Hello, hi, everybody, I'm Pauline. Welcome. All right, I'm going to start my little intro, and then we'll introduce Pauline. Okay, so my name is Christie and I'm the Small Business Center librarian here at the San Francisco Public Library. This is to my end and with Pauline McKay of handmade by P. McKay. Our department is located on the fourth floor of the main library. And so please visit us if you come down to Civic Center. You can email us at this site tech at SFPL.org. So if you have any reference questions having to do with small business, personal finance, investing, even cooking, gardening, those are in our subject areas. Please feel free to email us or you can call us at<PHONE_NUMBER>. We also have a department newsletter, and you can sign up for it here. Here is our land acknowledgement. I'm just going to read the first and last sentences. The San Francisco Public Library acknowledges that we occupy the unseated ancestral homeland of the Ramay Tush Aruni peoples, who are the original habit inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula. We recognize to respectfully honor Ramay Tush peoples, we must recognize to respectfully honor Ramay Tush peoples, we must embrace and collaborate meaningfully to record indigenous knowledge and how we care for San Francisco and all its people. I wanted to point out that because this is Filipino American History Month, that there is a Filipino American Center on the third floor of the main library. And there's a lot of books that circulate that means you can check them out. There's also a Filipino American Center with really great reference materials, and it's managed by Abraham Acasio, our Filipino American Center librarian. We have a lot of events. I just wanted to quickly go through these. There's a movie showing at Ocean View Branch Library on Wednesday, October 12th, called When the Storm Fades. On Wednesday, October 12th, there's a panel, Panay Lit, and we have readers, Danny Quintos, Barbara Jean Reyes, Jen Soriano, and Isabella. On Thursday, October 13th, we are showing a film at the Richmond branch in the Richmond District of San Francisco. It's called Yellow Rose. And then the big event this month is our two day Filipino American International Book Festival, and it's taking place here at the main library on Saturday and Sunday, October 15th and 6th, and it's all day. And on the lower level, there will be vendors and author signings and some books from community organizations. So I hope you can join us.  On Tuesday, we're having a start your own business and presented in Spanish. On Wednesday, we have our book club meeting. The book is Everything is Figure Outable. On Wednesday, October 19th, we have Dennis Yoon, who's a SEO expert. He will live audit your small business website. So if you have a small business website that isn't attracting as many customers as you would like, please join us. Put your website in the chat and he will go through it in real time and let you know how to improve it. Really good. On Tuesday, October 25th, we have an overview of reference solutions database, which is really good for business research. So during our program, you can type your questions in the chat and Pauline can answer them at the end. We've also enabled auto transcription if you need to, if you need closed captioning on your screen. Okay, so welcome Pauline McKay. I first have Pauline and her jewelry at undiscovered market last year. There's one coming up to on October 22nd. So please go to that it's going to be huge. It's going to be amazing. It's in South America. But I first saw Pauline and her jewelry last year, but I kept seeing her different markets like a couple of gardens, the stands and the streets, and her table always stood out to me from the others because of her visual merchandising, as you can see in this photo and just her, her colorful jewelry, her playful jewelry that I'm like in obsessed with I'm actually wearing a pair of her earrings right now.  So welcome Pauline. Hello, thank you so much for having me. I am very honored to be doing this demo. Thank you. So before we get started and show your the demo that you prepared. Why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself and your business. Yeah, so I basically make polymer clay jewelry. And how I started with that is I'm absolutely obsessed with accessories, I feel like they make the outfit and earrings are one of my favorite accessories and so I collected so many earrings, especially large earrings. But I found that they were super heavy. So I started experimenting with polymer clay. And I found out I can make really big pieces but very light on the ears. And so I just started making them for myself for fun. And then people would stop me and was like, Oh, where'd you get your earrings and I'd be like, Oh, I actually hate them. And so, like during, I see I started this in August of 2019. And so I started giving them as presents and then I was like running out of material so I started, people started offering to pay, and then after that basically just started and I just started a business with that so. That's great. So it's not been that long I thought you might have started longer ago but it was only in 2019 that you start well when did you start selling your jewelry. I started selling it, like kind of unofficially during that time, and then in January of 2021 that's when I published my website and but a little bit before that I was doing some markets but my official website started on January 2021. Wow, yours is a very young business. I had no idea it kind of grow the way it did. And so I was very surprised about that. Well your work is great. I love it. I already have lots of your pieces and I'm just going to keep collecting them.  You know is is a Filipino tradition so why don't you tell us about that. Yeah, so what inspired me to make jewelry. I'm sorry my dog's work. I think food is like something that brings people together and for me I wanted to make something that represents myself and my identity and I mean why not wear food as an accessory I think it was super fun to do that and I think it also brings people together when they see, especially Filipino people together when they see food that's relating to the culture and also other people who aren't from Filipino background can learn about it too. Because San Francisco in the Bay Area there's like a number of a huge Filipino population and so there's a number of non Filipino people who know the food and it's so fun to see that when I have like a market they know about it. And so I think it just brings lots of people together, and it also represents like a little bit of me which is kind of what I want in my business I want, you know pieces of me to be represented. Yes, it is very special. Honestly, the first piece I bought of yours was the pancit canton ring it's because my grandmother had a bolt that looked just like the ring that you made. And literally like an hour after I saw the Instagram post about it I, on my lunch break I ran over to couple gardens and bought that ring and I was just like I couldn't stop looking at it it just reminded me of my grandmother and my family and the cooking and. So it's very grounding for me to look at that ring and that's actually that's how what your children needs to me so that's why I love it so much. Well that's amazing and that's actually really what I, I want and that like really was really touching to, to hear about that. It's amazing. Well thank you for creating these pieces. So I think this is a good time to show your demo so I'm going to get that ready. Yeah, so I guess I can talk a little bit about the come on, which is like basically eating with your hands and it's a celebratory meal where you have a layer of banana leaves and then basically have a feast and you have rice and barbecue egg mango, all on the table and then you gather around with people and eat together. And so this is like a pre colonial way of eating as well. Yes, thank you for explaining that to people who don't know what come on is. All right, let's watch your video now. And thank you for joining me in my command tutorial. So here's my little workstation and I'm prepping all the stuff that we need. So here's a list of materials and tools that you will need. And these are all accessible in your local art stores and craft stores like Michael's and Joanne's and even Blick and flat. Let's get started. So this green ball of clay that I have, I basically mixed it with a few different types of Sculpey clay. And that's the Primo Sculpey clay that I have over on the top left side. I mixed some green, brown and a little bit of orange and I'm flattening it up so I can put it into my pasta maker, which is my Atlas 150. But it's not necessary. You could just roll it out until you get a certain thickness. So for me, I like to use a number two setting, which means it's a 3.3 millimeter thickness. And that's basically how I want the base thickness to be. So now we're going to use a clay cutter to get the base shape. And now I'm going to put it in a little ceramic tile so we can bake that later in the oven. Next, we have the rice. And again, I'm doing the same exact first steps with the flattening of the clay at 3.3 millimeters and number two setting. And for this one, I want to double it up and fold it. And now I'm going to use a small cookie cutter that I got from Michael's to get the rice shape, the rice bowl shape. So I'm going to pinch it and round it out. And then I'm going to use a feather wire brush to get the grain details. So it looks like grains of rice. And I also use a rubber brush to do that as well. The perfect combo is a rubber brush and a feather wire brush tool. Yum.  I like fried garlic bits. So I take this orangey brown clay mix that I made and I roll it out into a really, really thin coil. All right. And now we take our exacto knife and cut a really tiny piece like this. I love fried garlic with my java rice. Lots of fried garlic. And there you have it. Our little java rice. Now it's time for our barbecue. For this one, we have a little bit of a lighter brown. And for this one, I like to put it on the number five setting, which is a 1.5 millimeter thickness. Cut it into strips. And now I'm going to fold it up and put it onto my needle tool, like so. So now I'm going to pinch the clay together into a rectangular shape. And then I'm going to get my clay sculptural tool and push it down so I can make it look layered. Like little strips of meat. It's time for our barbecue stick fitting.  And that looks good. Ooh, now it's time for our salted egg.  And now I'm making that ball into an oval shape, just like a hard-boiled egg. And now I'm getting a little pinch of the yellow clay and rolling it into a tiny ball for the yolk. I'm going to flatten it and then test it out. That looks good. So now we're going to get liquid sculpey glue. That's the bacon bond. A little dab on there.  There we go. Iggy. Last but not least, the mango. So this one, we're going to roll it up into an overall mango shape. And then we're going to cut it in half. Again, shaping it a little bit more to look like a mango. My favorite part. Mango slices. When my mom and my grandma taught me how to do this when I was a kid with a real mango, my mind was blown. Yay, now that the mango is complete, we have our full Kamiyan set and it's time to glue everything to the base. So I'm removing the wooden stick because I do not want to bake it at a high fire in the oven. So we're going to take our soft pastel and brush it a little bit on the barbecue to give it that charred look. Alright, now that the final touches are complete, it is time to bake. So for the baking process, I just used my home oven and I baked it for 15 minutes at 275 degrees Fahrenheit. Once it is baked and cooled, we glue the barbecue stick back. And now we're going to finish it off with polyurethane varnish. Sometimes I use clear nail polish for this process and that is to give it the glossy look. So now we glue in the hardware so you could either use a pin back if you want a pin or you can use an alligator clip if you want a hair clip. So in this case, I want a hair clip so I'm going to use an alligator clip. So now we take it and glue it to the Kamiyan base and there you have it. We have a Kamiyan hair clip. Thank you so much for watching my tutorial. I'm so honored to do this and happy Filipino American History Month. See you next time. Okay, I love that video. Such a great job, Pauline. Thank you so much for making that video for us. Oh, absolutely. It's actually my first time recording a video tutorial. So it was a, everything was a first house. I had a lot of fun making and editing the video too, and I learned a lot and actually also inspired me to make more videos. Yay. I would love to watch more of your videos. You could create a YouTube channel. Yes. Oh, someone put some star eyes in the chat. So everyone in the, everyone here, please let us know what you think of her video. But I liked, oh, I better turn down the volume on this. I think it's okay. Can you hear any reverb? I can hear fine. Just a little. Let me turn that off. I'll be right back. Oh, thank you so much for all the people who are commenting. Okay, sorry about that. So what I liked a lot with seeing all your techniques and I loved how you created textures on everything, like on the