and the swing point on this is 296.57. We hit 295.22, so we'll see if it might test it today, man, test it today, that's gonna be pretty cool, but I'm like, actually, let's go look at the MQs, let me look at this for a second. So if we bring up the futures, take a look at these futures, this is how this set up. Yeah, it's not gonna test it today. The thing is, it's so intriguing, you see it at the open and by, that's where all the volume was this morning. And on a longer basis, that's exactly what it's gonna go back to, which is another 143 points downtown. You have nothing that's going on up here. But I suspect we're gonna stay at a higher price. Gold, gold contract out here, trading at a price point of 1738, and you get a sideways move, there's not much action happening here. What has, now check this out, now this is gonna get interesting, right? So on the dollar, what you have is this folks, is that this dollar, we're at 107, and the next swing is that 121, okay? So when you look at that, it's okay, man, my take is that that's where we're going. That being said though, let's check this out, this is kind of interesting because what has happened, because of the dollar going up so dramatically, this UUP has got some, they got like 939 million into the UUP, which is very unusual, okay? Now, when you look at the UUP, this is where it's gonna get really interesting, man. If this UUP, now let's say if the dollar closes down tomorrow, or it opens down tomorrow, this signal up here, this would bottom line, this is a tri-star doji. So if this does trade down, that puts on the table that this dollar just may not go to that 121. So this is gonna be kind of cool watching how this shakes out. It's very hard, number one, to get a tri-star doji.  And we have the makings of it except for the gap down. So we'll see where this shakes out, man. I mean, pretty wild. Bonds, notes and bonds, they continue at a higher price. We hit the 3% mark once again, bottom line is that when you take a look at the setup inside the note and bond market, well, the Fed was very clear yesterday, man. I mean, you're either going up 50 basis points, or 75 basis points in July. We'll see whether that's gonna shake that out. But you can see, let's see why. There you go. You can see the bond market right now. All's that managed to do it, got up to the swing point of that 1, 2019. Yesterday we hit the 1, 2016. So your three ticks away from it, it couldn't handle it. Now you're gonna be right back downtown. You know, so bottom line, that wants lower price, higher yields. We take a look at some of the higher volume equities out here today. You get an advanced micro up 4,020 cents. You got Apple up 350. Amazon's up too far to you get, let's see. Tesla's up $38. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that, folks, excuse me. We have Intel up a buck 25. You got Facebook up $2 inside the NDX 100. The strength versus the weakness inside the NDX. What you have, you had loosens up 9% or buck 60. You have Moderna up 7.5%. Clack is up 7%. And Marvel Technologies is up 6.5. We're taking away from it. Chata Communications is down 2. Let's go over to Clack. Let's see how this semiconductors are doing it. That's up 21 bucks or 7%. Yeah, no volume. Okay, so you get a nice kind of return bounce going, but there's nothing here, man. That's the real bottom line. Clack, you know, bottom line broke out its lows. You came down here at 780 million shares. You're up on 330. That's the typical route that lower prices continue coming at you. We got to take a look at the King Dog Amazon out here. So this is cool. We were looking at this yesterday. So what you wanna do when we get to the swing points, folks, is you wanna be able to put a few different equities together and Amazon's gonna be a good one, you know? Because Amazon's going after the swing of 117.98. It needs 62 million shares at 43 today. Now that could get that 62 tomorrow and that would be a nice heads up to understand where that MDX in general wants to go. Stay right there, folks, you're coming right back.


