Y cwm yn ddweud i'r ffordd. Mae'n brifoedd yn bach ddweud i'r tyfnol sy'n fawr ychydig i'r ddechrau yn 30-40 min. Mae'n pethau yn ymddangos, mae yn gwych yn fawr, mae'n cael eu cael eu rhan o'r rhan o'r cyfrifnol. Mae'n dda i'r ffordd o ddylech yn cyfrifnol yma, mae'r ffordd yma yn ymdau'r ffordd yma, mae'n ddylech yn cyfrifnol yn olygu'r ffosifol. Mae'n gweld i'n gwybod i'r ffordd o ran y dda. ac ydych yn ei ddåvo am gynllun ffiylld i'w cyfansion. Fe wnaeth beth yw y bwyyn, y bwysig mae'r gryffau o'r hyfforddiau â'r ddiddyn nhw ar hyn nifer o'r creffau a'r gofyn.  Felly o'r llyfrau o casu llwyta coned, oedon nhw, bydd oedd gweithio'n ffondol i'r relasiad o'r wath sy'n ddweud, ac yn fwyllt ac yn fwyllt. Felly, dwy'n gweddorol i'r dysgu fynd o'r diolet rhywbeth criticalnydd oedd ymwneud, bod ydyda i'r celsius o rywbeth yn diolet o'r pholosofiai a gwneud. Yn yw sy'n wneud y diolet yn dfeddiadau fynd. Yn ysafod y cawia gwneud o'r hystio i'r diolet o'r hyry mewn. Felly, dwy'n gweddorol i'r dysgu fynd o diolet yn diolet! fi'n gwneud ymwneud pwn i'r byffredig o'r disgusio o'r ddysgu sefydlu yn ymwneud yn fwy o'r cyfoedd o ran o'r hynny oherwydd ymwneud o'r gweithio oherwydd ymwyng.  Ond'y nhw'n cael, os ychydig heddiw, yn bwysig wrth ystod yn fwysig. Yna ystafell yn ei gafel yn y bwysig, ac mae eich gweddwydion yn gyfanyddol. Mae'n dduch chi'n dweud yn cyffredinol. because everything influx all of the time and there is no such thing of status and equilibrium in nature. Of course, within the sciences, the whole essence of all of the sciences is the be able to explain the particular equilibria that였 that arising as well as to be explain the changes and the discontinuities in nature and so forth. I would push back on someone that says that this table seems completely solid no matter how far and how long I look at it doesn't seem fluid and changing. If you look at it on the microscopic level Efallai y cwiant y maen nhw ffordd o'r ffordd, byddai'n gwneud i'r ardalig ac ychydig iawn. Felly mae'n gweithio'n gwneud a'i ffungaig a'i myfgweithio'r ofas, a dyna'r ddau'n ei ddweud, mae'n ddweud i'ch eich lle ddefnyddio'r cyflwyno, mae'r hyn yn cynhyrchu'r myfgweithio'r hynny. ac mae'n gweithgwlad yr angrifodau cofnwysiadaint, ar gyfer y gweithgwladol, oherwydd i'ch gynhyrch ar gweithreifol a'r adnodd Cyfrieddau, mae'n gweithlwmpio gweld yn dod yn cael ei gweld. Fi symud bod eisiau gwir eich cei lasau yn ymgyrch o'r perthynatau a'r adnodd arlau unedig o'ch chi'n mynd i ddim yn ddifrwng o gweithlwmpio sefydliadau. Mae'r adnodd a'u gwir i leidio mae'n rhaid i'r gwir i leidio, drawLooking the limits of the sort of relativity of that equilibrium. If you'd like throughout all of the sciences, it requires explanation. Now if this table was to break down, it doesn't have wooden legs but say it lost the wooden leg and it did have wooden legs to just forget it and to suspend reality for a moment reaction. I was to replace one of the legs or something on this table but I think I'll be well within my rights Mae'n gwahodd y peth o'r cyfrifnol, ond mae'n gwybod yn cael ei gwaith. Dyna ychydig yn gwneud o'r cyfrifnol y byddai i'r gwaith ym Mhwylfa. Yn y peth o'r cyfrifnol yma, mae'n gwybod yn gweithio'n cyfrifnol, ond mae'n rhan o'r cyfrifnol yn y gwaith cyfrifnol, mae'n cyfrifnol mae'n gwybod yn y cyfrifnol yma, yr un cyfrifnol mae'n cyfrifnol ymlaenno, a'n fynd i hefyd i fynyrch ar y tylu'r gwasmonion. A rwy'n gweithio ownir i fyny hanes. Rwy'n gweithio hyn nid i. Rwy'n gweithio anes i'r gwasmonion i fyny hwn i'r gwasmonio? Ifanc y gereledd yma hwnnw i ddeddylen cymrychi. Rwy'n gweithio hwnnw i'n i'n ddoch, rwy'n gweithio hwnnw, rwy'n gweithio hynny. Rwy'n i gael i fod i'n ei gweld, ddiwethaeth y ffermwyng roedd hyn yn ei cyfrin yn viwyddu. semi-lumpen, semi-petty-borgioir friends, if you like, that he's trying to bring some sort of Marxist education to them, if you like. But there is, you know, things are constantly in a process of change. Let's look at it upon further investigation. If we go into this table, if I say, what is this table? Someone could say to me, it's molecules. There are atoms, protons, electrons and neutrons. They make up molecules, they are in chemical affinity with each other. They make up cellulose molecules, which in life, when it was a tree, would have made up the structure of the cell. And over many cells, you would have had the bulk properties of the woods, which gives this the bulk properties of a table. It's able to support my laptop, for example. And that is a perfectly reasonable and correct and valid description of what the table is from a bottom up perspective, if you like. But then, somewhat, I might equally object and quite validly say that, no, that's not what the table is. The table was conceived by a carpenter or an engineer or someone like that, and they conceived it in their minds first.  Now, if that tree hadn't been chopped down, but the one next to it had been chopped down, or that tree had died because of some fungal disease early on in its existence, and another tree had been chopped down and transported to that particular factory, or what have you, and that was planed into a tree, for all intents and purposes, this would be an identical table. The table itself also has a top-down explanation, as well as this bottom-up explanation. Both are equally valid, and for us, dialectics is understanding things, not as static things taken in isolation, but understanding the relationships between apparently contradictory, if you like, concepts. The general and the particular, the unity of the accidental and the necessity, that this is made of these particular atoms is entirely an accident that one of those trees was chopped down, turned into a table. It could have been another one, if you like. All of these, the parts and the whole, there is a constant interrelationship of matter, if you like, and we understand things in their interrelationships and in their contradictions and in their evolution. We do not break things down, if you like, into... That is the essence of the dialectical method. Now, someone might then say, okay, now you've explained the dialectical method in excessive depth through this table, if you like. Well, what you say isn't particularly very profound at all, you know, actually, that's common sense, that's entirely common sense, and I might grant you that that is common sense, if you like. But if, as the saying goes, common sense is not so common quite often, and we find that there are extremely undialectical attitudes abounds within society, we've all come across it, that confounding argument that cuts you down mid-flow, if you like, as a socialist. Well, your ideas all sound very good, but human nature, like just two words that cut down an argument, and you may as well just give up human nature, and we've all come across it, and what is not expressed in two words, what is not explicitly made explicit, is there is a deep set philosophical point of view that is expressed in those two words. Namely, that there is a human nature which is completely static and unchanging, irrespective of the, if you like, the tens of thousands of years of human society, that human nature is essentially static, if you like. And furthermore, it actually expresses a lot more than that. It expresses something, that is not a comment about society, that is a comment about science, that is a comment about our biology, that is a scientific judgment, and it has its scientific theorists. There are theorists who say that our human nature is essentially unchanging, that the entire field of sociobiology with eminent scientists like E. O. Wilson reduce our social organism, if you like, our social setup to what is fundamentally our own characteristics as the phenotype, as the expression of our genes, if you like, and that we simply are selfish because our genes are selfish replicators looking to replicate their existence, if you like. That, again, it expresses a very reductionist, bottom-up explanation of human nature because we see greed within society, we see profiteering and avarice and a war-like nature within society, this society, capitalism, that this is the direct correspondence to our own human characteristics, that society is nothing more than the sum of its parts. It is a profoundly undilatical view and that we, presumably, are nothing more than an expression of our genes and a very mechanistic one-to-one relationship, if you like. It expresses a lot of philosophical baggage, which is not conscious, but which is unconsciously imbibed from the society around us. That is the importance of dialectics. We can see that, and that was a scientific opinion. That was a scientific opinion, which expresses a well-known social bias, well-known social, like, if you like, prejudice that comes from capitalism, that it is capitalism which is unchanging, it is worthless, you may as well give up, if you like. But we can see there is a dialectical relationship between science and society. Science itself is merely a set of material relationships and, if you like, intellectual relationships within a context of human society. It also evolves in a dialectical manner. And so I'd like to actually, let's start by placing science in its historical context, I think. Let's begin by actually looking at how we as human beings develop science and how it interacts with philosophy and the rest of society. Now, I mentioned Heraclitus, and I think that's a good place to begin, with the ancient Greeks. Dialectics has a history which is much older than the ancient Greeks, of course. You can find elements of dialectics in Taoist philosophy and Buddhist philosophy. All over the world there have been independent developments of, if you like, dialectical philosophy. But I think the ancient Greeks really, certainly in Western European tradition, developed philosophy to an extremely high degree, if you like. The discoveries of the ancient Greeks were not matched in Europe, at least, until the period of the Renaissance. And even then, to be honest, a lot of the discoveries of the ancient Greeks in dialectics, in philosophy, and in science, if not in the particulars, if they were invalidated in the particulars, in the like, in the general actually maintained a lot of their validity against far later thinkers who had the benefit of all of the advances of not just ancient Greek thought, but also much of the Renaissance thought, if you like. And I don't have time to go into the full depth of the richness of ancient Greek philosophy, if you like. I think there is a session on it at some point over the course of this weekend. But just to give a few examples, the ancient Greeks developed a theory of evolution. Without, with very little, if you like, material means to actually investigate the theory of evolution. They didn't have access to all different species that, if you like, Darwin had after his voyage on the Beagle, they had anaximander, I believe it was, who discovered a certain theory of evolution that we are descended from some sort of fish and amphibian-like creatures, merely had the access to the human embryos, if you like, and a certain amount of ingenuity and guesswork on his part. We have the theory of atomism, which is probably one of the greatest achievements of the ancient Greeks. And when you read the atomistic writings of people like Lucretius, the ancient Roman philosopher, you see there is a certain naivety, a child-like naivety, but there is also a glint of brilliance in these writings, if you like. They achieved all of this and they achieved it in spite of the low level of technological development. In fact, what is remarkable is there is almost no connection between the tremendous intellectual feats of the ancient Greeks and the material conditions around them. It didn't advance, if you like, industry or productivity, quite the contrary. The slave system proved to be very regressive at a certain point precisely because you could not actually apply the developments in philosophy and science and so forth to ever more finer techniques because of the limits of the slave system itself. It relied upon a revolution in the economic and social conditions to carry that forward. And of course we know that the ancient Greek philosophy was based upon and the achievements of ancient Greek science as well or natural philosophy was based upon the slave mode of existence. In other words, these people could only think and philosophise and come up with scientific concepts on the basis of the fact that they were feds, they were