rice, using those two brush brushes and on the meat and like adding the charred to the meat and then making a glaze. I mean, there's all these layers and it just creates a lot of dimension for such a small piece. It's so dimensional. And I think that's why I love your work so much because I really just look at it for a long time because there's so many details. And yeah, it's no people sharing their comments. Yeah, thank you for the feedback. And next time I make a video, I'll definitely work on the volume. It was my first time doing a voiceover narration. And I also have like a very soft voice. So, but yeah, it's good to hear some people's feedback on that. You did a great job. And yeah, I look forward to seeing more of your videos. So I just have like one or two more questions for you. So what is your favorite part about being a small business owner and designer. So one of my favorite parts about being a small business owner and designer is I have full control of what I can do and what I can make. And that's like really fun because I can experiment and do whatever I want to. And I get to also meet a lot of other cool creatives doing like a lot of small events and I really enjoy that. Do you keep up with them? Like other than seeing them at markets, do you like hang out with the other creatives that you meet at the markets? Yes, absolutely. And I've also have actually spoken to other people about doing future collaborations on things, which I'm very excited about. And it's also really fun to see the same people like buying my things over again, like loyal customers. That's it's like super awesome. And I'm really honored. Okay. Yay, sweet. I love that. Thanks for showing us your piece, Angela. That was really cool. I'm wearing my earrings too. Oh my gosh. That's amazing. Your fan base will surely grow, I think, over the years. Your stuff is so good. So where are you going to be this month and for the holidays? Do you have any shows planned? Yeah, so actually doing an event with Angela in November. But the more recent ones this month for Phil, Philippine American History Month, we have a noise of the noise pop block party and mission. That's happening October. The Saturday, I think that's October 16th. And that's from noon to six and then undiscovered is my other big event, which is on October 22nd. And that's going to be a really big one. I can't wait to see all the other vendors too. It's always an amazing turnout. Yeah, big shout out to cultivate labs for putting that together. It's a huge production. I think they work with some of Filipinas. I think capital gardens is involved. I think this year from the website, I can see that it's going to be even bigger. So I have that day off. I'm going to spend the whole day there. I'm looking forward to it. Yeah. And also I'm going to have a lot of new pieces. Like I actually have them here. I have Filipino spaghetti. I have a little crock jibbit with bun set on there. It's going to be featured at undiscovered. And I'm also going to have, it's the first time I'm going to have my own tent with my logo on it. And it's like a big 10 by 10. So it's going to be really interesting and also really fun.  I'm going to be there like right when you guys open. I'll try not to buy everything though. Oh, that's so great. I'm glad to hear that. I put the link to undiscovered in the chat. So everyone, if you can make it on Saturday, October 22nd, like for Pauline's booth or tent. And yeah, check her out and check out everyone else. Does anyone have any questions? Oh, someone did right. Have you ever sold at SJ San Jose made? I actually haven't done any San Jose events yet, but I've been meaning to. And if you also, if you have an Instagram and if you could DM me about that, I would definitely love to look into it. Oh yeah, cool. And does everyone know how to find here? Let me put your website in the, in the chat too so that people can look at your, your website because I love looking at your designs on there too. So there's Pauline's website. Any other questions for her? Thank you for joining us today. You guys have a special treat to see her amazing demo. Right. I don't see any. So again, Pauline, thank you for doing this. This was such a good, oh wait, there is another question. Can you tell us about the first piece you ever made? Yeah, so okay. One of the first piece I made was a key chain and it was a really thick, like half circle clay piece. But it was since I didn't really know what I was doing at first. It like broke easily. It didn't, it wasn't as sturdy as I thought it would be, but that's what allowed me to experiment more. And I found out that Sculpey Primo is actually one of the sturdiest I've worked with. Sculpey Primo is that the type of clay? That's a type of clay. Sculpey Primo is a type of clay. And I usually, for the sturdiest, I usually bake it at 260 for 15, 260 degrees Fahrenheit for 15 minutes. Okay. Okay. I can ask Angela to unmute. I'm wondering does Angela make similar pieces? Angela, if you want, you can unmute yourself and tell us about your work. Oh, I actually don't make pieces. But I wish, I just love going to craft fairs and meeting people like Pauline. And I was just organizing some of them for a craft fair in November. That's what Pauline was mentioning earlier. Oh, great. We just started looking for vendors. So if you have any other favorites, let me know. Okay, great. I'll promote that too on my Instagram. Okay, thanks for sharing, Angela. Thank you. Pauline, will you ever have any, like, courses where we can maybe learn to be hearing makers? Well, now that I've done this workshop and I did the video tutorial, I'm thinking of starting a YouTube channel. I also have a TikTok, but I just never made a TikTok before. So I definitely want to find time to do more workshop videos. That's awesome. I would definitely watch. So my, the person who does our website audits every month, Dennis Hue, he really recommends TikTok, especially for creatives. He says that the reach is really, really good on TikTok.  I mean, I don't know personally, but he is an expert and he actually wrote a book about TikTok for marketing. So it is a great, a great channel for people like you. Well, anyway, push me to do TikTok. Thank you so much, Pauline, for doing this today. It was really great to have you and I really enjoyed your demo. And again, thank you for the people who came and joined us. Thank you so much, everybody. And thank you. You're seeing the best of public library. Very honored to do this for Filipino American History Month. Yay. Yes. Thank you guys. So all right, Pauline, I'll see you on the 22nd at your, your booth. All right. Thank you so much.


Baron Cornelius Fahedin de Lancy was a multi-talented man, apart from speaking a large number of languages, he managed to be successfully a doctor, a surgeon, a dentist, qualify at the bar of the Middle Temple and an art historian. How in Curiety. And he made a lot of money in the course of his life and he was very public spirited and he set up a foundation to fund studies and thoughts and lectures on medical legal themes. And his foundation gave money to Cambridge, which we use to fund occasional lectures on medical legal themes and that is the lecture tonight. It's my great pleasure to welcome Sir Peter Lachman, a most distinguished scientist to give the lecture tonight, which is going to bear upon the interrelationship between certain rules of the law taught and the availability of medicines. Sir Peter trained in biochemistry and medicine at Cambridge originally and after being foundation professor of immunology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School he came back to Cambridge as director of the MRC Molecular Immunopathology Unit and professor of immunology. Though he retired in 1999 he's still active in research and ran a laboratory till 2005 and will open a small lab in 2011. He was found a president of the UK Academy of Medical Sciences, biological secretary of the Royal Society, the president of the Royal College of Pathologists and served on UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee. And in these capacities he became involved in the ethical and social aspects of medicine. He served on the SAB of Smith Cline Beecham and was co-founder and chairman of SAB and ADRUPT, ad protect, a company spun out of SB to develop therapies aimed at modifying complement function. He tells me that he and his wife descend into caves in the course of archaeology and he's kept bees for many years so he's used to a hostile environment and being attacked from all directions by people who wish he wasn't there. So he is well able to descend as a Daniel into the lion's den or a Daniel into a den of lion, a lion into a den of Daniels as the case may be and say things which will infuriate the lawyers. Sir Peter, thank you so much for coming over to you. Thank you very much John for an over kind introduction and for inviting me to give this lecture. Unlike the founder who was a polymath and understood the law as well as medicine and unlike many of your previous speakers I feel very inadequately qualified to talk to an audience of lions or Daniels as the case may be. But I'm very grateful to John and also to David Howarth for giving me two supervisions to at least get me started. This is the 50th anniversary of the withdrawal of the drug thalidomide and what I'm going to talk about is the consequences that this had subsequently. And here's thalidomide for you. It looks entirely harmless as much as chemical formulae always do but actually it wasn't quite harmless. It was a drug that was probably developed towards the end of the wars and antidote to nerve drug poisoning but it was patented in Germany in 1954 by a chemical company called Grünenthal and who launched it in 57 as an anti-emitic, executable for women who were pregnant and treating morning sickness and it was licensed all over the world actually except in the United States where a very young inspector called Francis Kelsey who is still alive declined to license it. Not because she was worried about any side effects but because the rats and some of the experiments didn't fall asleep and she was therefore not convinced that it actually was an effective sedative. For that reason the use in the United States was very small. No studies at that time were done on pregnant animals because it was believed at that time that drugs either didn't cross the placenta or if they did wouldn't harm the fetus. That of course was a mistake. Between 57 and 61 more than 10,000 children worldwide were born with limb deformities in the United Kingdom as I show you here there were 2,000 of them of home 466 survived. Even in America it wasn't licensed there were cases because it was used in clinical trials. The most common abnormality and I decided I wouldn't show you a picture is fochamelia which is absence of the growth of the limbs. This was probably the greatest disaster concerning drugs that there's ever been with thousands of people. I do point out to you on the side that compared with the effect of withdrawal in 1972 of DDT as a pesticide it fades into insignificance because that actually caused millions of deaths from malaria since there was no substitute for it. There are many people who believe that Rachel Carson, the environmental campaigner and William Rickleshouse who was the head of the EPA in America who agreed to ban it may have between them with the best interest in the world have actually killed more people than Pol Pot did. But this is a bit outside our story today. Thalidomide has actually not disappeared. It's actually a very good drug. It's now used for quite different purposes. It's used for treating a form of leprosy and it's used for treating a form of blood cancer called multiple myeloma and it and its analogs are still in use. It's a rather sad story that in Brazil where there is quite a lot of erythema in a dose of leprosy in spite of the fact that it is known that it causes fetal abnormalities there have still been cases of fochamelia because it is so difficult actually to control whether women who are being treated become pregnant or not. So what happened? Well, first thing that happened was that all drugs are now tested for effects on the fetus, teratogenicity and that certainly is a good thing. In this instance it was also perfectly appropriate that people should be paid compensation because fochamelia doesn't otherwise occur at least only with huge rarity and therefore a direct cause between taking the drug and having the abnormality is probably true. I understand that parts of the world, including here, there are still campaigns about the nature of this compensation going on. Subsequently there was another major consequence which I'm really going to talk about which is that the procedures for licensing drugs became very much more rigorous, took much longer and became increasingly expensive and I'll show you data about this. I'll give you a little quotation here from your active pointing out that it was a response to this thalidomide disaster that caused the first European directive about this. And the second and possibly even more difficult to deal with consequence is that the public tolerance of risk with regard to prescribed medicines became almost zero and became totally unrealistic because it must be pointed out. Without