Hefyd, yr Sirwhellllai yn cael ei cyfle o wahanol chefriyll er σου yourselfiar этим rysSC comply Felly, nid digon a ddigonwch am yr ysgol codesllậyau yn ei arwe Class All that is encouraging to see a fall in the number of drug-related deaths for a second year. Bind of a statistic, of course, is a human being. Those numbers drive our commitment to prevent and end homelessness in Scotland. That is why we have established a ministerial oversight group on homelessness to bring together ministers to identify actions to prevent and end homelessness. We are committed to acting on the recommendations of the temporary accommodation task and finish group, including providing funding for councils and social landlords to bring empty homes back into use and increasing allocations to homeless households. In response to the Government's budget, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations described the 26 per cent cut in funding for house building as an absolute hammer blow for tackling homelessness. The Chatters Institute of Housing and Shelter both said that it's devastating. Homes for Scotland said that it's shocking. The Glasgow and Western Scotland Forum of Housing Associations said that the Government's target for house building is now dead in the water. They can't all be wrong, can the minister? Will he tell us what will the impact be of the utter madness in cutting £200 million from the house and budget? How many more families will be homeless as a result of that cut and how many more lives will be lost because of homelessness? I thank the member for his question. I think that the most important thing is where do we find the money from? We just heard in the last comment by Mr Gibson about the cut in capital budgets by 20 per cent. I look forward to Mr Smith bringing forward proposals in any Labour amendment to tackle that particular issue. We didn't want to be in this position about the reduction in the budget, but the key things that he mentioned about homelessness, the homelessness budgets, are being left intact. He had discussions with the likes of the local authorities that he mentioned, and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, Homes of Scotland and so on, on trying to maximise the opportunities around that. We will continue to work with them. We will continue to work, as I said, with other organisations about how we maximise the opportunities around about the £60 million funds that we announced earlier on this year around acquisitions and allocations. However, I look forward to the fact that, before Labour, we will find that additional funding coming from any Labour amendment that it brings to the budget. I put on record my thoughts the families and friends of people who have died whilst homeless, which relates to the question. Over the last decade, 2,175 people have been discharged from hospital with no fixed abode registered. That is coming down, and I welcome that fact from a high of 336 in 2017 to 58 next year. Can I ask the minister in the review of housing policy whether that will be a public duty so that no one should be discharged from hospital with no fixed abode? As we know the housing bill, it will be brought forward at the appropriate time. I think that one of the things that we talked about was the prevention duties. Obviously, it can go into the details around that. One of the reasons we brought together the homelessness ministerial group was to look at issues such as that. The minister, for example, responsible for that area, is part of that group. We will continue to look at it just now, but I can go into the details of what is going to be in the bill at a later stage. 2. Willie Coffey Thank you to ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact that the UK-Rwanda migration and economic development partnership may have on our new Scots integration strategy. We have, of course, opposed the UK Government's repugnant plans to relocate people to third countries since the memorandum of understanding with Rwanda was announced in April 2022. Legislation that breaks our moral and international obligations further damages the UK's international reputation. Scottish ministers continue to challenge the UK Government on this issue, but we are committed to working with our partners at COSLA and the Scottish Refugee Council to refresh the new Scots refugee strategy, partly to ensure that it helps to mitigate where it can the damaging actions of the UK Government. 2. Willie Coffey I thank the minister for that answer. The Rwanda bill passed by Tories at Westminster as an extremely dangerous piece of legislation. It is needless, it is dehumanising and it is legally unsound. What communication has the minister had with the UK Government counterparts to underline just how strongly the people of Scotland reject this appalling bill? Again, we have been clear and consistent in our strong opposition to this policy since it was announced and will continue to raise significant concerns with this cruel, ineffective and expensive policy with UK Government ministers and reiterate our opposition in light of the bill. UNHCR has stated that they do not consider the UK-Rwanda migration and economic development partnership to comply with the UK's international obligations. The UK Government must explain how it will ensure the welfare of extremely vulnerable people in any arrangement to transfer or relocate people seeking asylum and be transparent about how much that is costing. 