Okay, welcome to the studio, Balash. You drew today with Olga Giria, and I believe she sprang a surprise on you in the opening. Is that correct? Well, I think I tried to sprang the first surprise, but it backfired. I never played the Queen's Gambit accepted, but I know that she's a very good theoretician. So at all cost I wanted to avoid the preparation, but it turned out that I went for a line that she and her team analyzed two years ago. And she remembered basically all the details up to one point. I think she misplayed the move order one move before the end, because there would have been an amazing tactic. And actually I think I managed to avoid some pitfalls and found the best continuation, but had she played the best move order, then it would have been really hard for me to avoid the further coming ones. Sounds fascinating. Let's have a look at the game. Okay Balash, we've got a position here. White's just played Queen to G4, threatening Bishop h6. Tell us something about the position. Well, as I have mentioned already, I managed to step into some amazing preparation by Olga. And of course the strategy is Bishop h6, threatening mate, and then I have to give up the exchange. So it makes sense to pre-empt the FA square either for Bishop f8 or then to put G6. First I wanted to play rook fd8, because it feels more natural. But then actually it gives white... Sorry, can you move back? Thank you. So rook d8, then it... Why does it do it? No, okay. Never mind. Maybe try that. Okay, thank you. So it gives white time and let's say Bishop h6, G6. And either h4 I think or white gets a lot of time to stabilize it, rook c1. And all these maneuvers with knight d7 doesn't really work, because I think let's say there is knight d6. Oh wow. And the queen c4 is not working, because rook is not on c8. If I were in time to take on c4, then that's fine. And if it takes then, okay, I guess Bishop g6 and next move Bishop h7, Bishop f7, everything is threatened. So through d8 it gives too much time and even some h4, as long as maneuver is possible. And the other option I checked was like it's drastic measure to play f5. Because if white takes then I'm more or less happy, because okay, I don't say I'm too happy, but... King a j8 and white cannot take, because some rook a, rook e1, backhand mate and my bishop come to life. And okay, I think I have some compensation, still my king is quite weak. But she mentioned that what I was afraid of, that if f5, then just queen g3. And the pawn on e6 is extremely weak, so I cannot really move my knight. It's a picturesque position, but white's knights are more threatening. So I played rook fc8, and the point is that okay, Bishop a6 is natural, sorry. Bishop ff8, I would do it with a rook on d8, because now 9d6 is I think like game over, or very close to that. So I played g6, and this is critical position, because it makes sense, I say e, white either plays h4, but then I think I'm in time to do 9d7, because if 9d6, now I can take on c4. And if h5, I think I can take, because if I take on c4, then there's taking on g6, but I think I defend everything. After a g a g, I can take everything and king a j8, and there is no mate. And actually after rook g8, it is me who can start attacking. So okay, queen g3, and instead rook c1 would have been the best move order as told by Olga, because the point is that if I play 9d7 now, which, okay, there is bishop f6 computer move, but I wouldn't have found it, I think. Sorry, this is a queen g3. This one I still spotted, because the point is that now the point is defended, 9d6 is threatening. Because there is no 9d5 intermezzo, and if I take the knight, which I intended to do as a last measure, then bishop b3 traps my queen. And I was going to sacrifice it and then, okay, some bishop f8, bishop g7, trying to set up some sort of blockade, but I didn't have high hopes with that. It was like a drastic measure. So instead of rook c1, 9d7. Oh, this position. Yeah, and then queen g3, and then Olga told me that bishop f6 is only move. Everything else is like plus one. I don't say I would have found it. And the point is that if white takes, like bishop g6, therefore the knight is defended. That's why it's important that bishop g6 is included. I can take this one, and if 9d6 it's important I take with this knight, because if 9d6 I take on c1, let's show. And bishop d5, and it's plus equal, either white wins or I can make a draw. But then she mixed up the move order with this queen g3. Queen g3, yeah. And yeah, I was aware that if 9d7, probably rook c1, it leads to the same. So I played b3, and with the point that if knight takes b4, then I gain a crucial tempo with... I'm sorry. Can I go on to show one more variation, because there is one more another tactic. I found, but I'm not sure it works. So everything is hanging, and somehow my pieces come to life, and there is no mating threat, so let's say white starts taking pieces. If I take on a1, then 9d6, and my knight is trapped and rook is hanging. So I fought queen c4, rook c1, and my big idea was 9d4. And I think I win an exchange in every move order, because my next move, okay, I can pre-move 9d2 in online games as well. And okay, she takes knight e2, I take the queen, I take on c4, and even if she steps out, she steps out 9d2 still, and this leads to the same, so that was my plan. So of course, she played bishop b1 instead, and off her draw. To be honest, I off her draw, I think, at move 15, because as the Hungarian saying goes, never lose a game without offering a draw, so I tried. And then she off her draw, I was 15 minutes behind on clock, and still I didn't see what to do for sure, because if she doesn't off her draw, I don't feel that something is critical, but on online engine still shows that rook d8 is only move that holds the position of everything as plus one, and I was going to sacrifice a pawn with 9d4. If you can go on for one more minute. So where do I go to? Bishop b1, final position. Oh, sorry, there you are. No problem. So there is knight before tactic, but okay, it doesn't work because of 9d6. So I tried to play knight, I was most probably going to play this, queen c4, and the point is that if rook c1, I can take on a4. With the pawn on b4, I'm forced to play queen a2, and with the queen on e2, there would be some 9d6 and bishop g6 tactics as always, but now I'm in contact with the bishop because of the x-ray and what cannot take. So knight a4, so instead she should take on b3, instead of rook c1. Instead of... This one, yeah. For some reason down here it doesn't light. Can we go by the arrows? Okay, so we agreed that after queen takes b3, I either take or play rook b1st and have some positional compensation based on the weaknesses on the queen side. I don't know what the engine will show because we haven't checked this one. I would have been reasonably happy to get this instead of the queen sacrifice because I feel that I have good drawing chances, but it is what it is. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.


Hello in this video. I'm going to go through the top stocks to buy now. I've got to say I'm not a financial advisor I am a business teacher in my daily life But I'm by no means an expert on the stock market and if you could leave this video like that be Fantastic at some point because I do cover penny stocks, and I'm not too sure how well this video is going to do because these are general Stocks, but I've got to say that I invest in general stocks I invest in normal stocks and not just the penny stocks And I want to start bringing that to the channel a little bit and sort of say look you got to have these players as well As your penny stocks, so if you could leave a like on the video I've really much appreciate that because I'm not too sure how well the video will do But in compared to my big sort of penny stock videos, which do quite well, so it'd be fantastic Also, sorry about the sound if you can hear the fan of the computer It's I don't know why it's playing up. It's just it's it's really loud So if that's too ever-bearing, I'm to I do apologize But I will get right into this because I've got to do some lesson planning for my students and I need to get to that as Well, so I just want to get this video out there and what I think in terms of some of these stocks Okay, so these are the top penny stocks to buy now. We'll get right into it So the first stock I've got for you today is fuel cell ticker symbol FCE L I've talked about this one before when it was a lower price and it says here. What is it? So it says who are they so they're a global leader in delivering clean efficient and affordable fuel cell Solutions configured for the supply recovery and storage of energy. This is an incredible stock that he's got a lot of potential Particularly in the areas we're going into the future. Okay, so let's look so the fuel cell benefits. So what are they sir? First of all, it's a growing industry and I tend to like to invest in stocks that have a growing industry It's very important to me should very important to you and also they seem to have a strong leadership If you look at their leadership team on their investor relations you'll see that they've got a strong leadership to bring that company forward and I actually made a mistake and I'll be Transparent here. I made a mistake on this stock. I actually bought it when it was I think it was around six or seven dollars, right? And it kind of peak it went to like $10.50 or so and then I sold I took some profit and Obviously, I wish I didn't because the prices were up even further I just felt that there's gonna be a bit of a dip and I thought let's let's try buying at the dip again and I didn't in the end and so I'm transparent here So I made a mistake on this one, but I do think that you know, this has got a lot of potential I'm gonna be entering this one again And it's already at a dip again and I might enter again, but I do want to hold this medium long Just at that time I made that decision when I was moving some money around so but this is a very good company fuel cell Right fuel cell has also got the information here. So it's at $15.85. It's been on a dip It did get to what sort of $18 here Okay, so it's dipped a bit and this is potentially a good opportunity to get into this stock because I think it's got a Lot of potential to run up much further. I think so long to long to medium term hold I want to get back into this stock. I made a mistake. I'll admit it, but I want to get back into it. All right Before we move on, I just want to say a huge thank you for the channel support that's been getting the people liking and Subscribing we are growing that you know, we're seeing this 4,000 4,000 subscribers in 28 days. What's that all about? I mean, it's an unbelievable amount and The good the next goal is and I'm very objective goal orientated I want to get to 10,000 subscribers 10,000 subscribers as fast as we possibly can so if you can help do that in anywhere whether it's liking sharing Subscribing whatever is that you can do to help I'd much appreciate that and let's try get to 10,000 I'll get right back into the information The next one I've got for you is TPGY which is EV box now. Who are they? They find the right EV charging solutions for your customers. So so they're involved in doing EV charging solutions The more dominant in different areas and we'll look into that But you know, they do retail hospitality in commercial parking, but they also do home charging solutions They've got like you say the commercial charging area. There's loads of different areas where they're doing these charging solutions, essentially it's very versatile this particular company and Some of the benefits of EV box are that there's many charging points Okay, they've actually got a lot of charging points and it's not actually That they are actually a lot more charging points in terms of the VIX the kind of building up their base in like Europe and other areas as well and You know, the most dominant one in say like North America, for example, you know is Essentially charge point, right? This one is actually expanding in other other areas But they also want to expand there as well But this one is going under the radar a little bit.  