any doubt that any drug that has any pharmacological action can also have side effects. There is no drug and never has been that is absolutely safe and of course we use drugs all of us like aspirin which if they were to be licensed nowadays would certainly be refused a license because they are much too dangerous giving rise to gastrointestinal bleeding and quite appreciable numbers of people and they would never have got onto the market. I'll come back to the question of herbal medicines a bit later. So putting a little few figures on that I'm going to show you a few slides about actual figures. It now takes more than 10 years probably and on average costs more than a billion dollars taking into account failures of drugs that are withdrawn to take a new drug from discovery to market. That is quite a lot of money. One of the consequences of this is it's quite impossible for academic departments or small biotech companies to take a drug from discovery to market. This can only be done by large farmer who has the resources to deal with this and that isn't a tremendously good idea because large farmer which has major responsibilities to develop things may not be that interested in doing things that are fairly high risk. And which if it could be done more cheaply and more innovatively could be done much better by small companies. If you compare drug development with new developments for the internet which are largely produced initially by very small companies and where it's gone terribly fast you'll see the difference. And it's also led to the fact that companies tend to concentrate either on diseases that are very common where they can make blockbuster drugs and this causes a lot of metuism in drug development and not to deal with diseases of intermediate frequency. Very rare diseases are subject to separate legislation, the so-called orphan drug legislation, which makes them a lot easier to deal with. But the ones in between tend to get neglected, which includes actually. There's quite an interesting story. My own field is the complement field and we've been trying, as Don mentioned, to develop complement therapeutics for donkey's ears. And nobody was ever very interested because all the diseases we were interested in were pretty uncommon. A few years ago it became apparent that age-related macular degeneration is in fact largely due to abnormalities of complement which had not been suspected. And that of course is very common. That has a potential audience or client-ship of millions and millions of people. And now companies are getting seriously interested in this again so that it makes a big difference. And then the other thing we're going to talk about is litigation. It's become a habit to sue drug companies for harm from side effects. And that also has a very bad effect on drug costs and also, as I will tell you, has other highly undesirable side effects which will come to them. And these of course were not intended consequences. These were unintended consequences. And I thought I might just bring to your attention the origin of the law of unintended consequences. This is Robert Merton. He lived till about 2000 but after having written this paper in 1936 he always intended to write a book about it but never did. So it's more or less still there. His son actually won the Nobel Prize for Economics afterwards. And he says it's often cited rarely defined as actions of people especially government always have effects that are unintesperate or unintended. And he gives five sources, ignorance and error, which nearly always occur. The imperious immediacy of interest that counts for the problems we're having with the current reforms of the National Health Service. Basic values. Well an interesting example of that is the European physical agents directive which restricted the amount of irradiation that people could be exposed to. And therefore if implemented would have brought an end to all medical magnetic resonance imaging which exposes people to more than this amount of irradiation. And when this was pointed out to the director of worker protection in the EU she said that didn't matter. All workers are entitled to equal protection. A statement of quite unparalleled anonymity since the first consequence would be the abolition of the fire service followed shortly afterwards by the police and all of medicine. So that is the imperious immediacy of interest. Basic values. Yes. Basic value sorry we've done the self-defeating prediction. Yes there's another good example of that and that is waiting time targets in medicine because they believe that this will mean that people have seen more quickly. In fact of course if you impose waiting times on doctor surgeries you see fewer patients every time because in order that people don't have to wait longer you actually book fewer people in. So the effect actually is the exact opposite of what's intended. However this is all words this I recommend to all of you is the statement of the law of unintended consequences that actually says it all. This is a cartoon by Mike Walsh. The line at the bottom actually I add it when I gave a copy of this to Brian Mawini when he came to dinner instead of Virginia Bottomley who was then Secretary of State of the College of Pathologists. I thought perhaps he wouldn't understand it. He certainly wasn't amused and said he'd never been called a frog before. And I bit my lip very hard and refrained from saying what I say now which is minister you're not the frog that's the health service you are the princess's lady in waiting. If I make that in it's a small prince that's at the back and says it seems such a pity because it's not frog because they're really terrific. Yes I'm sorry if you can't read that that's right. And this is the princess and that's yes that's the prince who's just drowned because he can no longer swim. Yes thank you John I didn't realize this. But every every decision maker should have a copy of this hanging in his or her room. Now to come to the actual problems the problem of drug development as I say this applies to prescribed drugs alternative and herbal medicines are largely exempt from regulations. Although it has to be confessed the MHRA which is the Medicine Healthcare Regulatory Authority has recently tried to produce a regimen for homeopathic medicines which since they are only water is actually extremely difficult to do. But the tension of regulation is to ensure purity and consistency. That is very important and never applies to herbal medicines they never the same thing consistently studies of metabolism and clearance. Animal studies safety and efficacy safety and efficacy studies in man. And there is no dispute that these are necessary. If you don't have these there's a great danger of people being given things that are really of no value and this is vital importance to protect the public. And the process of this given briefly this is from NICE which is the National Institute of Clinical Excellence Excellence and I give you what MHRA and NICE mean here. This is very briefly the life cycle of a medicine. Somebody discovers it in some way we can't discuss there are many ways in which people decide things do things which may be useful in medicine. This is then explored further to see if it can be applied to human medicine. This is what's called translational research and then one starts having to do studies of efficacy and safety. And when these are being completed the drug is licensed gets authority to be sold to then manufactured and distributed and clinically used. But bear in mind that appraisal occurs here. I'll show you in the next slide experiments on how best to use the drugs go on forever after licensing. Licensing is not the end it's the beginning. And to put it in a slightly more formal phrase now this is by courtesy of Kent Woods who is the chief CEO of the MHRA. You begin with discovery research you go on to this preclinical development biological testing pharmacological screening half lives and then you have three phases of clinical testing. Phase one is done usually on normal subjects. There are exceptions to this. I mean highly toxic cancer drugs are never tested on normal subjects. But in general they're tested on normal subjects to see that they're safe. A slightly bigger phase two style is then done for efficacy which of course is done on people who have this illness you're interested in. So you can see that it does any good either against placebo or against best available treatment. And up to there it can be done by fairly small companies. These are fairly small trials and then you go on to what are now these huge phase three trials to look at efficacy and much more detail and to look at rarer side effects. And phase three trials comprise more than half of the total cost of developing a drug. They are then reviewed by the MHRA and then you get licensing or not as the case may be and then post marketing development where you continue to do controlled trials. To see how to use drugs better and where they may be used for new indications. Some drugs do worse when you release them than you expect others occasionally do startling and dramatically better. Aspirin was found a hundred years after it was introduced to be very effective in preventing colon cancer. Statins which many of us take to lower cholesterol actually have a far larger effect on cardiovascular mortality and cholesterol lowering effects can explain and the probably anti inflammatory. Otherwise quite often effects are less good. One of the reasons for that of course is that no trial population is ever representative of the population which finally takes the drug. Not least because their people are willing to take part in trials which is already a highly selective characteristic. And they also made sure that they actually take their medicines which of course a lot of people don't. Now the consequence of this and I'll show you quickly some figures to alarm you. This is from the Boston Consulting Group a lot of these things from the states. And this is the cost per molecule that comes to market taking into account the failures. And you can see that this is going up exponentially in an entirely alarming fashion. So that they at the present time they think it's about 2.3 billion dollars to bring a drug to market. That's even higher than the figure I quoted earlier. And these are all modeled figures so you must take them all with a slight grain of scepticism. And they predict this is going to go up to 3.8 billion by 2015. Who is going to pay for that is mysterious. This is putting it another way and it's from a different research group. And I'm very grateful to a gentleman from Roche whose name I've forgotten Dr. Richard Peck who very kindly sent me these. The NME is a new medical entities and this is per billion dollars spent. And this is the number of new drugs that come to market at this expenditure. And you can see they've drawn a line right through it. But actually it's fairly stable until thalidomide when it suddenly begins to decline in a rather alarming fashion. And it's continued to decline ever since. And this is structure of DNA. This is when molecular engineering starts. This is when human insulin is first made, genome product, dolly. Tremendous improvements in the basic science and a huge reduction in R&D productivity. And here when the FDA has a new law which allows them to charge drug companies for doing their investigation. So they had some more people to do it and they got a bit faster. But it's temporary and it's still going down. And that is actually also extremely alarming. And this particular group have identified three causes for this. The first one is the one that's of interest to us. The cautious regulator problem, which I'll come back to. The better than the Beatles problem sounds rather nice. That's a way of saying that all the easy drugs have already been made and what's left is much more difficult. I'm not sure that's true. The rational design fallacy, I don't think it's a fallacy at all. It is again quite common that when things appear such as the idea that you can design drugs rationally from the underlying biochemistry everybody thinks wow. Five years time, no drugs are going to be made by any other method. And that's never the case. These things are very slow. And in the first 20 years of rational design, the only rational design drugs ever made were the neuraminidase inhibitors used to treat flu, which are useful but were nevertheless unique at that time. But it's coming. But the cautious regulator problem is what concerns us here. And this is their definition of it, the cumulative ratchet-like effect of the regulator's low risk tolerance. Each sin by the industry, lovely term, or genuine drug misfortune tightens the ratchets and few events ever loosen it. In fact, what drives the caution of the FDA is fear of being phoned by congressmen, which apparently happens all the time. And they are driven to ever greater caution by fear of Congress. The amount of air I think personally is driven less by fear of MPs than by fear of the tabloid press. I haven't given you any examples, but you will all have seen plenty. Drug scares make the front page of tabloid press as much as you like. Now, this is some data about, again from America, on cancer drugs at launch, how much they cost per month. And you can see that's going up exponentially as well. So they did now cost something like 7,000 US dollars at 2,007 prices for a month's treatment compared with about 500 recently as the 1980s. And this is some British data. This is from NICE. And so Michael Rowland sent me this, who is the chair of NICE, shows the huge difference in development costs between different drugs. And this is expressed in actually a much better way. This is the eventual incremental cost per quality. Qualies are quality-adjusted life years, which is actually what people should be looking at. In other words, how much good do you actually do with the drugs? What is how many quality-adjusted life years do you get per dollar? And you can see with some drugs the amount of dollars you need, over 100,000 dollars, that is largely unaffordable. I can tell you the figure for developing vaccines in the United Kingdom and the Department of Health uses is 30,000 pounds per quality. So, you know, this is getting totally out of the region. On the other hand, some drugs are very good value. And I just want to say a word or two about this drug, Rituximab. Because that was developed in a rather unusual way and is of some interest. Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody against anantogen found on lymphocytes. And this was developed by a physician in Seattle, the original monoclonal antibody, to treat his father's B-cell lymphoma, which he did, as I'll show you in a minute, without any regulatory approval because you don't need any. And when this was found to work, it was then sold to a drug company who made, humanized it, and IDEC then made it and released it for treating B-cell lymphomas. And then, lo and behold, I'm treating, I hate David Jane. There's so much more about this than I do that it embarrasses me to say so. It turned out to be immensely useful in rheumatoid arthritis and in lupus and in vasculitis. I'm quite unexpected. It's actually hugely successful and important drug. And it probably would never have got there as quickly as it did except for this invaluable exception to all the rules, which is the name, patient exemption. The legal statement is in paragraph one, interpretation for medical profession, is in the other paragraph which allows a doctor in good standing acting in good faith with therapeutic intent to treat his own patients who have given their informed consent with anything, including things he's made himself without asking anybody. And to give you a little example in Anbrox, we have for the last quarter century or more been making, harvesting our own wasp venom. And when we started this, there was no commercial wasp venom for desensitising people available there now is. Product is much worse than ours, much dirtier, but much more expensive. And we collect this from wasps nests, the pharmacy still doesn't sterilise it, and we inject it into patients, our own patients. And we have been assured we can do this forever. And it has never been tested for toxicity. I mean, we know wasp venom is toxic. We know its effects on humans when they get stung by wasps.  And this you're allowed to do. If we wanted to sell it, we would have to go through all this room alone. And then it would take years and years and years and cost a fortune. But this is terribly important in patient exemption and vitally needs protecting from interference from Europe where it's always in some danger. This is just to point out to you that even the richest countries are not going to be able to afford this. This is comparing gross national product with health expenditure in dollars. And you can see that even in countries with the highest GDP, United States presumably at the top there and others, the expenditure on health care expenditure is reaching figures that are really almost important. They don't sound huge, but of course this is per person, including all the healthy people. That actually is becoming extremely expensive. If you multiply this by the millions of the population, you'll realise that this becomes to a huge figure of the part of the GDP. Now, the remedies. Now, it is the 10th anniversary of my starting to campaign on this. And the first, I actually like this, I thought I would show the lawyers a slide at the beginning of how the law keeps the city. This is an article by my friend Mike Hanlon who is a journalist which he wrote largely at my instigation. And he writes terribly well, but we can't go all through this. But the points he's making, all the ones we actually want to make, he says that while there have been tremendous scientific advances, its development has been very slow and this is due to the new pound obsession with 100% safety and the growing law's role of lawyers and litigation. So it's all your fault. I said that the regimen for drug approvals imposes very high costs for the few life saved, which I would still say now. And mindful of thalidomide, it now exists and tests so rigorous that the introduction of new product can take a long time and be very expensive. And the example he gave here, which is also worth exploring a little bit is a drug called opron, which was a drug at that time for treating rheumatoid arthritis, very effective painkiller. It did give rise to side effects and it could cause mortality and elderly people particularly if they exposed themselves to light. And because it'd been rather unfortunately advertised, it was simply withdrawn. And the interesting story is that the pharmacist at Edinburgh, who had rheumatoid arthritis when it was withdrawn, took the whole supply home. So she at least could continue to take it, she knew the risks and actually it was an extremely effective drug. It isn't any longer than a much better drug. And finally, this business fueling all this precaution as the fear of litigation, which I'm going to talk about in a moment, and he says already patients who willingly took part of trials and drugs to combat AIDS are starting to see side effects. This lovely phrase of his when the lawyers start to circle, disclaimer signatures are worth far less than the paper they are scrolled on. And the final point, which I hadn't highlighted but verse their word about, we took this up with the Department of Health. And one of the people said yes of course in theory they approved fewer people dying rather than more people. But actually if one of the fewer people happened to be your mother they wouldn't see it like that. And I thought that was a deeply shocking remark for somebody who makes public policy to make actually. Well five years ago David Cooksian, a report he wrote for the government actually made much the same points. Again he, this is, he just said the regulations are too complicated and health technology assessment happens too late. He made some firm suggestions that should be earlier conditional licensing of drugs and the use of the NHS information programs should be used to assess emergency side effects and efficacy over longer periods. In other words it should be done post marketing. It's quite interesting that although some of the Cooksian report was implemented, this part of it was totally ignored and no action was taken by the government of any kind about this. And at the time still it was unpopular. I remember being invited by Alastair Brackenridge to a meeting about these Cooksian proposals. And he said he was asking, he was the only person, I was the only person he'd met at that time, we actually agreed with Cooksian. Time has changed, it's an idea whose time has come. This is much more recently, this is from an American source, not a source I actually approve of. This is somewhat right politically unsatisfactory think tank. But what he says is quite right. What he says there should be more choices and better health and one should be free to choose experimental drugs. And he says it's another question of reforming the federal drugs agency. There should be a dual system where patients who wish to can take drugs much earlier. And what he actually proposes is very much what I'm proposing, which is, the slide is now familiar to you, that patients at the end of phase two should be allowed to take the drugs if they wish to. And curiously enough, only half an hour before I came out today, there appeared an item on the scientists website reporting from Bloomberg News 48 hours ago that an American senator is proposing to the American Congress, lady called Kay Hagan, to get a faster approval for drugs, especially for rare diseases rather than common ones, to get this through the American Congress in the near future. So it will come, one hopes. So what we're proposing is the abolition of phase three trials. It would cut both time to market and cost by about half. It would encourage companies, as I've said, to develop drugs for less common diseases and allow far more companies to do this. Post-marketing surveillance would be used for monitoring both efficacy and side effects. The UK is an extremely good place to do this because there are now growingly efficient information systems and again some of my medical colleagues may laugh at this because there's been a frightful problem with the NHS information technology, but it is getting better and there will be a database which will allow efficacy as well as side effects to be monitored. So one doesn't need to put anything very new in place for this and trials to improve the use of drugs will of course continue after licensing. Some drugs will fail after licensing, some already do and some unproceed side effects occur. That also happens. The frequency of side effects at phase three trials takes it from about one in a hundred to one in a thousand. Things that occur much less than one in a thousand you're very likely not to pick up anyway except post-marketing surveillance. The real question is whether phase three trials actually save any lives at all. In other words whether the number of people who come to harm by not having the drug for many years when it could work actually outweighs the side effects that you're preventing by phase three trials. And that is something which it would be interesting to get data on. I've put it here in slightly simpler terms but it's important for this audience because what one wants is that after phase two trials remedies should be made along to those who want them, who've be given all the information providing they can waive the right to sue in a form that will stand up to the law and will also agree to participate fully in surveillance. They'll also have to recognise that no remedy is ever drug free and the point I've just made to you is that one might then actually be able to decide whether phase three trials have a positive or negative effect on calliers and the guess is it has a negative effect. We're actually hoping to have some data for you from the Institute of Arthymology about how many people have gone blind because it took so long to license VAJ inhibitors for the late stages of macular degeneration but they're not yet available. So how would we do this? Would itself need to be trialled? You wouldn't, the way that politicians love, do it all over immediately, all over the country for every drug. It would need to be trialled to see how it worked. The potential patients would be given all the information and would be explained the risks of uncertainty. They would then sign an indemnity and here is the problem that I've learnt about from my colleague. This conflicts with the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and of the European Directive on Product Liability and this is a problem for you lot to sort out. Here's the Consumer Protection Act. I apologise. I couldn't get rid of this blueness from Wikipedia. I was interested to find that this was the first time that a European Directive had been directly put into English law. That introduced strict liability which was new. The main criminal offence of giving misleading prices that doesn't interest us particularly here. It was the first time that a European Directive had been implemented. Not a good start. The Consumer Protection Act and I thank David Houth for these explanations is that the safety of the product is not such as persons generally entitled to expect. The court must take into account warnings with respect to doing or refraining from doing anything with or in relation to the product. I do love legal language. This means that although it's not possible to exclude liability by notice or contract, i.e. you agree that you can't see us if this goes wrong, which is what is needed, it is possible to affect the level of safety persons generally entitled to expect by giving suitably clear warnings about the risks. Now there is this case which apparently is still in force which said that people are not entitled to expect absolute safety in all circumstances, which is true and helpful. There can still be liability even when the level of safety they do expect is in fact physically impossible. That is actually a totally meaningless statement when you think about it. It doesn't mean anything. But the third statement is much worse. It says that risk-benefit calculations don't count and it doesn't matter that nothing could have been done to make the product safer. That is totally mad. It is totally mad because risk-benefit is at the centre of all medical decisions. Whenever a doctor is confronted with a patient and has to