Health & Fitness

If you need further proof that the mainstream media is censoring truthful news, look no further than Forbes’ June 7, 2020, article on a Norwegian report that claims to present proof that SARS-CoV-2 is a laboratory creation.

The article was initially published with the headline “Norway Scientist Claims Report Proves Coronavirus Was Lab-Made.”^1,2 Shortly thereafter, that headline was altered to “Controversial Coronavirus Lab Origin Claims Dismissed by Experts.”³

Forbes Pulls a 180

As revealed in the side-by-side screenshots below, the 180-degree turnaround is being justified by citing “scientific consensus on COVID-19” — a consensus that most certainly does not exist as of yet — and evidence showing SARS-CoV-2 is lab-created is being roundly dismissed as “rumor and conspiracy.” If this doesn’t show you just how complicit the media is driving a pre-established narrative, I don’t know what will.

Here's a sample of the changes. The original article states:⁴

“The study from Sørensen and British professor Angus Dalgleish show that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted. They also highlight the lack of mutation since its discovery, which suggests it was already fully adapted to humans.”

The updated article now reads:⁵

“The authors of a British-Norwegian vaccine study^6,7 — accepted by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics — claim that the coronavirus's spike protein contains sequences that appear to be artificially inserted.

In their paper, the Norwegian scientist Birger Sørensen and British oncologist Angus Dalgleish claim to have identified ‘inserted sections placed on the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface’ that explains how the virus interacts with cells in the human body. Virologists, however, note that similar sections appear naturally in other viruses.”

Why All-Natural Narrative Is so Important to Maintain

Undoubtedly, the fear of exposure is real, and if you see the words “consensus” or “conspiracy theory,”⁸ you are likely seeing an attempt at a cover-up. What are they afraid of?

Well, there are many reasons for protecting the narrative that SARS-CoV-2 is of a natural origin. If it is proven to be a lab creation, the public may demand biosafety/biowarfare research into dangerous pathogens be stopped.

Thousands of scientists involved in such research would lose their jobs if funding came to a halt and biosafety level 4 laboratories were to be shut down to prevent another global manmade pandemic from occurring. These laboratories pose probably one of the greatest of any threats to mankind, and we deserve to have a serious debate about their risks and benefits.

Aside from threatening the future of biosafety/biowarfare research in general, many could potentially face life in prison for violating the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.⁹

China, of course, has every reason to quell evidence that the pandemic originated in its first BSL4 laboratory, as it could be held legally responsible and restitution claims from affected nations would likely run in the trillions of dollars.^10,11

According to tech analyst Ray Wang, founder of Constellation Research Inc., colleagues within the Chinese scientific community told him they were prohibited from discussing the “new strain of flu” that had emerged in China in January 2020, because the Chinese Communist Party wanted to prevent the outbreak from becoming publicly known. According to Wang:¹²

“Nobody wanted to talk about it because there was a dual-use lab. If you’re a government, you don’t want to hurt your own people either. Today, what’s actually happening is they are trying to cover up for that.”

But American scientists and health organizations would also be implicated, as the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded coronavirus gain-of-function research being done in Wuhan, China. So, to say there’s a lot at stake would be a serious understatement.

The U.S. doesn’t want to implicate its own agencies in the creation of this virus, which is why government officials focus on the source of the leak — China — rather than the fact that it’s engineered. Clearly, if it’s engineered, everyone associated with its creation, including those funding it, would be responsible.

So, when discussing the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it’s important to be crystal clear on what the problem is, namely the existence of dangerous bioweapons/biodefense research. It’s not a condemnation of the Chinese population or its government per se, although critique of China’s handling of the outbreak is getting louder.

Even Fauci has stated, “I think the Chinese authorities that did not allow the scientists to speak out as openly and transparently as they could really did a disservice."¹³ However, while we may eventually be provided with unequivocal proof that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan lab, genetic manipulation will undoubtedly continue to be denied past any point of believability. 