There's not many people talking about EV box So let's get people talking about this because this is a company. There's got a lot of promise If anything if anything even if you're not looking to buy into this at least look at the website at least look at the Information and you'll see what I mean where I feel that, you know, this has got a lot of potential as a charging stock as well Charge point stock right EV box. It's called and why so many charge points EV will be a booming industry We already know this. Okay as we make the transition towards electric cars cars EV box is going to benefit from that and also it's scalable as well in terms of it's very versatile because they're building Charged points not just in kind of one area They're trying to build charge points in loads of different industries and commercialization Industries etc, you know that they're building a lot of air in a lot of areas. It's very flexible and versatile and They're really scaling it up. And I think that's that's really good to know and also I noticed that Their charge points are actually slightly cheaper to install than some of the competitors Now if you think about the economic climate and no one's talking about this you think about the economic climate It's not fantastic. Is it? Let's be honest, right? so maybe cheaper charge points are going to be potentially a good selling point Who knows right? So I'm just thinking that it's a cheaper charge point Okay, and that's that kind of makes it stand out in that sense that it's cheaper to install But that's something to consider EV box Okay, so consider that one the next one. I've got for you is APXT which is a point. Okay now over there So they migrate manage and protect here and they're involved in the cloud space So they can move restructure and transform collaborative content faster more reliably with greater fidelity They can automate governance to scale adoption in IT operations And they can reduce more risk by improving process content security and compliance Very interesting stock APXT suspect it's under APXT and it's going to be merging with a point. It's a very good stock I think for the long term So the benefits of a fear APXT is that it again it's in a growing industry the cloud industry and there's a lot of high Profitability in this area because of the cloud computing There's high margins in terms of profit and as high profitability Which is good to see as investors because that means more potential revenue and them to be able to then build up that business. Okay So this is the current price that it sat at it sat at $16.55. It's actually had a pop That's because of some recent rumors and merger news etc And that marriage is happening soon, right? Okay, so with that they there was a bit of a pop I think that this is a long-term hold again Of course as they merge you could see a pullback on this stock, but I'm saying that I'm going to be holding this I think for a fairly For the long term I actually think this has got a long-term potential as a stock It's a solid stock. It's also a Microsoft partner, right? And it's one was what won awards in terms of that as well So this has got a lot of potential. Maybe you want to catch it a dip It made it back down to sort of $15 again Lower $15 then get in but again, this one's going to 20 25 $30 very easily. Okay The next one I've got is sg blocks. This is a one that you may not have heard of before SG blocks. I've talked about on the channel. It was a penny stock. It's technically Coming out of that penny stock rain shall we say so what do they do? They're a premier innovator and designer of some of the world's most iconic container based structures Fantastic stuff and some of the benefits for this is that there is low cost for physical stores So the building of physical stores they do it in this container Kind of strategy in terms of building it through the use of a container and they build them very fast and very Economically friendly shall we say so with that low cost and because people are going online people are shopping more online buying online if The if the high street so to speak is going to survive if the retail sector physical retail sector is going to survive They need to reduce their overheads. What do SG blocks? They reduce the overheads by creating buildings that are much much more lower costs so that they can get their overheads down which makes Brick and mortar store even though it's not a brick and mortar but make makes this area more effective, right? Because they can get that lower cost. They can initially start the business. This is fantastic for particularly small businesses I think they need to have a strategic focus on that in start-up businesses and trying to work with them I know they want to work with Starbucks and And others and they have been working with Starbucks and other big players because they can get big contracts But they need sort of division to kind of build, you know Working with smaller businesses because this gives them an opportunity to start their business at a lower rate And I think that there's potential there, but yeah Anyway, it's lower cost is a great for the current economic climate as well, you know, not necessarily fantastic economic climate You know if they can get the cost down brilliant stuff So this is the current price now. I suggested this again around $5.90 to 92 That's when I that's my range that I got into this. Okay, it's actually run up to $7.66 Okay, so it's running up quite fast. It's it's moving up fast And I think that this is just going to keep going I think this will end up hitting $10 $12 $15 and this is a medium to long-term hold This is just going to keep moving up. I mean I've suggested it before it's moved up and And I think that it's going to move up favor again. So consider that one The next one I've got for you and you may have heard of this one is skills now Who are they so they're in the next generation the next evolution of mobile gaming our multiplayer Competition platform brings tournaments and real prizes to your players boost in your game success So this is based on skills where two games are matched against each other and they're you know putting money up Here, you know When that whoever wins gets the money and they do tournaments and stuff like that as well and it's not classed as Gambling because it's skill based So that's how they get through that loophole sort of thing there and that's really good But one thing that nobody's talking about is the developers, right? The good thing about this is that there's always continuing to create new games There's like a continuous loop of new games from the developers because of their business model and the developers get a certain cut a certain percentage from any, you know sales and revenue and The developers are the way so the way that they do their business model is done in a way where there's always Constant games coming out and they only have to pay the developers Actually when they get revenue in from their game, okay, which is a very Genius model right because then there's no initial costs in the terms of paying a developer They only pay the developer when people actually using their game to do the betting of betting You know, it's not actually been but you know what I mean So it's got four times revenue 24% retention on games and average play time of 63 minutes Very good company a lot of potential. What is it sat 24 dollars 82? Okay, and this is another one. This is another one that I'm being transparent. I made a mistake on I actually I Actually bought this before the merger and I thought okay I've so bought it before the merger and I was thinking okay. Well after the merger It's going to dip it kind of did a bit, right? And then I have just not got back into it yet I'm trying kind of wait for a dip and it is dipping and then I'm like I can dip a bit fairer and then I'm not getting Into it again.  You know, it's time in the market not time in the market. I understand that but I was just looking to get a quick flip on this and And because I'm kind of looking at a load of stocks. It's kind of hard to keep track sometime I'm going to get back into this stock. I've made money on the stock already So I'm happy with that But what I'm saying is I'm going to get back into this you can see the dip here It's dip from the 26 dollars to 24 Again, I'm here by about 23 22 if you can get to that level and start my position again And again, it's got a lot of potential But I was one thing we do on this channel is we're honest and I'll tell you when I bought and sold And and and stuff like that really and but it is a really good stock and I really do recommend it I really do Overall so so that's that skills. Okay Again, I want to say a big thanks for watching the video again. This is a Normal stock video, right? We're going through top stocks. I'm a I want to try and make sure the video does well So if you can leave the video like more than ever to really support this spread the video out Let's get it in the YouTube algorithm because I make penny stocks They do really well and sometimes I'll make a SPAC videos that they work do as well And then I'm not too sure how normal stock videos are going to do So any support you can offer just to do this if you want more just normal stock videos, right? And not just penny stocks then, you know, try and help out the channel here And I'll do more of these normal stock videos for you. Okay. Thank you


The Law on Political Parties in Azerbaijan raises serious concerns. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, have released a joint opinion on Azerbaijan's new law on political parties. The document describes in detail the flaws and problematic provisions arising from the law. In the joint opinion, provisions, such as increasing the minimum number of political party members from 1,000 to 5,000 people, re-registration of already-registered parties, banning the activities of parties without state registration, excessive interference of the Ministry of Justice in the activities of political parties are criticised in the joint opinion. It should be noted that the inconsistency of these provisions mentioned in the law with international human rights conventions is a cause for concern. The joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the ODIHR reminds that freedom of association and expression should be the basis of democratic societies and, in this sense, political parties should be viewed as means of collective political expression. It is stated in the tradition that state control over political parties should be limited to their registration and registration requests should be treated positively. The joint opinion emphasises that the requirement of the number of members and even the list of members from political parties is an unnecessary and limiting factor. The joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the ODIHR states that the suspension and dissolution of political parties may be allowed only in cases where these parties have seriously violated the law. The Venice Commission and ODIHR call on Azerbaijan to eliminate the deficiencies specified in the law. For example, it is recommended to return the minimum number of members to 1,000 people for political parties. The joint opinion also recommends minimising the documents required for the registration of political parties. The Venice Commissioners' opinion states that the principle of state financing of political parties in accordance with the number of seats in the parliament should be revised. According to the joint opinion, political parties should disclose the names of sponsors only if the donations exceed certain legal norms. The new law on political parties in Azerbaijan was adopted at the end of 2022 and entered into force on January 11, 2023.