clothed, they were housed by the slaves. You know, these... And eventually, of course, we have mental labour and philosophising are raised to something far more noble than mere manual labour, if you like. It was the privilege of a ruling class as much science and philosophical thought has been throughout history. And if we, obviously, as I say, this wasn't able to take society forward. Society didn't move forward in spite of these tremendous achievements. Eventually it arrived at an impasse and, of course, we had the collapse of classical ancient civilisations. And what stands out is a period almost of like a writer's block, lasting centuries. Between the Renaissance and ancient Greece, you have to ask yourself why was so much of Greek philosophy and Roman philosophy to a certain extent completely forgotten by the peoples of Europe in the Middle Ages. It was preserved by the Arabs and other peoples, if you like. But within Europe, there was a complete backsliding. We forgot all of this achievements of philosophy. Much of it was still preserved. It still existed, particularly Aristotle's ideas. Some of Aristotle's ideas and Plato's ideas formed the basis of the dogma of the Catholic Church. You know, there was an injection of ancient Greek philosophy into the ideology of the feudal epoch. But why does it seem... I mean, if we had the great men view of history, we must take the view that presumably there was just a dearth of geniuses, like in this period, essentially. I don't believe that is the case. Actually, you have outstanding geniuses in the Middle Ages. One quite noteworthy example is a man called Nicole Dorem, who was a French clergyman of I think the 14th century, and he made some remarkable discoveries. He studied Aristotle and Plato's writings, in particular the physics of Aristotle, and he came to conclusions with regard to mass and inertia, which in many respects resembled the ideas of Newton 400 years later. Yet we don't talk about Dorem's first law of mechanics. We talk about Newton's first law. Why is that? There is 400 years separating them, and there is 400 years of social progress, social change that took place, if you like, within that period. His writings were merely essentially dismissed as very interesting commentaries on the writings of Aristotle and so forth on ancient Greek philosophy. But fundamentally, the dogma of the Catholic Church dictated what was allowed, if you like, to quotes St Thomas Aquinas, philosophy, and therefore also natural philosophy, was merely the handmaiden of theology. Thought, if you like, abstract theoretical thought, was the monopoly of the ruling class, and the ruling class were fundamentally linked to landed property and also to the spiritual and temporal dictatorship of the Catholic Church, which justified this feudal system throughout the Middle Ages. So there were tremendous thinkers and geniuses, but all of that thought was subordinated to the class interests of the ruling class. What was necessary was a revolutionary class to come along, to liberate that, if you like, philosophy and natural philosophy from the spiritual dictatorship, from the position of being a mere handmaiden of theology, and turn it into a revolutionary weapon against the old feudal elites. And of course we know that that happened in the period roughly equivalent with the Renaissance and with the Reformation. There were some great thinkers who did come along, and if you like, liberated science, if you like, from the spiritual dictatorship of the Catholic Church. And not only the Catholic Church indeed, also the persecutions of the Protestant Church as well and religion. And that class, of course, was the bourgeoisie. And one of the first, if you like, revolutionaries within science to turn it literally into a weapon against the old ideology of the feudal epoch was Copernicus, Nicholas Copernicus, the Polish astronomer, who literally shattered the crystal spheres of the heavens, if you like, the whole cosmology of the Middle Ages, which was based on the ideas of a guy called Ptolemy, who was a Roman cosmologist, was based upon essentially the theoretical justification of the feudal order. We have the earth at the centre of the universe and the earth is the centre, of course, of God's creation. Everything is imperfect on it, but it is fundamentally where we live as the highest point in God's creation. And beyond the earth you have the various spheres of the moon of the planets and of the stars. And they've completely forgotten everything about ancient atomism. In fact, Epicurus was completely denigrated as being in favour of some sort of hedonist materialism, if you like. These spheres were made of perfect crystalline substance, of course, because that's God is perfect and that's where God lives. And they were rotating around the earth at the most dramatic speeds. Of course, the sphere of the stars was rotating at the most absurd speeds of all because that was where God lived. There was only one being in existence which could move these spheres at quite an outstanding rate, if you like. And yet Copernicus completely overthrew this. Why was this? I highly recommend two books by a guy called Thomas Cune, if anyone's familiar with his writings, a book called The Scientific Revolution where he lays out his classic idea of the scientific revolution, of the overthrow of one paradigm by revolutionary science and its replacement by a new paradigm. A much-overused term, this idea of a paradigm shift, has been much used and abused, but I also recommend a book by Thomas Cune called The Copernican Revolution where he studies this in a lot of depth. And what you see, actually, something he doesn't make explicit is that the revolution in science was not something which took place outside of the conditions in the rest of society. Why was the old worldview overturned? For a period of time, it actually proved to be the most scientific and reasonable way of viewing cosmology. After all, if the earth moves, why can't we feel it move? Why isn't the atmosphere completely blown off the earth if the earth is constantly in motion? It successfully explains the motions of the stars and the moon and the sun to a certain extent, if you like. And yet it was beginning to enter into crisis and entered into crisis centuries before Copernicus came along. New observations were throwing up discrepancies, particularly with the motions of the planets in particular. They don't follow a simple circular motion. In fact, they had to develop mathematical models which became more and more complex and cumbersome, which was an illustration of the cosmology in crisis. I can think of some parallels in the modern day with the different things that are added on to justify our current cosmology, if you like. These epicycles and epicentrics, suddenly you had spirograph motion. It wasn't the simple motion which this nice Ptolemaic theory had laid out previously. It was far more complex and it was in crisis. It was clearly in crisis and it had been for centuries before Copernicus came along. But it wasn't new observations which overthrew the old, if you like. This was Thomas Coon's idea that normally science is conducted in the context of a paradigm. There is a worldview, if you like, which forms the normal way that science is conducted. We expand upon that worldview. We do observations which confirm it in some way or extend it to a new sphere where it hasn't previously been applied. There were more and more measurements on the basis of this Ptolemaic view of the universe. But it wasn't measurements themselves which suddenly weighed upon the old theoretical conception. Actually, the telescope, as we understand it, the telescope wasn't developed until 50 years after the death of Copernicus. It was the change in the social conditions. The old Ptolemaic view of the universe was a key prop in the cosmology of the feudal epoch. It was the revolutionary bourgeoisie who took possession of science and cosmology and turned it against the old feudal elites, if you like. And within that Copernican revolution, there are periods of counter-revolution and there are steps back immediately after Copernicus' death and again step forward. But eventually this forms through Galileo, through Kepler and with Newton. It forms a complete worldview, if you like. It gains a certain amount of perfection. It becomes a new paradigm which through the scientific revolution has overthrown the old paradigm. And with Newton, we have a real revolution within physics because Newton, for the first time in his theory, the general theory of gravitation, unifies the physics that we see here down on Earth with the physics which takes place in the heavens. Now, I don't think it was any coincidence that the scientific revolution first took place in the sphere of astronomy and cosmology because you can study the very predictable motions and theorise about them. Things are very different down here on Earth. Things don't follow simple repeating patterns. You can't get away from dialectics when you study how things actually evolve down here on Earth.  Things are much more mortal, if you like. It was no coincidence that the immortal heavens were the sphere where God lived because it seems that nothing changes or if it does change, it changes in a very regular, very mechanical and very predictable sort of way. Down here on Earth, even the simplest chemical reaction, like boiling an egg, is an irreversible process. You cannot ditch dialectics when you begin to introduce science to the study of the world around us. And, of course, Newton unified the physics of the heavens with the physics of the Earth. The irony, of course, is that Newton had absolutely no interest in philosophy. The philosophical implications of the Newton's revolution in physics eventually would lead to the introduction of dialectics to the heavens, if you like. But that wasn't Newton's philosophical outlook. He had a complete contempt for philosophy, summed up in his quote from the Principia, that physics beware of metaphysics. Physics beware of philosophy, in other words, was what he was essentially trying to say. How are we doing with time? About 25. Ah, OK. It was... He had... Indeed, he had no interest in physics whatsoever. The irony is that he was a complete slave to one of the predominant philosophical theories which was arising in this period of time. That is the philosophy of mechanical materialism. We see that Newton's theories fed into that philosophy, and he also himself adopted essentially that worldview, essentially a clockwork universe where the world is separated into its isolated particles. And if we could just simply understand where the position and velocity of everything is, we could predict the whole... Like a piece of clockwork, we could predict the whole unraveling of the universe for all eternity. That was Laplace's conclusion from Newtonian physics. And Newton himself simply... I mean, he was himself a religious man, and he believed that if we could just... All that was necessary was a first impulse by God, and everything would continue along its motions for all eternity. In other words, it was very much a mechanical materialism. Everything broken down into its parts which are essentially seen in isolation rather than seen in their interconnections, if you like, obeying completely ahistorical laws of motion. And indeed, Newton's laws, when considered on their own, do not tell us anything about the way the world is going to evolve. There is no direction of time, if you like, in Newton's laws, for example. And that had a tremendous importance for the development of also philosophy. We see that the period that we're talking about is also the period of mechanical materialism, which from people like Francis Bacon and John Locke led to a conception of materialism, where we are ourselves also essentially nothing but complex mechanisms, and we passively interact with the world around us, that motion, if you like, sorry, that matter interacts with us in a very mechanical way, and we only have the sense perceptions of the world around us through which we actually tell something about... We can tell something about the world itself, if you like, that we cannot know the thing in itself. This is from actually the limits of mechanical materialism. We see a descent into subjective idealism with people like David Hume and Bishop Berkeley directly drawing upon the weaknesses, if you like, within mechanical materialism. And it's actually no coincidence that the first attempts to