Treating Cancer with Ecstasy

Who says I write only about doom and gloom.

New research shows that a modified form of the drug has 100 times more cancer-busting properties than the popular designer drug itself. And scientists at the University of Birmingham say they hope to redesign it to treat leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma.

The study, published online in the journal, Investigational New Drugs, builds on the scientists’ discovery six years ago that revealed that ecstasy and anti-depressants such as Prozac had the potential to stop cancers growing.

At the time, the team stressed that translating their findings into a useable clinical compound would present significant problems, mainly because the dose of MDMA - the scientific name for Ecstasy - required to treat a cancerous tumour would have proved fatal to the patient. So, they began working towards breaking down the actions of the drug to isolate its cancer-killing properties from its general toxicity.

On the university's website, lead author professor John Gordon, said, "This is an exciting next step towards using a modified form of MDMA to help people suffering from blood cancer. While we would not wish to give people false hope, the results of this research hold the potential for improvement in treatments in years to come."

So now with your baby aspirin a day for your heart, you can take a baby XTC pill for your health.  It would certainly put people in a better mood.

Red Sky At Morn - Be Forewarned!

Ok, I like cliches. Red sky at night, sailors delight; red sky at morn, sailor be forewarned.

Looks like we have serious economic troubles ahead.

 

Panic mode is fully back with stock plunging to Friday lows, while both gold and bonds are at records, 10 Year touching a record low 2.03%, the S&P plunging to Friday's lows and gold as is well known, back at all time highs. The catalyst: the same thing Zero Hedge reported yesterday, namely that one bank in Europe has a dire dollar squeeze (note not EUR) to the tune of $500 MM. The real market is thus now pricing in both hyperinflation and hyperdeflation at the same time, while the Fed's policy instrument, stocks, is now pricing in Lehman part deux (but don't nobody mention SocGen or the black choppers will come after you).

 

The market is now at a very simple crossroads: bonds are pricing in the hyperdeflation that the resumption of the global depression brings in, while gold is pricing in the central planning policy response to that hyperdeflation, which is nothing but print, print, print.

 

Elsewhere confirming that as expected the unemployment situation is deteriorating, with 408K initial claims printing, on expectations of 400K, and making sure we don't have a revised 19 out of 19 weeks of consecutive 400K+ prints was last week's revised 395K claims to, hold on to your seats, 399K. That's right: a 1K in jobs breaks the trend, huzzah! Just as importantly, those on EUCs and Extended benefits continued to plunge, dropping by 43K in the last week. And most frightening, the one year change in Americans receiving Emergency Compensation (EUC) has plunged from 4.7 Million to 3.1 Million. That's 1.6 million Americans who no longer even collect any benefits from the government.

 

"Risk adversion" is the only term you need to know right now.  Cash, treasuries and gold.

The Party Of No - Which Ultimately Leads to No Where

23 recent polls show that – by an average of 65% to 30% - the American public wants tax increases as part of the deficit reduction process. That's nice, but it does not matter. The GOP no-taxes agenda has been out of step with the public for 15 years or more, but public opinion, like unemployment, foreclosure and the economic struggles of the average voter, does not matter to the Republican Party.

When the eight Republican presidential candidates were asked “Is there any ratio of cuts to taxes that you would accept? Three to one? Four to one? Ten to one? Would you walk away from a 10 to 1 deal?” They immediately, as a group, all raised their hands.

Let's just eliminate all taxes and shut down government.  Anarchy sounds like a great GOP solution.  Everyone would be free to do whatever they wanted without any government interference and no taxes.  It will help if you have already started your own garden and drilled your own water wells, it may be difficult to get by without them.

Guest Post: Bread, Circuses, Spending Cuts, Unicorns And The Appearance Of Wealth

I write often about my fascination of hegemonic ideology - the presence of a Cultural hegemony which is the philosophic and sociological theory that a culturally diverse society can be dominated (ruled) by one social class, which manipulates the societal culture (beliefs, explanations, perceptions, and values through all of that which they control and own such as newspapers and media outlets, etc.). Through such control it is the ruling-class's worldview is imposed as the societal norm, which then is perceived as a universally valid ideology and status quo beneficial to all of society, whilst benefiting only the ruling class.

