It's Wednesday. It's April the 20th. It's 11 o'clock. It's time for What Now, America? I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is Public Transportation, Mask or No Mask. We had a federal judge here recently, Catherine Mazzell from Florida. Rather a judge that hasn't really tried a whole lot of cases. And she is, thank you, Cynthia. I guess that's zero. She has struck down the mask mandate, the federal mask mandate. And that has great implications for this new BA2 variant that's creeping its way into every state of the United States. And to complicate matters, now there's confusion. And to what degree of confusion will take place is only up to a matter of time. I know that the Department of Justice may appeal this ruling from Catherine Mazzell. But they're waiting for the CDC for more information. In the meantime, we will grow more confused and indecisive of when to wear a mask or when not to wear a mask. So that is the topic of the day. I'd like to introduce our guests, Jay Fiedel and Cynthia, Lee Sinclair. Good morning. Good morning, Tim. Good morning, Cynthia. Hey, let's tackle this confusing topic because here we are. Do we wear a mask? Do we not wear a mask? I know that the Department of Transportation has on some flights, they were not seeing mask mandatory requirements. And then they lifted them in midair. And to the videos that you saw of passengers cheering, I'm sure that not all passengers were cheering, particularly those that were over 65 years old for those are immune compromised. Maybe they're not cheering. Jay, what's your opinion about what we're seeing right now where passengers and public transportation don't know whether or not they should wear a mask or to wear a mask? That was really weird when they cheered. I think that it demonstrates that the country is all screwed up about this mask business. And it also demonstrates that Trump is still alive and well. It's not only his legacy, it's his active actions right now. You heard on Rachel Maddow that he's been behind all these absurd objections to Biden's nominees being considered by the Senate, not just Katanji Brown Jackson, but others that have been rejected. And Trump has been behind that, been funding research and efforts to write them up to make them look bad. And so this is kind of another example. This is his legacy. The youngest federal judge in the country, Cynthia said before the show that she hasn't tried any cases. The American Bar Association found her unqualified to serve as a United States district judge. And I accept their word. They're conservative themselves. They're not particularly liberal organization. And when they find them unqualified, appointed by Trump, that's really serious. In any event, here's this unqualified judge and she makes a nationwide ruling. She didn't have to make a nationwide ruling. Unconditional nationwide ruling to stop the mask mandate. It was playing right into Trump's hands, right into the QAnon, right into all the conspiracy guys, right into the conservatives around the country, the base. The base won that. I can see Trump dancing since then about what this judge did. She was doing his work for him. And that's the legacy I'm talking about. He's active. He's alive and well. We're probably not spending enough time watching him because he's doing this kind of stuff. As for the people in the planes that cheered, I really wonder whether that was good coverage. Because as you said, Tim, a lot of the people in the planes would not have cheered. I would not have cheered at all. Here we have obvious information on the front page of every newspaper in the country that were having a surge in various places with a new mutation. And it's getting worse. People are getting sick. And yet, you have a federal judge making effectively a medical decision. I'm sure she knows as much about medicine as she does about the law, that there you go. So what we have now is predictably. I mean, if you sat behind her and you looked out across the bench at the time she made this decision, you would say, what's going to happen? Is this going to help? Is this going to make COVID better? Is it going to save lives? No. It's going to play to the right wing. That's all it's going to do. It was a political decision. And now lives will be lost because of it. So if I was looking across her shoulder, I would never, ever have made that ruling. I would want to save lives. I would want to save the country. We have other countries that are doing even draconian things, try to stop the spread, not the US. And as you said, Tim, it's in a state of absolute confusion now. Nobody knows which end is up. This is also part of the Trump legacy. Nobody knows which end is up. And at the end of the day, lives, did I say that? Lives will be lost. Thank you, Judge Moselle. Yeah. Well, if you're someone who's going to be taking public transportation, be it transit rail or air flights, what's the recommendation? Do we all keep a mask in our back pocket just in case? Certainly, Amtrak has not lifted the mandate. And New York City has not lifted the mandate. So is the solution just to carry a mask and wear it? Let me say something I was saying before the show began. And a lot of the confusion and the lack of confidence in the government and the CDC is the government's own fault. And I'm sure they're well-intentioned, but they don't sit behind the judge. They don't turn the table and see how are people going to respond to our change in advice, which has happened a number of times. And over shell, I forget her last name, the CDC lady. She's changed her mind. Sometimes you say, what? Again, what? Can we have a little consistency here? And so over the last year, the Biden year, the CDC has lost the confidence of people on both sides of the aisle. And so I think you have to make up your own mind about it. And you have to do your own critical thinking, because the government is not here to help you. The government, you can quote me on this, is here to confuse you. They may be right in some moral sense. They may be right in some technical sense, but they're not right in communicating and dealing with a divided country, which is what we have. And they have effectively, by their limp-risted approach to this over the past year, they have created the division we see where people argue about it in schools and school boards and, well, everywhere. And that's why some of the people on those airplanes applauded. But I think what we have now is a situation where Think Tech Hawaii should develop a subsidiary and call it the Think Tech CDC, because it would actually do better critical thinking. And we would be more consistent and more protective of the American public. For me, I mean, really, that's what I think. For me, I am going to continue to wear a mask. And I have one fear I'd like to share with you guys. There are people out there that have learned to hate masks. It's a political issue. If I wear a mask in a crowd now, I am making a political statement, because people don't believe it's necessary. And they think that I am just making a political statement. And they're going to be angry at me. They're going to be mad at me. I am going to be exposed to epithets and criticism and worse, because I do wear a mask to protect myself and the people in the next seat. But that's not going to stop me. I want you to know I am going to wear a mask just as before for my own safety and for the community. And because the Think Tech subsidiary, the CDC Think Tech, has suggested that I should be doing that. Right, Cynthia? OK. All right. Well, Jay, you should be more forceful about your opinions about the CDC and mask wearing.  No, points well made, Jay. Actually, points very well made. In fact, Cynthia, Dr. Tom Frieden for a former director of the CDC was just interviewed with Jake Tapper about 15 minutes ago. And the question came up is, what's the recommendation for those who are smokers over 60, overweight? And the direct quote from Dr. Tom Frieden was, when in doubt, mask up. Damn the political ramifications. Now, he didn't say that. I'm saying this. Damn the political ramifications of wearing a mask. And do what's going to save your life. And obviously, cloth masks are no longer suggested or surgical masks, but KN95s or KN95s to try to protect you. So the question is, is Dr. Tom Frieden correct? He's absolutely correct. I'm one of those compromised people that's been wearing a mask all along. She has barely started to feel comfortable about not wearing one when I'm outside. But now, I'm going to be wearing them outside, too, just because there's so many other people running around with absolutely no consideration for other people. They may be well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't make somebody else really sick to the point of dying. And so that's where I go. When did this country become so incredibly self-centered? When did I see recently that there are these long-haul effects? Even if you don't go into a hospital, even if you don't need oxygen or anything like that, there are various things they are just discovering now that will affect your life forever, including, for example, a metric on brain size. Don't ask me how this happens. But apparently, in long-haul cases, your brain size shrinks. And presumably, your ability to do cognition, maybe your ability to do critical thinking for voting, too, you know? Well, Jay, just to address what you just said, as you well know, when it comes to any kind of long-haul mystery disease that's not directly correlated to a body part or an organ, they say it's psychosomatic. And I guarantee you, those that have long-haul COVID conditions that cannot be directly verified as a COVID related disease, they're going to say it's psychosomatic. And the insurance company's not going to pay for it. That's what's going to happen, because the numbers are going to increase. The dollars to treat such of these elements will increase. And at some point, the medical insurance companies will say, no, it's all in your head. Well, that's already happening. That's not something that will happen. That's just something that is already happening now. So I think we really need to worry about that. You know, this judge, just a little bit more about this judge, 33 years old, never tried a case, Trump appointee during the lame duck session, just to be more specific about who she is. And let's not forget another important part. She's down there under DeSantis's wing, right? So who knows how much money she got paid for this. So will the DOJ appeal? Well, Did you see that Namby Pamby statement about that? That was so, I will if I won't, if I won't, if I will. There's no answer to that, Tim. I'm so mad about that. Well, it wasn't, I meant what I said, I said what I meant, that's for sure, Jay. Why didn't you put an automatic stay on that order? I don't understand why they didn't do that. Here, it just made a calculated medical decision to extend it to May 5th or May 3rd, right? And so it's just around the corner anyway. So what, these people can't hang on for five more weeks, not even five more weeks, three more, four more weeks, till it gets a medical review and instead we're going to let, wait, one federal judge with almost zero experience on the bench cause what she's been there for a year and a half. No, she's never tried a case ever in her life. And then all of these other things saying that she was not qualified. And yet she's allowed to make a decision that... Well, if you saw her opinion, if you saw and read her opinion, which I saw excerpts from, I'll use Jay's terminology, Mandy Pamby. Well, and worse than that, she did not hear one single testimony in the case, nothing. She didn't hear anything for the case. She said she didn't need to, she could make the ruling on her own. And so she ruled and she cited that it was the Public Health Services Act of 1944. And she said that it had exceeded that time limit that's on that, that health act, the Public Health Services Act of 1944. Now... She should have gone to 1219. And referred to the medical science of the middle ages while she's at it. Exactly. I mean, here she has like no experience.  