3. Carlin Mawchen To ask the Scottish Government what work to tackle poverty, it is currently undertaking to support people who are in debt to public bodies. This year, the Scottish Government has allocated almost £3 billion to support policies to tackle poverty and protect people during the on-going cost of living crisis. We have now committed next year to bring forward a one-off £1.5 million emergency fund to support councils to help to remove the impact of school meal debt on families. We also protect the most financial vulnerable through the council tax reduction scheme, which supports more than £460,000 households across Scotland with an average saving of £800 per year. The Scottish ministers continue to encourage public bodies to share good practice and debt assistance and to collect and promote empathy and dignity for people who are struggling with debt. 4. Carlin Mawchen I thank the minister for that answer. Following a lengthy campaign from trade unions and third sector organisations, I want to mention and commend Aberlour for her campaign, which is welcome to see the Scottish Government commit to providing the funding that will see school meal debt cleared. However, that remains a very short-term fix. If the Scottish Government is truly committed to reducing debt owed to public bodies in the future and for the long term, will it increase the thresholds for free school meal eligibility, which Aberlour research suggests has barely risen in 20 years? That increases eligibility for free school meal provision, and it is a key ask, and it is a fair one. 5. Carlin Mawchen It raises in about the free school meals scheme that that is something that I think it would be considered in the future. In terms of support, it is already there, the Scottish child payment, the First Minister talked about that, about the support that is already there. In terms of the investment to support, I think that one of the key things is preventing people from getting into debt in the first place. In 23-24, we invested over £6.5 million to support free debt services in Scotland, and that is obviously part of the wider package, as I said, for income maximisation. During the week, I visited community help initiative in Edinburgh, and I wrote in the book the way we are doing, and the real emphasis is on accessible advice. I think that that is a really important part to trying to emphasise that as well. We are actually going out and meeting people where they are in schools and in childcare facilities as well, so I think that that is a really important point that I would like to emphasise as well. 5. Collette Stevenson Thank you, Presiding Officer. The budget decision to wipe school meals debt will be a great relief for the families of 30,000 children, demonstrating the targeted interventions needed to tackle poverty despite the limitations of devolution. Can the minister outline how the draft Scottish budget seeks to help low-income families to overcome the challenge of escalating bills and debt? The Westminster austerity continues to impact on our ability to help households. In setting the budget, we adopted a values-based approach focused on our three message, which includes tackling poverty. That includes committing £6.3 billion in social security benefits and payments, and that is an increase of over £1 billion compared to £23.24, and funding the £12 per hour real living wage for social care and early learning and childcare workers who deliver funded provision. Combining tax and social security changes, 58 per cent of households are better off under this system than in the rest of the UK, with the majority of those in the bottom half of income distribution. 4. Alasdair Allan To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the roll-out of its new carer support payment in the Western Isles and in other pilot areas. Cabinet Secretary. Carer support payment, which replaces carers allowance, successfully launched in pilot areas on 20 November. I thank colleagues in Dundee City, Perth and Cronos, and the Western Isles for making this possible. The benefit is a key milestone in improving support for unpaid carers, and will be available to carers in full-time education who cannot currently get the carers allowance. Figures published by Social Security Scotland this week show that we received 160 applications in the first four weeks, with 40 already authorised. The agency will publish official statistics, including a breakdown by local authority, in February. I thank the cabinet secretary for her reply. Can she see what strategies the Government will employ to maximise take-up of the new benefit in the Western Isles specifically? The member raises a very important point about benefit take-up, and that is exactly why Scotland, unlike the rest of the UK, has a benefit take-up strategy. The member will be well aware—I am sure that he has already had discussions and meetings with Social Security Scotland's local delivery network—again, a unique service in Scotland to ensure that agency staff are going out to work with the third sector and to work with people directly to be able to support them in their applications. That is a very important work that we can do locally, as well as the usual marketing campaigns that are on-going in local pilot areas. To ask the Scottish Government how many children in Aberdeen have received the Scottish child payment since its inception. Social Security Scotland routinely publishes information on Scottish child payment applications, payments and the number of children actively in receipt of the payment, while the latest statistics do not currently include information on the total number of children benefited from the Scottish child payment. They show that, as of 30 September 2023, 10,265 children residing in Aberdeen City were actively benefiting from the Scottish child