So I think this article below really nails this reality in our society.

By Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform
Bread, Circuses, Spending Cuts, Unicorns And The Appearance Of Wealth

“Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses” - Juvenal – 100 A.D.

Juvenal makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power through populism. Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor: giving out cheap food and entertainment, “bread and circuses”. The Roman politicians realized this would be the most effective way to rise to power and stay in power.


With the revolting display of political theater in the last few weeks, I couldn’t help but consider the parallels between the Roman Empire and the American Empire. The entire debt ceiling farce was a circus on an epic scale – The Greatest Show on Earth. The American public was treated to high wire acts of near debt experiences, Senators putting their heads into the mouths of lions, and hundreds of clowns riding tiny bikes with squeaking horns. In the end, American politicians did what they do best - pretended to solve a spending problem without cutting spending. Only in America could politicians put the country on course to increase its national debt from $14.5 trillion to $23 trillion by 2021 and declare they are cutting spending. For those that need to visualize the lies of politicians, take a gander at this chart and try to find the cuts in spending.


The Roman authorities provided free wheat to the peasants as a superficial means of appeasing the masses and distracting them from the fact that public policy and public service had failed, as corruption and decadence engulfed those in control of government. Free bread, chariot races, and feeding Christians to lions kept the small-minded peasants satiated and ignorant of their civic duty. Today, the authorities don’t hand out bread they hand out EBT cards to 45.5 million Americans, or 14.6% of the entire population.


There are almost 5 million Americans on welfare. There are 50 million Americans on Medicaid. There are 8 million Americans receiving unemployment compensation. There are 10.5 million Americans on Social Security disability. This is the symbolic bread being provided to the masses to keep them tranquilized, pliable, satisfied and ignorant of their civic duty. The government has renamed bread as “social benefits” and now distributes $2.3 trillion of bread per year to the ”needy”.


English historian Edward Gibbon wrote his masterpiece The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1776, ironically in the year the American Empire was born. He detailed the societal collapse encompassing both the gradual disintegration of the political, economic, military, and other social institutions of Rome and the barbarian invasions that were its final doom in Western Europe.


Gibbon’s analysis captured the essence of what happens to all empires. It subsequently happened to the Dutch, Spanish and British empires and has been eating away at the greatest empire of all over the last several decades. Larry Elliot, writer for the UK Guardian, recently described the rot that has destroyed every empire in history:

“The experience of both Rome and Britain suggests that it is hard to stop the rot once it has set in, so here are the a few of the warning signs of trouble ahead: military overstretch, a widening gulf between rich and poor, a hollowed-out economy, citizens using debt to live beyond their means, and once-effective policies no longer working. The high levels of violent crime, epidemic of obesity, addiction to pornography and excessive use of energy may be telling us something: the US is in an advanced state of cultural decadence.

Empires decline for many different reasons but certain factors recur. There is an initial reluctance to admit that there is much to fret about, and there is the arrival of a challenger (or several challengers) to the settled international order. In Spain’s case, the rival was Britain. In Britain’s case, it was America. In America’s case, the threat comes from China.”

When you watch the talking heads and contemptible pundits on Fox, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN and the other mainstream corporate media spinning our economic situation in a positive way, remember that every person you are listening to is a member of the top 1% richest Americans. They have large portfolios of stocks and will not let reality or truth interfere with their ambitions of further wealth and power. This country is controlled by the few for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Less than ten banks control more than 50% of deposits and 75% of the lending in the country. One private banking organization – the Federal Reserve – controls the currency of the country. A handful of mega-corporations control the commerce of the country. Less than ten arms dealers dictate the war spending in the country. A few media conglomerates control the message fed to the masses. A few hundred corrupt politicians pay off their corporate and banking masters with laws, tax breaks, and pork. These people make up the ruling class of America.

My Political Rant of the Day - Does Anyone Care About We The People?

Nancy Folbre, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, has raised a very interesting point (click Here):

The struggle over the budget is not either/or, it is a three-way race with the third entrant getting no respect. “What I see is a three-way tussle among the rich, the not very rich and the not rich at all over who should pay the costs of balancing the budget” – that is the Republicans vs the Democrats vs the People, and the People aren't being asked to dance – just to pay the band.