So where is she getting all this stuff from?  You're obviously not running for office anytime in Florida. I could say that. Hey, since I'm gonna change topics there because we have a, and we always appreciate these things. We have a viewer, Mike has commented and here's his comment. I think there's a big misconception about how mass are effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus. It is not effective in preventing a person from catching the virus but instead effective in spreading it from somebody that is infected. Can I speak to that? I actually know some things about that. If you are wearing a KN95 mask and it fits snugly around your face, granted your chances of being protected would be better if everybody else was wearing them too. Cause really the main thing that it does is it stops, I'm wearing a mask. It stops my virus from getting out of the mask. So it stops those droplets. But it also stopped if it's really tight fitting, KN95, KN95 not so much, it actually protects you somewhat. Somewhat, yes it does. So it's not a complete either or kind of thing. You're not as protected but you are still protected. Where does this come from? It's a barrier between you and air that's contaminated. It's a barrier. I don't need a PhD to tell you that. It's gonna stop the flow of the air and thus the virus one way and the other way. We've heard enough of this kind of mysterious thinking from the CDC and from the right. It goes both ways and you can't convince me of any other approach. That's why I'm going to wear a mask and I do care about the community but I also care about myself and I believe that I am not gonna be breathing in virus, not nearly as much if I have a barrier between me and the air around me. And that's- All right, Jay, let me go to you. Go ahead since you finished your comment I wanna go to Jay out in the after you. Because that's exactly sort of what I just said, right? You're more protected if everybody's wearing one but you are still protected if you wear one and keep your distance especially now if people are not gonna be wearing their masks. Distance is another thing that's important and expose your time, the time that you are exposed to somebody.  So it matters a lot of different things are involved which is why it's a little confusing but definitely it's better to wear it than not. I do not understand why the CDC, this is to your point now, Tom, Tim, I do not understand why the CDC and the government didn't stand by their decision. Their Nambi Pambi response to this judge was essentially admitted that they weren't confident of what they said before about May 3rd. Are you more confident now because they gave this Nambi Pambi response or less?  I don't understand what the government is doing for us. All right, I wanna kind of switch tack here a little bit.  Are you gonna be concerned about taking public transportation? And further, will that have an impact to retail sales and the economy? Well, if you start to exclude yourself. You give me more credit perhaps than I should get because I am not responsible for the economy. Either I don't do a lot of shopping, I stay at home. I've seen you shop, yes, you are. I stay at home like Cynthia, I don't go out and that's been my MO for the past two years plus. And guess what, Tim? Guess what, Cynthia? It's gonna stay the same way because I don't wanna catch it. I know a lot of people who had breakthrough cases and they were miserable. And not only miserable, they were worried about long-term effects. So, I mean, I see it as a threat and these guys wanna blow it off, that's fine, it's not fine because they're blowing it off on me. But I'm gonna stick to my MO that I have been following for the past couple of years. Like when it's safe, I wanna have somebody credible, somebody consistent, somebody scientific and not political in any way, tell me it's safe. But I don't have that. I have mounting confusion, confusion that's been spiraling around for two and a half years. I don't think the Biden administration has been less confusing, well, it has been somewhat less confusing than the Trump administration. But the government and particularly the CDC seems to be a political organization and I do not rely on them.  That's true, we're not gonna go, we're not gonna take any chances in the pizza parlor by now. That's right, so there you go. News in 2024. Some guys are opportunistic, you know that, Tim. I know one of them, I'm talking to one of them right now, because he made that bet with me. You're talking to yourself, what? He set me up. Okay, Jay, also Dr. Tom Friedman said that many folks that are over 65 have not received their first booster and yet it would show that there would be great, great benefit for them to do so. So we're not just dealing with a mask issue, we're also dealing with a vaccine or booster issue. What is the approach that they should take now that we're gonna have an environment of non-mask wearing? Oh, it's much more serious for them. It'll clearly, I mean, on the other hand. Well, why shouldn't they get, why wouldn't they wanna get their first booster? Well, why didn't they have their first booster up till now? It's been available for more than a year, a year and a half even. Okay, but they got their vaccination, so they obviously had a fear of contracting the virus. I'm sorry, I see what you're saying. What would prohibit someone from getting their booster? Because the CDC said to get a booster, that's why. You know, and I got a booster in September of 2021, I think it was, and another one more recently. And I would do that if they said, oh, go down for a third booster, I would take it. There's really no point in taking a risk on this. But you know, it strikes me that we have, it's increasing resistance. You know, the low hanging fruit in terms of people who would take the vaccines is diminishing. They don't wanna take it. There's a lot of people who have gone into that. Well, two things. One is the political aspect of it. I'll stop in a minute, Cynthia, tell yours. The political thing. And the other thing, okay, is confusion. We are rife with confusion. It's really a problem in this country. Cynthia, you have the floor. I have a reason, a possible reasoning why people aren't getting boosters. And that is that they got the shots only because they were required to for work. They didn't do it because they felt like they should. They just did it because they had to. So there's a big difference. They're only gonna get just that little bit that they have to get. They're not gonna go any further, right? I think it's a great point, Cynthia. Yeah. And there's a lot of other little reasons like that too. They feel like, oh, I don't need that booster. I'm healthy. I got the shots. I don't need any extra. That's for the people that are sick or the people that are compromised. You know, the problem is the booster. It's not clear that the booster actually deals with the mutations. It's not clear. And the best you can get out of the CDC is it, well, to some extent, or Pfizer or Moderna, to some extent, but it's not as clear that the booster will help you for the new variations. Now, this is a great concern. Booster will. Because there's another point of confusion there. Well, apparently what they're saying is that the second booster will help you even against the Omicron and this BA2. So the first booster, no, would not help. It would only give you, maybe, they didn't know for sure, right? This is all sort of. Well, doesn't that play into the, doesn't that play into the resistance about vaccinations for those who say, why do it if it's not effective? Does that play into their wheelhouse? Absolutely it does. You bet. Of course it does. But you know, all of this is just like experimental science anyway. We've never dealt with any of this stuff before. It's not like we can have any specific answer for it, right? And that's partly why it gets so confusing and why we keep getting these odd, you know, they don't really match type of direction from the CDC. But I am sort of furious with the DOJ for saying, I will put us, you know, I will, you know, go after it, challenge it. If the CDC says it's okay, but they didn't put a stay on it while he waits for the CDC to decide. Let me clarify one thing. What do you mean put a stay on it? The judge who issued the order would have to put the stay on it, or some other judge, maybe an appellate court would have to put a stay on it. It's not for the administration to put a stay on it. They do not have the power to do that. They could file a stay. Not the DOJ could do that. You have to request it. You have to apply for it. It's a motion. But they're not. Why are they? No, they're not. They're waiting to see what the CDC says. And it's been how, what, three days more? The CDC hasn't said. Okay. To me, it's like, they either need to say, okay, we're close enough to May 3rd, so we might as well just go for it. That's what they're saying, by implication. But yeah, by, but they're not saying it. They're just doing it. This is the thing that I don't understand. Well, your AG is Merrill at Garland. He's