If SARS-CoV-2 is an engineered manmade virus, it is proof positive that gain-of-function research poses tremendous risks to humanity and that those risks far exceed any potential gain. Virtually all other threats to humanity — environmental toxins, pesticides, GMOs, pollution — pale in comparison to the danger posed by biodefense/bioweapons research.

Natural Evolution Argument Fails for Lack of Evidence

What we’re seeing now is an ever-widening gulf between scientists and drug-industry-run media. While a majority of the press corps insist there is a “consensus” on the natural zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, scientists keep publishing evidence to the contrary.

For example, a June 8, 2020, paper¹⁴ by Daoyu Zhang argues against zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2, stating genetic analyses of pangolin samples used to support zoonotic transference appear to be contaminated:

“Recently, there were much hype about an alleged SARS-like coronavirus being found in samples of Malayan pangolins (Manis Javanica) possessing nearly identical RBD to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.

Prominent journals cite the alleged discovery to claim that pangolins may be one of a possible intermediate host for the zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans.

Here, we report that all databases used to support such a claim, upon which metagenomic analysis was possible, contained unexpected reads and was in serious risk of contamination. Here we also report that the presence of unexpected reads are directly related to the presence of coronavirus reads.”

One nowadays rare mainstream news article^15,16 that dares look at both the engineering and leaking issue was published in The Wall Street Journal May 29, 2020. As noted in this article, “New research has deepened, rather than dispelled, the mystery surrounding the origin of the coronavirus responsible for Covid-19.” Indeed.

In his article,¹⁷ “So Where Did Covid Come From?” foreign reporter Ian Birrell also points out “It’s not mere conspiracy theory to ask if this new coronavirus leaked from a Wuhan lab.” Meanwhile, CNN continues to push the zoonotic narrative by airing a special on the connection between bats and COVID-19.¹⁸

As noted in the April 2020 paper, “Is Considering a Genetic-Manipulation Origin for SARS-CoV-2 a Conspiracy Theory That Must Be Censored?” by Deigin and Rossana Segreto:¹⁹

“Theories that consider a possible artificial origin for SARS-CoV-2 are censored as they seem to support conspiracy theories. Researchers have the responsibility to carry out a thorough analysis, beyond any personal research interests, of all possible causes for SARS-CoV-2 emergence for preventing this from happening in the future.”

Deigin and Segreto go on to review evidence of a cover-up at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I recently interviewed molecular biologist and virologist Jonathan Latham, Ph.D., about this as well. For the details of this story, see “Cover-Up of Wuhan Virus Exposed.” Deigin and Segreto’s paper²⁰ is also an excellent read.

In short, SARS-CoV-2 may not be a new virus after all. A highly conserved close ancestor was already in the database under the name BtCoV/4991. The question is, why has this been covered up?

The fact that some scientific findings are being censored wholesale while others are being promoted as “consensus” is extremely dangerous and undermines the field of science as a whole.

When the press corps is no longer free to report facts and is instead used as an industry and political propaganda machine to the exclusion of truth, it can only lead to a devolution of society. Is that really what we want? The COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic and social disaster brought in its wake, is a wakeup call to the world in more ways than one.

What’s clear is we cannot afford to continue dangerous gain-of-function research on pathogens. We need to get to the bottom of its origin, so that steps can be taken to ensure something like this does not happen again. If we don’t, repeats are virtually guaranteed, and the next time, we may not be so lucky to get a virus with a mortality rate as low as SARS-CoV-2.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2Ct9mkG
via IFTTT

Disease screening and testing are among the most basic tools in public health and preventive medicine. Women receiving prenatal care undergo a variety of tests to protect the health of their unborn child. Newborn children are tested for inborn errors in metabolism so that early intervention may reduce the risk of damage.

Adults are screened for cardiovascular disease while influenza testing helps determine the spread of infectious disease during flu season. Inadequate testing for COVID-19 during its early months has been blamed for widespread transmission.