I know that politics is often not a popular subject to discuss among friends, and increasingly young Americans seem to have given up on Republican vs. Democrat and just find themselves increasingly screwed.  And that is the jest of Ms. Folbre's argument, that the average American is getting screwed left and right by both parties but is expected to pay the bill.

So what is the latest?  The Senate's 'Gang of Six' (so essentially we are acknowledging that we have now become serfs and are being controlled by a few select oligaracy - where is the outrage?) and has ridden to the rescue – hide the silverware. Just whose rescue seems unclear, but mostly the usual suspects make out and the usual marks pay the bill. It starts with $500 billion in actual cuts, in exchange for which the debt ceiling gets raised, the bond market is happy and stock markets go wild. It includes a promise of $3.7 trillion in cuts over the next ten years – but doesn't really specify anything much except that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security get screwed cut while Wall Street gets to keep their outrageous salaries classified as capital gains – the tax on which will fall.

Described by one of its authors as “the only plan that is going to ever pass”, the diet recommended by the Gang include reductions in deductions for health insurance, home mortgage interest, charitable gifts, even retirement savings. Medicare and Medicaid would be diminished and Social Security undermined. While most taxpayers will pay higher taxes under their plan, the top tax rate would drop from 35% to 23% and those big hedge fund incomes would be taxed as capital gains – which would be unchanged at 15%. And the alternative minimum tax, designed to force high-income families pay at least some bit of income tax, would be repealed. It proposes a “territorial tax system” which would be a windfall for US multinationals.

But what do WE THE PEOPLE want?

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in late February found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit. A Pew Research Center poll in late May found that 66 percent favored raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000 and 67 percent raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes.

Do you here any politician talking about that?  But there are alternatives.

Consider a largely invisible proposal for balancing the budget, the People’s Budget, released in April by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes 83 members of Congress.
Its proposed budget savings include major cuts to military spending based on immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Its proposed revenue sources include new tax brackets for the rich (from 45 percent on income over a million dollars a year to 49 percent on income over a billion a year), restoring the estate tax and eliminating the Bush tax cuts.

The Economic Policy Institute provides a more detailed supportive analysis. Proponents have also developed a three-way comparison with budget proposals advocated by President Obama and Congressional Republicans that allows you to register your own preference.

Deficit hawks (at least those who are not tax chickens) should welcome the People’s Budget, because it offers a plausible path to debt reduction.

Matt Miller of The Washington Post noted that the People’s Budget would, unlike the Roadmap for America’s Future advanced by Representative Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, generate a budget surplus at a predictable point in the future, winning the “fiscal responsibility derby.”

The progressive tax policies endorsed by the People’s Budget have drawn remarkably strong support in public opinion polls, suggesting that the views of our most powerful elected officials don’t accurately reflect the views of the electorate.

As I said, We The People are reduced to puppets and serfs, while the mega-rich and corporations keep their private jets.

Empirical support for the view that sharp, immediate cuts in government spending would be good for the U.S. economy was never strong, and it’s getting weaker. The Economist is on the case, highlighting two new studies showing that austerity and growth don’t mix in the short term. ...

In short, the more closely you look at the evidence for the claim that cutting federal spending dramatically right now would be good for the economy, the less convincing that claim becomes.

House Republicans will not consider any form of tax increase, even changes in loop-holes that serve primarily the rich.

I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and am appalled at the greed of corporations and many of the uber-rich.  How much is enough?

Is America Ready For A Gay First Lady/Dude?

As Michele Bachmann moves front and center (actually front and far, far right), it raises so many questions to whether she is qualified to be President and what does she really stand for (and against)?

She seems to be willing to stretch the truth (and outright lie) to be elected as I wrote previously (Read HERE).

She has clearly stated she believes in the literal word of the Bible and that God speaks to her directly. Too bad for all of us, that even she acknowledges that she is not actually a "deep thinker."

“I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist.”  [Michele Bachmann quote]

I sometimes question whether she thinks at all. She has said most of her decisions are not made based on what she thinks but what God told her to do. (What happens if God stops giving Bachmann hints as to what to do?)

Do you want a President that doesn't think for herself?