Mabie Pambie. Well, yeah, we know that part. But that's not a surprise about anything, right? He seems to be Mabie Pambie about everything. So hesitant to do anything for, it's almost like he's afraid to do anything. It's not his decision. It's not his decision. It's the president's decision. He works for the president. When you talk about criminal prosecution, he makes his mind up. When you talk about this kind of thing, Joe Biden calls him on the phone and says, this administration wants to appeal that order. You're my lawyer, appeal the order. Okay, let me go to that, Cynthia. I'm sorry to cut you off, but he just made a very important point. We have this state infusion. No, the Republicans are gonna really seize the moment. Other than Donald Trump, most presidents say the buck stops here. Donald Trump never did that, never said that. To what degree does Joe Biden take a hit with all this confusion? And how does that affect his popularity? I think he's gonna take a big hit. Oh, sorry. No, go ahead, Cynthia, you go. I concede my time to Cynthia. Thank you so much, since, yeah. Okay, we won't go into why. So we gotta think about some of the confusing factors here. New York has come out and said they are still requiring masks on all of their, out of JFK. So when you might be on the plane, you go by whatever the airline says, but when you're in the terminal, if you're at JFK, you have to have a mask on. But if you're in New Jersey, at LaGuardia, you don't. Because New Jersey has not done that. Same with the ferry system that so many commuters use between New Jersey and New York. When they leave New Jersey, now that's about it. Okay, yeah, I agree, Cynthia. You see the back pocket? Yes. Yeah, that's confusion. To what degree does Joe Biden take a hit with all this confusion? I said he takes a big hit. That's what I, I think he's a really big hit. I think his, he has sort of undermined all of the good moves that he's made. Okay, to Jay's point, to Jay's point that he's in charge of this, not the DOJ, to what point is his hit fault that he's not getting on the phone with DOJ and they say, move. Is that his fault? And does he deserve a hit from the Republicans? I think he's gonna take a hit from the Democrats too, because all of the good work that he's done so far is sort of undermined by this, what? You mean you don't know what you're talking about this whole time we've been trusting you? And in reality, we see now that you're just winging it. That's what it feels like to me anyway. All right, Jay, to you, same question. Oh, I think he's gonna take it and I'll tell you why. This is the namby-pamby thing, you know, the confusion, the failure of having a decision he will stick by. It's problematic. And, you know, you can say there are people in his staff, his chief of staff and people in the White House who are advising him to the best of their ability and they're smart and they're credentialed and all that. But he's not looking at the way people react in these decisions or non-decisions that he makes. And little by little, people are seeing him as weak. Okay, so what happened in Afghanistan last year, they see that as weak. What's happening now with COVID, they see that as weak and there are various other political things happening. You know, what happened to build back better? What happened to my pizza, for example?  The answer is 2023. Well, how about 2022, the election? So the other thing, and I have to add this, is that right now we're in a situation with Ukraine and Joe Biden has stood up. He's been, you know, trying to coalesce the coalition and get Europe working again to deal with Putin, okay? And so far, it's been, what do I say? Timid, sorry, timid. At the same time, Putin has blown off the sanctions. He's blown off the, you know, all the things that Biden has done and coalition has done. He's, you know, just as Trump, he's drilled down relentlessly and he is doing the same things that we have complained about, war crimes, atrocities, weapons that are not permitted by the Geneva Convention and on and on and on killing people, raping people, shooting them in the back of the head, it's going on and on and on and nothing Biden has done has even slowed that down. It's actually, it's speeding up. And so you have to say, wait a minute, is this the same thing as COVID? Is this the same thing as failure to get anything through Congress? This is weak. And when, as I really hate to even think this, but as and when Ukraine can't handle it anymore, as and when something really bad happens there, it's going to be Biden's fault. There's no way he's going to escape blame on that. Okay, thank you.  Cynthia, believe it or not, Cynthia, as strange as this may seem, we've run over time again. And so you'll get the final word. Your last comments, please. Okay, let's see. I guess I should stick with the main subject we've been talking about, huh? And leave that Michigan State Senators comment for another show. Okay. But it was an important one just to give her one little quick shout out and then I'll stick to this. Okay. Sorry. I knew you're going to do it anyway. So go ahead. State Senators, Michigan State Senator Mallory McMurray. And you just listened to her speech. And I'll tell you, Jay, a little while ago, you said it's up to me to fix the world. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll make everybody listen to that speech over and over and over and over again until they finally get it in their heads. Okay, back to the right subject. They have done, Jay, you asked a little bit ago about studies and how do they know? Do masks work? Do they not work, right? Well, there was a 2020 investigation into a hotel outbreak in Switzerland that showed that the people that only had face shields and no mask got sick and the people with masks did not get sick. There was another Tennessee study that found that communities with mask mandates had lower hospitalization rates than areas where masks were not required. So we do have some studies. We do have some actual data that we can base what we're saying here on, right? Not just personal. I know I'm gonna keep wearing a mask. I'll even start wearing one outside again now because of this room. So that's what I say. That's my life. Thank you. As always, Cynthia, your comments are dead spot on. Jay Fidel, your comments are always spot on, no matter if I win or lose a bet with you. And that's where we are today. I'd like to thank Jay Fidel, Cynthia Lee Sinclair for What Now America. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And please join us next Wednesday at 11 o'clock. Until then, aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


To understand the gross function of muscle organs, you really need to have at least a acceptance of, okay, I accept how the cell itself is functioning. What I want to tell you is that I'm going to show you a brief video that is physio. And we're going to watch like 10 seconds of the video. I'm not going to watch the whole thing because it goes into crazy details that you don't need to know. I just want you to be able to visualize this to, number one, have some cellular anatomy that will help you understand physio when you take it, whenever you take it. But number two, so that you can have a mechanism in your mind so you can accept that how muscle tissue is going to shorten what the mechanism is that actually enables the tissue to shorten. Remember that we're dealing with sarcomeres, which are the repeating units of myofilaments that are just organized in bundles to make up the myofibril. This video starts us off looking at a single muscle cell. And you could, I don't know what those green things are, maybe those are nuclei that are bust and loose because you know, nuclei, I always want to bust loose, but this thing right here is a single skeletal muscle cell. And if we, she's talking and I just muted her, but skeletal muscle cells do a lot of things for us. They enable us to move. Now, we zoomed in. We zoomed in to the massive amounts of protein myofibrils. And now we've got myofilaments. And look, the pink here are the thick filaments of myosin and the thin ones are the thin filaments. The blue ones are the thin filaments. And you can actually see this Z line is a structure. You can't see the M line as well here, but here are two pieces of thick filament that are attached to each other. And you can, it gives you the sense of depth, like that whole thing is a bundle, like a bundle of spaghetti noodles. And then if you looked at that from far away, you can totally see the striations, can't see you. And so I made, I couldn't help it, a bundle of spaghetti noodles that I drew all over. Can you see my striations on my bundle? Here was my original spaghetti noodle. This is a myofibril made up of all my thick and thin filaments, just like you can see there on that video. But then if you bundle them together and stick this whole thing inside of a single muscle cell, can you visualize how, yeah, that whole thing gives you like this striated, stripy look. Just for perspective, I've got, of course, a little bag. What do you think the bag represents if I stick all the myofibrils inside a bag? Well, we could definitely have it be the cell membrane and we could throw in some nuclei along the edges, M&Ms. And then we could actually build a model of a muscle cell. We could also then put it in another bag and then we would have the endomyceum surrounding our muscle individual myofiber or individual cell. Okay, so you're comfortable with this. You're comfortable that what we're looking at is actually that, my little bundle madness. There we go, with our stripes.  You aren't going to believe how cool this is. There are their little heads and those heads actually contract. There they go, holy what? Yeah, just like that. Now, look, oh, how cool is that? Can you see how the whole thing shortens? Okay, this is where it gets into all the craziness of physiology. We got to have different kinds of things and ions and all sorts of stuff and it's really hard for me not to continue on and explain that because it's really fun. All right, but we're going to stop there. Now, you have a visual for how muscle tissue shortens. You have a visual for how muscle organs attach to bones to cause overall actions. Now, we're going to look at some required muscles that we're going to explore in lab. I don't know, there's like 600 muscles in your entire body. We are not going to look at 600. I think we have 74 on our list. Is that all? That's all, but at least we get to cover them over three laps. I'll be right back to talk about our gross anatomy of muscles in your face.