introduce dialectics into the cosmology was by Emmanuel Kant, whose theory of the Nebula hypothesis was rejected in many respects, right up until the 20th century, where he talked about the idea of... If you like, the solar system itself has a history and an evolution. But anyway, I'll come back down to earth for a second, if that's all right. And as I say, you cannot simply... Particularly when we're talking about the more worldly science, if you like, down here away from the cosmology, you cannot simply ditch dialectics. Everything is changing. Everything is in a constant state of evolution. And indeed, that term, evolution, is very much connected with one name within the sciences. But it fits in with an entire philosophy and worldview within science that was developing at the end of the 18th century and the turn of the 19th century, which touched upon not just biology with Darwin, of course, but also upon geology and other areas of the sciences. And Darwin's discovery was essentially the discovery that dialectics operates within biology. And he didn't actually invent the theory of evolution. That's one thing that I think has to be pointed out. To Darwin, we don't owe evolution. Everyone knew that species and creatures evolved down their lineages. Of course, amongst dogs, we have some of the most monstrous examples on some occasions of what human selection, if you like, can do. We know that if you like this quantitative change generation from generation, we can see that around us. That was entirely known, those quantitative changes. What the revolution that Darwin undertook was to link those quantitative changes to the qualitative transformations between species, to see that in the natural variation, which was well known and well understood, that we see around us, lays the basis and the potential for the qualitative transformations between species, the emergence of one species out of another through descent and through natural selection. This was essentially the introduction of dialectics into the field of biology, for which, of course, Marx and Engels were tremendously enthusiastic about the ideas of Darwin. But he fit into a much broader intellectual... If you like tradition of evolutionism, we have also Charles Lyle, the geologist who in many ways actually informed Darwin's views, developed a very similar theory, if you like, of the evolution of our geological landscapes. It's the quantitative processes which go on around us on a day-to-day basis. Lay the... If you like, the fundaments for the huge transformations we see in our geology, the process of sedimentation by rivers, the cutting of valleys by rivers, the volcanism, all of these sort of things. These small changes that take place on a day-to-day basis were well known and well understood. It was also well known and understood prior to Charles Lyle that there are entire geological epochs which are separated from each other, that there are massive changes that have been brought in our surroundings. And the predominant theory previously was that something from the exterior had changed a fundamentally unchanging system. It was the theory of catastrophism, of, if you like, Noah's floods coming along every so often and completely changing the landscape. The geology would undergo a revolution, but not one that was inherent within the contradictions within the nature itself, if you like, but one which was essentially foisted upon nature by God or by the outs of something external, some external force, if you like. Lyle's theory of geology of uniformitarianism was essentially the introduction of dialectics to geology. And within Lyle, there are limitations. This change was, if you like, this evolution was perceived in a very gradualistic sense. As scientists, they were not immune from the philosophical prejudices of the society around them. They imbibed those prejudices and then both were in Britain in the star of the 19th century, had a philosophy which was fundamentally that of bourgeois reformism, you know. They had, I mean, in the case of Darwin, for example, he was directly inspired by the ideas of Malthus of the principles of population, whereby we produce food at an increasing rate of resources that increase an arithmetic rate, whereas population increases at a geometric rate. And therefore, there is a struggle for existence and there is, you know, it is essentially unnatural. And therefore, the wrong thing to do under bourgeois society to feed the poor. This was the theory of Malthus, if you like. And Darwin himself was directly inspired for that. So inspired by that. And so the, if you like, the natural selection, evolution by natural selection is perfectly correct. The interpretation which Charles Darwin gave it involved a whole load of philosophical baggage which came from the bourgeois society in the early 19th century of the struggle for existence. It was the imposition upon nature of essentially laws of capitalism, if you like, of the law of the jungle within capitalism being applied to nature as if it takes place simply in that sort of way. And of course, with a bourgeoisie in Britain that has a revolutionary past but is keen to exercise that past, if you like, there is a theory that is dominant within society of, like we say, of gradualism, of reformism, if you like, of slow change, yes change but slow, gradual, non-catastrophic change was definitely on the order of the day. And we see that that was very much a characteristic of Darwin's theory of evolution, of slow, gradual, percolating change. And if you look even at the start of the 20th century of the tree of life, how it unravels, you'll see that these branches slowly sort of come apart from each other like this. There are no catastrophes, if you like, there is no stasis within nature. And Darwin was perturbed by the fact that there is a lot of evidence which doesn't really go into supporting that, particularly in the fossil record. He was very well aware that these sort of, if you expect slow, gradual change, you expect to see all of the intermediate links between one species and another as you have biological evolution. That is not the case. Nature is full of holes within the fossil record. These so-called missing links exist across all sorts of species, which is very easy to dismiss when we're talking about, for example, vertebrates. Because when vertebrates are fossilized, they usually are fossilized in large groups where all of the bones get mixed up, you don't have full, complete skeletons. It's very easy to, if you like, it's very difficult to fossilize an organism and it's very hard to find the complete samples, if you like, in specimens. These were regarded as genuine gaps. So, again, the progress of normal science within the old paradigm of Darwinian gradualistic evolution, you instep individuals such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Elridge in the 1970s and try to actually write, let's find these gaps in the fossil record. And Niles Elridge actually went out and was like, well, we can't find them amongst the vertebrates. Let's have a look amongst arthropods, for example trilobites. And he went out and did a statistical study of trilobites because they exist in their millions across entire geological epochs. They exist in all sorts of different continents and so forth. And he was dumbfounded by the fact that when he looked across millions of years in all sorts of different areas, they all looked the same. All of these damn trilobites looked exactly the same as each other. He couldn't tell the difference. But then in other layers of rock from millions of years later, they all looked completely different. And his conclusions were essentially that he had failed. Like, well, this PhD has been a complete waste of time. May as well go home. That was his first conclusion. But that is interesting actually because that is how science progresses. A lot of the contradictions which developed within an old theory, within an old paradigm, at first are quite often dismissed as completely incorrect results, as false results and can lead to the demoralisation of scientists. As it was Niles Elridge and Stephen Jay Gould came up with a new theory which has proven to be spectacularly correct in the fact that nature does not develop along the lines that Darwin conceived of it. In fact, there is no gradual change between species. For the most part, species remain in stasis. There is very little change or rather what change does take place is not of a visible nature. And then there are very short periods in geological terms of radiation of species, of new species emerging, of qualitative transformations taking place within nature. According to the theory, as it was called, of punctuated equilibrium, you have species existing in equilibrium, but it's punctuated by periods of catastrophic change of new species emerging, such as in the Cambrian Revolution where you had suddenly, for millions of years previously, all you had were these single-celled organisms and suddenly an explosion of these multi-cellular complex organisms emerging. The nature transforms by the dialectical law of the transformation of quantity into quality. And this was... And the modern genetics has magnificently actually confirmed this, this theory of, if you like, punctuated equilibrium, by giving concrete examples of how individual quantitative genetic changes are necessary for a qualitative transformation of an organism. I can think of those brilliant experiments in the 1980s on E. coli bacteria where they examined, if you like, hundreds of generations of E. coli bacteria in the laboratory where you can see evolution taking place because the organisms replicate at such a rapid rate. And what they noticed was a sudden transformation in the E. coli. They started consuming a chemical which was placed in these petri dishes, which wasn't meant to be consumed. They put some glucose in there as food and then some pH stabiliser. And then suddenly they found one morning they woke up and these E. coli were eating this other chemical that wasn't meant to be eaten by E. coli bacteria. It was a complete transformation in the organism. It was a new domain that they had essentially broken out into. And they proved that what was necessary to get to that stage was a whole series of quantitative changes within the genetics of the E. coli. And the same thing has now been proven of quantity transforming into quality in across different organisms, if you like, for everything from stickleback fish through to bacteria. So you see that dialectics, if you like, in spite of the conservatism of the philosophy of the epoch which denies dialectics in society, and we see how that reacts also upon dialectics in nature, if you like, how scientists themselves are human beings. They bring their philosophical prejudices to the science which they're actually investigating. But the uncovering, if you like, of the real dynamics within nature shows that nature abides by, if you like, the laws of dialectical materialism, that the progress of science is the progress of the discovery of these dialectical laws operating also within nature. And how could it be otherwise? As I said at the beginning, all that exists is matter in motion, and therefore all that we can use to describe the qualitative transformations in nature are the quantitative relationships between matter, if you like, that position, velocity, mass, charge, these sort of things. Well, I think something that is important, and as we've demonstrated with the progress within science, there are also steps forward, but there are also steps back. The general trend within human history is a trend towards an increasing, if you like, breadth of scientific knowledge, of a greater profundity of our understanding of nature and greater control over nature itself. And yet that has not been without its steps backward. It is not a linear and it is not an automatic process. And we see that capitalism itself brings its own laws to bear upon the progress of science. It is one of the most dramatic aspects of capitalism is how far it penetrates into all spheres of human activity, the division of labour between mental and manual labour on the one hand, but within the sciences themselves. There is a necessity, if you like, to specialise within the sciences. Of course, there is that necessity. But the division of labour, if you like, carries that to an extreme. And we see within the science... I don't know if there are any scientists here, but there are biologists who will spend