make up his mind, he takes risk-benefit ratios into consideration and sometimes costs benefit as well. This is absolutely essential and to say that it doesn't matter with regard to drug toxicity is simply crazy. It's also important because it allows consideration of public as well as individual benefit. There's a utilitarian aspect to it, very important with regard to vaccination. Again, David pointed out to me that risk-benefit now is a standard practice in the tort of negligence and judging reasonableness. That includes benefit to others. He says the case laws contain the idea for more than 60 years and were somewhat pointlessly repeated in the statute in 2006. One of the central problems of strict liability is that it fails to take account of positive externalities with all the things we're talking about. In other words, it really is not reasonable that strict liability is applied to this at all. It's not appropriate. Nevertheless, drug regulation aims or claims, whatever you wish, to achieve favourable risk-benefit and cost-benefit ratios. That's why we have NICE. We've set up a whole organisation to look at this. In practice, however, it's a past fiction. The real concern, particularly in the States, but increasingly here, is actually fear of litigation. The public, at any rate, those who write on blogs, because I've been actually looking at this on websites, enthusiastically support suing drug companies for anything under the sun. They do not realise that the person who pays the damages is not the drug companies, it's the consumers, because these damages are simply added to the cost of drugs. Drug companies have to make a profit. This is just written into the expenses, both the damages and the lawyer's fees are written into the drug prices. This, therefore, is not a public good. Litigation is also unfair because it compensates only where fault can be shown. I point out to you, in many of these statistical side effects, you don't actually know whether the drug is at fault. So somebody who has a heart attack because they think it's due to a drug may get a lot of compensation, or he also has a heart attack, it's nothing at all. I will come back to this other question of whether there are better ways of doing this. What I'm not saying is that where people are harmed by negligence in the conventional sense of the word, not taught or knitted, fraud, deceit or other bad things, they should certainly be expected to be held to account. People who advertise drugs improperly should be fine. There's no doubt about it. I've been very unfortunate after those of people being deceitful about drugs, and there's no doubt that the law has an important role there. But these are all relatively minor cases. What most litigation is based on are statistical side effects. You have a drug, and I'll give you a couple of examples in a moment, where your likelihood of having some event, getting diabetes, having a heart attack, various other things, is increased by some percentage, usually quite small. It can never be shown in any individual case that this is causal, because these are just statistical side effects. This has become the main feeding ground of class actions against drug companies, and it probably is unjust. It probably has no proper justification, and it certainly does great harm to health care. I'll give you a couple of examples. Both of British drug companies. AstraZeneca have an antipsychotic called Cerroquel, which is quite effective, and that is claimed to cause diabetes and obesity. Very difficult to establish in a population which has lots of obesity and diabetes anyway. When this was tested in court in the United States, it was actually ruled against. The jury did not consider that the claim was worthy, and various other cases had also been dismissed in the States. Nevertheless, a few months later AstraZeneca settled class actions from another 17,500 patients and paid about $198 million as damages in this class action suit. Money which will undoubtedly be recovered in the cost of drugs. The other example, perhaps even more interesting, because it's a bit more difficult, is Rosiglitazone or Avandia, which is a well-known anti-diabetic drug. It belongs to a class of drugs known as PPygamera activators, which increase insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes, an important thing to do. That is claimed to increase art attacks and gynaen things, and compared particularly with another drug on the market, which is very similar, which is said to do this less. Actually there are some figures here for those who like the odds ratio for the composite harm of acute myocardial infarctional stroke, heart failure, or all cause mortality in patients 65 years or older was 1.18. That is not a great deal. It corresponds to somewhere between 1.5 and 2 extra events per 100 person years of treatment. Now at the age of 65, 100 person years of treatment is quite a lot. You're dealing with a population who are going to die rather sooner than that. Pyroglytazone is slightly safer with regard to the CVS events, but has also its own problem that there is some association with bladder cancer. They are both valuable drugs in controlling type 2 diabetes, and it's not immediately clear that the drugs one could use to replace them wouldn't have equally unfortunate effects. But in February this year GSK paid 250 million pounds to settle 5,500 suits at average of $46,000 per pletif. They've paid that before, so they've paid a total of $770 million for something which probably has no real merit in it at all. I regard this as the equivalent of paying hostage takers actually. It just encourages this unfortunate practice, and it is unfortunate. Just have a look at this for example. This is from an American website. This is sort of ambulance chasing lawyer. They're actually seeking these patients. They advertise in the public to find patients who would like to take part in these class actions so that they can make a lot of money out of it too. And just for good reason they're doing the other one for bladder cancer as well. All cases investigated with no fees unless recovery is obtained. Well, that's America, but I think this is even worse. I was sent an email with this just the other day. This is somebody who wishes me to invest in a fund which is going to pay me a high lot of interest by running class actions. I think this is totally immoral. They're hoping to raise 5 million pounds. They guarantee a fixed rate of 8% or 9% if you have annual income. And they're 25% of each winning case is net profits. I'm actually quite surprised that this is still legal. It's certainly immoral, and that's in this country. The Legal Services Commission comes out of it slightly better. This is a class action against Senefi Pasta, a French company about sodium valprate, which is a very valuable anti-epileptic drug that's also claimed to cause birth defects. The Legal Services Commission spent 3 million pounds on a class action which never came to conclusion and then withdrew it because they were advised by council that there was no prospect of success. The second thing that plenty of lawyers were not at all pleased with that not because the battle in court was lost, was continuing with too great a financial risk for the claimants. Also concerned about legal aid funding for group actions to ensure proper access to justice for individuals who suffer serious drug-induced injuries. They would say that, wouldn't they? But it isn't just money. The litigation ourselves can also kill. And this is perhaps the most tragic case of all, and this is the Wyeth Rhetivirus vaccine. Wyeth made a Rhetivirus vaccine in 1998. It's a good vaccine, quite effective. Against this virus which causes 40% of all severe diarrheal diseases all over the world. In the west, of course, it doesn't usually kill people, though it can send them into hospital at a time. In Africa, this is a major cause of death, as I'll show you in a moment. It has a side effect. It causes inter-susception where a bit of gut folds itself into the next bit of gut because the lymphoid tissue in the gut has swollen. It happens in children at times. Anyway, it's not usually lethal, but it was found to be a social increased incidence. I've given the higher estimate here, one in 10,000, others say one in 16,000 extra cases. Wyeth then withdrew the vaccine in the United States because it felt that it might not be acceptable because the disease isn't that safe. On legal advice, I am told, they withdrew it worldwide because they've told they would certainly get sued if they've withdrawn it in the United States and continue to use it in the third world. Although the risk-benefit ratio is totally different. New vaccines took eight or more years to evolve. Merck had a new one in 2006 and GSK in 2008, which give a little bit less. Well, they do give less, probably about 150,000 extra cases, but they also give them a slightly different time. Between 1999 and 2006, approximately 3 million children died the rotavirus infection in Africa. That's really quite scandals. Just to give you some idea about childhood deaths less than five. This is Africa. This is all of Europe. This is South Asia. There's almost none you see here. This is the diarrhea bit. You see the big yellow one near natal causes, which are quite different. Birth increases and things. Padawnia is slightly more common, but it's a huge cause of death. About 3 million children may have died unnecessarily. They wouldn't all have been vaccinated once, but of course the new vaccines will take time to come in too. So if there were no other reason for doing something about this, this is one of them. The reason for all this is an unfortunate practice in the law that they recognise a distinction between harm caused by action and harm caused by inaction. This doesn't just apply to vaccines, which we are talking about, but also active and passive euthanasia. You can't give people drugs to help them on their way, but you can starve them or refuse to give them drugs. Ethically, whether there is a difference between omission and omission in doing harm is very contentious, and you can read cases on both sides. I wouldn't wish to take a strong course on this, particularly because I know that Neil believes there is a difference. But in the context of a doctor's duty of care to patients, I think there is no doubt that there is no difference. We did once have a vote of this in a medical meeting, and at least 90% of the people present agreed. In this particular context, to have this distinction is meaningless. I will take the opportunity of quoting to you from one of your late colleagues. Lord Donaldson, who wrote a letter to The Times in 1974, which is worth quoting, says, What has become of the age-old medical commandment thou shalt not kill but needs not strive efficiently to keep alive? What's happened to the well-known distinction between boredom, treatment, et cetera, et cetera? I wrote an answer at the time that didn't publish it, so you are seeing it here. Lord Donaldson is wrong in writing thou shalt not kill but needs not strive efficiently to keep alive is an age-old medical commandment. It is neither. It's neither old and certainly not a medical commandment. It's a quotation from Arthur Clough's clergyman and the Victorian poet who wrote very memorable poems. Deeply ironic rendering of the Ten Commandments known as the latest decilog. And if you don't believe that that is meant to ironically try the next two couplets, thou shalt not steal an empty feet when it's so lucrative to cheat. Thou shalt not covet, but tradition approves all forms of competition. He goes through all ten of the Ten Commandments this way. And though I didn't know Clough, I imagine he would be mortified to have this used as a legal precept for how to treat people. So what do we do? I think, I do hope we'll take a list with you, you should require proof of direct causality before compensation is due. It shouldn't be just on the basis of statistical association. No win, no fear arrangements will really be abolished as they once were. They do encourage things like people who set up these funds for actually profiting out of this. Indemnities should be made legally binding and I understand that this means abolishing strict liability and replacing it with a tort of negligence in respect of myths and so that risk benefit can become central to making decisions as is entirely sensible. And try to abolish at least in part the distinction between harm caused by commission and omission. And finally, and this is slightly different and more for our government than its lawyers, is to ensure the NHS is adequately financed to provide necessarily care for all, including those who suffer dried effects, but even those where there's nobody to be blamed. And it is just worth pointing out that a lot of this litigation culture is imported from the United States. And in the United States the situation really is totally different. Having no national health service and a large part of the population are not adequately insured, the financial consequences of illness are a great disaster and the attempt to try to recoup this whenever you can, even if it does harm on the side, is more understandable than it is here and we're in a much better position to do without this.  And I thank you for your attention.