Thank you very much Teri. So I have a fairly broad mandate here which I think is actually much broader than my specific domain of expertise. A lot of the work that I tend to do is on downstream analytics of large scale sequencing data but it's been good. I'm glad in a sense that I was assigned this task because it has given me a chance to interact with a whole lot of other people who spend a lot of time thinking about upstream processing of sequence data and other types of complex data sets. And I just wanted to acknowledge upfront that a lot of what I'll be talking about today has derived from conversations with the people up here on the slide. And particularly to acknowledge the very fruitful discussions over the last few years with the 1000 Genomes Analysis Group which has really shaped my view of how we deal with large heterogeneous sequencing data sets. So here we have, this was the plausible near future scenario that I considered as I started to think about the challenges of aggregating sequence data from an informatic perspective. So let's imagine that we have exome sequence data. It could easily be whole genome sequence data instead. We also have complex phenotype data and these are available for 100,000 individuals derived from multiple different sources. Now currently that would comprise approximately a petabyte of raw data which is a vast amount of data. I'll give you some numbers in a second. And at the moment at least the vast majority of that data in fact almost all of it would be the raw sequence data. So phenotype data, while it takes a lot longer to collect and is much more difficult to do so, actually constitutes a very tiny fraction of the overall data that would be possessed for these individuals. Although one of the points that I'll try to make later is that as we move forward into longitudinal sampling of things like for instance RNA sequencing data over time or other deep longitudinal measurements of patients over time, the proportion of these data that will end up being phenotype versus sequence data will increase. So the goals of in this context I think would be firstly to create accurate and consistent variant calls that are consistent across all of the samples within this set regardless of which source they came from. Secondly to harmonize and clean the phenotype data which of course is very difficult. And finally and perhaps most importantly to make sure that the data are not just accessible to the community but are actually usable. So that many different people not just statistical geneticists but biologists and people from pharmaceutical companies can actually access, can actually use these data to address their specific biological questions. So that the four areas of key challenges that I saw emerging from this were, sorry just realized I'm progressing in two different places. The four key challenges that I think are rising this area are firstly in the area of logistics and this is basically just around moving, storing and processing very large data sets. Secondly very importantly harmonization so how we actually pull together data from different sources and make it consistent across an entire cohort. Thirdly analytical challenges which have been addressed I think by other speakers very well so I won't spend much time on that. And finally and crucially issues associated with access and usability of the data. Okay so in terms of the first series of logistical challenges relate to data management. So here we have a petabyte of raw data and one of the first things that we will want to do with that data of course is move it from one place to another. And that turns out to actually be extremely difficult. So even in the era where generating 100,000 exomes is no longer inconceivable actually moving that data is pretty tough even with a very high bandwidth connection, a 10 gigabit connection such as the one that we use at the Broad for moving data around, shifting 100,000 exomes would take on the order of one to six months depending on exactly how you do that. And in fact interestingly it may actually be more time effective to simply fill a truck full of hard drives, one terabyte hard drives, drive that to the facility, pay someone to sit there and download the data into those hard drives, load the truck back up and drive it back to wherever you need to have it delivered. So it's sort of ironic that we're living in this high tech world and yet delivery of data by road is more cost effective. Data storage is not free. I've got different numbers and different estimates of exactly how much it costs to store these data. It depends on whether they need to be accessible from high performance disks but it could cost up to a million dollars a year to keep 100,000 exomes. These numbers will be roughly tenfold higher for whole genome sequence data on average. Importantly though we can actually drop these numbers substantially by applying different compression algorithms and I'll go through one such algorithm later. Now importantly although these numbers are daunting, the community now has very extensive experience in handling large data sets. Not quite on this scale but certainly in the tens of thousands of exomes. All of these logistical problems are soluble. I think they're eminently soluble and most of them don't actually require developing fundamentally new methods. The second set of logistical challenges relates to QC and metadata. One issue of course is keeping track of samples so making sure that the sample data you load at one end of the truck that you've driven across the country is the same sample when you reach the other end. For genetic data in many ways this is easier because it is inherently identifiable in a sense. It's relatively easy to spot sample swaps, duplicates, pedigree errors and these types of things. But some errors will remain invisible to genetic data and of course keeping track of phenotype data and ensuring that it's a link to the correct set of genetic data will require incredibly stringent quality control and sample tracking across that whole chain. There's also additional metadata, non-phenotypic metadata that needs to be very carefully kept track of. For instance we need to make sure we know exactly what each participant has consented their data to be used for so that if in this sort of vast aggregated theoretical data set the data are not accidentally used in ways that are not appropriate given the consent. We need to know in the case that we need to do high throughput validation or look for do biological follow up, we need to know exactly where the samples for those individuals are and of course we need to know whether they can be recontacted for phenotyping and if so how. And as I mentioned earlier phenotype data is likely to massively increase in the near future so that will become an increasingly larger fraction of the data the informatics burden. Now I'll spend a little bit of time talking about harmonisation particularly in the sequence space. The key the need for harmonisation is driven by the fact that both sequence and phenotype data are for various reasons some of which are sane and others of which are not. These data are generated inconsistently between studies and this lack of consistency really hampers and in some cases actually destroys our ability to draw useful conclusions across various studies. It's very difficult as Chris O'Donnell mentioned it's very difficult to approach phenotype harmonisation using current methods and as we start to aggregate larger and larger numbers of studies together that will become an increasing bottleneck and it seems to me that the current approach may end up not being scalable to very large aggregated data sets so approaches based on machine learning or may end up having to move in and while those will be noisier that may be the only way in which we can actually pull these phenotypes together. Now fortunately harmonisation is much more tractable when it comes to the sequence data but the key thing here is that in order to make in order for harmonisation to occur for sequence data data processing and variant calling has to be done in a centralised way. So long as we live in a world where genotypes are called at various different facilities and then pulled together it will be effectively impossible for us to harmonise that data. And the reason for this is shown in this animation here. Let's say we have a data from one study here where our variant positions are shown as rows and individuals as columns these are the sites where each of the individuals is variant across this region of the genome and here just in this column I've shown in black are the sites that are variant within this particular study. Now if we then draw in a set of individuals from a separate study there are certain sites which are variable in both of the populations and in many cases we can actually draw some conclusions across the studies for those sites but there are also a number of sites that are seen in one study but not in another and there are a number of different possible explanations there. For instance we may if this is exome sequence data it may well be that that particular exon of that site was just not covered in one study but was covered in the other. So there's missing data given the way that variant calls are currently stored it's actually very difficult to extract that information. In some cases we'll see a false positive in one study but not in another and in other cases there'll be a false negative in one study but not the other. The only way in which we can resolve these issues is to pull the samples together at the raw data stage and actually recall, reprocess and recall the variants in a combined fashion and that then allows us to say to determine precisely which sites are actually not called in one study but not the other where it allows us to find new variants by sharing information across those studies to find sites that are actually variable but weren't called in the initial analysis. And it also allows us in some cases to identify false positives. So in this case what happens is by sharing information across all of the samples together we can reduce the evidence for a false positive site in one of those studies. Now here I'm showing the pipeline for sequence data processing that's currently used at the Brod. Many other centres' pipelines can also be shown. I apologise this is the sort of standard overly complicated processing pipeline. The key features here are that firstly there is a step that we go through on a per sample level where data are basically processed, analysed and recalibrated and then crucially there's a step in the middle here, the variant calling step where we actually batch together a whole large number of samples between one and n samples where n can be arbitrarily large as I'll show in a second. And the variant calling is then done by sharing information among all of these samples together and that then allows us to get much more powerful estimates of which sites are variant and also to rule out particular aeromones. And then finally in the third phase of the pipeline we integrate together all of the variants called from each of these individuals with external sources of data recalibrate the variants and that then gives us our final data set of sequence variants. It's critical that this step here is actually done on many different samples together. The standard approach now at the Broad is to do this variant calling on 100 samples in one batch. But one of the questions that we've been asking over the last six months is whether this can be extended to much larger sample sets. And so the only way in which this can be done is by reducing the amount of information that's present in each sample. And here you can see for a high coverage genome sequence data this is a read file so each of these orange horizontal lines is actually an individual read piled up across a region of the genome. Now in most regions of the genome say this region here, this individual appears to be homozygous for the reference sequence at all of the regions across here and we can actually relatively confidently say this is a well behaved region, this individual's homozygous reference and just collapse that region down into a single read that contains some quality information but basically it loses, discards a lot of the information, redundant information that's carried here. And then what's kept are only the reads that pile up around these variable positions where we see evidence for a heterozygous variant or perhaps some more complex variant that's present in that individual. But by discarding this information it's actually possible to compress the raw data by an order of somewhere between 20 and 100 times and that then makes it possible to scale variant calling across much larger numbers of samples. So as a pilot analysis to prove a principle of scaling this type of analysis up, I've been working with Mark DiPristo and Khalid Shakir on a pilot test just looking at chromosome one, so about 10% of the genome in 16,500 exomes. And these exomes are derived from a number of different studies including 1000 genomes and then a series of disease specific studies and also healthy controls from each of those studies. And I've cited some of the PIs involved in this project here. So for these 16,500 exomes all of the data