their entire life studying biochemistry. And, you know, it requires specialists. You know, they may know very little about anatomy. There are anatomists who will know very little about the complex behaviour of the folding of proteins within the cell. And it is natural that science should progress in that sort of way to some extent. But when taken to an extreme, as we understand, things can turn into their opposites, as Richard Lewontin said, and he was quoting from some other biologists. Nature does not exist in its parts. You do not see heads and feet and hands and ribs in nature. You only see those under the knife of the anatomist. Within nature, there are only whole organisms that can only be fully understood in their interaction, if you like, with the rest of nature. That's not to say that, of course, as I said previously, breaking down things into their constituent parts is a necessary aspect of scientific progress, of understanding the dialectics within nature. For example, it would be impossible to imagine that modern chemistry had, depending on who you believe, made this discovery, had oxygen not been isolated by either Joseph Priestley or the other... What's his name, Lavos, yeah. It's necessary to be able to isolate things into their parts to understand the quantitative relations between them, if you like. It's nowhere in nature do we see native chlorine, or very rarely do we see native chlorine, if you like. It's all around us in combination with sodium in table salt and so forth. It's necessary to break things down within physics, chemistry, within all the sciences. We break things down, we take them out of nature, we rip the parts out of nature, and we study them in isolation. We study them in equilibrium. Let me just have a look. Of course, when we put them back into the rest of nature, things behave very differently. Equilibrium to the extent that they exist, they're only temporary. Whereas in the laboratory we can set boundary conditions to an ideal gas equation, for example, that everything is at standard room temperature and pressure. There is no standard room temperature and pressure within nature, if you like. There are no simple mathematical laws which will be able to describe nature in its full complexity. We see that even when things achieve a very minor level of complexity. For example, with Newton's laws, which he thought of as... ..and Laplace and others, ..thought of as giving a very simple description of the universe, behaving in clockwork, if you like. If you have more than two bodies, if you have, say, three bodies in gravitational relationship with each other, in all bit of each other, what you see is you immediately generate a chaotic system. You cannot predict that no matter how hard you try, because if you place those three bodies in a slightly different position, the motion will be qualitatively different after just a few rotations, if you like, after these orbiting bodies. The third body problem presents one of the, if you like, one of the classic problems of Newtonian physics. You see chaos within nature, where the smallest quantitative change can lead to a complete qualitative transformation. We know this principally as the butterfly effect, of course, where a butterfly flaps its wing in one part of the world and can lead to a hurricane in another part of the world. Irreducible complexity exists in nature, where things cannot be simply understood in terms of simple scientific laws. These remain abstractions, if you like. Of course, though, studying dynamic non-equilibrium systems is an extremely difficult task, and for the most part, it has been completely intractable. We cannot give an accurate, if you like, description of how the free body problem unravels. But with computers, with modern computing, we are able to finally begin modelling these complex systems, if you like, and giving them a mathematical description. It's out of that, actually, which we've seen the development of modern chaos theory, of complexity theory, which has found remarkable patterns across the whole number of different fields, with the, as I say, chaos being one of them, the idea that small changes, if you like, lead to complete qualitative transformations, where the system, after a few generations, doesn't actually resemble itself. But we also have the opposite law, if you like, is also inherent within complex systems, non-dynamic non-equilibrium systems, where you see the emergence of extremely complex, qualitative formations, which are very independent, very much independent of the initial starting conditions. For example, the evolution of fins and flippers within all sorts of different organisms that started from very different starting conditions, but converged on very similar qualitative conditions. And I highly recommend, in this regard, a book by Mark Buchanan called Ubiquity, which looks, if you like, at this, how dialectics has been rediscovered in chaos theory and complexity theory in the modern period. And I'd like to, yeah, I'll sum up now. So, as I said previously, I don't think that progress is inherent within science. We've seen periods, I sometimes think that we do have the idea that maybe with all of the knowledge that has been accumulated from the ancient Greeks to the modern scientific revolutions, that we are in some way, oh, there's no possibility that we can take a step back, if you like, there could be no return to a dark age in the modern period. But one thing I think that, I mean, I've pointed out now and I think I want to re-emphasise is that there is no separation between science and the rest of society. When society enters into crisis, we also see its reflection within the sciences itself. It's not immune to that. It is not an automatic process that science will go on advancing, if you like. And we see the elements of crises in the sciences at the moment. I mean, there was one scandal came out in the most recent period of how the sugar industry has basically blamed facts for the last few decades, for the rising heart disease, obesity and these sort of things. The oil monopolies, when they try to pull that sort of thing with global warming, they've essentially been caught out. No-one really buys that sort of, if you like, climate change denial. But the sugar monopolies have been getting away with it for years, essentially. We do still intelligent people, thinking people have bought into this sort of bad science, which has essentially been bent in the interests of capitalist monopolies. But beyond the obvious scandals, there are more insidious, more unconscious effects, if you like, of the capitalist crisis and how that affects the sciences. The dressing up of all sorts of once-defunct, seemingly-defunct philosophical ideas of idealist conceptions being revived with, to quote Lenin's phrase, the all of the tinsel of modern science being churned out with a new form, if you like, such as the justification of idealist conceptions within quantum mechanics that we see with the Copenhagen interpretation. We see a philosophical crisis within science. Recently, there was a debate within Nature magazine over what is the scientific method. There are those amongst the theoretical physicists and mathematicians who believe that science should not have any, doesn't have to necessarily have any relationship to experimental science, that the beauty, if you like, of the theory itself is sufficient justification for the theory. There is another crisis within science, is the reproducibility crisis, which has been stalking a number of scientific fields for a period, within psychology has been deeply affected by it for decades. But I'll give you a quote from a neuroscience magazine that shows that it is not simply something that's affected to this or that field. It says, within a culture that pressure scientists to produce rather than discover, the outcome is a bias and impoverished science in which most published results are either unconfirmed genuine discoveries or unchallenged fallacies. This is a direct result of turning academics, academia and scientists, essentially, into a sausage factory where they have to churn out more and more papers. It's a publish or die atmosphere and science is the victim, if you like. But these crises are not going to... These crises are not going to unfold in a simple manner. There are going to be periods where we see a building up of pressures, of cuts and attacks and austerity, of the impoverishment of science through the forcing scientists to publish more and more papers irrespective of the quality, is going to eventually lead to a qualitative transformation. Crises within capitalism do not happen in a slow, unfolding and predictable way. They reach a crisis point and a tipping point. And science itself, I think, is a battleground. It's a battleground for the defence of the advances of the past. It is also a battleground for the defence of our ideas. We've seen in previous periods how science and philosophy can be used as weapons in the hands of one class in its bids to transform society and overthrow an old class. Likewise for us, the defence of the materialist method, which finds its highest confirmation within the dialectics of nature, if you like, is also the struggle to transform society itself. So I'll leave it there.


My name is Ali Radha and I am from Karachi Pakistan and currently I am working in a bank and my profession is HR. My love towards Imam Hussein, my love towards Alibath and my love towards the entire holy prophet and these holy places. My love towards Imam Hussein, Alibath, Rasulullah sallallahu sallam and these holy places which motivates me to come here again and again. The event which occurred here is like first Imam Hussein, what has been prevented from on him, his sacrifice of his life, his Alibath, the one who stay alive will be present by him. My aim first of all of course to visit these holy shrines and to pray for myself, to pray for my family and whatever I can get from Maula, not only for me but to all my friends and families who has asked me for their prayers for them also. Maybe Maula doesn't give him a chance because it's all about recalling from Maula. Most of the people have wealth but they don't able to come. It's all from the Maula. Some people are very poor but if Maula calls them they come by any means. Definitely when I return home I'll definitely recall all those memories and I will really wish to come here again because I've been to Mashhad before like four years before because when I came back I really feel that I should visit again Mashhad but now I'm here so definitely once I'll be home so definitely those feeling will remember for long. It's my first, once I saw the Rose of Imam, Imam Husay Qazim, it was really a feeling which I really can't express because your first sight towards Rose of Anyaim was really, it's really something amazing which you just can't express in your words. So definitely of course once I return back to my country I will definitely share my experiences with them what I have seen here, what I feel here, what I have not only but also the places, those areas, those cities, those people of Iraq, how love they, how love the Zairins because I have seen the local people over here really respect and really love the Zairins which come here and I really have some good time with few locals. The Shahadah of Khazrat Ali Azhar, the six month Imam child who didn't get a single drop of water from the Yazidis which really make me cry a lot because they haven't give a water to a six month old child, once you visit here definitely you will learn something from Imam and their companions. It make you more humble, more down to earth as compared to sitting back in your home maybe it's a factor on your personality. First of all he should be punctual in his namaz, he should be down to earth, he should respect others, he should be loyal not only for himself but to his family members also and if somebody ask for any help and a person is capable enough to he should help him so which because Islam is all about not only hukukal ibad, hukukal it also hukukal ibad so you have to be, you have to perform your salah regularly as well as he should help others the main reason behind it because Imam Hussein sacrifices his wealth, his whole family for the tragedy of Karbala so people would love to come, they would love to spend, they would love to no matter how many they have but at least once in a lifetime everybody wants to come so that's the main motivation behind coming to visit this place.