Early testing potentially could have helped contain the virus without the need for extensive shutdowns. Soon after China announced it identified a novel coronavirus, German scientists developed the first diagnostic test. By February 2020, the World Health Organization had shipped 250,000 tests around the world to 159 laboratories.^1,2

However, instead of using the WHO test, the U.S. CDC and FDA decided to create their own. During past outbreaks of Ebola and Zika, the U.S. made similar moves. William Schaffner, an adviser to the CDC and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, spoke to a reporter from Business Insider:³

"The notion of accepting a test developed by someone else I think was a bit alien. There may have been other considerations of which I'm not aware, but I'm sure that pride was one of them: 'We know how to do this, thank you very much. We'll develop our own.'"

In other words, pride may well have stood in the way of U.S. officials distributing early testing. February 6 and 7, the CDC shipped a mere 90 test kits to state-run labs public health labs and by February 12th problems with those tests were announced. At the end of February 2020, the planned use for the tests was only on “symptomatic patients with a travel history.”

The FDA waited until February 29, 2020, before it released academic hospital labs to develop testing. In a country with more than 330 million individuals,⁴ enough tests for 1.5 million were shipped on March 4, 2020. Yet, despite the number of, or lack of, testing kits, the decisions being made can only be as successful as the accuracy of the test.

Inaccurate Tests Raise Public Health Risks

Multiple stories are being told of individuals who have received false positive or false negative tests. NBC News tells the story of Sarah Bowen, a 31-year-old therapy consultant from Portland, Oregon.⁵ She is employed at a doctor's office and her trouble began with a sore throat.

The next day she felt significantly worse and was able to get a test for COVID-19. When the results came back negative, her doctor thought the symptoms were related to allergies or a different type of virus. Bowen reported she started to get short of breath and her symptoms continued to get worse.

She took another test, and again it came back negative. Despite her symptoms, which were consistent with COVID-19, her doctor did not believe she had the novel coronavirus. At the time of the report at the end of May 2020, Bowen’s diagnosis was still unclear.

For Danielle Fried, whose story is told in The Wall Street Journal,⁶ her positive test sent her into quarantine until her symptoms subsided. Not long after, her antibody test came back positive indicating her infection was inactive.

To return to her job she was required to get another test, which was positive for an active COVID-19 infection, which required another two-week quarantine. Yet, it isn’t clear if she had another infection or if the test was a false positive.

Contradictory tests are not unusual as Zalman Goldstein has found after six COVID-19 tests showed three positive and three negatives. Two were taken on the same day and came back with conflicting results.

Goldstein is 74 years old and needs a medical procedure to address a kidney illness. The hospital requires a negative test before proceeding, yet with each test, Goldstein's results are contradictory.

Timing Your Test May Be Important

Test results may be unreliable or inconsistent when samples are taken too early or late during the disease. Robert Wachter, chairman of the department of medicine at the University of California, spoke with a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, saying: “Situations like this are occurring with distressing frequency and are confusing to patients and their doctors.”⁷

He went on to explain that the tests may show inaccurate results if a person is tested too early in the disease. Yet, as Stephanie Zeidenweber discovered, her tests for COVID-19 — taken within days of her first symptom and weeks later — were both negative.

Later, she took two antibody tests on the same day to determine if she had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. One came back negative and the other was positive. Dr. Alan Wells from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center believes some false negatives are due to how the specimens are collected and not the tests themselves. He explained to NBC News:⁸

“You’re sampling blindly. You’re hoping you get the right spot. Then as the disease progresses, the virus might migrate down into your lungs. You have to be at the right place at the right time.”

A second type of test collects saliva in a test tube where it's evaluated in a lab. Wells said the results of these tests may be worse, explaining pharyngeal swabs are used to test tissue where the virus is known to replicate.

Saliva tests may be missing up to 50% of asymptomatic positive cases. Using a literature review and a pooled analysis of seven studies, one team found that proper timing of the test was also essential. The results showed a probability of 100% false negative on day one, which fell to 67% by day 4.⁹

PCR Testing Isn’t Accurate for Active Infections

However, even when samples are taken at the ideal time, the results can still be incorrect. An article in the Mayo Clinic proceedings criticized public health reliance on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. To illustrate the point, the authors of the paper wrote:¹⁰ 

“To illustrate the potential magnitude of this problem in the general population, consider the following examples from Spain and the United States, assuming a test with 90% sensitivity.