you talk about your cornerstone of supporting children, understanding behavior being around noticing, understanding and responding. And I thought that, you know, I always like to take these little bite sized bits out to share with people. And that felt to me like a really powerful triad. And I wondered if you wouldn't mind just explaining a little bit about what you mean by that and how you use that in your day to day. Yeah, so I think quite often, and I've done it, I do all the time, you might notice something that's happened and then you move straight onto responding. So you might notice, for example, that Liam is tapping his pen incessantly on his table all the time.  Liam continues because he doesn't notice or whatever. And then your response to that might then be further to, it could be a detention, it could be isolation room, it could be sending out, things escalate. My idea was actually, you notice something first, then you try to understand it, then you respond. Because actually, if your response doesn't build in those concepts and understanding, then your response is meaningless because it may not kind of help or enhance the practice that's happening.  Well, that's fine. And that has a different response. But it could be just that he doesn't even notice. It could be, for example, because OCD has to do it 30 times, obviously that's like at the end of this kind of spectrum. Or it could just be that he needs something to fiddle with.  But without building in that key component of understanding, then your response is going to be at best ineffective and it will become routinised rather than actually something about the individual child. So the idea is just notice, understand and then respond rather than kind of jumping ship, basically.


Hey guys, what's up? I'm Johnny Q and welcome back to the Johnny Q channel. Thank you so much for watching and in today's video I'm gonna tell you how I grew from 100 subscribers to 600 subscribers in like two and a half months and then from 600 subscribers to a Thousand subscribers in about two to two and a half months after this intro video You know, there's no intro video. So let's just get to it So pumped to be finally happened I finally got 1000 subscribers my goal last year in 2018 was to get a thousand subscribers by like March of 2019 And it's January that is just that just blows my mind like the the thought of a thousand different people wanting to tune in Wanting to actually watch my stuff on YouTube That's crazy. I'd never even thought of actually reaching a thousand subscribers like that. That's I read in an article That your first 100 subs is like the hardest thing you can do for YouTube and then your first 500 subscribers That's even harder and then your 1000 subscribers like That is a lot of work. That is a lot of time put into your videos and YouTube I literally did that within like four or five months. That is crazy. So thank you so much I am so pumped and I'm only getting started Mark my words. This is just the beginning of the Johnny Q channel For example, I posted on Instagram on October 5th, 2018 My first 100 subscribers and it says I've been documenting everything. Thank you for the 144 subscribers in about one month I'll be putting out weekly videos. It's about to get better my friends If you want to check it out go to my bio if we fast forward to December 25th 2018 I took a screenshot of my YouTube channel at 8 o 4 in the morning, and I had 600 subscribers October November December in about two and a half months. I gained 500 subscribers How did I do that? Now that is the first step in gaining more subscribers Okay, I've heard other youtubers and other people actually say this over and over again But I never actually believed it until I started doing it myself and that's literally putting in the work Everybody says put in the work. You got to start grinding You got to wake up every day and keep making videos every day for YouTube for your channel to grow That's literally how you grow on YouTube like it sounds it sounds so Foreign but yet again, it's so simple how about putting in the hard work? Let me tell you I put in a lot of work in these videos, but it was a lot of work It was a lot of long nights a lot of researching a lot of Editing, you know tutorials, etc. Like it's a lot of work to make these YouTube videos happen I totally didn't actually respect the idea of YouTube and YouTube creators until I started making those videos So kudos to everyone who's making YouTube videos now kudos fast forward to today, which is January 21st 2019. I have a total of 10010 subscribers So literally in less than a month. I gained over another 400 subscribers. That is Crazy crazy crazy growth 400 subscribers in about a month That's pretty crazy Like that just doesn't happen without putting in the work now. What do I mean by that again? Yes posting videos and making those videos and putting up that content, but also using the YouTube platform to the fullest, okay? Like I actually used YouTube. I created friends. I made a small community. I commented back I liked other videos on I commented on other videos and made sure hey I have a YouTube channel too. Would you go mine sub to my channel as well? And so it's actually using that platform that got me these subscribers I just know from experience what I've been doing right now if you're a small beginner YouTuber wants to get Bigger ones more subscribers. It just wants to be a better youtuber I would say you got to use a platform as much as possible and keep uploading as much as possible and keep creating as much as possible I I stick to one philosophy when it comes to YouTube Always be creating never stop creating keep on creating. That is the only way you can grow and yes This is only the beginning a thousand subscribers is my floor Okay, it was my ceiling. I broke through that ceiling now doesn't my floor my new goal for the year is 3000 subscribers hit that by by January 1st 2020. So I'm there to get it I'm here to get it. I'm here to create. I'm here to make more relationships more friends better content I would love for you to join my journey. So please subscribe to the channel, and I'll see you guys next time on the Johnny Q channel peace Oh, wow that was literally perfect Tommy because my battery is literally flashing red and it's about to


Ethical principles in research are important to ensure that the rights and welfare of research participants are protected. Here are some of the key ethical principles in research. Informed Consent. Participants must be fully informed about the nature of the research, their rights, and the potential risks and benefits of participation. They must provide their informed consent to participate in the research voluntarily and without coercion. Respect for persons. Participants must be treated with respect and dignity, and their autonomy and privacy must be protected. This includes ensuring that participants have the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Beneficence. The research must be designed in a way that maximizes the benefits to participants and minimizes any potential harm. Researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the risks of the research are reasonable in relation to the benefits. Non-Maleficience. Researchers must ensure that they do not cause harm to participants, either physically or psychologically. They must take steps to minimize any risks to participants and to ensure that any harm is minimized. Justice. The benefits and risks of the research must be distributed fairly among participants. This includes ensuring that vulnerable populations are not exploited or unfairly burdened by the research. Confidentiality. Researchers must protect the confidentiality of participants' data and ensure that it is not shared with unauthorized individuals. Participants have a right to privacy and their personal information must be protected. Integrity. Researchers must maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and honesty. They must report their findings accurately and not misrepresent their research to others. These ethical principles are often enshrined in codes of ethics for different fields of research and are essential to ensure that research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.


Hi everyone! This video will walk you through how to use your Texas Instrument TI-84 graphing calculator so as to find the derivative of a function at a specified point. This video would be for the TI-84, the TI-84 plus silver edition, color edition, any of those models that you might have. It is also understood that on your calculator you would have the current updated operating system, and they refer to as the quote-unquote pretty print. So if yours does not look like mine does, that means you might have the older operating system, which I will address as I go through. So there are two primary ways to use your graphing calculator so as to find a numerical derivative. And it's these two I will be walking you through. The one is called N-derive, which can be found on your calculator under math. The math button is in the far left column. And then number eight, you'll see it says N-derive on it. The second way is a graphical way. You'll be required to graph a function, get a good window for it, and then utilize under calc, the second trace menus. It's number six to find your derivative dy dx. So let's go to the graphing calculator and we'll walk through each of those. So this one that you're seeing is the TI-84 plus C, which is the color version. If you have the regular version that's fine. Your functions will look just like this one. So suppose I had a function and I just made one up and I put it under y equals if you want to use the same one and try it. Just a basic cubic. So let me go back to my quit screen. So we'll go and do the N-derive function first. So as I was saying earlier in the left column, you'll find a math button. So hit that and you go down to number eight. You can either scroll down and hit enter or simply hit the number eight for N-derive. And again, assuming you have the updated current operating system on your graphing calculator, it should look like this. If it does not, I have it on the other side that I can show you what you'll need to do. So this notation is really nice because it's really just like calculus notation. What they're prompting you is you're basically filling in the boxes that you see. So the first box is just simply going to be an x. That means we're finding d dx, the derivative with respect to x. Now in the second box, the one that's located in the parentheses, you have a choice. Either you can type in the function right there. Or if you happen to have it stored under y equals, as we do with our example, we can just pull up y one. So you can do either one. So I'm going to pull up y one. So the way in which you do that, of course, is with vars and then over to y vars and function and y one, because that's where mine's located. Then you just use your right arrow to hop over to the next one. You'll notice that now it says x equals. And that's where it's asking you for the x value at which you want to find the derivative. The vertical line or math symbol for such that. So really how you would read this is you're finding the derivative with respect to x of what you have under y one, such that x equals and let's do negative one. And then you just simply hit enter. And there's your answer. So it's looking like it's a pretty steep tangent line to the curve at x equals negative one if it has a slope of about 23. And you could just keep doing that for different x's over and over and over. So let me show you the graph. Again, remember we had the equation under y equals. You can just do zoom six to graph it. And again, even if you do not have the color version, this works the exact same way on the regular TI 84s, the 84 pluses, the silver additions, etc. All right, so let's go ahead and find that derivative, the slope of the tangent line at x equals negative one again. So what you're going to do is hit your second and trace. You'll notice it says calc and I'm sure you're familiar with a lot of these functions under here. We want the one down at number six, dy dx. And you'll notice at the bottom, it kind of puts your cursor someplace right in the center of the graph. You'll notice down at the bottom it's asking you for x equals whatever. So you just simply type in the x value. So I'm going to type in negative one, hit enter, and you'll notice right above it, right here, you have dy dx equals at 23.0002, which is the same answer we obtained doing it with n derive. So now again, if you happen to have the older operating system, you'll notice under the first bullet here, when you do the math eight, the n derive, you're going to be prompted with something that looks a little different than what you saw with our calculator example. You're going to have n derive and then you'll be prompted with a parenthesis. You'll get the same answer in the end, you just need to enter it differently. So the way in which you'll enter it, I have written out for you right here. The first thing that goes in the parenthesis is your equation. So again, you can either type in the actual equation, or if you happen to have it under y one or any other y equals, you can bring that up. And then it's comma x comma and the x number at which you want to find the numerical derivative. And then simply hit enter. Again, that would be for the older operating system. So hopefully this was a little help to you. Take care.