has been pulled together, recalibrated jointly and then variant calling has been run across the whole set. Functional annotation has been performed using a pipeline developed in my group. I won't present the data on that in this presentation though. The preliminary results firstly and most importantly I think just generate that this is feasible. The analysis on 16,500 exomes worked for chromosome one and therefore will work across the rest of the genome. It took just under a week to run using relatively modest functional power at least by broad standards. Modest of course is a relative term. So this, so that means scaling this approach up to a whole genome level and to many, to much larger numbers of samples is entirely feasible. In terms of looking at it on a larger scale, we're currently preparing for exome one calling in 20,000 individuals, so adding in a few more thousand individuals from other studies. And that will be followed by large scale validation and the designing of cheap genotyping arrays, in this case to target loss of function variants that are identified in these 20,000 genomes. Which again I won't talk about more but ties into Francis Collins idea of a human knockout project. The key points here is that there are no fundamental technical barriers to scaling this up to large numbers. Although one challenge that we will face is the diversity of sequencing platforms may soon increase as beyond the current Illumina platform. I realise I'm running low on time actually so I'll just skim through very briefly through the analytical challenges. Many of these have already been discussed by Peter Donnelly. He mentioned that I think this is crucial to understand that variant calling is still immature. And I'll avoid the other issues here except to point out that again as I mentioned earlier that having very broad phenotype data will impose a major multiple testing burden that will need to take into account when designing studies. So a key challenge that I wanted to spend the last section of my talk focusing on is how we can actually provide useful access to these data. Excuse me, you have one minute then. One minute, okay. So I will make this very quick. Providing aggregated and harmonised variant calls will of course greatly empower statistical geneticists. But in terms of preparing the rest of the research community we need to consider how we can provide them with tools that allow them to tackle typical use cases. So situation, so for instance they may wish to know which missense or loss of function variants are found in their favourite genes, what phenotypes they're associated with and of course from a clinical perspective which variants in a patient's genome or indeed in their own genome for a consumer are actually associated with disease. And I will actually just skip over this. Terry Monoglio, Terry has circulated some of the results from the meeting that was had earlier this month where various different models for data access and aggregation were presented. I think going through that document that has been circulated is very useful. There are many different models that can be provided and I think the solution here will be to use all of them, not just one. So the key messages then in my final 15 seconds are that a very large scale aggregation of sequence and phenotype data is entirely tractable from a logistical perspective. It will require centralised processing and variant calling, but this is certainly doable. The amount of phenotype data on samples will increase massively as we start moving into a much more complex longitudinal phenotyping and harmonisation of course will be much more challenging there than it is for sequence data. I mentioned the curse of multiple testing and finally the need for substantial investment in new interfaces to maximise the impact of aggregating this sort of data on the broader biomedical community. Thanks. Great, thank you. Comments and questions for Daniel. How many times does a genome have to be squared before you can say that you sort of know what there is in there or not, or do you ever know? I don't think you ever know for sure. So even in particular for more exotic variants, so very complex regions where you have multiple different rearrangements nested within each other, at the moment there's no method that will actually detect those and it's likely that over the next three to six months or 12 months we'll develop new methods for doing that. I think at each stage we'll just need to go back and revisit these samples and recall them over and over. One of the challenges we'll be facing of course is that it means if we have N samples within our data set and we then need to add another 10 in an ideal world, just to add those 10 and get the best variant calls possible for those 10 samples, we then need to recall the entire batch together. So we've been discussing at Broad the idea of basically having a monthly recalling of almost all of the exomes that are held in the Broad centre and so that would then allow us to just continue recalling those samples and improving as each new batch is added. But you must get data at some point of, there must be some exomes that just never change when they go through that process and at some point you can stop doing that. Possibly, that's right. It will be incremental and I think we'll probably reach a point where you're close enough to reality that you can stop. Okay, so we have a number of Maynard, Steven, Thomas, Trisha and Gail. Excellent presentation. I think you caught the right balance between sort of the alarmism that sometimes hovers around this area and naivete. I mean, obviously there's some challenges but they look solvable and I would just say that although I can certainly understand why at the moment this kind of centralised variant calling is essential, I'm more optimistic that this is a transient phenomenon. There was a very similar situation in the early days of, let's say, cosmet or back level assembly in which unless it was all done at one place you just got different results on the same back and so forth but those problems were solved and it requires collective activity in which multiple centres are exchanging data sets comparing their analyses but that is I think the path forward. We don't want to over centralise anything here. I think that's fair. It may well be that in one year or two years time the procedures are sufficiently robust and set up that we can just distribute the code that's required to call variants and that is then done systematically and of course as the data quality improves that will make a big difference as well if we have long reads that reduce mapping areas and very accurate reads that will reduce the impact of different processing pipelines on the final calls. And to correctly identify I believe the key threat to that evolution is diversification of platforms but the only comment I would make there is that there tends to be platform convergence for relatively long periods of time just because it's so beneficial. It's not necessarily that it's like the success of DOS. It's not necessarily the best product but there are just a lot of advantages for many people using the same product and I think that will happen here. I suspect we're just about to go through a period of disruption but things will stabilise. Sure. That was a wonderful presentation. I just want to follow up and ask you to speculate for a minute or so on and related to an issue that we've talked about last night and this morning and that is sort of exponential growth of the kinds of tests and the ways in which we want to look at a very large data set to hold genome with a large number of phenotypes and potentially doing sort of phenome scans as opposed to genome scans. How do you foresee the next two to three years in terms of the computational capabilities of doing that? Are they going to be so large and cumbersome if you just described how much effort it took to do one chromosome, one week, a very distinguished group of people spending a lot of time converging on that. At some point this is all going to be very trivial but it's going to be 5, 10 or 15 years from now and if we do these kinds of large scale sequencing there is a certain degree of everybody being focused on getting results right away and not saying oh it will take us three years to analyze what we want because as a sequence data comes off we want to start looking right away. So can you speak to that problem of only a few people as opposed to a lot of people and how much it's going to take to transition to having many do it? My sense is that it's incremental so there will be the exome sequencing that we do now is far from perfect. There's a number of, I mean Peter can certainly testify to the fact that small insertions and deletions are still called very badly really from exome data. That's improving and will be much better in one year or two years time but at the moment even with the data quality that we currently have it's still possible to use exome data in very careful ways to get clean answers for specific questions and in particular in the rare disease space it's been incredibly effective even though we know we're missing some variance. So I see it as a kind of incremental process. There will be some low hanging fruit that we can answer with existing methods as we refine the methods and increase the complexity of the phenotype data and the accuracy with which we call sequence data. We'll be able to move higher up the tree to the higher hanging fruit. I don't think there's a sense in which we need to wait. We can get quick wins now on the methods we currently have and then you will incrementally progress from there. I'm still blown away by the sheer volume of data and the complexity of handling the data and you said these challenges will be solved but can you speculate on how we avoid the truck and to save how we can avoid the company how we can handle these problems. Not to need a truck to deal with the data. Oh I see. That's a transfer problem. It's a big problem. So there are various there's certainly a huge amount of effort currently underway in increasing bandwidth and again I think this is a problem that in a year or two potentially we'll get fixed. In other countries which have better underlying networks it is actually to some extent solved but... So is there a technological path forward or does it need a disruptive technology before we can do it? As I say this is a field I don't know incredibly well but my understanding from speaking to people is that there is a path that's being followed and certainly there's a huge amount of investment currently being pushed into that type of area. There's a lot of genomics is just one area where moving lots of data around is important. There are areas that are far more commercially important where moving lots of data around is critical so I think that will drive innovation pretty rapidly. But I think for the project, the kind of project this is very relevant to think about. It's probably worth adding that it's the raw sequence data which is huge. Most users would be happy with just the variant calls and then much, much smaller files. That's right and PTC are critical points. So this initial the truck that we have to drive across the country is only for that raw data that then needs to be processed into analytical records that are much easier to move. So in the context of the 1000 Genomes project very few people would download the raw sequence data from that project but there's been very wide utilization of the variant calls that have emerged from it which are a file that's a few gigs or a couple of hundreds of gigs. And then Gil. You told us last night to start worrying about the multiple comparisons on the phenotype side so I did. Maybe, here's a question, maybe it's not as bad as it looks at first blush because at least on the phenotype side if you think of all of the conditions we have discussed this morning it's not like a snip here and a snip there. There are relationships so don't you think that if we use family wise approaches and hierarchical that it's not going to be an overwhelming problem. Disorder of a heart is related to another disorder of a heart more so than do or not. So are you really scared because it seems to me a tractable problem? Well it depends on what we think so there's certainly many correlations between these phenotypes so an appropriate correction method will take into account that correlation structure and it's not as though we'll suddenly be doing this stringent bond for any correction across every possible phenotype that we look at but even so humans are just fundamentally incredibly complex creatures and we have, there are lots of different things going on with us that need to be measured and that aren't necessarily all just aspects of just a few different mental phenotypes. So I think particularly as we start thinking about things like longitudinal RNA sequencing data or metagenomic data these very complex data sets that in and of themselves constitute many many different measurements that's where multiple testing starts to spiral out of control incredibly quickly. And again it's not intractable it just means it will be very hard to use these cohorts for discovery but they will still be incredibly powerful from a validation perspective and from going in