Welcome to the Dr. Gundry podcast. You know, there's nothing a little more than hearing from my listeners and readers. And boy, have I had a lot of questions about my yes and no list of foods, particularly as I put out a new book, and that list changes. So I get it. You know, one egg replacer that I might have recommended two years ago, I might not recommend now because believe it or not, formulas change without consulting me. So what I said was a really great egg replacer a year ago that formula changed and I no longer recommend that egg replacer. And I, you know, I do try my best to keep the list updated. I assure you, I am always looking for a new food to add. And I'm always looking for when somebody changes something. And if we don't get to the question, I will try to remind myself to talk about the changes that have been made in corn products. That's not corn. It's Q U O R M because I have a lot of patients that ask me about that. So the fundamentals of the yes and no list actually, hopefully never change. Now having said that, you really smart readers, careful readers may know that in the Dr. Gundry cookbook, the original one, I cited a paper that said pecans might have a lectin that in some people attack the pancreas. And that same paper suggested that there is a lectin in seaweed that may be problematic. And it's well hidden in that book, but every now and then an alert reader will pick that up. So why haven't I taken pecans and seaweed off the list? Well, stay tuned because in my upcoming book, the energy paradox, which will be out this coming fall, I have found through multiple food allergy testing in my patients that pecans often, often, often, I would say 75% of the time come up as a food that people are allergic to. So stay tuned. They may be coming off the list. Also, we have found that there is a lectin in spinach that can be problematic for certain individuals, not everybody. And as I get more data from my patients, remember, this is not conjecture on my part. This is data driven from patient blood work. As more data comes in, we may issue a cautionary note on spinach. But for now, don't throw the spinach away. Okay. So there's always going to be great foods to eat, and there'll probably be always foods that you should avoid. Okay, so there's always exceptions to the rule. And we're going to talk about some of the exceptions. Okay, Francia asked, I have a tree nut allergy. So the acceptable flowers on the list are out of my range of acceptability. I am also vegetarian. So meats and chicken on the list cannot be eaten. Dairy is one of my protein staples. Any suggestions? Well, there's certainly a lot of flowers on the list that are not nut based. For instance, tiger nuts are not a nut at all. They are a tuber. Cassava is a tuber. Millet is a grain without a hall as is sorghum. And we're increasingly seeing sorghum and millet flowers available on a routine basis. And if worse comes to worse, you can find them on Amazon or on thrive. So there's multiple other flowers other than almond and coconut flower. Most people don't react to almond and coconut flower, but I'll add the proviso. Make sure it's blanched almond flower, not whole almond flower. For instance, Trader Joe's does sell a whole ground up almond flower and you can actually see the flecks of brown. A number of my patients with autoimmune disease do react to the lectin and the peel of almonds. That's why you actually don't see almonds on the approved nut list. Marcona almonds, which are peeled almonds, are perfectly acceptable. But in my way of thinking there's actually far better nuts to eat than almonds in terms of feeding gut bacteria. And I've written about that in the longevity paradox that there's better choices. Okay, dairy is one of my protein staples. Well, dairy, as a protein, if you find casein A2 milk products and they are increasingly available, that's a perfectly acceptable protein source. You can get it from goat's milk, you can get it from goat's cheeses, you can get it from sheep cheeses, you can get sheep yogurt, which is absolutely fantastic. Sheep and goat's cheeses from Europe, no matter where they come from or safe. And most cows in France, Italy, and Switzerland are A2 producers, as is buffalo mozzarella. Make sure it says buffalo mozzarella either from Italy. There's also a company that we've talked about before from Ecuador called Buf, B-U-F. And you can find in a whole foods, you can find it in actually multiple stores now. And a true water buffalo milk is perfectly safe. Now having said that, there are a number of people in my practice who when we do further testing, they do react to all the caseins in milk and even whey protein in milk. So if you notice that even if you're eating casein A2 milk products and you still have an issue, whether it's irritable bowel, whether it's mucus production, then you're one of those people where milk is one of your off foods. Always remember, there's no human need for milk. We're the only animal that uses some other animal's milk product. Well, cats like it, but we give it to cats. They don't go milk a cow. So milk is not essential for your good health. Also remember that while there may be cheeses, aged cheeses that have a really cool compound called polyamines, which appear to promote longevity, milk in general, liquid milk has lots of insulin like growth factor to make baby cows or baby goats or baby sheep grow quickly. So I'd much rather you use the finished product of milk like an aged cheese or even a yogurt rather than the milk liquid itself. Okay, hope that helps. Robin asks, can you drink almond milk? Well, yeah, you can drink almond milk. I find it a little watery and bland. I think there's actually a lot better products out there on the market now. I'm particularly fond of a combination of macadamia and coconut milks that are available. There's some really, I think, thick, delicious coconut milks that are available. There are some combinations of almond and coconut milk that give you the thickness you want. And if you want to have some fun, look for several of the products that are non-dairy half and half, which are often a mixture of macadamia or coconut or almond milks. And you're going to get more of a thicker texture for those. But yeah, you can drink almond milk. Christiana asks, what about honey? Is that on the yes or no list? So you'll notice in the Plant Paradox Family cookbook, I do recommend in a few recipes using a little bit of local honey. You got to remember that honey is sugar. There's no other way of looking at it. And in general, we have far too much sugar in our diet, period. That being said, if you use local honey, there is some interesting evidence that they contain health benefiting properties, including actually some interesting probiotics and even prebiotics. So it's not, it's neither on the no or yes list because when I originally made the list, if I put everything that everybody asked a question about, it would take the entire book just to do the yes and no list. So rather than put it one place or another, it wasn't a big thing that my patients were demanding. And so I just left it off the list one way or another. But yeah, honey does appear, you'll notice in several of my recipes, but do try to get local honey and, you know, again, support your local beekeeper, support your local farmer's market. And that's where you're going to find local honey. And please don't make the mistake that local honey, so for instance, I live in Palm Springs, my local honey is not from Orange County. It's from Palm Springs. Same way, if I'm in Santa Barbara and my other home, I buy Santa Barbara honey. Do I use it? Quite frankly, I almost never use honey, except to make one of these recipes. Rose asked, am I correct in understanding that much of the no list is perfectly fine if pressure cooked? She's specifically looking at squash, quinoa, rice, lentils. The answer in a general rule is yes. There are, there is evidence that pressure cooking destroys most lectins. The exception to the rule, and I listed on the list, is gluten, which is present in wheat, rye, and barley, cannot be destroyed by pressure cooking. It is a really nasty protein that can't be broken apart by pressure cooking. Having said that, there is a protein in oats that mimics gluten. And so I've had a number of my canaries test even pressure cooking oats for an hour, and they still react to oats. So you'll notice that that's on the off. I have a number of people who still want to maintain their traditional diet, their family diet, and that includes lentils and, for instance, quinoa. And they do extremely well by pressure cooking their quinoa. In fact, interesting that just this past week, I have a family who have quinoa, and they pressure cook their quinoa and are thriving on that. And they invited their in-laws over to have pressure cooked quinoa. And the in-laws said, there's no way we're coming over. That's not how you cook quinoa.  And they actually didn't.  And he said, you're not going to believe this. My in-laws actually said, why didn't you tell us about this before? This is so much better than the way we've been preparing it. So true story from just this past week. As you know, in the plant paradox, I write about a woman who immigrated to LA from Peru and wanted to continue her traditional diet, which included quinoa. She developed some impressive bowel issues and autoimmune disease.  And she took her to Bed Bath and Beyond and bought her a pressure cooker. And when I met her, she said, you know, my mother would beat you to me. And ever since she's been pressure cooking her quinoa, she has resolved her issues. So these are real things. White Basmati rice, I personally feel is the safest of the rice is please pressure cook it. And as you've read, even with any of these starches, your best off to pressure cook them, put a little coconut oil in the pressure cooker with these starches, but then cool the starch, put it in the refrigerator, and then reheat it the next day. Cooling will take any of these starches and increase their resistance starch content. What resistance starch means for those of you who are just kind of getting into this, it is resistant to normal digestion. So it takes longer to digest number one. And number two, some of it actually resists our normal digestion and then is eaten by bacteria in our gut. So it becomes a prebiotic. Now we can get really nerdy on resistant starches, but really nerdy potatoes, good old white potatoes can be made a resistant starch. But the starch in potato is actually an R2 starch. And it is actually eaten by bad bacteria rather than good bacteria. So it's another reason to avoid potatoes, even if you're going to pressure cook them. Now I do have some of my patients that have to have their white potatoes and mashed potatoes. And yes, we have them peel the potatoes and pressure cook them. But if you're looking for a starch that's good for you, that's way down the list. Okay, Sherry asks, how do you ensure adequate potassium intake on the diet? Bananas are a staple for me to ensure appropriate potassium levels. I know sweet potatoes are a good source but so one has to remember that the United Fruit Company who originated bringing bananas to the United States had to make people adopt to a new foods source. One of the fascinating things about bananas that I hope everyone knows that bananas were the original fruit that could be picked green and then shipped across the country and then ripened with either exposure to air or ripened rapidly with exposure to the gas ethylene oxide. So that was the motivation for making bananas a desired food source. So how do you make people eat bananas when they don't know anything about it? In the early 1900s, the United Fruit Company paid doctors to tell people that bananas were a great source of potassium that people needed in their diet. It turns out that potassium that potassium is not particularly high in bananas. In fact, there are far better foods including leafy greens that have far more potassium per ounce than bananas. But it was this marketing plan over 100 years ago that actually made people and doctors to this day tell people to eat bananas for potassium. Incidentally, the United Fruit Company formed with the new founded Kellogg's Cornflake