Hello and welcome to the International Lady Roundup by People's Dispatch, where we bring you major news developments from across the world, our headlock. California regulatory body rules that Uber and Lyft drivers are to be declared as employees. Alba meeting reaffirms commitment for joint efforts against the pandemic. Israeli Supreme Court strikes down legislation that legalized illegal settlements in Palestine. Now, first story in a major victory for gig economy workers, California's transport regulatory body ruled that drivers working in the right hailing services like Uber and Lyft are to be deemed as employees. The ruling came as part of an order by the California Public Utilities Commission dated June 9th, which is published on Wednesday. It draws from the recently passed legislation by the state, AB5. The 18-page order, first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, states that all drivers who are working in water classified as transportation networking companies, or TNCs, are presumed to be employees. AB5 was passed by the Californian state legislature in September 2019 and came into effect on January 1st, 2020. The legislation was passed to implement a 2018 judgment by the California state Supreme Court. The law puts in practice what is called the ABC test. This was first outlined in a 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court judgment to distinguish between a contractor and an employee. App-based right hailing companies have insisted that the drivers are contractors. This helps them avoid labor regulations. They have lobbied against legislation that might change the status quo, arguing that it will affect their profitability. In the meanwhile, trade unions and workers' movements for fighting for the ABC test and other labor protections for gig economy workers hailed the AB5 as a model legislation for the rest of the country. Currently, there is a lawsuit by Lyft drivers at a federal court arguing in favor of deeming gig workers as employees of their respective companies. Our next segment is an update from the protests in the US. We bring you a short feature from our friends at Breakthrough News on the impact of the protests in the country that are demanding justice for George Floyd and an inter-systemic racism. Do watch and subscribe to Breakthrough News, an independent media organization in the US which brings to you the struggles and demands of the working class and people's movement. In our next story, the member countries of the Alba TCP held a high-level virtual conference to address the post-pandemic economic situation on June 10. The meeting was called by the Bolivar Republic of Venezuela, which is a founding member of the regional integration body. The main objective of the multilateral meeting was to determine the economic weaknesses and strengths of the member countries once the health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been overcome. The conference was also aimed at forming joint strategies to face the regional and global economic challenges in the post-pandemic phase. The heads of state and prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Dominica, Canada, Nicaragua, St. Kitts and Nevis, sent Winston's ingredients to partner meeting. During the conference, the regional bloc reaffirmed their commitment to work together to fight the pandemic and support each other in revitalizing their economies. The member countries rejected the economic sanctions imposed by the US against Venezuela and Cuba and reiterated their commitment to continue demanding an end to them.  The Albert T.C.P. was formed on December 14, 2004 as a result of the strategic vision of Commander Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez in order to form a platform for the integration of Latin American and Caribbean countries. The alliance was also to counter the free trade area of the Americas, FTAA, which is promoted by the United States to impose its economic domination in the region. And finally, the Israeli Supreme Court in Wednesday struck down a 2017 law that retroactively legalized illegal settlements in occupied Palestine. The Judea and Samaria regulation law legalized close to 4,000 illegal settlements built on encroached, privately owned Palestinian lands in the West Bank. The Supreme Court had stated the implementation of the law in 2017 following an appeal against it. Deciding on the appeal, eight of the nine judges of the bench voted to repeal the law deeming it unconstitutional. The Chief Justice wrote in the panel's ruling that the law unequally infringes on the property rights of Palestinian residents while giving preference to the proprietary interests of Israeli settlers. Following the striking down of the 2017 law, Palestinian landowners will be able to file lawsuits in Israeli courts to recover their property and expel Israeli settlers. The ruling is also considered important at a time when Israel is planning to go ahead with the annexation of the decision to annex all illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank as well as the Jordan Valley. All of these illegal settlements on privately owned lands were undertaken with the full support of the Israeli government and military. In several cases, empty portions of Palestinian land in the West Bank were occupied by extremist Israeli Jewish settlers without approval from the government as well. This was despite the fact that the Palestinians who owned these lands could produce documents as far back as the Ottoman era as proof of ownership. That's all we have in this episode of the International Daily Roundup. We'll be back tomorrow with more news from around the world. Until then, keep watching People's Dispatch. We'll be back tomorrow with more news from around the world. Until then, keep watching People's Dispatch.