and saying I have found a variant in another cohort that I think is associated what is an unbiased estimate of the effect size of that variant then you can do that's where these cohorts are incredibly useful. I do yeah I could go on a great length but I won't I'll try and be brief there's a lot of model thinking about multiple testing. My own view is that the kind of classical statistical way of thinking about it is for many purposes but in this specific discussion it just seems bonkers to me that if we've got genome-wide data on some individuals and I'm doing a study on heart disease of the phenotype and Rick is doing a study on some cancer as a phenotype that somehow or other the fact that he's doing a study means that I have to use different p-value ratios it's completely bonkers. There's a real danger that we'll let the multiple comparison tail wag the dog and so on. Daniel thanks it was a great talk. I was wondering if you could address what are the current limitations of sequencing that we should really care about like HLA or trinucleotide repeats and what you know whether some of those things are going to get fixed what's unfixable what's the timeline. So HLA is a nightmarish region of the genome that most of us try not to venture into if we can avoid it but there are certainly people working on that there are particular regions of the genome that are nasty and in some cases I think those will be there will be methods that are developed particularly improving the reference the reference sequence that will make them a bit more tractable in other cases there are regions that are just so repetitive that with the current length of reads it will be impossible to sequence through those. There are particular classes of variants that we're still not very good at calling so small insertions and deletions are still a challenge particularly in the medium range that is definitely tractable so the in fact I think we now understand to a much better extent the causes of the problem and there's an issue associated with poor modeling of the errors that occur there that I expect I'd be interested to get Peter's take on this but I expect that we'll be doing far better on calling of small indels in the next six months to 12 months absolutely and then there are other more complex classes larger insertions and deletions we're still not very good at but again I think those will improve with longer reads and better technology and some algorithmic improvements. So HLA is sort of important for us so I'm curious besides the not wanting to venture in part yes you know what are their potential solutions to that region. So I don't know basically because I've tried to avoid looking at it I don't know but I know there are people working on it. It's tough I mean you need very long reads and even that doesn't really help and we've been doing some four or five four sequencing just in HLAB and it's really very very messy I think you know PacBio or one of these much longer read single cell technologies is really what we're going to need and those aren't ready for prime time yet. You can't do it with SNPs and you can't do it with short reads you can't make sense of B and C. So my suggestion is the HLA people get together at the break. So thank you Daniel and you could pass the slide exchanger to the left and our next speaker is Nancy Cox Thank you.


For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. It has been one year since the far-right Indian government, led by the Bhartya Janata Party, revoked the special status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Last year, on August 5, India's Home Minister Amit Shah moved resolutions in the Indian Parliament to repeal key portions of Article 370 and bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories. This gave the BJP government greater control over the region. Article 370, which assured a special status and greater autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, was the cornerstone of the states' accession to India in 1947. This move has been part of the BJP's agenda for decades. It is part of the Hindu right-wing's plans of bringing about demographic change in Muslim majority Kashmir. The last one year has been described by the people of Kashmir as one of utter distress and helplessness. While the rest of the country has been facing a lockdown only in the last few months due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Kashmir has been under a much stricter lockdown for a year now. A massive crackdown was initiated in the valley prior to August 5 last year as the Indian government anticipated mass resistance to its plans in the valley. Finally, when the August 5 lockdown began to be relaxed earlier this year, the pandemic led to a new lockdown being imposed. This prolonged period of restrictions has led to massive losses of livelihood in the valley. According to a report recently published by the Forum of Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, the economy of the state lost $5.3 billion from August 2019 to July this year. At least 456,000 people have lost their jobs and farmers have been pushed out of 6,000 acres of fertile land that has now been earmarked for the industry. The people are unable to access healthcare due to the many roadblocks, barricades and security checks. Meanwhile, the restriction of internet services to 2G has created its own set of issues. It has adversely affected businesses. It has meant that people cannot hold video consultations with doctors online. It has also resulted in students not being able to continue with the education easily as online classes get interrupted and they are often unable to access material. My point is now, you see, as we are living in this world, and you are still not. The Narendra Modi government's promises of improved security for the region have also not proven to be true. The BJP government has adopted a hardline security-based approach while neglecting people's needs. The armed forces enjoy complete freedom to destroy homes and buildings where the suspect militants might be hiding. These kinds of operations have continued unabated even during the pandemic and compensation is not easily given. Citizens are left homeless at a time when government advisories everywhere are asking people to stay home. There is nobody that can communicate these needs and concerns of the Kashmiri people to the power holders in New Delhi as Kashmir's political leaders were detained last year in August. Most of those who have been released are choosing now to remain silent. The local media has been completely muzzled. The new media policy of Kashmir has given the state unchecked power to monitor what is being written and said. Any media outlet that questions the Indian state will be denied government advertisements, the primary source of sustenance for Kashmiri media. Today, one year later, the Hindu right wing in India is marking its Kashmir victory by commencing another project which is central to its agenda. This morning, Prime Minister Modi laid the foundation bricks of the Ram temple in Ayodhya at the site of the Babri Mosque which was demolished in 1992. Even as the people of Kashmir feel increasingly alienated and isolated from the rest of India, the right wing is busy cementing its victories and strengthening its agenda of building a Hindu country.


This is talking number 9793. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used. Heavy-duty truck headquarters. Today we are checking out this super clean 2016 Chevy Silverado 2500 Crew Cab Short Box. This truck has the 6-liter V8 motor. From this HD video you will be able to tell that this truck is extremely clean all the way around. No dents or dings on that front bumper. Summit White is the color. We shoot all of our videos in 1080p so if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device turn them on out because it is like you're right here looking at the truck with me and definitely your best way to check out the vehicle without actually being here. Comes with the 18-inch steel rims with the chrome covers and it has Michelin LTX 265 70 R18 tires with right around half the tread left. You can see the frame and under bodies in really nice condition. I didn't see any dents or dings on that front fender. It has the projector lamp style headlamps, chrome trimmed grille which is probably pretty unique to the work truck package. I didn't see any dents or dings on the hood and for being a work truck this truck is in extremely nice condition. Passenger side rim, no scuffs or scrapes on that and as you go down this side of the truck you can see just how clean the body is, how reflective and mirror like that paint is. We take these HD videos so if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down but you're still interested in purchasing the truck you can still see the truck here the truck and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here. Very clean down this side. I didn't see any dents or dings on the doors. The box is in really nice condition as well. This back rim, nice condition too. All the wheel well lips look really good. You can see the frame and under body. It's very clean. It has been under coated but those box rails are absolutely perfect. Has all the remaining factory exhaust and the rest of the frame and under body looks really good. All the rockers are nice and clean. No corrosion or anything like that. Does have a nice tonneau cover on it. I didn't see any rips or tears on that. As we come around to the back you'll notice it has the in bumper steps full towing package. No dents or dings on that rear bumper. 4 pin and 7 pin wiring and the tailgate is in excellent shape. I didn't see any dents or dings on that. The bed itself. A little bit of light duty usage but nothing terrible. It is a truck after all but very clean back here and this is a Truxedo low-pro soft tonneau. Like I said I didn't see any rips or tears on it and as you go down this side of the truck just as clean as that passenger side. This back rim excellent condition as well and the back tires just as much tread as the front tires. Both driver's side doors are in nice shape. It does have the telescopic tow mirrors. They go out like so and they also fold in. You do get power windows and power locks, auto headlamps, factory brake controller. The work truck package gives you the gray cloth interior. There are no rips or tears on these seats and it also has the heavy-duty rubber floors and as we hop inside the truck you can see that this vehicle has 25,816 miles. Instrument cluster is nice and clean. The steering wheel is in nice condition. I didn't see any rips or tears or excessive wear on it. Cruise controls on the left. It does come with the six-speed automatic transmission. AM FM radio. You get your climate controls and your stability controls. 4x4 shifter on the floor and that rubber floor is nice and clean all the way around. No rips or tears on the passenger seat. This is a six passenger truck. Side current airbags and the headliner is in pretty nice condition. I didn't see any rips or tears on that and you do have your map lights up there. We'll take a quick look at the back seats and then we will check out under the hood 40, 20, 40 split bench seating. Like I said, six passenger back seats just as nice as the front seats. No rips or tears back here. Latch child safety system for car seats has a fixed glass rear window. These seats do fold up for extra storage and you can see just how nice and clean the rubber floor is back here. No rips or tears or excessive wear on that either. We'll take a quick look under the hood. I would like to personally thank you for checking out the video today. Hopefully from this HD video you will have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around. Inside and out under the hood we have the six liter V8 motor. Engine bay is very clean runs very smooth. This truck has been fully safe and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change. All the fluids have been checked and topped off and this truck is 100% ready to go. To see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 450 new and used cars, trucks, SUVs, minivans, Wranglers, halftones, we quarter tons, one tons. You name it we got to go to our website www.summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle on our lot videos of every single used vehicle that we have all at summitauto.com. If you want to check out just our used inventory you can go to truckson41.com that's truckson41.com and if you want to make this truck yours today give us a call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ask for one of our sales associates to make this truck yours today. Once again that number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thanks again for checking out the video. If you'd like to check out more you can go to youtube.com slash summitauto. Remember to like, subscribe, and share on this video and all the videos that you see there. In fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left. If you linked to more heavy-duty truck videos like this one on your right if you have not been to our website on the bottom link to this vehicle on our website click those check us out and we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2016 Chevy Silverado 2500 crew cab short box. Thanks again.