Company in 1906 to have a coupon for a bunch of jacquita bananas in every box of Kellogg's Cornflakes and doctors were paid to tell people that the healthy way to start your day was with a bowl of Kellogg's Cornflakes with a sliced banana. So that's why you know now why my mom gave me a healthy sliced banana on my Kellogg's Cornflakes every day while I was growing up. And while I was getting allergy shots, little did I know little did she know that's because of the power of marketing. And as anyone learns, if you say an untruth often enough and loud enough, it will become the truth. How's that? Okay, also, calcium is a concern. So most of the world, two thirds of the world cannot drink milk because of lactose intolerance. They did not inherit the mutated gene that allows most European ancestry to tolerate lactose. Many of us don't have the particular lactobacilli that can digest lactose easily. Two thirds of the world does not use calcium, does not take calcium as a supplement. The FDA has warned that in general, we should not take calcium in a supplement form that we should get calcium, which is an essential mineral from food. And so it's incredibly available in all of our green leafy vegetables. It's actually present in avocados do a very good amount. It's present in millet and sorghum. It is present in beans and people have to understand I have nothing against beans and lentils as long as you pressure cook them. They are a great source of prebiotic fiber, but just take the time to detoxify the lectins by pressure cooking. And it's so easy to do. If you don't want to do that, you can go to your friendly store and pick up Eden brand beans. I have no relationship with them. E-D-E-N and they are the only bean that I have found that is pressure cooked in the can. It's pre-soaked and the BPA there is no BPA lining in Eden beans. And believe it or not, I have a shelf full of Eden beans in both of my pantries and I eat them. So whoever puts out on the internet then you know I am totally against beans. It's not true. I eat them. Maybe I'll post a video of me eating beans. That'll be good. Okay. Look for that. Bottom line. How does one ensure the right vitamin and mineral balance? So if you eat a wide range of different vegetables, different starches, different roots, you will maintain an adequate balance. One of the things that has been noted over and over again is that our soil, even our organic soil is terribly depleted of magnesium and selenium. How do you get selenium in your diet?  That will get you your daily requirement of selenium and actually they're pretty good for you. Magnesium on the other hand is really difficult to get by eating food and I have every one of my patients on a magnesium supplement. I particularly like potassium magnesium aspartate. There are several companies that manufacture it. Look for the most you can get per tablet or capsule. The labeling is very inconsistent. If you have any issues with cramps in your legs, cramps particularly at night or if you're doing a ketogenic diet, you absolutely positively must supplement with potassium magnesium aspartate and it's actually one of the better tolerated combinations of magnesium. At high dose, magnesium will act as a diarrhea or soft inducing agent. Milk of magnesium is concentrated magnesium. So those are the two really fundamental minerals that may be lacking in our diet because of our soil depletion. Shelly asks, I love avocados but in the last five years or so I have extreme gut pain when I eat them and have eliminated them from my diet. This diet seems to rely heavily on avocados so I am wondering why I'm having a problem with them and what other options do I have? So I have several patients who clearly react to avocados and some of them actually seem to develop an intolerance for them the longer they eat them. So I think avocados are one of the greatest fruits there is and yes an avocado is a fruit. It's a single seeded berry but on the other hand if you see that there is a food that you react to it's you know like the old doctor joke doctor you know whenever I do this I get a headache and the answer is well don't do that and so if you notice you react avocados don't do it. I can tell you I have a number particularly women who get irritable bladder from eating spinach and they notice it universally and I can tell you I have purposely overloaded myself on spinach and I induced irritable bladder in myself so I believe you when you tell me that and there are compounds and spinach that are capable of doing that and that actually brings me to an interesting point a patient asked me a couple weeks ago the more you kind of stick with this program when you go off even with a little cheat do you notice you're now realizing that that product that food actually bothers you and I think that's actually a great observation because I notice that myself and I've noticed it in lots of patients normally we are so bombarded with compounds that universally make us feel bad have brain fog have bad sleep have pains we are so used to that that when we take all those products away and we finally wake up when we add that product back our sensitivity is now heightened to the actual effect that product was having on us and I'll give you an example it's it's actually in my new book but I'll give you a preface as a transplant surgeon both doing kidney transplants and heart transplants we would have people who were functioning quite well with basically horrible kidneys or a horribly pumping heart and they could do a number of things when we would put a new kidney in them or a new heart in them within a day they would go oh my gosh I forgot what normal felt like this is what normal feels like and it's so interesting I've been so impressed that we have been so surrounded by food that's toxic that's making us feel bad having low energy having fatigue having brain fog that we are so used to that we think that's normal and what really delights me and it delighted me when it happened to me is when that lifts you go oh my gosh I forgot what normal feels like and so when you add something back that is one of the culprits it's wonderful because now your body says hey you idiot you know what you do that for and you can feel it immediately so it's a real thing Scott from Instagram asks can I drink ciders as a beer alternative that is a great question Scott because I have a gentleman who's in his 70s who has some of the most impressive leaky gut that I've come across he does not absorb protein well he is skinny as a rail and his wife is a faithful follower of mine and he's actually a faithful follower of mine except he used to drink a six pack of beer every day we weaned him down to one to two beers per day and he still has leaky gut so I said I'll tell you what let's do a really specific leaky gut test on you and let's find out your culprit knowing full well what I think we thought we'd find and lo and behold all of his leaky gut tests came back and son of a gun I've been telling them this for 10 years he reacts to wheat and surprise a wheat and he reacts severely to gluten and gluten is in his beer no matter what beer he's drinking beer has gluten and his wife you know hits him over the head with her pocketbook and says yes see I told you you got to give up the beer so what I'm going to do next week when I get back to the Palm Springs office is I'm going to have my staff call and say I'm going to make a swap for you let's get rid of beer and let's put insider and we're going to see what happens great question you leave from Instagram asks is teff flour allowed teff is actually a very interesting ancient grain from Africa it's really tiny it grows in incredibly arid awful places and it's a staple of the people I go dig wells for in Ethiopia and teff is actually a safe grain it's another one of those hauls grain try to buy teff you actually support indigenous farmers so Hannah from instagram asks for high fat dairy products how important is it to stick with organic dairy products yes get organic dairy products but warning if it says grass fed but doesn't tell you the cow breed most of our cows in the United States are Holstein or their Jersey cows jerseys are half a one and half a two so they do have a one casing in them the picture Elsie the cow was a Jersey cow for those of you who remember Borden fame you're better off getting excuse me cheeses from raw cheeses from France Italy and Switzerland which have all been grass fed and so they're all organic you're just much safer so the follow-up with that what about cream cheese well cream cheese does not have any casein in it I mean there's a microscopic amount but it's really basically unmeasurable so you're safe with organic cream cheese as one of the safe you know cow's milk product if you're going to use cream cheese so Kristen asks what about blue cheese so there's lots of great blue cheeses out there but I would prefer if you got your blue cheese from particularly France Italy or the mountainous areas of Germany and Switzerland which are all a two cows blue cheese from England and having lived in England I love Stilton cheese it's the wrong breed of cow it's a Holstein so you're much better off getting your blue cheeses like Penny and I do from from France that's the blue cheeses we use or Italy so a goldstein from Instagram asks please recommend a perilla oil to cook with well there's actually a number of perilla oils that are available if you go to an Asian market perilla oil is the most popular oil for cooking in Korea and parts of China you can go on Amazon and get it I get mine from a company called Dr. Wonderful which is easy to find on Amazon I have no relation I may be wonderful for all I know but and I've been using that for a number of years my personal feeling is that long-term in phase two or beyond olive oil is your best buddy because it has far more polyphenols than perilla oil the benefit of perilla oils it has a lot of what's called rosemaryic acid which is one of the secrets to the longevity and good brain health of the acerolies that community that is south of Naples which has the oldest the biggest percentage of over 100 year old people of any community so rosemaryic acid which by the way is in one of several of my products is one of the real secrets to longevity so 303 Charlie from Instagram wants to know about mycotoxins in coffee and chocolate and other things and he wants to know are they really as bad as certain people say they are that's a great question and I I actually take care of a number of people who come to me with a mold exposure or mycotoxin exposure including one of the world's experts on it and I'll give you my take on all of this I don't test for these things the fact that you may test positive for IgG to various molds or other fungi does not mean that those molds and fungi are in you or that you were ever infected with them it means that you were exposed to them and you appropriately made a antibody to these having said that your immune system most of our immune systems because of leaky gut and quite frankly I think about a hundred percent of us walking around in America have leaky gut and your immune system is so hyper on alert that any foreign protein will activate them to attack not only them but you normally when your gut is sealed and you have a normal component of microbiome with lots and lots and thousands and millions of different species those species literally educate your immune system that we've got your back whatever you're going to swallow we'll take care of and even if we don't they're not going to bother you and you guys can just rest and stand down I'm a perfect example of that I got allergy shots for most of my teenage and young adult life I don't have any allergies anymore I was allergic to every mold there was I could live in a moldy house I will not have any reaction to mold exposure because my immune system is different by the way the Italian government has issued statements that there are no mycotoxins in espresso so there are none because the process even if there were the cooking process the high temperature kills and deactivates any mycotoxin same way with chocolate so if you react to these molds or fungi it's because your immune system is hyper reactive and that's actually telling you that these guys are not the problem the problem is you got leaky gut and you got a horribly imbalanced microbiome we fix that that problem goes away as it did with one of the world experts in mycotoxins when we changed your leaky gut so that's it for this week from the Dr. Gundry podcast please send your questions on in it's really fun to get a chance to answer your questions and send more and we'll be happy to put me on the firing line because I'm Dr. Gundry and I'm always looking out for you before you go I just wanted to remind you that you can find the show on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher or wherever you get your podcasts because I'm Dr. Gundry and I'm always looking out for you