Everybody for syrup in 2023 gold standard six box half case number 11 Got Adam M. Steelers brand tea Cardinals PYT by the way Bread be with the Browns Brett W Eagles Bruce with Washington Bryce or no Brian Excuse me Brian has the Vikings Chris B Raiders Daniel L Niners Daniel M at Patriots Derward with the Bucks Frank R Jets George M Jags Gordon P with the Titans Jacob F with the Packers Jason M Atlanta Detroit Indianapolis and the Giants Jeff M chargers Joseph M bills Joseph L Panthers Kevin W with the Bears Kevin M Texans Kevin MC Texans Kevin M a bangles Mark G has the Cowboys Matthew W. Chiefs Michael P Rams Nicholas as Seahawks No, we G has the Saints Terry F Broncos Todd G Ravens and Victor with the Dolphins Here we go. Let me check the next one before we get started here Next one sold out Raiders Rams to the last two on Number 12 wait, it's not right wait 13th all that before 12. Yeah All right Raiders and Rams Travis Hunter stud. Let's get it Frank. Let's do it. All right. It's time for a shield Base here. Yeah, all right got Andrews to 99 for Baltimore Parrish Johnson jr. To 75 for Zona a Bryce young shield. Let's do it Jalen Ramsey gold gear jersey to 299 dolphins Dolphins legend dual patch to 24 CJ shrouded Anthony Richardson Nice car that is going to be a random at the end Very nice dual patch Yeah, Jason M with the Colts Kevin M with the Texans That is nice. It's the fallen digs Jersey to 299 for the bills What he was in thinks he was I can start toppling some of the bigger stuff. All right, triple Jersey Ricky Otto Dallas the one 49 Luke's schoonmaker twisted see The young a cute a shield gobble. How many shields does he have in existence and Jameer Gibbs Ricky Otto for Detroit to 49 Go Jameer That's my favorite Jameer Jameer Nelson see the exquisite RPA that Lane got for me at the National Yeah, I'll have to bring it in is dope You need to find some more top scrum Jameer Nelson, that's what you do Undervalued I'm investing in Jameer Jameer Nelson that is to 49 is Mike Evans for the Bucks Rookie O'Connell to 99 Raiders solid O'Connell Mark Andrews goldmine patch card at 299 Baltimore. How come are these dude dual Jersey newly minted Bijan Robinson Jameer Gibbs to 199 Random at the end between Detroit and Atlanta Actually, Jason has both so we don't have to do a random for that one Cortes That is a Cooper Cup mother load to 299 five-way Jersey card make what he's this year now Everybody a very better better act right you want your card shipped Jake Moody rookie Otto to 199 for the Niners fantasy kicker right there Best player my team and Cedric Tillman rookie Otto to 199 for Cleveland Woody and Tillman Rookie Brenton strange to 75 for the Jaguars So 99 Eric use a conma for the Dolphins Titans gold gear Jersey to 299 trail on Berks Tillins up the par villains doing good Tills doing good Roshan Roshan Johnson 399, you know, you know, I mean I say that right was that you've never seen the Johnson the cat Does anybody know what I'm talking about? 399 is Roshan Johnson for the Bears if Kyle Kyle would know Kyle knows Cooper Cup gold rush Jersey to 299 for the Rams were you in fanatics live chat the day that rich came in and sat down in the Chair that doesn't have armrest Oh my god So my favorite fanatics live moments we didn't have how you go back and clip all of the rich life Just random complaints about like non important things whatsoever. It's so funny straight Tucker Otto to 199 for the Raider There's some really funny ones Dude, he came in he he walked into the Hallie and I were working on something for like to improve like fanatics live earlier I don't want to spoil anything but we're pretty sick, but dude he walked in and said Fresh cakes he just said fresh cakes. He's like fresh cakes and we're like No, we're like what what and he's like fresh cakes. What is that from because he heard Lang saying a fresh case On fanatics lives like fresh cakes. What is that from like?  I'm like, I don't know right now It's like I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't know Yeah, yeah Is it actually Ted to Robert what part is it in? Sydney Brown is 75 for the Eagles. I might watch that tomorrow Ted to his amazing Ted to assault, but there's still some hilarious parts in it So 99 is Damian Pierce Texans Kittle Jersey car hard of gold to 199 Niners Bills Dalton Cade four color rookie patch of 24 newly minted Ted is so funny though Kenny Pickett gold gear Jersey that goes to the Steelers Number to 299 and just one auto this time's 24 Zay flowers golden debuts go Ravens nice car One over that time. Hopefully we get an extra auto here. Sometimes you do in gold standard. So hopefully it just evens out That's awesome. All right, hopefully that's what we got killing Hopefully that's what we got. Hopefully that's what we got It's half-paced though. So I Might not be that way. I've got rookie to 75 collage a cancy for the bucks. It's a 99 Najee Harris Steelers Let Dalvin cook patch car to 49 Vikings They're not letting me cook his breeze Hall is actually the one cooking Jake Hannon newly minted rookie Jersey to 399 for the Saints Yeah, Ted to is definitely funny. The first Ted is freaking hilarious Second one has some super funny parts though. Dude the part where he's listening off the names The the white trash names. I that part is amazing I don't know how like he could do that like I don't understand being able to do that Kenneth walk in the third five-way Jersey to 299 for the sea hot a lot of that has to be like adlib for sure Like a lot of that has to be made up No chance to remember all those just on the top of his head At least I'm I like to think that Because I could not remember the first like six Steelers rookie auto Broderick Jones to 199 Oh No Cortes come on and a Jaden Reed rookie auto Packers to 199 Geez guys make sure you like this train. We do appreciate it quite a bit. I'm gonna give you guys a link before I open this last Box here. Come on. See you see that see that missing here.  You also get five numbers in the break All right, we've got Isaiah Pacheco 414 nice low number Pacheco. He's looks great this year Oh a nice bright 7 of 75 Carolina about 50 60 bucks Darren Waller patch card of 49 gold rush for the Giants Are they still 50 60? That was what it was a couple weeks ago. Yeah, we should have them sealed to you too Let me see if anybody's still selling Dave and Adam sells the whole box for 12 grand, but that's 150 gold packs and gems all that stuff Yeah, I see him on eBay anywhere between. Oh more than more than 50 to 60 a single one is like 65 Like more Most places, but usually a lot of places the more you buy like the more you would save on something like that Okay for the whole box is crazy But you get like a gem and all that stuff patch to 24 breeze hall jets go jets redemption Devon a chain Dolphins rookie Jersey auto That is fire that dude's a stud nice card dolphins so we do have the extra hit then that's awesome Steve at water One of ten when you go to the beach you are at water Golden oldies autograph. There is some Yeah, the corner. I mean sometimes the corners are perfect on these. These are a little too raised We'll send a box and wrapper For the at water for the Broncos. I said Denver Golden oldies and then we got a Dorian Thompson Robinson triple Jersey rookie out of the 149 for the Browns What a box that was No, let's go ahead and do a recap as we are behind here Just FYI Wanted to go in the next one number 13 is sold out because of course it is The triples are the golden oldies which one lane or both all of it. I like gold standard a lot So jerseys of Hainer pick it kiddle cup Roche on John's and Traylon Burks Jalen ramsey Oh, we got a random these Come on Kenneth Walker the third Mark Andrews Breeze Hall I blame Cortese Darren Waller Cooper Cup Daven Cook Dalton arcade. We got Dolphins Devon H-Hann on the rookie Jersey redemption or just the auto redemption Jane Reed project Jones Trey Tucker Cedric Tillman Jake Moody Jameer Gibbs schoonmaker they flowers at 24 is a nice low-numbered hit for Baltimore They've got Atwater Dorian Thompson Robinson Jameer Gibbs, and then we'll random the Stroud and Richardson as well here Oh, wait, no, no, this this one's not random. Someone has both these Jason has both those And then the Stroud and Richardson is random So good luck To fantastic rookie quarterbacks here. So good luck. It's a 24. It's Stroud Richardson dual patch Texas golds That is a six one two Three four five and six. It's going to Texans Congrats Texans That'll do it moving on out of number 12


Hey traders, this is Tosh. I go by T Bradley 90 in the Mind Vesting Club chat, a general reminder for all you guys, for those who don't know, MIC is having a one-year anniversary event where Bow is going to be trading live in front of our members. It's coming up August 17th, mark your calendars. It's going to be huge. As an added benefit to our members, this event is 100% entirely free for exclusively two annual and lifetime members. While lifetime on top of that get extra coaching before the event and guaranteed front row seating. While most charged for these events, we show our support by making it free again for annual and lifetime members. If you are interested in signing up and or attending this event, DM me in Slack, T Bradley 90 and or email myself at Tosh at myinvestingclub.com. Now, today we have a very special video for you guys, one of our head moderators, Joe Kelly. Every Sunday puts together a video from his how to series, and today he's going to talk about the explanation of SSR in his trading basics series. And while today is just a preview of the full length video, if you want to watch the full length video or any of our exclusive content at MIC, then just become an exclusive member and you have access to it all. Today, we're going to talk about short sell restriction. There's been a lot of questions each day in chat that I've seen of people asking, what is SSR? I simply just googled short sell restriction or SSR. I went to sec.gov. Short sell restriction was developed in February 2010. The commission adopted a new short sale price test restriction, which is commonly referred to as the alternative uptick rule. The alternative uptick rule is designed to restrict short selling from further driving down the price of a stock that has dropped more than 10% in one day compared to the closing price on the previous day. So what this means is in order to sell short, the stock has to make an uptick into your short order or your selling order. So you can't just enter the trade and hit the bid or hit the best bid. You can only fill on the ask. So let's break down what it looks like when a stock triggers SSR or how it triggers SSR. So OTOK on this day one run right here, SSR was active. Why was SSR still active? Well, you look back the two prior days. So we had a closing price of 103 right here. So what is our SSR level? Our SSR level means that 103 times .9 equals .927. So if on this day it went below .927 and it did look at the top. The low is 85 cents. You see it right here. The low is 85 cents. So that means that this day triggered SSR. So for the rest of this day, it was triggered. Now let's go ahead and look back here at a intraday chart just to kind of give you this detail. So here's the day that triggers SSR. It triggers it right at the open. So that does not mean that for the rest of this day and then tomorrow right at the open after this time it undoed. No, do not over complicate this. For the rest of this day SSR was triggered and for the next day it was triggered as well. So now that the closing price is 91 cents on this day that means that it's got to go 10% below 91 in order to trigger. And if you look here it gaps way up and it can't trigger. Okay. Hey traders, this is Tosh. I go by T Bradley 90 in the My Investing Club Chat. Just wanted to reach out and say if you have any questions about MIC, joining MIC, maybe you're a member already. You have three ways to contact myself personally and through MIC. You can hit our social media. You can hit me through PMs in chat or you can contact us through my email at Tosh at MyInvestingClub.com. That's T-O-S-H at MyInvestingClub.com. I will get back to you in a timely manner and I'm saying this because I'm here to help and I don't want anybody to be afraid to reach out and ask any question that they have. We are here for you guys. All right. See you guys.