Money may not buy you happiness but you need both loads of money to be able to achieve a couple of things.  So having money and especially having the right attitude towards money will help you sustain a near perfect life. I know almost the entire world is in a lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The bulk of the world's population has been confined to their homes due to this lockdown. Therefore, there has never been a perfect time to grow your understanding of the subject of money than now. If you will take advantage of this theater of opportunity to learn how money works, you can return to your business after this lockdown armed with the wisdom you need to manage and grow your finance. So saying here are 9 free books you can start to read about money that can make you rich perhaps immediately after the lockdown or starting from tomorrow. 1. The Richest Man in Babylon First published in 1926, this timeless classic has helped so many people achieve financial freedom. With this book, George S. Klassin dispenses financial advice through a collection of parables set 8,000 years ago in ancient Babylon. The book advises that you save 10% of all you earn and what you save must also earn you money if you plan to increase your wealth. Also, it insists that you should work hard to grow your skills if you must increase your wealth because wealth comes from a reliable stream of income. 2. The Rich Dad Poor Dad Many people work hard for money but they never seem to get enough. Robert Kiyosaki describes how to avoid the rat race to achieve financial independence. The book teaches that you should know what an asset is, acquire them and become rich. According to Robert Kiyosaki, an eighth grade dropout who spends less than he earns is smarter than a college professor who can't make ends meet. Also, while working for a steady paycheck can get you started, the best investment of your time and money is to buy property or a business, or write a best-selling book like Kiyosaki himself did. 3. The Science of Getting Rich This 1910 book isn't anything about science, but it provided the intellectual framework for thousands of personal wealth-building seminars. The author, Wallace Wattle, claims that your ability to accumulate wealth is directly dependent upon how you think about it. In other words, if you believe that money is the root of all evil, you will never be wealthy. No man can rise to his greatest possible height in talent or self-development unless he has plenty of money. 4. Secrets of the Millonia Mind In this book, author and multi-millionaire T. Hav Eka argues that you are poor because you think poor.  Sadly, poor people program their children to be poor by providing them with a worldview that makes wealth accumulation impossible. T. Hav Eka quotes that, The vast majority of people simply do not have the internal capacity to create and hold on to large amounts of money and the increased challenges that go with more money and success. 5. The Art of Money Getting In 1880, successful showman P. T. Barnum wrote this book which highlights how he made his fortune, became bankrupt and then worked his way back to the top again. Much of his guidance is still applicable today. P. T. Barnum advises that unless we enter into the vocation intended for us by our receptive natures and best suited to our peculiar genius, we will not succeed to our potential. Also, never start a business where there are already enough providers to meet all demands in the same occupation. Read this book to find out more. 6. The Millionaire Next Door Authored by Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko, The Millionaire Next Door is great for all those people who have just come into the game of personal financing. Because this book talks about the fundamentals of personal finance with simple, consistent instructions. This book will help you in developing good finance practices from the very beginning. 7. Your Money or Your Life Written by Joe Dominguez and Vicky Robin. In this era of huge economic ambiguity where everyone is worried about their money and how they spend it, this bestselling book is an essential read. It tells the reader how to pay off debt and cultivate savings. Rearrange priorities, solving inner encounters between values and lifestyle, and lots more. 8. How to Sell Anything to Anybody In this book, The World's Greatest Salesman, Joe Girard, reveals the spectacular selling principles that have brought him to the top of his profession as he offers helpful advice on how to develop customer profiles, how to turn a prospect into a buyer, how to close a deal, and how to establish a long term relationship with one's customers. In his 15-year selling career, author Joe Girard sold 13,001 cars, a Guinness World Record. He didn't have a degree from an Ivy League school. Instead, he learned by being in the trenches every day. He believed that nothing replaces old-fashioned salesmanship. 9. Think and Grow Rich In the 1930s, author Napoleon Hill interviewed 500 millionaires and philanthropists, including the still magnates Andrew Carnegie. The result was a best-selling book on self-improvement and personal finance that has continued to sell through time. Napoleon Hill wrote that if you truly desire money so keenly that your desire is an obsession, you will have no difficulty in convincing yourself that you will acquire it. The object is to want money and to be so determined to have it that you convince yourself that you will have it. If this video inspired you, share this video with your friends. We love you.


Ethan. What were we just talking about? You were asking me how a check works and I was about to write a check out, right? And I was explaining to you how we tell the bank To pay money out of my account to someone else that's a check and then you said do banks make money And what did I tell you? Yes, how do they make money? I mean, I mean make dollar bills. No, no, how do they earn money? They I told you what do they do with with the money that's in your give it to other people and I hate And I want to keep my money So what did you say you wanted to do go to the bank and do what take? Take it out right now Because because you think that you think that there's a problem with the bank if you put money in the bank And then they loan it out to other people. That's how they make the interest. That's why that's how the banks make the money Your what is that that concerns you does it bother you that the bank And when you want to take some money from your bank account, you don't have any money What do you want to do with the money instead I want to bring it home and lock it in my box you do But


There is a question, this raises of course the question of object constancy. The narcissist, we keep talking about external object constancy.  He started with his mother, who was a dead mother, was never there for him, emotionally unavailable or instrumentalizing or objectifying or parentifying or you know, or was depressive or was absent, physically absent or was narcissistic.  So he had developed an insecure attachment style coupled with object inconsistency, but we keep talking about external object constancy. But wait a minute, by far more important is internal object constancy. We have a self, constellated self, the lucky ones. You know, we feel this as a bit separate from us. That's why we're able to engage in introspection, to look inside ourselves, as though we were the object, objects of our, the object of our gaze. We look at us, we observe ourselves, as though we were a separate object. And there is object constancy. Do you feel that yourself is a constant, reliable, safe base to be trusted object? Or don't you? Narcissists borderline, they don't feel that inside themselves, there is an object that is constant that they can trust, that will always be there, that will provide them with safety at the very least by being consistent, that will endow their lives with meaning, that will organize the world and reality in ways which would be comprehensible and manipulable in the good sense, that will enhance their self-efficacy. They don't have such an object which is otherwise known as self. So they don't have external object constancy, and they don't have internal object constancy. And similarly, they have two phenomena. Phenomenon, ego in concurrency and ego discrepancy. Ego in concurrency is when the internal object is in conflict, parts of the internal, because the internal object is not integrated. There is a lot of chaos, we call this disorganized personality. There's a lot of chaos there, constructs are fighting with each other, introjects are shouting over each other, there's a bloody mess, it's mayhem, it's pandemonium inside the borderline and inside the narcissists. And very often the needs of one construct, one part of the self are diametrically opposed to the needs of the other. For example, one part could be introverted and one part could be extroverted. So it creates ego in concurrency when there is input and the constructs can't get their act together, can't operate in a cohesive, coherent manner, outcome-oriented manner, self-efficacious manner with an agency. We have severe problems within the ego. That's why it keeps saying narcissists don't have any ego. The incongruency and discrepancy are so gigantic they don't have an ego actually. There is attempted ego at best. And similarly there's ego discrepancy. It's when external input from the outside, external input conflicts dramatically with certain functions of the self and certain needs of the self. For example, when grandiosity is challenged. So all these processes are happening and as a result there is no core, there is no stable state, there are self states, multiple, many and they are in flux. When you talk to a healthy person you can safely assume that 80%, 90% of this person will remain in one year's time. You can't make this assumption about the narcissist in one hour's time and with the borderline in 10 minutes time. The narcissists on the borderline are not solid objects. They are fluids. They're in flux. I'll give you the best metaphor. Glass. Glass is not solid. Glass is a liquid. I don't know if you know that. Glass is a liquid that is flowing glacially, very, very, very minutely and microscopically so you don't notice it. But glass is liquid. It's a form of fluid. It's the same with the narcissists from the outside.  