I'm Craig from Amusement Insiders and we're at Splashworks today. We're going to take you on a tour and tell you if it's worth the visit. Alrighty, I'm going to give you guys some tips and tricks to getting a reservation at Splashworks and is Splashworks worth the visit? Well, number one, yes, Splashworks is most definitely worth the visit, especially this year. The capacity is extremely low and you can get on everything multiple times and you can also check out their new cliff-jumping experience, Mountain Bay Cliffs, which is absolutely amazing and it looks a lot smaller on any video than it does in person. It's a lot taller in person than it is in any video, so you got to definitely check that out. It's something unique if you don't have a cottage or you've been cliff-jumping, it's definitely something that you should definitely check out. Nonetheless, Splashworks to Craig and I's opinion is definitely worth the visit. It's extremely safe, very social distance, very clean and there is like one lifeguard for like one person for every two lifeguards, so it's the safest it could ever possibly be. But nonetheless, Splashworks is pretty booked up right now until about August 23rd I last checked and a lot of people are complaining that they can't get a reservation. Well, you may not know but at this current moment you can walk on over to Splashworks and there's people taking down your names to join a waiting list for that day if people don't shut up for the reservation and you can then go to Splashworks. I don't know how accessible that is, like how many people on that list end up getting into Splashworks, but that is one way to get into Splashworks if you weren't able to get a reservation and that we know of starting around August 6th unconfirmed, we could be heading back to normalcy for outdoor attractions as close to possible. So that is good news, we could just see Canada's Wonderland become the way it was before and you'll be able to go to the park or water park starting around August 6th. Now again, that is unconfirmed news and it is only coming from the news on Twitter, which sometimes can be right and sometimes can be wrong and things obviously can change, but nonetheless that is two ways you can possibly be looking at getting a reservation. So if you're trying to get Canada's Wonderland based around Splashworks sometime after August 6th might be your best bet, or if you don't really care that much about Splashworks and you would like to enjoy it, going to Canada's Wonderland's Drive Hark, making a Drive Hark reservation and then joining the wait list at Splashworks front gate might be your best bet to getting a reservation or getting into Splashworks. Outside of that it was very unique, so how they did the wave pools, they'd have a rope around the entire wave pool and then it would be one way in, one way out, so super smart and the wave pool was very social distance as you can tell from this footage right now and there was absolutely zero lines on the waterslides. The restaurants had zero weight, so if you're looking for food even the restaurant inside Splashworks, if you have a reservation might be better to get food at than in the dry park if you're roaming around the dry park throughout the day. Outside of that there's not really much to report on. The lockers are open so you can get a locker and the cabanas are open as well for an upcharge on Canada's Wonderland's website. I would highly recommend getting a cabana if you have a Splashworks reservation because it is shaded and with the heat that we've been experiencing it's been like Florida up here in Canada or in Ontario. One day it says it's thunderstorming and it doesn't and one day it says it doesn't thunderstorm and it does, so it's a very Florida like weather. I would highly recommend the cabanas. Super awesome experience in the cabana. They have lockers in the cabanas as well, a little safe. They have televisions and just super comfortable and shaded and I think that's pretty much it in terms of Splashworks. I don't really know much else to go on in terms of Splashworks. The waterslides are obviously great. I wish there was a little more in Splashworks but that being said this season is definitely the season to try and get into Splashworks and there are two ways both via reservation or the wait list at front gate Splashworks not front gate of Canada's Wonderland. You want to go to the gate of Splashworks and look for the person with a clipboard and join the waiting list. Nonetheless, that's pretty much it for Splashworks. Definitely highly recommend. Super safe, super social distance and it's definitely a great experience and the new Mount Bay Cliffs is absolutely amazing. So for us, it's definitely worth the visit. Try and score a reservation as best you can. Again, reservations will start to slowly open up over the coming weeks. Wonderland is slowly increasing its capacity to 75% from 25%. So you'll see availabilities open up slowly or they might be using the waiting list. So just keep an eye out on the website. I check daily and I would highly suggest that you guys check daily as well. As always, thanks so much for watching our videos. Hopefully this video was informative. If you have any questions about Splashworks or Canada's Wonderland, comment down below and I will try and answer them to the best of my ability. And yeah, thanks so much for watching guys. Have a great week. Bye.


Good morning. Welcome to CMC markets on Friday the 26th of May and this quick look at the week ahead with me Michael Houston and it's been an interesting week. There's been a number of factors at play Which has driven the declines that we've seen so far this week We are start we are getting a little bit of a Friday respite On the back of probably a little bit a little bit of a profit-taking bargain hunting Whatever you want to call it, but certainly I think one of the things that we have seen over the course of the past few days is a significant reassessment of the risk outlook Amongst investors given the sharp decline that we really started to see Gain traction on Wednesday a big big fall in markets. Obviously there are a number of drivers to The sell-off that we've seen this week We are seeing a little bit of a rebound now as we head into the weekend But there's no question that obviously the debt ceiling is Having a part to play in it even on the margins I mean you could argue that, you know, perhaps the risk of a US default still remains pretty close to zero and I would probably Go along with that to a certain extent But nonetheless Combined with concerns about a flaky Chinese recovery Rising rates and I think that has been one of the notable takeaways from this week's Price action has been the sharp spike that we've seen Not only in UK rates and that's no better illustrated than by this chart here of the UK Two-year guilt yield, which is back now at the levels that we saw back in September and October in the aftermath of the quasi-quarting budget Which was quickly reversed But it this this this rise in UK rates isn't just about isn't just a local issue It's been more broadly replicated in The US where we've seen a big big rise in US two-year yields We've also seen an increase in European yields and a large part of the reason for this rise in yields is that inflation Continues to look much stickier than an awful lot of Market pricing had suggested it might have been two or three weeks ago Now this is not a surprise to me What is what is a surprise is that it's a surprise to markets and what we're seeing now Is a significant readjustment of pricing when it comes to the prospect of further rate? I exist the Fed done well Certainly on the basis of what we've seen so far over the course of the past few days perhaps not The hawkish rhetoric coming out of the Federal Reserve Policymakers does suggest they've probably got one more in the tank The big question is whether it comes in July whether the signal puts or if signal whether it comes in June rather whether it comes in July I can't see the point of hiking rates in July and pausing in June You might as well get out in front of it hike in June and then take a take a step back now Obviously the payrolls numbers Coming up in the in the week over the course of the next week or so should give us further insight Into whether or not the Fed feels it's wise To perhaps pause now what signal will that send to the bond markets? We've got US PCE core PCE later today. Obviously as I record this video. We don't have visibility of those numbers, but We're unlikely to see a big drop in core prices given the fact that first quarter GDP Core PCE actually rose to 5% and yes, it is backward-looking, but nonetheless. It's the last three months and as we well know core inflation Doesn't really come down that quickly. We've certainly seen that in the UK this week headline inflation came down from 10.1 to 8.7 Which was slightly less than expected But core prices went from 6.2 percent to 6.8 so hats off to the Bank of England there They've done a sterling job. No pun intended in capping inflation and particularly core inflation so With that in mind, and I think that's really why you can sort of see what's happened with respect to market pricing to two-year gilts is that You know and you know pains me to say it but When you look at two-year gilts Fix rates generally tech fixed rate mortgages generally tend to be priced off this particular number and If you've got a fixed rate mortgage rolling off Over the course of the next few months. You better hope this spike in yields proves temporary in nature You know certainly in the weeks between now and the next Bank of England meeting because the pressure is on the Bank of England now There are no wins, you know, this is the no wins scenario for them Because they've delayed and procrastinated when it comes to raising rates, you know in the same manner the Federal Reserve Yeah, they delayed as well, but In less than the number of meetings. It's taken the Bank of England to get to their current base rate 4.5% They're over they're over 5% So, you know, if they've been slightly more aggressive in the beginning, perhaps core prices Wouldn't be as high as they are now. Who knows, you know We will never know the counterfactual on that particular discussion and now they're in a position whereby You know, do they ignore the fact that core prices have gone higher and let that slow the economy down and perhaps even become more entrenched? Do they hike again and again and potentially tip the economy in reset into a self-induced slowdown? Or are they very or are they Significantly more aggressive and do 50 points for the next meeting in June Given the fact the Bank of England has never been particularly aggressive when it comes to raising rates I think the the latter is unlikely and really one of the first two options is more likely nonetheless I think the damage is done and yes, we'll probably get another 25 basis points Whether we get more than that is another matter and the ECB has a similar problem Given the fact the German economy is slipped into recession in the first quarter of this year So as we look ahead to next week, obviously the debt ceiling Continues to be a clear and present concern for markets and that first of June deadline looks like it's going to be missed Maybe finding a little bit more money down the back of the soap You should see that extended out to the 7th of the 8th of June, but there is a deal emerging It would appear and this deal would raise the limit cap spending for two years With defense spending permitted to rise three