Personal notice, dangerous my stock and trade. If the job's too tough for you to handle, you got a job for me, George Valentine. Write full details. Standard Oil Company of California, on behalf of independent Chevron gas stations and standard stations throughout the West, invites you to let George do it. Tune on a Triangle, another adventure of George Valentine. Dear Mr. Valentine, that ad of yours gets me. No job too tough for you to handle. Well, I don't believe it. I got a tiger I'll bet you can't handle. Yeah, you read it right. A tiger. So unless you're just whistling in the wind, stick around your office tonight. Meet me around 7.30. I got a wife and kids to worry about, so don't fail me. Sign Jerry Briskins. Sign Jerry Briskins. 7.30. No, around 7.30. How many stripes on a tiger? 40, George. He's only 40 minutes late. That's not so bad. Probably hired Frank Buck instead. We make a lot of sense too, don't we? Wanna play gin rummy? Oh, why is it, Brooksy? We never get letters to tell anything. He's got a case. Why does he say so? Change his mind, maybe. Who knows? Jerry Briskins. Wanna bet he never even shows up tonight? Um, $5. I'll bet $5. Hello? Valentine is Briskins. You're late. I just want to make sure you're still in the office. I got held up. Couldn't get any of your building because of the crowds. Slow down, will you? What? What crowds? Look, just sit tight, will you? I'll be right there. Honest, I will. Sure, sure. Bring your tiger too, but what's this about? Oh, just a crowd. I don't know something going on. Placing everything, but I'll come around the back way. Hey, look, Briskins, you... Well, you owe me $5, don't you? Not yet, I don't. What are you gonna do? Jump out the window to avoid paying me? Oh, George, what's going on? I don't know. The street seems to be roped off down there. There's no fire engine. Yes, there is. One small one, see it? And they got a searchlight pointed at the door. What in the name of... Look, look, look, around there to the right. It's a woman on the ledge. She's about to scream, George. That's not all she's doing. Hey, look at the way she wobbles. They've got her in the searchlight. She's gonna... Yeah, maybe she can hear us from here. Hey! Hey, lady! Just 10 or 15 feet away. Lady, can you hear me? I'm over here. Hey, look, this way, will you? Oh, George, she sees you. She's not moving. Yeah, hello there. Now, look, keep your eyes on me, lady. Don't mind all that noise down there. Now, keep your eyes on me and just keep moving toward me. It's all right. It's all right. The ledge is wide enough for you to get here. George, she wants to jump.  Look, look, lady, nothing can be as bad as this cold wind up here. Now, come on. Easy, does it? Don't come near me. Oh, George, what can we do? Oh, brother Looney is a crook. Oh, listen, people are coming out in the hall. Man, it's liable to scare her, too. No, no, I don't think so. George, what are you doing? Get back in here. I don't get dizzy for easy, but I'm probably not as clever as you are. Oh, George, please. Yeah! Yeah, sure, that's it. Little stroll in the park. I think so, do you see? Look out, lady. Don't get to hold me. You're good-looking, too, aren't you? Only... only... Oh, it's all right, lady. Those are just firemen to the rescue in my office. That's all. Come on, now. Easy, does it? Yeah, just another step. Only I feel so... Hey, look, I got you. Oh, lady, what a time to faint. Hurry up. You can help you. I got her all right. That's it, boys. Get it. Get that picture. A talk of his. Hey, clear out of here, you guys. All right, hold on a little higher. Well, yeah, that's it. Where have I heard your voice before? Come on, Buster, give me a hand with this. My name is Frisk it here. Now, remember, boys, when you write captions, call it the Tigers of the Trapeze, World's Greatest Aerialist. World's Greatest... What are the name of... I told you I wasn't scared. Were you, darling? Huh? No, no, don't drop me. Hold me tighter. That's it. The lady fainted. Publicity. So that's it. Why, you... That's it. That's it. Get it, boys. Get the expression on his face. Wonderful, wonderful. In fact, you feel as fuzz, Dick. Now, let me go, Valentine. Let go, I said. She got plenty of money. A hundred ain't enough for you. Okay, we'll make it to. It's worth it. Press agent, five thousand bucks. Couldn't stop me from... Don't stop it, I said. I got a wife and kids.  It's a job. That's all. I got rid of... She went down to buy all the photographers a drink. Oh, she did. Bullied for her. Now, look, Valentine, you can't sue her. You just get laughed at. What's the picture? Okay, so you look a little silly in a few front pages. It's publicity, ain't it? And for you, too. She's pulled that stunt in every city she's played. You mean you pick a sucker in every town? No, no, no. They'll walk her around the building itself. You were something extra. Oh, come on. How could I resist that silly ad of yours? Hey, how about the fancy pool, huh?  Brisk in that silly face of yours. All right, all right. Pay your 250. Well, you cut it out. Ah. Wow. Bruxy, I thought you said you got rid of everybody. I am here, yeah. But I wait. Well, let me go. Go on, friend. Beat it. I wait to see you. You hold her. Huh? I follow. I am here. I see everything. Who are you? A man going crazy. Beat it, you big moose. The party's over. Go on. Get out of here. Hold it, hold it. Hold it. Hello. Your name's Fedor, ain't it? Yeah. Leave us alone. I see how this man holds her. What? In the name of heaven. I mean, Fedor's a husband, I think. Third or fourth and slipping fast. Wow, wow, wow. Husband. Another tiger, I suppose.  And don't get your tail pinched as you leave. George! Hmm. Oh. Upset about something, aren't you, Fedor? I traveled 200 miles to get here. Who are you? You said that before. Never mind. Ah. Jealous. Is that it? Didn't like the way I held it. I can see. I have heard the talk. Who are you? Well, it's his idea, you know. Yeah, yeah, that's right. This guy, this, this, uh, Jerry Briskine. He and your wife are just like that. Who? Probably a lover for all I know. So long, everybody. Oh, wait, wait. Fedor, I'm very pleased to meet you.  I'm your wife's no press agent. That's all. Keep talking, sucker. I do not understand. Neither do I, big man. But then I only met your wife tonight when he brought her here.  Talk it over with him. Uh, him? But it's... I'm sorry. I thought this guy had an accident once. Fedor, my name is Briskine. Our no press agent. That's all. Look out! No! It's dark! No! Wait a minute! Cut it out! Stop it, guys!  What's your idea? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Leave me alone. Leave you alone? What about me? He is the one. You said he is the one. He is my wife. Oh, well, it wasn't true. He just made it up. I don't know anything about your wife or about this guy who deserved to get kicked around a little. So who cares? Well, for that matter about any of this cock-eyed business. I am sorry, I said. I am sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm so tired. I travel all day.  Yeah, yeah, that's right. So, uh, good night. Palantai Fetis her husband, Estella's husband. That's her name, Estella. Only had an accident a couple of months ago. That's as I understand it. Look, look, look. I don't care who's been where. Now get out.  Please. Lisa. I love her. She's my wife. All right, sure. That's great. That's fine. Every man to his own mistake. On the telephone, she said she's too busy to see me. She's my wife. Well, take it up with Dorothy Dix. And now you say that this man... Pedro, Pedro, we've been through that. He told you it wasn't true. It's not me. It's not me. I'm a press agent, not her partner. Her partner? So? Oh, now look, both of you. Be quiet. She worked with partner now. Is that true? There is partner? Look, will you just leave me out of it, Pedro? I work for a living. No, tell me. Get your hands off him. What do I have to do? Point a gun at you, too, to get you out of here? Okay, Fountain Town. We'll leave. I'll go first. No. No, not yet. Okay, if you guys think I'm kidding... No, no, no, please. You don't have to threaten. I'm sorry. It is lonely in hospital. I'm all confused. I need help. The man's bored with you, story fader. So long, Valentina. I'll send you check in the morning. Wait, I say, Mr. Valentina, you don't have to get behind your desk like that. I don't, huh? I don't know what to do, but it would be easier with guns. Watch him! Watch him! Right off. Cut it out. Yeah, yeah. Easier with gun. Yeah, thank you. Goodbye. Put that gun back here before I... Holy, holy smoke. There is a lover, you know, and fader's got your gun. Now look what you started. Look what I started? What did you say? Somebody's laughing to get murdered. Well, brother, I should have finished this part of it earlier. I shouldn't have... All right, Bruxy, don't look at me like that. First a sucker, then a sourpuss. I know, I know. I just don't like being thrown into the middle of a three-ring circus. That's all. Not with all the animals running loose. We'll return to tonight's adventure of George Valentine in just a moment. Ever stop to think about where your motoring safety begins? It begins with the condition of your tires. One of the best ways to assure your highway safety is to have your tires properly inflated and inspected once a week at an independent chevron gas station or a standard station. Here the car sabers watch carefully for nails, glass, and other blowout makers and they find these blowout makers embedded in tires of two out of every three cars. Another reason is that a tire one-third underinflated will wear out twice as fast as it should. So, to add thousands of miles to your tires and for your safety and peace of mind on the highway, use this free car saver service once a week. If your tires haven't been inspected recently, drive in tomorrow at a standard station or independent chevron gas station where they say and mean, we take better care of your car. A press agent named Jerry Briskon gets you mixed up with a woman named Estella, a Tigris of the Trapeze world's greatest aerialist. Yes, if you happen to be George Valentine and sometimes you wish you weren't, you're picked for a sucker in a publicity stunt. The only trouble is you can't get out of it because the Tigris has a mate and he has your gun. Well, it isn't the price of a gun that bothers you. It's the thought that you may never get it back because sooner or later it may be tied up as exhibit A in a murder case. So, you decide you'd better find out about the corpse elect. Who it might be for him to... Now, part of the Mac, I can tell you that there ain't no secret. All right, this way, ladies and gentlemen, see you in a garly garly show. Have fun, all right. Ask Estella herself. She'll tell you who her boyfriend is. Today's boyfriend. Quite a man eating tiger, that girl. She's doing her act over in the main tent, huh? Yeah, great performer, lady. Great. What's the name of this part? Uh, Estella, she's got nose like iron. A picture of her walking around the outside of a building in the newspaper. You see me? It's a man of Mac. He got nausea or something. It makes him busy just to think about it. Just tell us where we can find this partner of hers. Oh, he's busy catching her naturally. That's the act. That's always been a racket. Free flips and she lands in his arms. A lucky stiff king for a day. Hey, right this way. See him shimmy and shake. His name's Farelli. Flying Farelli. Couldn't fly a kite. $60 a week bum. But big and good looking. All her assistants have been bums. She's the act. Top number in the business. But I could tell you a lot better if I could look in your tea leaves. Oh, you're doing fine, thanks. Circus must be a small world. There's something in store for you, dearie. What could it be? Just give me a chance to read your... Well, ain't that pretty? Yeah, lettuce leaf, nice and green. And so easy to read too. Mr. Fedor, he was one of her assistants once.  Always jealous like that. But a bark don't mean a bite. Her husbands don't last long, huh? Well, nothing happens to him if that's what you mean. Fedor's the only one got dropped on his head.  