So, we welcome everybody to the meeting this morning and I want to thank all of you for coming because we know you all are very, very busy professionals in the fields of medicine, public health and advocacy and you've come from far and wide to attend this meeting on crib bumpers because it's a really important issue and we recognize that you believe it to be so and we agree with you. So just a word of history, I think you all know that in May of 2013, the commission granted a petition from the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association for the commission to address the risks associated with crib bumpers. In granting the petition, the commission instructed staff to look beyond the specifics of the petition request to identify any and all regulatory options the commission might take to address the risk of injury associated with bumpers. In response to the commission's direction on September 12th of this year, CPSC submitted, staff submitted a briefing package to us. In it, as I understand it, staff estimated based on their evaluation of the 100 plus fatalities known to the commission where a crib bumper was present in the sleep environment that on average only about one suffocation death every other year could be attributed to crib bumpers. I certainly appreciate the professionalism and dedication of CPSC staff, but I am aware that other experts in the field have looked at the same data and other information have reached different conclusions about the risk of crib bumpers. It's always been my practice in situations like this to listen to all voices who wish to be heard. So I've agreed to meet with those who wish to comment on staff's analysis, especially with respect to assessing and interpreting the fatality and injury data before the agency. I should also add at this point that last week a majority of the commission voted to commence rulemaking under Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Act to address the hazards associated with crib bumpers. Under this approach, the agency can regulate crib bumpers as durable infant products, and we have Nancy Coles here who was very involved in the drafting of Section 104 and we're delighted to have her here so she can make any relevant comments about the advantages of rulemaking under Section 104. As I've said, I want this meeting to be about you, your data, and expertise. I want this to be a dialogue between us and between you, so please don't be surprised if I interrupt you mid-slide to ask you questions and feel free to ask one another questions or make comments as people make their presentations. I remind observers that the only speakers today will be the panelists. If you have questions for them, I'm sure they would be happy to discuss them with you after the panel, either by phone or through email. Let me repeat one point. This is my meeting, I'm not intending to be possessive about it, but I'm one commissioner with a group of outside technical experts. This is not an official hearing of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'm pleased that there are staffs of other commissioners in attendance, and I invite anyone who wishes to arrange a meeting with them to do so. I'm sure they'd be delighted to talk to you. As a point of information, because the commission has voted to proceed with rulemaking on crib bumpers, I plan to submit the data and remarks you provide today into the official record of this proceeding once the record is open for comments. So what you say and what you submit will be put into the record. Three quick logistical points. The meeting this morning is being voice cast, but not video cast as we'd previously announced. I want to apologize for that. Please note, however, that those who wish to view, and those are people who are listening in, to wish to view the PowerPoint slides as they're being discussed today can do so by downloading them from CPSC website's public calendar page and following along as the speakers discuss them. On that point, I'm going to ask a favor from the speakers. Will you please reference the slides by number as you proceed?  That means your microphone is on. This is being recorded, and the recording will be placed into the record. And the bathrooms are outside the security desk across the hall, so folks should feel free to come and go as they need to. Again, thank you so much for your time and expertise. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on how best to protect our most vulnerable consumers in their most vulnerable moments. What I'd like to do now is go around with introductions. And I'm going to start on my left with Jen Feinberg. Hi, I'm Jen Feinberg. I'm Senior Counsel to Commissioner Adler. NJ Shears from BDS Data Analytics. Hi, Ami Ghadea with AAP's Department of Federal Affairs. Hi, I'm Rachel Moon. I'm a pediatrician at the University of Virginia, and I'm Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Good morning. I'm Andrea Aguilin. I'm a professor and director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy. Good morning. I'm Terry Covington. I'm the director of the National Center for Fatality Review and Prevention. I'm Nancy Coles, director of Kids in Danger. Sarah Klein, Chief Counsel for Commissioner Adler. And Dr. Thatch, may we ask you to introduce yourself, please? Yeah, I'm Bradley Thatch. I've spent some time writing papers on the crib bumper issue. And I'm Professor Emeritus at Washington University School Medicine in St. Louis. Thank you very much. And now Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatch, we look to your presentation. Thank you. Good morning. Arrow forward. Chew gum walk at the same time. The purpose of this review is to look at crib bumper deaths that we documented in our 2016 Journal of Pediatrics article. We had looked at 48 deaths caused by crib bumpers from 76 deaths that had been originally identified. 43 of these we were able to match to the recent CPSC briefing package. Five bumper deaths we didn't match because they were in the 80s and the CPSC briefing package started in 1990. So for these 43 deaths, we thought 37 that were diagnosed as asphyxia suffocation deaths and specifically describe bumper involvement. So wedge between pillow and bumper pad, face pressed against bumper pad.  Now for the 48 deaths, 32 of them we judged were not involved with clutter. Wedging between a bumper and a mattress, 13 of those, 12 face against bumper, three where the arm was caught between the bumper and the mattress side rails with face pressed against bumper, wedge between crib and bumper after a likely climb out and we give our logic of why we think the infant stepped on the bumper and strangulations from a bumper tie. Now there were wedgings with a bumper and I guess you could call that clutter if you want to, it's wedge between a bumper and something else. So pillows, recliners, a co-sleeping twin and one wedged in a crib depression. This was a crib with structural integrity problems but the infant was in the depression with the bumper around her head preventing her from turning her head to breathe. Now the staff review of addressability of the 43 deaths were three were likely, seven with teen were unknown and 23 were considered unlikely. So here are the ones that are likely. I'm not saying the slide I'm on, I'm so sorry. Slide seven. In these cases, the staff agreed with medical examiner and you can see positional asphyxia lying faced down in a bumper, the middle one nose and mouth into a bumper and the third one I had no picture suffocated in corner of the crib against the bumper and you'll notice the middle picture has a problem with the crib, the crib is broken but it has not affected the bumper. The infant's face is against the bumper. Now for the next series of cases, I'm going to talk about where the staff disagreed with the medical examiner. So slide eight. This is the baby face against bumper. You can see the crib has lots of things in it. There's an empty space where the baby was found. The autopsy, very specific. Infant found in a corner of the crib covered by a pad that would cause asphyxiation. The CPSC team said the addressability was unknown. Several concerns, one the baby was sick, had respiratory infection and been on antibiotics for five days. The pediatrician however who was treating him when interviewed said we don't think that the illness was severe enough to cause a death. The second concern was this is a seven month old and should be developmentally able to move its head but the baby didn't. Here is a case of wedging with a bumper and you can see the indentation in the bumper pad. This is slide nine. Again a very specific autopsy finding. Infant became wedged between the mattress and the bumper pad of the crib. CPSC team thought this was unlikely to be addressable. And the reasoning was you can't tell, they could not tell if the face was truly into the bumper or into the place where the bumper and the mattress intersect. They also saw a blanching levidity that to them meant the baby was faced down on the mattress and so they considered the bumper incidental to the death. Again, disagreeing with the medical examiner. This is a case, you see a positioner in the crib and to the right there's an empty space where the baby rolled over into the mattress. This was the cerebral palsy child.  Here the staff misidentified a picture as a recreation. The father recreated the death scene but there was no photograph. I called the medical examiner asked if they had a recreation photograph and she said no they hadn't taken one. Here's a picture where you see, whoops where am I, slide 11 I believe. You see a finger pointing to where the infant was found. The police officer is doing the pointing. The autopsy probable as fixia due to obstruction of the nose and mouth. Found unresponsive wedged between bumper, the crib and the mattress. Again, CPSC team disagreed said it was unknown if it was addressable and the reasoning I could find was limited in conflicting information in the case report. Slide 12, this is a stuffed animal, bunny rabbit who was used to recreate the death scene and again you see a crib with lots of stuff in it. The autopsy said A, infant reportedly found face down with face wedged between mattress and bumper pads of the crib and then said an interesting thing, suffocation in nonstandard sleeping environment. So I called the ME and asked what exactly did that mean and she said we think a standard sleeping environment is a crib with mattress and a sheet. Slide 13, baby rolled out of positioner face against the bumper. Beth is very specific, the autopsy once again, face wedged between crib bumper and mattress. The CPSC team thought the addressability was unknown and said it was not specified whether the baby's face was against the comforter or against the crib bumper. I just have a couple more of these, slide 14. Well, you see the wedging and the autopsy said this is an alfixia face between pillow and crib bumper. The CPSC team said they were not sure whether the nose and mouth was pressed into the nursing pillow or bumper. But of course with a wedging that doesn't matter. Wedging is two surfaces, you take one away and the wedging doesn't occur. And my last case is a sudden infant death case that we thought was likely a suffocation. This was 1992, death scenes were not prevalent. And CPSC was doing a soft bedding study at that time. I was the team lead and CPSC's investigators were going into the homes quickly after the baby died interviewing the parents, asking them to place a doll. This is actually a CPSC photo. The medical examiner did the autopsy the day after the baby died, was not aware of CPSC's results or the picture and so classified this as a SIDS. So my conclusions are these cases illustrate that crib bumpers can cause deaths and there's many more of them than the CPSC staff identified. The CPSC team often disagrees with the medical examiners and pathologists. That's not highlighted anywhere in the briefing package. There's an occasional mention of what the ME said, but there's no, the reader doesn't understand the extent to which the team disagrees with the medical examiners. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Thatch. Yes, I don't have a designation for the number of the slide. Anyway, this is apparent life-threatening events or ALTIs as it is known associated with crib bumpers. Okay, there were a number of incidents identified from CPSC databases. January, 1992, October, 2012. There were 146 incidences from these. We identified 11 apparent life-threatening events. Okay, the next slide is the baby monitor alarmed, presumably indicating not breathing or perhaps a low heart rate. And mom found the infant face pressed against the bumper. Another case was baby monitor alarmed and a six-month-old female infant was found with head between crib bumper, crib and the crib bumper. The lips were blue and the infant was pale. And they, uh-oh, I'm switched. Hold on. We can hear you, Brad. Coming down on it. This is slide 19 for those who are following along. This is slide 19. The computer keeps cutting out. Okay, so the next case was mom found a bumper. The baby was blue limp and not breathing. Somehow this was called respiratory distress syndrome. But it's clear that the face was against the bumper. Next case is mom found lodged, mom found the infant lodged in a corner under bumper pad with the arms stuck through clib slats, face red from not being able to breathe. And the next case is mom found the infant wedge between bumper pad and mattress. And the diagnosis was transient sinosis, probably secondary to the position I found.  The next case, baby monitor alarmed. Seven-month-old infant found with crib bumper strap obstructing her airway. Next case is a six-month-old infant suffered respiratory, suffered temporary anoxia from suspected strangulation from tie-down straps. Infants stopped breathing, but the infant's cousin rescued her in time. Then we go to problems with infants falling out of the crib. Ten-month-old infant fell from the crib, stepped on the crib bumper, and the diagnosis when they went to the emergency room was closed head injury. A 17-month-old infant, mom thinks baby climbed into the bumper pads and fell out, and the diagnosis in the emergency room was closed head injury. The next one, victim pulled herself up and stepped on crib padding. Crib was at the highest mattress setting, and the diagnosis in the ER was head injury, and the final one is, or did I already do that? Suffered temporary anoxia from suspected strangulation from tie-down straps. Infant, no, I already said that, okay. And here are the falls. It was the last one, Brad. Hello? It's the last one. Can't hear. It's the last one on this slide. Nine-month-old female used her bumper pad as a step, climbed up and leaned over. Yeah, climbed out, leaned over the side of the rail, lost her balance, and fell. Looks like that's it. Yes, I'd like to say, we said 11 alties, I found another one, so there's actually 12 that we showed in the slides. The interesting things about this is that when we did an analysis for our paper, the youngest babies were the near suffocations, about five months old on average. The strangulation chokings were about seven to eight months old on average, and the falls were 11 months old on average. There are no alties for limb entrapments or miscellaneous. Dr. Thatcher, Dr. Shears, I do have a question. When we're looking at these, what you could call near misses, is there anything that would distinguish them from the fatalities other than fortuity and luck? Is did you see any pattern that would explain why there was no fatality other than somebody came in and found the child or pure luck? I think most cases, someone came in and found the child. It was in most of the cases. I don't know what you mean by pure luck. Well, that would be pure luck, that somebody walked in before the child aspired and saw the child and saved the child's life, but otherwise that child would have become a fatality. Right, that's the case as I see it. Thank you very much. Ms. Covington, and welcome. Well, they're working on the slides. I had a question for Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatcher, which is Dr. Shears, in your presentation, you distinguish your conclusions from those of the staff, and I was just curious on the alties. I just couldn't remember. I'm sorry, there are no staff determinations on the alties. Okay, thank you. As they get going on this, I'll start talking. I was asked to present on data that we have in the National Child Death Review Case Reporting System, which I'll explain a little bit what that is, and they're considered non-CFPSC cases. We had worked with Dr. Shears a couple years ago to try to match the cases that we had in our database with the cases that CPSC had, and I think you identified two or three that were they actually were the same case. So in the case, in the cases that I'll present on that came after November 2013, are new cases that weren't known. I'll skip through some of these slides real quick. I just wanted to mention what Child Death Review is, so you have a perspective on where these cases come from. Child Death Review is a multi-disciplinary case review that usually happens in communities across the country, where people come together and review the deaths of child, of preventable child deaths. And the team typically brings a whole lot of information to the review, they'll have coroner reports, medical examiner reports, death scene investigation reports, law enforcement, interviews, and medical records, et cetera, et cetera. And they talk about the case, and the purpose of Child Death Review is really to identify risk factors in areas where a community could prevent deaths. In the United States, we have Child Death Review in all 50 states, 37 have local teams, and then 12 states have only state-level teams. We also, and I should say that our center is funded by HRSA primarily, although the CDC also funds a sudden and unexpected infant death case registry, which funds a good number of states to review 100% of all of their sudden and unexpected deaths, which has given us a little bit more robust data into the system. In 2005, we designed a case reporting system so that teams could enter their data into a database. And we built the system that allows data to be collected and are analyzed and aggregated across local, state, and at the national level. So we now have access to the real rich case information that comes from the teams. It's a web-based system. There's about 1,200 data elements, and it's housed at the Michigan Public Health Institute. So I'm gonna skip to here. Just so you get a sense of the system, there's 45 states that voluntarily use it now. We've got about 2,000 users, about 1,300 teams, and we have about 167,000 deaths now in the database. But the system has gone through a number of permutations. I think we're at version 4.1 right now, and I'll explain to you why that's important in terms of trying to understand the bumper pad cases. The limitations are, is that except in a few states that review 100% of all of their sudden unexpected infant deaths, the data can't be used as population data and you can't calculate rates. And that little sentence, both to me, there may be cases with a good amount of missing or incomplete information. It's a voluntary system, and it's up to the states to put in what they can. Also, child death review standards vary across jurisdictions as to the quality of scene investigations and case reviews. And then there are times where teams may classify as a death differently than the coroner or medical examiner would, but it allows, there's a place in the report from where you can actually designate that that happened. We have a number of questions related to sleep-related deaths. I'm just gonna show you these are just so you can see what the forms look like in this by the way. I'm so, we're so bad at numbering our slides. This is slide eight. So there's a whole section on the form that regardless of whether a death comes in as a suffocation of SIDS or undetermined, those are the main suede categories. A team can go to this section that says was the death related to sleeping or the sleep environment for children under the age of five. And then it allows the team, there's a whole lot of questions about where was the sleep place? Were they sleeping alone? What was in the crib, et cetera, et cetera, or the sleep place? Were they overheated? Was the face, where was the child's face when found? Where was the neck when found? Was the airway obstructed, et cetera, et cetera. The two most important things that are for my presentation is that we changed the form in late November of 2013. Before that, what we realized is that we couldn't narrow it down to what was really the main factor causing the problem in the sleep environment. So prior to 2013, we asked questions such as was the face fully obstructed or partially obstructed? How, between wedged into pressed into, et cetera? And with what objects? And teams could check all of those boxes. So it was really difficult in looking at our analysis because we have a number of cases where bumper pads were listed within a lot of other things, but we were having a hard time identifying what was really the most problem in the sleep environment. After 2013, we changed it so that a team could say bumper pad, present, yes or no. Where was it on top of under, next to, or tangled around the child or unknown? And if present, did it obstruct the airway? So the data, I have seven cases from teams from 2014 and that's pretty much what we've got in the database right now. It takes about a year for the teams to get this information in. We've got seven cases where it was the bumper pad that was listed solely as the item that obstructed the airway. So just to give you the data, we downloaded data for this presentation or actually for some work we were doing a little while ago and the data that we're looking at is not 167, it's only 95,000 deaths because the teams have to tell us, the states tell us when the data is clean and ready to be used for national analysis. There were 16,140 suede cases in there. 