payment. I also welcome the increase to the Scottish child payment announced in the budget. The Scottish child payment has been described as a game changer in the fight to eradicate child poverty. However, what is the Government doing to ensure that all those who are entitled to the payment in Aberdeen and across Scotland are receiving it? I referred to my previous answer to Dr Allan about the local delivery staff, which is an important aspect that is, of course, throughout the country on all benefits, including the Scottish child payment. We have, of course, undertaken proactively online and offline marketing campaigns, and those will continue to run in the future at various points. The information about benefits is something that we are also very keen to ensure. It is in the places where families are already accessing their services such as schools, GPs, surgeries, community centres and libraries. That is the important work that is being done, and that is why the take-up of the Scottish child payment will still more work to do as it is at a very high rate. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans for the delivery of employment injury assistance includes support for firefighters diagnosed with cancer in light of reported calls for this welfare benefit to be made available to this workforce. We recognise that there are a range of views on the current industrial injury scheme and the prescribed diseases. This is a hugely complex scheme and a significant investment over time will be required to update eligibility and administration for social protecting the payments that disabled people rely on. As I set out to the Social Justice and Social Security Committee last month, we intend to consult on a range of issues relating to the delivery of employment injury assistance shortly. Jackie Baillie I thank the cabinet secretary for her response. Last week, the FBU's regional secretary told the daily record that she wants to see a statutory expert council established so that he and his colleagues have their seat at the table designing the new benefit independent from the Government. Their decon research shows large numbers of firefighters get cancer and that it is therefore an industrial disease. They want to have their voice heard, their place in the benefit and the cabinet secretary knows that she will have to deliver the benefit very soon. Will she back the FBU's call and back Mark Griffin's bill and give them their seat at the table? The Government made its position on Mark Griffin's bill clear. We do not think that it is sensible to have a discussion around an introduction on the Scottish Advisory Council without employment injury assistance being in place. It is but one part of a jigsaw. I very much hear what the FBU has said on this. We need to have them, other unions and other stakeholders at the table when we are designing a benefit. That is exactly what we have done with every other benefit that we have implemented already in Scotland. I would give my guarantee to them that regardless of whether the bill or not goes ahead, that is a matter for Parliament. I will absolutely ensure that they have a seat at the table and that their views are being taken account of as we design any benefit going forward. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is in the MS Society's reported call for PIP applications to end the so-called 20-metre rule and replace it with a 50-metre threshold. The Government has noted the calls to replace the 20-metre rule adults in Scotland in receipt of PIP are transferring to adult disability payment. Adult disability payment delivers an improved experience for disabled people in Scotland, considering a person's mobility needs more fairly and consistently. The independent review of adult disability payment will examine eligibility criteria, including the 20-metre rule. The Scottish Government will consider all recommendations arising from this review, including the case for any changes and their deliverability and affordability. The UK Government has not committed to a similar review for personal independence payment. I thank the cabinet secretary for that response. The establishment of the independent review into ADP is welcome as a step to create a disability assistance benefit that fully meets the needs of disabled people in something that I know is welcomed and indeed campaigned for by the MS Society. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the scope of the review into ADP will not be limited and that it will be free to make any recommendation that deems fit and necessary in order to achieve that aim? An important priority for the independent review will be engagement with disabled people and stakeholders, including the MS Society, and I encourage full engagement with that review. More detail on how to do that will be provided as the review progresses and following the appointment of a chair. The chair will be independent of Government, and it will therefore make recommendations as they see fit. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are high rates of incidents of MS in my constituency. Just walking one footstep over 20 metres during an assessment on one day can brutally stop someone's eligibility for social security payments. Constituents have told me that some days 20 metres might feel like climbing Everest and other days it might not be so tough. The so-called 20 metre rule as a measure is not fit for purpose to assess eligibility for PIP or ADP, so why is the Scottish Government still clinging to it even if it is only temporarily? Well, one of the important aspects that we have been clear about is that we have to ensure safe and secure transition of benefits from the DWP to Social Security Scotland. That means that major changes are exceptionally difficult to be made because we would in effect have a two-tier system of one rule applying for some and one rule applying for others that still remain on PIP before case transfer. Once safe and secure transition is complete, we will of course look to see whether further changes can be made, but I would stress to Beatrice Wishart that we will have to look at, yes, the experience of others and, yes, how we can improve things, but we also have to look at the affordability of those items as well. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion the housing minister has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any impact on the availability of housings through the private rented sector of its energy efficiency reforms. Scottish ministers of course meet regularly to discuss matters of mutual portfolio interest. There is a long-standing policy to introduce energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, recognising that tenants have limited power to make changes themselves. Previous legislation was delayed due to Covid impacts and we are now proposing to introduce standards as part of a heat in buildings bill, with a target date five years from now and almost a decade since we first consulted on standards. We have commissioned further research on potential impacts on the housing market to ensure that future regulations work for all sectors. Alexander Stewart I thank the minister for that response. Landlords are now facing having to renovate their properties to reach a minimum energy efficiency standard by 2028. Letty agencies have warned that the proposals combined with the SNP green rent cap could result in landlords having to leave the private rented sector, thus creating a shortage of housing stock. Therefore minister, what analysis has the Scottish Government conducted on the impact of its reforms on the private rented sector? As I said in my first answer, we have commissioned further research. However, I would reinforce the fact that those proposals come as no surprise to anyone in the private rented sector. This has been policy for a long time now and the proposal not only allows that extra five years for compliance but also proposes an alternative means of meeting the standard by simply working through a standard checklist of applicable measures. That will make it flexible, easy and affordable and less disruptive to ensure those energy efficiency standards. The result of that will be that, unlike the UK, where similar proposals were scrapped by the Prime Minister recently, adding some £300 extra a year on to the energy bills of private rented sector tenants, something that Mr Stewart might think is acceptable, this Government does not. We will be saving money for those private rented sector tenants from their energy bills. That is something that I think should be a natural expectation when people rent their homes. The minister agreed that tackling fuel poverty has to be a central aim of the Scottish Government's new deal for tenants in the private rented sector, which is disproportionately and poorly insulated properties. The new deal for tenants consultation did set out our vision for a rented sector, which plays a part in ensuring that everybody's got access to a warm, safe, affordable and energy-efficient home. A report on the cost of living in October showed that some 46 per cent of households in the private rented sector will be in fuel poverty. That is double the rate of owner-occupied households in fuel poverty. We want the rented sector, whether that is social or private, to provide tenants with good quality homes that reduce their energy bills but also help to deliver net zero aims. That is what the regulations that we are currently consulting on will seek to achieve. Thank you very much minister. That concludes portfolio questions on social justice.


A bill that would let Enbridge Energy bypass the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and proceed with the replacement of its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota is on its way to Governor Mark Dayton, who has promised a veto. The Minnesota House voted 74-53 today to accept the version that passed the Senate Wednesday. Dayton has said he opposes the bill because it would short circuit the normal regulatory process. The Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote late next month on whether the project is needed and what route it should take. One of the bill's chief sponsors, Senator David Osmek, says it sends a message that lawmakers back the project. Line 3 is opposed by environmental and tribal groups that fear the impact on climate change and pristine waters. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Welcome to Spotlight. I'm Adam Navas. And I'm Liz Wade. Spotlight uses a special English method of broadcasting. It is easier for people to understand no matter where in the world they live. It is the year 1803. A four-year-old boy is on a boat. He is doing an important job. He is helping to bring a virus from Spain to Central America. There the virus will protect people from an even worse disease. This is one of the first times a vaccine will be traveling across an ocean. And this boy is carrying the vaccine in his own body. In the past, vaccines were transported like this. Today, we have better technology. But health experts still struggle to send important vaccines to the farthest places on Earth. Today's spotlight is on the ways people transport vaccines around the world. Vaccines are a kind of medicine. They protect