The president of the region of Madrid has predicted that 80% of Madrid’s 6.5 million residents will become infected by COVID-19. If the entire population was tested, of the anticipated 5.2 million infected individuals, 520,000 people would be falsely classified as free of infection.”

One of the problems with getting false negatives, as Wells points out, is that you “create a false sense of security.”¹¹ Dr. Priya Sampathkumar is an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic and one of the authors of the paper. She commented:¹²

"RT-PCR testing is most useful when it is positive. It is less useful in ruling out COVID-19. A negative test often does not mean the person does not have the disease, and test results need to be considered in the context of patient characteristics and exposure."

As I've described before, the PCR test traces genetic material of the virus that may be from a dead cell or from a live virus. Scientists are finding the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaves dead fragments that can take months to clear after an infection.¹³ This can lead to a number of false positives of an active infection.

Some Hospitals Decide ID NOW Tests Ineffective

Abbott Labs developed another type of diagnostic test that produces results in five to 13 minutes. Called the ID NOW point-of-care test, it uses a method that is different from PCR.¹⁴ The Abbott test kit uses isothermal nucleic acid amplification, which was found to potentially return nearly 50% false negatives, according to the authors of one study from New York University¹⁵ and as reported by NBC News.

May 14, 2020, the FDA issued an alert that data from the Abbott test may return false negative results.¹⁶ Although they said the test could still be used, negative results should be confirmed with an additional test. In response to this, the FDA reported “Abbott has agreed to conduct post-market studies for the ID NOW device that each will include at least 150 COVID-19 positive patients in a variety of clinical settings.”¹⁷

May 21, 2020, Abbott published a press release in which they reported results from three separate Abbott Labs sponsored studies. The results of one showed that an “Urgent care clinic study shows ID NOW test performance of ≥94.7% positive agreement (sensitivity) and ≥98.6% negative agreement (specificity) compared to lab-based PCR reference tests.”¹⁸

Most importantly, Abbott stated the full results of these studies and analysis are not yet complete. Until the data are released, it's difficult to determine whether the results are accurate. Some hospitals aren’t convinced the results are accurate or they may not want to use the test altogether, when a second is required to confirm a negative test.

An NBC News reporter called 10 U.S. medical facilities and found that seven were not using the test. Each cited accuracy as the reason, including Vanderbilt University Medical Center, whose representative told the NBC reporter, “No patient at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has been tested via the Abbott ID NOW rapid test. Here, there were concerns about the sensitivity of that test.”¹⁹

As demonstrated in previous studies, industry funding can exaggerate outcomes. Researchers have found this to be true in several industries.²⁰ The authors of a paper published in Jama Network came to the conclusion that:²¹

“Although industry sponsorship of clinical trials can lead to important therapeutic advances, the potential for bias in these studies may exist on multiple levels … By establishing checks and balances for academic-industry partnerships, such proposals may help to mitigate the potential for bias in industry-sponsored research.”

Confusing Data Feed Fear Without Science

Without accurate testing data, large corporations and the media can continue to feed public fear. As I've written about in the past, one of the key players in this process is a man without any medical education whose sole qualification appears to be that he's a billionaire.

Bill Gates has proposed plans that go far beyond mandating a vaccine: His proposal includes digital surveillance to track and monitor people, riding on the coattails of COVID-19. Once in place, global disease surveillance systems will be next to impossible to dismantle and will naturally transition into other functions under the auspices of creating a world where disease can be tracked to improve health. And who doesn’t want a healthy world?

There is also every reason to believe a digital tracking system this intricate will be combined with digital identification and an economic system to enforce compliance. In my series on Bill Gates linked below, I outline some of the steps currently being taken to quietly and surreptitiously go after a surveillance regime monitored and run by organizations with their financial future in mind.