percent next year. So there are there are there is the framework emerging And we could we'll see The finer details of a deal emerge in the upcoming week. So it's about the debt ceiling It's about non-farm payrolls on the 2nd of June and it's also about EU flash CPI For may on the 1st of June other than that We've got UK mortgage approvals on the 31st of May as well as net consumer credit We've got manufacturing PMIs and one of the things that we saw from those manufacturing flash PMIs that we saw earlier in the week was that Manufacturing activity continues to remain subdued particularly in Germany where it hit the slowest level since June 2020 and numbers released earlier this week On the earnings front, there's only really a couple of noteworthy items Broadcom second quarter earnings They got a nice lift on Thursday Largely, I think as a result of the Nvidia Effect saw that spike significantly higher, but they've also just signed a deal with Apple Which is which was greeted very positively and this this deal with Apple is to Sell 5g 5g components Multi-billion dollar deal, which is obviously given this particular this this chipmaker in the broader chip sector A big lift over the course of the past few days So we've seen the Nvidia effects 11 billion dollar guidance for second quarter earnings data centers and artificial intelligence Effect there the data center. I think the data center numbers were particularly um, noteworthy 4.2 4.28 billion dollars Given the fact that three years ago their whole quarterly revenue was around about 3.8 3.9 Billion dollars and that was for everything including gaming So the fact that data center revenue accounted for more Than the revenue quarterly revenue that we saw three years ago Here's you an indication of what a monster or what a beast Nvidia is the bigger question is is it worth what the markets Are currently valuing you that Unfortunately, whether or not you think it's worth The current valuation is neither here nor there. You can't really stand in front of a one-way train um, nonetheless, let's have a quick look at the markets. Let's see 100 Slipped lower quite sharply over the course of the past three days started off the week modestly well Slipped back to its 200 day moving average. So that's for me. I think is really the key level 7500 we've seen a bit of a hiccup Over the course of the past few days The bigger question is whether or not we can hold above this long-term moving average and sustain Some of the gains that we've seen so far this year We are now of course back in negative territory or just about just about in positive territory for The year but it certainly doesn't do my call for a return to the 8000 level. It's not particularly helpful, but you know I think while we're above the 200 day moving average. I still remain Modestly optimistic the DAX similar again seen a very sharp pullback But again, we need to put this in the context Of what this chart is doing here and we're still very much in the uptrend that we've been in since the September and October lows. So we're always going to get a bit of a pullback We've got the pullback. The bigger question is whether it's symptomatic of a broader weakness. This is a worry potential bearish weekly candle here I think really when we look at it, this needs confirmation Where's the confirmation? Well, it will be a break below the support level here 15,700 a break below that and we could well see Further weakness in the DAX so very much technically driven. Yeah, the candles can offer clues But ultimately it's really about key support and resistance levels and at the moment They are continuing to hold similarly for the s and p 500 weren't able to sustain that move above 4200 but again As in the DAX we are still in the uptrend. We're still above these lows here Thus far, I would expect to continue to see The type of range trading that we've gotten used to over the course of the past couple of months. So No change there really NASDAQ obviously the NASDAQ has driven most of the rally that we've seen in the latter part of this week And we have seen a significant breakout in the NASDAQ Um Support again around about 13,600 now that we've broken through that 50% Fibonacci retracement level I'm expecting to see on the basis of these technicals further gains for the NASDAQ To the 61.8 Fibonacci retracement level of this entire down move here that level is 14,300 and 40. So we're only 400 points away from that And you know, we we need to understand this is a very sector-specific Driven rally if you strip out tech From this move higher US equity markets are actually lower on the year That gives you an indication of how much Tech has driven this particular rebound And you know, if you want if you want evidence To that effect you only need Look in the direction of the components of the NASDAQ 100 right here top 10 best performing Stocks are in video now nearly 160 up on the day The NASDAQ itself up 27.4 Year on year So not on the day on the year and meta platforms Advanced micro devices AMD they got a big boost as well. So you've got these three big caps here Driving most of the rally higher in US markets So it's important to bear that mind bear bear that in mind when we're looking at this particular market rebound It is very very narrow But I am encouraged by the fact that Uh, European markets even though they've been weak this week. We haven't fallen off a cliff quite yet. So um, the bigger question is How much of a drag Do higher rates Or the prospect of lower rates being pushed out into 2024 have On broader asset prices and at the moment there is this sense that These higher these higher rates Are starting to act as a drag on risk That's certainly no more prevalent that it is in euro dollar and the dollar in general The dollar has continued to gain the euro dollar is still in this downtrend. This is the four hour chart. We're looking at here If we change that to one day We can see that there's certainly potential for us to head back To 106 20 on euro dollar if we continue to get the gains That we've certainly been seeing since those peaks in euro dollar or the lows in you or the lows in the dollar that we saw Back in may That's very much trend driven this market at the moment the line of least resistance for the dollar is higher And for the euro is lower and that's really I think that's really borne out in dolly n Which went back to 140 this week um And that that was significant because it was essentially 50 replacement Of the entire down move from the october peaks To the lows back in january. So the bigger question for me Is whether or not we can crack through 140? Why is 140 significant? Aside from the fact that it's a round number We've got a bit of a confluence of resistance levels coming in in and around between 139 60 and 140 And we really want to see a clear break of that level Before we can consider the possibility that we could go higher um We've got a bank of japan rate meeting coming up in the coming weeks bank of japanese inflation is At a significant high level So the bigger question is does the bank of japan start to send out signals? Perhaps that it's going to be moderating on tweaking It's your curve control could that bring the dollar rally that we've seen over the course of the past few weeks to a shuddering call We won't have to worry about that for some time. So that's um, you so that's basically the dollar We've got us payrolls coming out for may and The expectation there is that we could see 180 000 jobs added But one of the things I would say about non-farm payrolls is that over the past few months analysts economists have consistently underestimated the resilience of the labor market the u.s labor market And um, particularly, um consumer confidence Every single month we've seen the headline number come in above estimates April's jobs was no different coming in at 253 Unemployment rate for three point four percent wage growth also aged up to four point four percent now there was a downside In those numbers because we saw a negative 149 000 adjustment to the previous two months But they don't affect the underlying resilience or the support the they don't support the idea That the u.s economy is struggling weekly jobless claims are still trending at between 225 and 235 a week so There are still nine and a half million vacancies um You know the number has declined by more than two million since the peaks of march last year But they're still well above the levels that were pre-covid When vacancies are around about seven seven and a half million So you know to pretend that the u.s labor market Is cheer rating? Well, I suppose it really depends on how you look at it and if you look at the participation rate That has been rising over the course of the past Few months to 62 Point six percent now it was 61 point three percent It was 63 point seven percent pre-pandemic So it's in the middle of where it was and where it has been So the bigger question is are more people coming back to the labor market? And the answer would appear to be yes, they are The bigger question is it will that continue adp has also remained fairly solid rising by 269 000 in april so Headline numbers for non-farm payrolls for may 180 000 on the headline Unemployment rate to tick a little bit higher to three and a half percent and wages to stay Really sticky around about four point three four point four percent. We've also got a ucpi flash cpi That was sticky in april Around about five point six percent. We're expecting to see a modest tick down in core cpi to five point five We did see a tick up in headline number to seven percent in april That is expected to drop back to six point four percent in may again. That's out on the First of june so u.s payrolls On friday flash cpi on thursday we've got a short week next week anyway because we've got A monday bank holiday. It's memorial day in the u.s Obviously, we've got the bank holiday the end of may bank holiday here in the uk as I say, there's not really that much in terms of Earnings numbers i'm going to quickly finish up by looking at cable because cable has looked particularly weak despite the fact that markets are pricing in peak bank of england rate of around about five base rate of around about five and a half percent six Five and a half percent, which is 100 basis points above where we are now Will the bank of england push rates that high? I seriously doubt that So that would suggest that perhaps the uk guilt yields two year guilt yields do have scope perhaps to come back down again Let's hope so If you're a mortgage holder But overall if we look at the way cable has been trading Has been trending lower. We've broken below the 50 day moving average We've also broken this little line here, which i'm now going to knock out So the bigger question is where is the next support level on this? So for this i'm going to use the banachi Select these lines here See whether or not any of these levels coincide with some key support areas of support Now will they coincide with this low here with this peak here? um So we could well see A little bit of support coming around about the 122 70 area And certainly I had that as an area as an area of some support On my daily analysis, which I which I post on the website Every day so 120 270 We could find a little bit of a base in and around there If we do break below there, then we're certainly looking at potentially 120 130 over the course Of the next few weeks, but any significant weakening of the dollar Could well prompt a little bit of a rebounding cable now what could cause that well a weakening of the dollar Perhaps a resolution Of the us debt ceiling that removes one layer of risk to Investor sentiment removes it from the radar and then it's really just a question of How do um, how do markets perceive? The china recovery story. How do they perceive? um the prospect for Further rate rises going forward okay, so That's pretty much it for me for this week once again. Thank you very much for listening I hope you all have a great bank holiday weekend speak to you all same time Same place next week and obviously don't forget to tune in for the non-farm payrolls webinar, which is um Which is due to start just after 1 p.m On friday and go on until about 145 2 p.m. Thank you. Have a great weekend