They look normal healthy functioning somehow. They have their act together but actually it's glass. It's brittle. It's fragile. It's vulnerable. It's not resistant to external shocks and it's in constant flux. So there are numerous self states that kaleidoscopically and dizzingly replace each other. You never enter the same narcissists twice. The famous Heraclitus saying you never enter the same river twice. You never enter the same borderline twice. And what they're trying to do desperately is to use the partner to legitimize the shadow part. They have very pronounced shadow parts. Parts of themselves that they had repressed. Complexes that they had repressed deny and they want the partner to legitimize these parts for them. They want to experience this part of themselves, the shadow part and in the case of the male narcissists part of the shadow part and the integral part of the shadow part is the feminine aspect. So they want to project the shadow part on the partner and they want the partner to allow them to experience the shadow part through him vicariously or through her. So the partner's role, the intimate partner's role is to allow the narcissists and the borderline to experience themselves by legitimizing their shadow part. I'm using Jungian parlance but you can use any any other metaphor. It's a metaphor of course. And when the partner is healthy he can contain the shadow part that was given to him, handed over to him, projected onto him. He can contain it because he has boundaries and he doesn't allow himself to be influenced. But what happens when the partner is equally sick, when you have a narcissist and a borderline? They trade the shadow parts constantly. They constantly try to force their shadow parts on each other. And it's a war. It's a war because they don't have boundaries and they constantly trespass. They constantly invade and they constantly mirror each other in the best sense of the word. The narcissist suddenly becomes a borderline for a minute because he had absorbed the shockwave of his borderline partner's shadow part. And the borderline becomes grandiose and narcissistic because she had absconded with the projected grandiosity of her narcissistic partner. They become each other's mirrors but you know put two mirrors and have a look what happens. If you put two mirrors facing each other have a look what happens. Infinite regression. You never get any word. The depth is infinite. It's a corridor of mirrors and that is what I call the hall of mirrors. And there is in these people, the borderline's analysis, there is a background process of mourning and grieving. They are grieving a dead object. Probably the dead mother but not necessarily. And they are grieving this dead object because they have early on interjected this object. They are actually grieving themselves. And when they give the shadow part to the partner they feel whole but only by subsuming the partner. When they give the shadow part to the partner the shadow part is legitimized and the borderline of the narcissist can experience it finally safely. But to do that they must assimilate the partner because he has the shadow part. To become one whole they must merge and fuse with the partner because he is holding an important part. So imagine that I'm a borderline and you are my partner. I take my shadow part and I give it to you. That moment I have to digest you. I have to merge with you. I have to fuse with you because half of me is with you. You have half of me. You own half of me. You control half of me. And to experience myself in my totality we have to become one. And this is the famous process of merger and fusion which is also common among codependents. And then when we become one wholeness is restored. Wholeness is restored. A safe base is established. We call it a holding environment. Safe base is established. And this is done in therapy as well. It's precisely what we do in therapy. With transference, counter transference. We play with this. Actually we allow the patient to give us as therapists to give us the shadow part. We hold the shadow part for the patient. And we let the patient experience the shadow part from the safety of our base as therapists. It's the same process. And then the patient feels whole. And the morning stops. The dead object is revived and resuscitated. And yes, if there are religious overtones to what I'm saying, it's because religion is the earliest form of psychotherapy, of course. And here I acknowledge Jordan Peterson's recent contributions. He went deep into this Netherlands between religion and therapy. So this is the kind of process that happens in borderline narcissistic mixed couples, also to some extent, codependent narcissistic mixed couples, and so on and so forth. Now, one last thing. Of course, in the shared fantasy, the shared fantasy, by the way, is intended to facilitate exactly this, the swap, the swap of shadow parts, the swap of autoerotic, libidinal gender roles, the swap, simply the swap. But because the swap is so extensive and massive and intensive and repetitive, the two parties become one through merger and fusion. They swapped so many parts that they become indistinguishable. At that point, they lose reality testing. Fantasy by definition is poor reality testing. But the fantasy in this case involves disappearing as an individual and reappearing as an organism with two heads, as a merged, fused togetherness. And this damages reality testing. Because reality intrudes, reality challenges, undermines, sabotages. You don't want reality. You want to live in this safe, holding, warm, accepting, unconditional love. It's okay to be you, environment. So there is a problem with reality testing. Some narcissists, definitely psychopaths and many borderlines, react to this, to the loss of reality testing with alarm. They get very frightened and they try to restore the reality testing with something called hyperreflection or hyperrealism. They actually withdraw from the partner and merge with reality. They extend themselves and swallow reality. They say, okay, I have to merge. I have to fuse. But merging and fusing only with my intimate partner denies me the benefits of reality, access to reality, acting upon reality, securing favorable outcomes from reality. It damages my self-efficacy, my agency, my individuality. I don't want that. So they withdraw. But they must merge and fuse. Merger and fusion is the fundamental dynamic in these disorders because they are disorders of the self. And when you don't have your own self, you need another person's self or some other self. You need to have a self by proxy vicariously through someone or through something. So when they lose the partner, because they're terrified that they're losing themselves, they adopt reality instead. And this is hyperreflection. It's when the self, the dysfunctional self, expands to include reality and it creates something called, which I call hyperrealism. These people become paranoid, cynical, conspiracist, exact opposite. Not trusting, fearful, anxious. And you have these two poles. You have the co-dependence and borderlines who merge with the intimate partner, lose themselves, vanish as individuals and reappear through the agency of the intimate partner. And you have those who reject the intimate partner, torture the intimate partner, push him away. They don't want the intimate partner because they are afraid of enmeshment and engulfment. And in many borderlines, there's this pendulum dynamic. They're afraid of enmeshment and engulfment. They want merger and fusion. They want to be enmeshed. They want to be engulfed. When they do, they're terrified. Again, they withdraw. So approach, avoidance, repetition, compulsion. On the one hand, there's the intimate partner. On the other hand, there's the world. And the borderline swings between the world, rejecting the intimate partner and the intimate partner while rejecting the world. And this swinging motion is the repetition compulsion. Approach, avoidance, repetition compulsion. As far as the intimate partner is concerned, he experiences it as lability, modulability and dysregulated emotions. That's how we describe it from the outside. From the inside, it's simply fear. The borderline and the narcissists live in constant terror, terror of disappearing on the one hand, especially with an intimate partner and terror of having to manage the universe, having to be God. If they, if they flee from the partner, if they avoid the partner and escape the partner, they have to embrace the world.  So you have to become God. And this is between zero and hero, between not being and being everything, between being, between vanishing and becoming God. These are the outside parameters of the existence of people with disorders of the self, such as borderline and narcissists. I hope you had fun. I know I did. It's time for another sip of water. Ach, wunderbar mein Kinder!


We are flying adversary air so four jets in the morning four jets in the afternoon against anywhere from two to four other f-35s Really, it's very expensive to fly airplanes So the ones that we bought and that we use every single day to train our people with We'd like to use those as blue air good guys as much as possible Having an adversary air whether it's you know f5s at Kingsley or t-38s here or Eagles coming into town as red air Provides the host unit the ability to use all of their own resources as blue air and not have to waste them on It's a great opportunity for us to come down here and interact with their instructor pilots and talk to with them about How they're training their students and maybe some things we can bring back to Kingsley? So it gives everybody on both sides of the coin the experience so when they go do fight They understand the differences between their capabilities and the other jets capabilities You know the opportunity for us to come down here and train with the active duty and continue to kind of get that experience You know and getting getting outside of our Kingsley bubble as it's comfortable and as great as it is Has really been you know a great part of that this TDI as well as that you know our house taking care of us and And that's been great