George, what are you driving at? Oh, it was an accident to Fedor, all right. You don't catch me gossiping about my dearest friends. No, I'm sure. You worried about something happening? Why don't you wait outside the big tent for Stella herself? Or go over there in that palace she calls a dressing trailer. I can tell from the music she'll be on in a minute. I'm not that worried, thanks. Oh, don't want to get mixed up yourself, huh? Ha-ha-ha-ha. Well, she won't even see Fedor now. All through with him.  I know he won't. Okay, thanks, lady. You fill me in. How do you know it? What's the stopping? Who reads the tea leaves? You or me? Neither one of us. The cops I already sent for. Stop it. That's quite an act she's got. Ah, even where's a tiger skin? Not much of it. George, what did you mean back there, asking people about Fedor as though you thought he's accident? Nothing, nothing, Angel. I won't question his accident.  But when you throw away all the trimmings, this is nothing but a love triangle. Check. Well, nobody'll thank us for interfering. Yeah, not even Briskine. He's on the outside. But you know, sometimes in a triangle, Bruxy, the guy who looks like a villain, is really the one who's level to come out on the short end. Oh, here we are. Come on. Well, she's not even through taking bowels yet. Look at her. Blowing kisses. Never mind. We'll deal with that. Uh-oh. Here he comes. Oh, the other part of the triangle. He doesn't stay for the applause, I guess. Uh-huh. Kind of in a hurry too. Excuse me, Mr. Farelli. Hey, wait a minute. I'm sorry, but I want to talk to you. I'm sorry. Oh, he's running, George. Got out fast, didn't he? Looked like he'd seen a ghost. I said, maybe there is something brewing out here. George, look out! So I get the gun back after all. Over the head. It was Fedor, George. You were in the way. I heard you. I heard you. I'm so happy you can hear. You can join the party. Who let you in, Lieutenant Johnson? I let myself in. George, Fedor didn't drop the gun. He just hit you and kept on running. He was chasing Farelli. There was a big homicidal nut running around loose. So who has to do the work? Me, naturally. Hey, hey, one at a time. What do you mean? You got him? Yeah, yeah, just this second. One of the boys reported. What happened? George, what happened was murder. Murder? Well, I had to take care of you first, naturally, and so I stayed with you. And you were here in the infirmary when I saw Lieutenant Johnson maybe half hour later. Sure, sure. Oh, he caught him, huh? Simple as that. Fedor shoved me out of the way and went after Farelli and got him. And now you've caught Fedor. George, it's not that simple.  What's over there? Elephant, sir. Where's Estella's party? It's not out here in the dark. Back in the trailer, George. Your dressing room. Hold it. I'll tell you later. Wow, wow, look who's here. The moose. Fedor's not saying much, sir. He can't. Neither one of them can. Sure, Farelli, too. Apparently, he came skinning over the wall in the dark of Fedor after him. All right, come on.  This is very interesting, Valentine.  Boy always brings her coffee right after her act, and there she was. Wait, wait, wait a minute. Look at these two guys. Ooh, pretty bloody. That's how we found them. Guard heard the shot. Raise Fedor's leg. They were fighting over the gun. They were fighting, period. Remember, sure, sure, they were fighting. Still added a few minutes ago. Well, it's a matter of Valentine. Don't you get it? Yeah. Yeah, I get it, all right, Johnson. It isn't simple at all. Fedor was chasing Farelli five minutes before Estella died. Now, later on, we find they've practically been killing each other. So how could either one of them have killed Estella? Pictures, I said. No pictures. It isn't good for the circus. What's the matter, Briskine, for once you don't want publicity for the tiger? Look, stop it. Well, you got a wife and kids. Get your pictures later, boys. Let's get in here. Quite a night, huh, Valentine? You should know you started it. That's why she was found, Johnson? Yeah. Okay, Sergeant. You can let those punching bags sit down. Wait a minute, somebody. I'd like to say something. Well, it speaks. Make it snappy, Farelli. He wasn't with me all the time. Huh? What's that? No, you see, I spotted him in the big tent at the end of the show. You see, one of the clowns, he told me that Fedor just found out about who I was and everything. Anyway, I see him who come after me. I know what kind of a guy he was from Estella, but he'd only catch me. I mean, well, I don't know, but it was not until the 10 or 15 minutes later that he caught up with her. You went together when she was killed. Now we're getting someplace.  Huh? Now, you listen to me. You ran, and then you skinned over a high fence to hide in that elephant enclosure. In the dark. And in the dark, he wasn't following you. But somehow, later on, he just managed to find you anyway. Lucky, maybe.  No, no, no, not that simple. A couple of nice guys. You want to try to hang it on him now, Fedor? I do not understand. Hey, this room had gone over yet? For fingerprints, sure. No prints. It's not what I meant, Johnson. Fedor, this mural sticks. Let me see. I can do it all right. All right, so it sticks. It's been shoved in too far. That's what I mean. Been slammed in. Somebody in a hurry wondering what's inside. Nothing. Jewelry. Where's jewelry? What's that? Jewelry. Bracelets around the neck and things. I'm her husband. I know that. Everybody knows that. Jewelry, huh? Pretty wealthy, wasn't she? Yeah. Hey, wait a minute, you guys. The stuff is in there.  I mean, that's why she was killed. Holy smoke. That spreads his case wide open. A robbery killing? I don't believe it. Oh, why not? Means lots of people could have done it. If these two guys were really fighting at the time, anyway... And you have got a wife and kids to worry about. What? What's the matter, Briskon? I make you nervous? Press agent. But you really admired that Estella, didn't you? What? What? Oh, wait a minute. I'll skip it. If this wasn't a robbery killing, then it was a real cold-blooded murder. Gloves so there'd be no fingerprints. It's something stolen to make it look like robbery. But then it ruled out the hotheads over here, too. Either one of them was in the mood to be cold-blooded, even if they hadn't been together at the time. A while ago, I said it was a triangle, and I still stick with it. All right, Fado, your wife was going to throw you over, wasn't she? Yeah. Yeah, she was very wealthy, a lot more than just jewelry. Yeah, but I've never seen any of it. Farelli, you were the current boyfriend. But if you had half a brain, you could see the handwriting on the wall. Even if you became the next husband, you wouldn't have lasted very long either. Nobody does. And you wouldn't have seen any of the fortune either. Say that again. Valentine, what in the name of... I'm trying to play a different tune on the triangle, that's all, Johnson. Okay, Farelli, let's get back to how Fado found you in the dark. Why you tried hiding from this monster in a place where nobody could even hear your call for help. But I don't know he was so close. I don't know he could just see me go over the fence. Then how did he know you did? How did he know where to find you? But I did see him. I was right behind him. Oh, no, he'd gone away. Come on, come on, make up your minds, boys. Fado, you used to be Estella's assistant, didn't you? What? Uh-huh, the fortune teller told me. Estella's act always used an assistant. But in my office you said, does she work with a partner now? Is it true there's a partner? Ha, fake surprise. Did he say that? So maybe yours was the act, Fado. Murderer's husband on the loose. Folks that people like me and Priskin so there'd be no doubt about it, plenty of witnesses.  Sure, an act to set this all up. Because who'd suspect two guys fighting for their lives of taking time out to sneak over here and kill a woman in cold blood? Time out, team, then back to the fight. Team? No, no, listen to me. The trying of the club, the two sides of it nobody ever suspects.  Two sides? But I hate him. He tried to kill me. Husband and lover against the wife. There's one for you, Johnson. You better find out fast to inherits that dough those guys couldn't have got their hands on any other way.  He don't mean what he...  That's it, boys. Go at it again. Sure, he's so dumb he said you did it. I did not. He did.  He said you did the actual killing. He did it himself. Well, we're all but here, Johnson. We got a ranked side seat. So we'll just wait for a decision. Then it was really Fedor who killed Estella.  Only I'd had a camera. Both of them were killy, Angel. They cooked it up together. Well, might not have happened if Mr. Briskon here... Oh, yes it would have. The publicity stunt didn't have anything to do with it. Sure, just a neat twist that they'd figured on a triangle. Yeah, that might have worked. They might have got away with it if our friend here hadn't picked me for a sucker. Got us mixed up in it. Sure, that's right. So you're not so anymore, are you? Only small kids a job, that's all. I got a wife and kids business.  My wife and kids, my wife and kids, my wife and kids. George Valentine, you stop it. Well, it's just a shame you don't say anything intelligent like that once in a while. What's the matter, darling? You cat got your tongue? Listen to the difference. In a few seconds you will hear Geiger counters measuring automobile engine wear. The engines are equipped with irradiated piston rings, which make it possible for the Geiger counters to detect where as it occurs. You will hear authentic scientific proof that new RPM motor oil cuts in half the wear rate of critical engine parts. Doubles the life of the average auto engine between major overhauls due to lubrication. First, let's listen to the Geiger counter slowly click off the low wear rate of new RPM. Now, the much faster wear rate of a premium type oil is designated by the American Petroleum Institute. Now, new RPM again. You have just heard Geiger counters clicking off the scientific proof that new RPM motor oil is years ahead. Yes, years ahead. New RPM doubles engine life between major overhauls due to lubrication. Try it. Sold with a money-back guarantee of satisfaction at independent chevron gas stations and standard stations. Where they say and mean, we take better care of your car. Tonight's adventure of George Valentine has been brought to you by Standard Oil Company of California on behalf of independent chevron gas stations and standard stations throughout the west. Robert Bailey is starred as George with Virginia Greg as Brooksy. Let George Do It is written by David Victor and Jackson Gillis and directed by Don Clark. Ken Christie is Lieutenant Johnson. Anthony Barrett was heard as Briskon. Lillian Bayef as Estella. Bill Conrad as Fedor. Jack Krushan as Forelli. And Noreen Gamil as the Gypsy. The music is composed and presented by Eddie Dunstetter. Your announcer, John Heaston. Listen again next week, same time, same station to Let George Do It. Let George Do It is heard overseas through the worldwide facilities of the Armed Forces Radio Service. This is the Mutual Don Lee Broadcasting System.


So the training that we've conducted over the last month in Morocco consists of humanitarian mind action level two and what that means is we are taking a fundamental understanding of explosive ordinance disposal and applying it as a managerial skill set. So the gentlemen in charge like the lieutenants or other officers and senior staff and COs are actually applying their knowledge in an overall scenario or situationally based practical application exercises allowing them to expand their basis of understanding as well as leading their fellow military members in the scenarios that we come up with. It's one thing to know that you can do something but through several iterations of training others to do the exact same thing we actually become better at our jobs in that way. Being able to establish that fundamental understanding of explosive ordinance disposable principles and actually apply it at the user level or the tactical level is the end goal here and with that we're also developing a cadre staff which is our other main goal to actually continue this program and create a center of excellence within Morocco to own this program and take it into the future.