In the past, behavior could change under the threat of war or terrorism. The current acts of terrorism that trigger behavior change are identity fraud and infectious diseases. The Gates Foundation has direct ties to funding the World Health Organization as well as other groups that shape decisions in the U.K. and the U.S.

This is a moment in history when we will look back and recognize it was a time in which decisions were made that protected or exposed our personal rights and public health. The role of government does not include creating mandates that eliminate personal decision making with regard to vaccination, medical testing and autonomy. It is your right and responsibility to take control of your health.

Giving control to government or large organizations will eventually strip people of their personal freedoms, with devastating consequences. I encourage you to get educated on the decisions being made “for” you and learn how you can make a difference for yourself and your community.

• How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health
• The National Plan to Vaccinate Every American
• Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?
• Deconstructing Bill Gates’ Agenda

from Articles https://ift.tt/2VaZcvN
via IFTTT

A five-minute role-play done with men before the birth of their first child predicted the quality of their parenting after the baby arrived, a new study showed.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hQ1IRP

Researchers tested more than 30 samples of used and unused PPE from six specialty textile manufacturers in the United States and found them to be treated extensively with PFAS or constructed with fluoropolymers, a type of PFAS used to make textiles oil and water resistant.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2VcmMs6

Using protein and RNA, scientists have created hollow, spherical sacks known as vesicles. These bubble-like entities -- which form spontaneously when specific protein and RNA molecules are mixed in an aqueous buffer solution -- hold potential as biological storage compartments. They could serve as an alternative to traditional vesicles that are made from water-insoluble organic compounds called lipids, researchers say.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Bxm0ib

Fitness advertising mostly contains images of thin, white women, but almost 80 per cent of women want to see more with a range of body shapes. So why aren't advertisers listening? 

from Diet | body+soul https://ift.tt/2Z217nn

With the threat of coronavirus ever-present, it's understandable if you want to avoid the gym right now. But you can still get a gym-quality workout at home, as this Harvard researcher reveals. 

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/2VfQpbY

Here's one writer's journey of climbing an imaginary ladder set to a Will Sparks playlist. To call it 'intense' would be the understatement of the century.

from Fitness | body+soul https://ift.tt/2AVd6LH

Some common strains of influenza have the potential to mutate to evade broad-acting antibodies that could be elicited by a universal flu vaccine, according to a new study. The findings highlight the challenges involved in designing such a vaccine, and should be useful in guiding its development.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3hPhv3j

Mother's chronic prenatal psychological distress and elevated hair cortisol concentrations are associated with gut microbiota composition of the infant, according to a new publication. The results help to better understand how prenatal stress can be connected to infant growth and development.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YWseAg

Let’s face it: there’s still a deadly virus out there and it’s not going away anytime soon. And that means we all must make a lot of decisions that involve personal risk. And for many of these daily decisions, there’s no single right answer: no Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines, World Health Organization recommendations, or expert advice exist. And as more places lift restrictions keeping people at home, more questions arise:

• Is it safe to go to the grocery store? And, how often is okay?
• How safe is it to fly on a commercial airline? Get a haircut? Go out to dinner?
• Should I avoid a friend whose daughter works someplace where someone tested positive?

A new CDC guideline on venturing out shares ways to lessen risk for certain activities: frequent handwashing, wearing a mask, keeping your distance, and other familiar protective measures feature prominently. While helpful, the guideline won’t tell you whether it’s okay to visit your cousin, drive cross-country, or get a massage.

Based on duration of exposure, setting, and “dose” (the amount of virus to which you’re exposed), we do know that some activities are riskier than others. Spending 15 minutes or more in a small room with someone who is coughing while neither of you wears a mask is considered high-risk. Going for a walk outdoors, well away from others, is low-risk.

But each of us must make our own decisions about all of the things in the middle — including activities now allowed in many places — without much guidance.