people against deadly diseases. The first vaccine was for the terrible disease smallpox. In some parts of the world, half of the people who got sick with smallpox died. But doctors in Europe had found a way to protect people from getting smallpox. They infected people with a similar virus called cowpox. Cowpox did not make people as sick. When they got better from cowpox, their bodies knew how to protect them from getting the smallpox virus too. In the 1800s, doctors took fluid from the cowpox on one person. Then they injected the fluid into another person. Soon, whole villages of people in Europe were safe from smallpox. But across the ocean, many people were still dying from smallpox. Doctors wanted to bring the cowpox virus to these places. They needed a way to transport the cowpox virus a very far distance. So, Spanish doctors took 22 young boys on a long trip to Central America. These boys were orphans who had no parents. They were between 3 and 10 years old. Before the trip began, doctors infected two of the boys with cowpox. Every 10 days of the trip, doctors took fluid from the infected boys' cowpox. Then they infected the next two boys. By the time the boys reached Central America, only one of them had a spot of cowpox left on his body. But that was enough. People celebrated the boys for bringing cowpox to protect them. Happy crowds cheered with bells. The boys were placed with new families. They were promised a good education. Because of these boys, as many as 12,000 people were protected from smallpox in just two months in this area. From there, the vaccine could spread into the wider Americas. But today we wonder about these boys. Did they want to help in this way? Did they get to decide? Probably not. Some were too young to even understand what was happening to them. But because of these boys, many lives were saved. Authorities can transport vaccines in much better ways today. Scientists and doctors have learned a lot since the 1800s. But again, we must send a very important vaccine all around the world. Today, people in every country need the COVID-19 vaccine. How will we transport vaccines for COVID-19 to parts of the world that are hard to reach? Transporting the COVID-19 vaccines is challenging. The vaccines must be kept very cold. There are parts of West and Central Africa where people do not always have electricity. UNICEF is working to set up new refrigerators there. Solar power from the sun will help to keep these refrigerators cold. Jean-Cedric Meyes works for UNICEF. He says... West and Central Africa is one of the most complex places you will find. We are transporting COVID-19 vaccines to major cities. But we must also deliver them to very remote villages. We found that there was not enough cold storage. Then we set about building almost 20,000 solar-powered refrigerators all the way from the coast to the forests. Robin Nandy also works for UNICEF. He explains that they will use many forms of transportation to get the vaccines where they need to go. COVID vaccines will travel by boat to small islands and to villages along the Amazon River. Snowmobiles will have to transport vaccines in winter conditions to parts of Alaska that are very far away. Nandy imagines vaccines will travel by motorcycle, drone, elephant, horse and even camel. He explains... This has never happened before. We are trying to send a new vaccine to every country in the world in the same year. Some far away island countries have no reported cases of COVID yet. But it is still important to get the vaccine to the people there. These communities may have fewer medical resources. If someone there gets COVID-19, the disease could spread very quickly. Authorities may even start using drones to transport vaccines to hard-to-reach parts of the world. These small machines can be controlled from a far distance. Drones can reach places like rural India. Maz Siddiqui works for Gavi, the Global Vaccine Alliance. He explained to the Thomas Reuters Foundation... Every single COVID-19 vaccine is so important. That is why it is necessary to make sure that countries have the support and tools to transport vaccines quickly and well to those who need them. Drones help us by adding another kind of transportation. They are a special solution to a problem faced by many countries. Transporting vaccines has often been difficult.  Today, drones fly with no pilot at all. People have always needed to be creative to send vaccines across long distances. And they will need to continue to be creative today. By early August 2021, almost 15% of the world's population had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. And health experts were giving over 38 million doses of the vaccine each day. But there is still a lot of work to do to get these vaccines everywhere they need to go. Is a COVID-19 vaccine easy to get where you live? Are organizations doing enough to get it to you? Tell us what you think. Be sure to also check out our other programs about vaccines on YouTube. You can email us at contact at spotlightenglish.com. You can also find us on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. The writer of this program was Megan Nolette. The producer was Michio Ozaki. The voices you heard were from the United States and the United Kingdom. All quotes were adapted for this program and voiced by Spotlight. You can listen to this program again and read it on the internet at www.spotlightenglish.com. This program is called Sending COVID-19 Vaccines Around the World. Visit our website to download our free official app for Android and Apple devices. We hope you can join us again for the next Spotlight program. Goodbye!