87 of those were checked under that sleep related item. 62 cases where the bumper pad was checked as relevant to the death. And 55 of those were they checked in that piece that I talked about before 2013 and then seven cases where they listed at a specific club specifically causing the obstruction. So I wanted to also say that the good news is that all 62 of those, there's also a place in the form where teens can mark whether or not there was a death scene investigation and who conducted it. And we were really happy to find out that all 62 of those had had a death scene investigation. And this is, NJ had, Dr. Shears had shown some pictures but this is what we're hoping typically you would have in a death scene investigation would be a description of where the child was found, placed and where it was found. Just so you can see, these are the agencies that had conducted the death scene investigations which we were pleased with and they're not mutually exclusive. But there were, in our opinion, probably quality death scene investigations conducted in these cases. So in looking at the data that was collected through November 2013, we had 55 cases where the bumper pad at least was checked as an object relevant to the death. And then we had the seven where they actually checked the bumper pad and that it was present and it obstructed the airway. Of the, out of all the 62 cases, what we did then is the teams write narratives and every one of these cases had a written narrative. I think there was one that did not and it's the narrative where we can find most of the rich information. The teams tend to write really long narratives. They talk about a lot of things. They talk about the family, the condition of the house, the family's socioeconomic status. Oftentimes they talk about whether drugs are alcohol or present, et cetera, et cetera. There's a lot of information in the narratives. So we pulled the narratives and we found 30 out of the 62 where it was specifically stated that the child was found pressed into the bumper. And the cause of death over those 30, and I don't have the percentages here, I'm sorry, was external asphyxia, undetermined, medical condition SIDS, which is interesting because that's a very small percentage of these, and then undetermined if it was actually a medical or external injury. But more than half were listed as asphyxias. When we looked at the narratives, there were only 13 states that we got this data from. So at the time, I should mention, we've brought states into this progressively over the years. The early years when we first opened the system up to states in about 2008, we had very few states using the system. It's gone, states have started entering the data more and more over the last few years. So 13 states were reporting cases and most of those reported one or two cases, but we had several large population states that had five to seven of the cases. 27 of the cases, the child was under the age of one and there were three where the child aged ages one to four. More than 90% were sleeping in cribs and more than 90% were in their own homes. I just wanted to give you a sense of some. I went last night and I could have given you the narratives on all 30, but I thought we really don't have time for that. But I wanted to get you a sense of what we read in the narrative because it's pretty explicit what they're writing. The decedent was laid to sleep on his right side in a crib, used to roll up blankets for bumper pads and found unresponsive with his head wedged against these bumper pads. Another is that the decedent is a six-month-old male who died due to positional asphyxia. He was found unresponsive in his crib with his face pressed into the bumper. Decedent was placed face up in his crib, covered by light bedding, and found face up in his crib with the bumper pad fully covering his face. This was according to ME, but not documented by anyone else. The child was found on her side with face against crib rail in bumper pad. Another was that at approximately 4 a.m., the father found the deceased unresponsive lying prone in a crib with its face next to the bumper pads at the edge of the crib. The deceased had apparently been placed in the crib on a pillow, and it appeared it had slid rolled off the pillow onto his stomach with his face placed next to the bumper pads. Baby was fed a bottle, then placed prone in his crib for a nap. Father last saw him alive, went on to check on him and found him lying prone more on his right side with his face up against the crib in bumper pad.  Child discovered on tummy with nose pressed into bumper pad on crib. And this one was two-month-old female, originally suspicious of SIDS. Autopsy report revealed that the child was found in the crib corner with face covered by a bumper guard on the other side against the mattress. Positional asphyxia. The coroner ruled that the death was accidental due to positional asphyxia. I guess the side was found close to the bumper guard pad of the crib.  Oh, I'm not ready to talk about these other ones yet, but this was where he'd been placed on his back, was found face down with his face pressed against the bumper pad in the corner of the crib. He had just begun to roll over recently. And then finally, the mother awoke to check on the baby and found him in prone position, completely covered by the blanket with his face pressed into the bumper pads in the crib. And then we had a number where it wasn't, there were pillows mentioned as well. That seemed to be somewhat common. And I meant to count out how many had pillows as well as bumper pads, but what we often saw, almost all we saw is that they were placed on a pillow, they rolled off the pillow and they rolled into the bumper pads. So there's sort of a couple of demons in this story.  After checking, she was found wedged between the pillow and the baby bumpers. This two-month-old and 12-day-old black female died of asphyxia. It was reported that she was found face down in a crib with her face buried in the space between a pillow and the bumper pads.  She saw the baby and about four hours later, the baby was prone and wedged between the adult pillow and the bumpers of the crib. So these are pretty much similar to the examples that Dr. Shears had given you, but they're different examples. I just wanted to make the point that they're not the same cases. And then this is another example. The child placed on his back on a boppy pillow, found six hours later on his side with his face in the pillow and wedged between the pillow and bumper pads. And then another who was placed asleep in a crib on an adult-sized pillow and or a wedge pillow. The child was placed asleep on his side and found in the morning with his face pressed into the bumper pad. And those are my examples for you. And that's pretty much what I have to present. So I guess my first question is, you've given us the narrative on some of the cases. May we get your copies of the narratives for all of these 30 cases? Yes, we can. That would be terrific. Absolutely. I didn't think you'd want to hear them all during this 15 minute presentation. Actually, I would. But at least enough to have it so we can put it in the record and we thank you very much. Dr. Moon and Ms. Gidea. By the way, we're running ahead of schedule so there's no need to speak fast. I think most of the people in the room listen fast but there's no need. So again, for those of us on the table, if we have questions or comments, I invite them. I've confused everybody because I don't have any slides. Good morning, Commissioner Adler and CPSC staff. My name is Dr. Rachel Moon and I'm the division chief of general pediatrics and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. I've spent over 20 years studying infant mortality, safe and unsafe sleep products and sudden unexplained infant death. I have done occasional work for the CPSC as a paid outside consultant on consumer products designed for infant use since 2012. And I very much appreciate Commissioner Adler's invitation to speak to you all today regarding the September CPSC staff briefing package on crib bumpers. I'm speaking here today on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics or the AAP and I'm the chair of the AAP's task force on sudden infant death syndrome. Just two days ago, on October 24th, the AAP task force on sudden infant death syndrome released our updated recommendations for safe infant sleeping environment. These updated recommendations reiterate unequivocally that bumper pads are not recommended by the AAP. Bumper pads have been implicated in deaths attributable to suffocation, entrapment and strangulation. And with new safety standards for crib slats are not necessary for safety against head entrapment. While the peak age range for SIDS accidental suffocation and strangulation deaths and ill-defined deaths is between the ages of one and four months, new evidence shows that soft bedding continues to pose hazards to infants who are four months and older and is indeed the predominant risk factor for this age group. Educational and intervention campaigns are often effective in altering practice and pediatricians continue to engage in such educational campaigns. However, pediatricians' warnings against crib bumpers are frustrated when the CPSC's own messaging on crib bumpers is muddled at best. The AAP warns against the use of many different kinds of soft bedding, largely because of the risk of suffocation, entrapment and strangulation. CPSC data show that pillows are associated with many accidental suffocation incidents when placed under or close to a sleeping infant. Quilts, comforters, sheepskins, and other soft bedding have also been associated with an increased risk of sudden infant death. Therefore, the AAP recommends that infant should be placed on a firm sleep surface covered by a fitted sheet with no other bedding or soft objects to reduce the risk of SIDS and suffocation. With regards to bumper pads, I'd like to share the AAP position as stated in Monday's policy statement and technical report. The data show that bumper pads and similar products attaching to crib slats or sides are frequently used with the thought of protecting infants from injury. And indeed, bumper pads were initially developed to prevent head entrapment between crib slats. However, newer crib standards requiring crib slats spacing to be less than two and three-eighths inches have obviated the need for crib bumpers. In addition, infant deaths have occurred because of bumper pads. You've already heard from Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatch and Ms. Covington about their research. Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatch's case series, using 1985 to 2005 CPSC data, found that the deaths attributed to bumper pads occurred as a result of three different mechanisms. Suffocation against soft pillow-like bumper pads, entrapment between the mattress crib and the firm bumper pads, and then strangulation from the bumper pad ties. However, a 2010 CPSC white paper that reviewed the same cases concluded that there were other confounding factors such as the presence of pillows and or blankets that may have contributed to many of the deaths in the report. The white paper pointed out that available data from the scene investigations, autopsies, law enforcement records, and death certificates often lacked sufficiently detailed information to conclude how or whether bumper pads contributed to the deaths. Three more recent analyses of CPSC data have also come to this conclusion. The two most recent ones concluded again that there was insufficient evidence to support that bumper pads were primarily responsible for infant deaths when bumper pads were used per manufacturer instructions and in the absence of other unsafe sleep risk factors. However, Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatch in their re-analysis of CPSC databases which was published earlier this year found that the rate of bumper pad related deaths has increased. Although they recognize that changes in reporting may recount for at least part of the increase, they also concluded that 67% or two thirds of the deaths could have been prevented if the bumper pads had not been present. Other researchers have concluded that the use of bumper pads only prevents minor injuries and that the potential benefits for preventing minor injury with bumper pad use are far outweighed by the risk of serious injury such as suffocation or strangulation. Additionally, most bumper pads obscure infant and parent visibility which may increase parental anxiety. There are other products such as mesh crib liners and crib slat covers that attach to crib sides or crib slats and claim to protect infants from injury. However, there are no published data that support these claims. Pediatricians were fond of saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And without published or peer reviewed data, they demonstrate that these other products that attach to crib sides or crib slats such as the mesh crib liners or crib slat covers do not pose a potential for suffocation and trapment or strangulation, these products cannot claim to be safer alternatives to crib bumpers and the AAP does not recommend their use. We urge CPSC to look to peer reviewed data in making these and other safe sleep assessments. Although nearly 100% of parents are aware the baby should sleep on their back, fewer than 50% are aware the baby should not sleep with soft bedding. And we believe that this is largely because of the confusing messages that parents receive. They see advertisement after advertisement for bedding, including crib bumpers and thus believe that they are not good parents unless they provide a soft, comfortable sleep environment for their infant. Unfortunately, these good intentions often end up deadly. We believe that when crib bumpers, when used solely for the use of infant younger than six months of age are allowed to be sold, this confuses the safe sleep message for parents. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard it from a parent the belief that if they sell it, it must be safe. A surprising number of parents believe that there's an agency out there that tests all infant products before they go on the market to make sure that they're safe. In other words, an FDA for infant products. Unfortunately, as we all know, there is no such agency. And we understand that the CPSC is not a proactive agency that tests products before they're sold, but a reactive agency that alerts consumers to problems with products that are already on the market. With regards to reasons that parents use crib bumpers and the misconceptions they're in, our qualitative research with mothers of infants found that the primary reasons for purchasing crib bumpers are that one, they're cute, and two, because parents believe that crib bumpers will prevent serious injury largely from head trauma and limb entrapments. With regards to head trauma, I'd like to apologize ahead of time, I'm a little bit of a science geek, which is why I'm here. And so I'm gonna take everybody back to high school physics where we learn the formula F equals MA, or force equals mass times acceleration. So the force needed to incur major head trauma, which I consider a concussion or worse, requires either a large mass or a large acceleration or both. So the 50th percentile for weight, which is what on earth we use to represent mass, for a six-month old is 6.5 kilograms or approximately 14 pounds. The reason I'm using the example of a six-month old is that's what the manufacturers have said is the age limit for the crib bumpers. So one estimate of the force required to sustain a concussion is 95 G forces. Or if you use physics units in Newtons, which is the universal force, it's 931 Newtons. I know I'm getting in the weeds here. If one assumes that this estimate is true, then for a 6.5 kilogram baby to generate enough force to sustain a concussion, he or she would need to accelerate at the rate of 103 meters per second squared, okay? I think you said 143 in your paper. 143, yes. To give you a point of reference, a car that goes from zero to 60 miles per hour in three seconds has an acceleration of nine meters per second squared. So in other words, an infant, in order to seriously injure their head against a crib, has to get a serious running start. And you would need more than the crib distance to get that running start. So the second concern that parents have is limb entrapment. The majority of these entrapments are reported after the age of six months, which has passed the age limit for crib bumper use. Therefore, if the product is used according to manufacturer instructions, then the product should not even be in the crib with these infants, and therefore would not prevent limb entrapment. Even if we consider a crib bumper use after the age of six months, I think that all of us would agree that although they cause momentary distress on both the part of the parent and the infant and the caregiver, this is a fairly benign condition compared to infant death. We therefore respectfully disagree with and are admittedly perplexed by CPSC staff finding that the risks of bumpers do not outweigh the benefits. We believe the benefits to be non-existence, particularly if the bumpers are used as the manufacturers attend, and the risk to be substantial. We also believe that it doesn't make sense for the CPSC staff to say that there is insufficient evidence of support that bumper pads were primarily responsible for infant deaths when the bumper pads were used per manufacturer instructions and in the absence of other unsafe sleep risk factors. And then use prevention of infant limb entrapment by using bumper pads against manufacturer instructions as a reason to not recommend action on bumper pads. The CPSC's own website states that CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and has families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. A ban on crib bumpers unequivocally meets the standard admission. Crib bumpers are associated with deaths and they pose a mechanical hazard to infants. But rather than recommending a ban on bumpers, the September staff briefing package seems to take the stance that unless death occurs in association with a crib bumper in the absence of any other risk factor, they will not recommend action on crib bumpers. This is not the agency's mission and this is not how pediatricians look at safe sleep. On the contrary, when determining the safety of a sleep environment, we look at the totality of the circumstances. We ask if anyone in the family smokes if the baby is breastfeeding a formula feeding and whether the baby, the family is bed sharing. We understand that elimination of each risk factor can contribute incrementally to sleep safety. The presence of crib bumpers is one of these risk factors. We also understand that the CPSC has to look at the overall impact of any action. For instance, it is impractical to ban all soft bedding as other population groups besides infants use soft bedding. However, crib bumpers are supposed to be used only by infants younger than six months of age. Therefore, we believe that the ban would have little or no negative impact on the rest of the population but would have a tremendous positive impact on infant sleep safety. If crib bumpers as they are currently being used by consumers, whether in cribs with infants with colds, with other soft bedding or with sleep positioners are involved in one infant death after another, the way to protect the public is to just allow their use not to contort reasoning to permit the use of crib bumpers. The staff package clearly states that soft bedding is a suffocation hazard despite its ostensible purpose of keeping an infant warm. However, the staff package does not support a ban on crib bumpers even though they pose the same hazards as soft bedding because staff say that bumpers ostensibly serve the purpose of protecting infants from crib, from limb entrapment. This is logically inconsistent, confusing to consumers and deadly for infants. A ban on crib bumpers would reinforce the message that no soft bedding of any kind should be placed inside a baby's crib. There's one surefire way to prevent infant death from crib bumpers, don't use them ever. The AP reiterates its request to the commission to ban crib bumpers, thank you. Thank you very much. Just a couple of quick reactions to what you said. First of all, with respect to education campaigns, I think the commission follows the philosophy that was enunciated by a chairman at a recent conference on information and education which is there's a hierarchy of public health approaches and the first approach is always to try to design out the problem, because as I keep saying, it's easier to redesign products than it is to redesign consumers. And if a redesign won't work, if it's impossible for a variety of reasons, then you try to guard against a hazard. You put some kind of protective barrier between the hazard and the consumer. And then the third one, if you can't find a way to approach it either through redesign or through guards is to use education. So we certainly understand education has its place, but I for one am skeptical that education would ever be a be-all and end-all. It's part of a totality of approaches and I appreciate your remarks there. I'm also, I just can't resist making, being amused by your statement that newer crib standards on slat width, because when I first came to the commission back in Ott 72, we had that two and three eighths of a slat width requirements. So that just makes me feel a little bit younger to hear that you're calling it one of the newest standards. Well, anything I can do to make all of us feel younger is the problem. I do, I still remember when I was talking to one of the staff experts which showed my complete knife tale about human factors because I'm a lawyer and I said, what's the problem? The kid can't stick its head through even wider slats. So why not have wider slats? And so with this very patient response, I said the problem isn't that the kid's sticking its head through the slats. The problem is the head won't go through the slats, but the body will. And that's where you were getting the deaths. And the reason I mentioned that is it's not intuitive. Looking at a crib, you would never imagine that that's how death would occur to infants and so that's why it's so important to have scientists like folks here and technical experts who actually look at the dating can make expert judgments and who actually understand physics. I will make one last observation. You're absolutely right that we are not like the Food and Drug Administration. We don't require pre-market approval of children's products. Although survey after survey shows that most people think we do, but we don't. I will say, and again I'm gonna give some congratulations to folks in the room, but in particular Nancy Coles who was one of the moving spirits behind the requirement for third-party testing for children's products. And that is a compromise between the FDA pre-market approval and what the commission operated before in the mode you said which was reactive. So we think that is a big step forward and we have somebody here to thank for that. So I thank you very much for your remarks and Ms. Gidea, do you have anything to add to Dr. Moon's? No, nothing to add informal comments. I'm just happy to participate in the discussion later on. Okay, any other comments? Thank you so much for your remarks. We really appreciate it. And I think we have reached the point where we are going to have a break. I'm sorry. Just one quick question. You mentioned additional recent analyses. Are these the articles that were handed out that you were referencing or is there something on that? So what was handed out are the recent, the policy statement in the technical report that were just released on, published on Monday. Okay, and then the recent analyses that you were referring to in your remarks on page four. Was that the pediatrics article from earlier this year? The recent analyses, so the more recent analyses were the staff briefing package and then Dr. Shears and Dr. Thatcher's 2016 paper. Thank you very much. We are at a point of taking a break. And as I say, we are running ahead, which is not a bad thing. So why don't we take a 20 minute break? Okay. So back at 10 o'clock. Well, one of the things we're doing is waiting for Dr. Sharfstein. So I want to make sure we get the timing right to get him here so that he arrives here and doesn't leave too quickly. So if we have to convene more quickly to accommodate him, we will.