We already calculate risks every day

We already have to make daily decisions about what is safe or less safe, and how much risk we’re willing to accept. Each time we decide to drive, fly, or go skiing, we make judgements about our safety without precise data, specific guidelines, or expert advice for our particular situation.

Of course, there is an important difference when we’re talking about COVID-19. Here, the threat to safety is catching, and possibly spreading, an unpredictable, potentially deadly infection. So, my behavior affects not only my health but may affect the health of others. And the behavior of others can affect me.

Sometimes you have to improvise

Strong opinions aside, no one actually knows what’s best for many everyday decisions. There’s a lot of making it up on the fly and rationalizing: a friend recently “expanded his social circle” for a birthday party with the plan to quarantine himself afterward. But the 14-day quarantine was “just too long,” so he decided six days was enough. When I asked him where the six-day figure came from, I got the look that means “don’t judge me, it’s my personal decision.” In fact, he’d chosen six days because that’s when he had to return to work.

How can you make decisions around personal risk?

If you’re considering relaxing restrictions in your work or social life, consider these three important steps:

• Think about your risk factors for developing a severe case of COVID-19; do the same for others with whom you’ll have contact.
• Find out if community spread is common where you live.
• Gauge how risky the activity is.

And then what? Weigh the five Ps to round out your reckoning of risks and benefits:

• Personal risk tolerance. Is your mantra “better safe than sorry”? Or is it closer to “you only live once”?
• Personality. If you’re an extrovert, you may be willing to dial down your restrictions (and accept more risk) because the alternative feels like torture. For introverts, limiting social interactions may not seem so bad.
• Priorities. If you put a high priority on dining out, getting your hair done, or getting a tattoo, it’s a bigger sacrifice to put these off than it is for someone who doesn’t care about these things.
• Pocketbook. Although the pandemic affects everyone, it does not affect everyone equally: some can weather the economic impact better than others. As a result, keeping one’s business closed or staying home from work are less appealing for some than others.
• Politics. One’s preferred sources of information and political affiliation have a dramatic effect on views about restrictions related to the pandemic.

The bottom line

We all will have to continue to make challenging decisions each day about how to behave in this pandemic, until far more people are immune due to infection or a vaccine, or until we have effective treatments. And that could be many months or even years away.

So, listen to the experts and their recommendations, especially when they change in response to new information about the virus. Spread out your risk if you can: if you go to the grocery store today, put off your haircut to another day — in this way, the “virus dose” may be lower than if you’re out doing multiple errands among other people over a few hours.

Think about your decisions and how they may affect you and others. Try to be reasonable, consistent, but flexible in considering new information. Avoid the temptation to “COVID-shame” those who have chosen a different approach; if their decisions put you at risk, do your best to avoid them.

Talk about your plans with those with whom you’re sharing space. When there’s no right answer and our decisions may affect each other, it’s especially important to understand others’ perspectives.

Follow me on Twitter @RobShmerling

The post Daily decisions about risk: What to do when there’s no right answer appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/2VdwREX

A new study found that environmental conditions affect the stability of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in human nasal mucus and sputum.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2YrJLRZ

A new report shows that infants under 90 days of age who tested positive for COVID-19 tend to be well, with little or no respiratory involvement. Fever was often found to be the primary or only symptom.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Nqw5A6

Administering the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine could serve as a preventive measure to dampen septic inflammation associated with COVID-19 infection, say experts.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3dvt8c6

Research labs are racing to develop innovative testing methods and overcome the bottlenecks to more widespread testing, which is crucial to controlling the spread of the disease.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Vb11J0

Researchers have discovered that a single, 60-minute interaction with PARO actually improved mood as well as reduced mild or severe pain. When participants touched PARO, they experienced greater pain reduction than when it was simply present in their room.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3doD2fD

Smoking, divorce and alcohol abuse have the closest connection to death out of 57 social and behavioural factors analyzed in this study. The researchers analyzed data collected from 13,611 adults in the U.S. between 1992 and 2008, and identified which factors applied to those who died between 2008 and 2014. They intentionally excluded biological and medical factors.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2Z2IU9m