Maintaining a long-distance relationship can be very challenging. Some people might not have the confidence to go for it, because they're worried that it might not work out. However, if you and your partner are determined to overcome the struggles together, then your relationship can grow stronger than ever.  Here are five signs you are ready for a long-distance relationship. 1. You are not afraid of the future Being in a long-distance relationship is often scary to couples, because they are afraid of what will happen in the future. Do you think being apart is only temporary? That nothing will change because the both of you value commitment? Are you very sure about each other? If you answer yes to all the above, then it is very likely that you will get through a long-distance relationship with your partner. Feeling confident and secure about what the future has to offer for the both of you is what will help the two of you stay close, despite the difference in miles or time zones. 2. You trust each other There is no doubt that trust is very important in a successful relationship, but sometimes it can be hard to trust someone due to anxiety, insecurity, and past failed relationships that ended because of infidelity. It's important to work these issues out first before committing to someone again. Honestly, open communication and understanding one another are all key factors that build strong trust between couples. If you and your partner put time and effort to fulfill all these needs, then there's a good chance that the two of you will succeed in a long-distance relationship. 3. You have similar goals For a long-distance relationship to work out, both you and your partner have to be certain about what you want in a relationship, as well as your goals in life. Often, relationships fall apart because two people want different things in life. For example, one partner might want to start a family and live in the suburbs, while the other dreams of living in the big city and desires traveling over having kids. To make sure you and your partner are on the same page, it's important to have this discussion with them regularly to see if your outlook on kids, marriage, jobs, and location preference match up as the two of you grow together. 4. You and your partner are committed to one another Do you and your partner value commitment in a relationship? Are you attentive and invest a lot of time and effort into the relationship? And do you take action to express your commitment for one another? Commitment is what separates serious relationships from casual dating, and long-distance relationships require more of it because both partners don't see each other as frequently. It's important to make sure you and your partner build a solid relationship first, where compromise is frequently met before going the long-distance route. 5.  The more you value your partner and vice versa, the more likely your relationship will survive when it goes long-distance. Here are some questions that can help both of you figure out if your relationship is a top priority. Do you respect and value your partner's beliefs and opinions? Do you remember the details they share with you? And do you nurture your relationship consistently? Remember, a relationship is always a two-way street. In order for your relationship to survive, your partner has to be just as invested in it as you. Do you agree with these points? Please share your thoughts with us below. I just want to give a personal thank you video for you guys for always supporting Psych2Go and making this all possible for us. Our vision is to make psychology as accessible as possible so that it promotes self-awareness and it helps you guys grow. However, we want to make more content for you guys and would love your support in buying one of these bracelets from our partner, Introvert Palace. Check out the bracelet, it's pretty cool and it even includes Pluto. The link to purchase will all be in the description below and I hope you guys have an amazing day. Bye!


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we will discuss a question which says that the following table shows number of visitors in a museum for the month of October from the year 1995 to 1999. Now we have to draw the line of best fit for this data and with the help of the graph we have to predict how many visitors visited in the year 2000 according to the trend. Now let us start with the solution of the given question. Now in this question we are given a table showing the number of visitors from the year 1995 to the year 1999. So let us draw a scatter plot for the given data and here we will take number of visitors on vertical axis and on horizontal axis we will take the years and here on the vertical axis that is y axis we have taken a scale of 200 and on the horizontal axis we take the years as 1995, 1996 and so on up to 2000. Now here we have to make prediction. So we have increased number of years. Now let us plot all these ordered pairs on this graph. Now here this is the point which represents the ordered pair 1995, 906. Similarly we will plot the other ordered pairs also. So we have plotted all the ordered pairs on the graph and hence we obtain a scatter plot for this given data. Now let us draw the line of fit. So here we have drawn a line which is close to almost all the points. Now this line is moving downwards so there exists a negative relationship between the years, number of visitors. Here you can see that with each passing year the number of visitors has decreased in the month of October. Now from the graph we have to predict that how many visitors visited in the year 2000. For this we will draw a vertical line from the year 2000 to the line of fit where we will see the corresponding value on y axis. So here corresponding to the year 2000 this point represents the value on y axis. So number of visitors in the year are around 450. And this is the solution of the given question. That's all for this session. Hope you all have enjoyed this session.