And now we also have to ask ourselves if we are ready for a gay first lady, I mean first dude? Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus Bachmann, a Christian counselor who's also her strategist, has a clear record of anti-gay rhetoric. Yet, many including Bill Maher and Cher  have said (and if anyone should know), this man sounds gayer than former Sen. Larry Craig (those Republicans like to hide in closets and bathroom stalls - whichever is more convenient to meet those despicable gay people on an intimate basis, of which the GOP speak.)

According to The Daily Beast contributor David Graham Marcus Bachamann has said :

 “He's allegedly participated in gay-to-straight therapy, he's talked about [the] homosexual agenda.”

Marcus also loves to call other Americans, who happen to be gay, Barbarians.

The segment prompted Cher to tweet message to her more than 250,000 followers:

“Just heard Michele Bachmann's OH SO CHRISTIAN husband talk about 'Gays' in the most UNCHRISTIAN way WTF!”

“But Boys please utube this asshole & tell me what u think … Cause My Gay-Dar is GOING OFF!!!”-

“How a Christian can call Any of God's Children … I can't talk! WHO R THESE FKN People? C if u can find his views of what 2 do 2 'Gays'”

“Boys I'm not kidding! I'm listening 2 this >%~€¥^<<&&&& I'm thinking GAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAYGAY Without Style!” she added moments later.-CHER

Marcus, with his lisp and VERY effeminate personality, sounds gayer than Richard Simmons; yet, he calls homosexuals "barbarians" who must be "punished." I bet Marcus is into self-flagellation. Hear for yourself. This lisp is unmistakable. I've never heard a gayer male voice in my life.

I am not making fun of anyone with a lisp nor am I criticizing anyone who exhibits effeminate behavior.  I think Richard Simmons and Liberace being themselves is great.  We should all be free to act however we feel and we should all embrace people exactly as they may be.

To me the question is not whether he is gay or has gay desires but the hate and hypocrisy of the Bachmanns towards gays.

Is it fair to call any American a "barbarian" simply because they may be gay? Aren't you supposed to hate the sin and not the sinner? Isn't calling someone a "barbarian" who needs punishment hating the person as opposed to the act?

And why is it that the Bachmanns’ had only female foster children? Yes the Bachmanns were paid 1.2 million by the government to foster these children (yet Bachmann is strongly opposed to any government payments, I assume except those to her).  Michele Bachmann and her family receive (and have for years) farm subsidies on the farm her family owns.  More government money going in her pockets; yet, she is opposed to big Government? 




So what is the deal with raising some thirty plus foster children, all female? Is it that Marcus might be too tempted by male children?  And this is in no way to say all gay men are pedophiles, only that it is curious why Marcus didn’t foster any male children.

What scares me the most is that both the Bachmanns have exceedingly strong opinions that leave little room for discussion. It is all black/white, right/wrong, for them or against them. It must be wonderful to be so self-confident that you know that you are always right. But Michelle has said she has done things not because she believed in it, but because God told her. She has said that "God told her to marry her husband even though she did not love him." So are her opinions her owns or God's? Do we need her to clarify which decisions she has made and which God has directed her to make? And what if God stops telling her what to do?

And as to Marcus, his hypocrisy seems to put him in the same situation as those purple robe & gown wearing hypocritical priests and Popes.

So Marcus, why are you the first to cast a stone and call your fellow Americans "barbarians" who need "punishment?" Which punishments do you propose? Should we hang those "barbarians" by the cross for their sins?
Marcus, do you propose we start a new holy crusade against these "barbarians?" Rid them from the earth?

Or, should they do like you and "prey" away their gay? But does the "gay" go away or is just waiting to burst out like former Sen. Larry Craig or dressed in drag like Liza Maneli?

So we have to ask ourselves today, is America ready for its First gay dude? What would his secret service name be? Tinker Bell? Dorothy? Fruit Loops? Twinkle Toes? Or just hypocrite?

It is clear who wears the pants suits in that family (I wonder if they share the same dress size?). Why hasn't God spoken to her to clue her in that she married a raging queen.


What other decisions might she make that also make no sense? Maybe God will let her talk to the Founding Fathers so she can get it just right (very very right).



It is ironic that most of the Founding Fathers would be mortified that persons like the Bachmanns might be leading America and calling for decisions to be made based on religious beliefs. Contrary to what the Bachmanns may tell you, the Founding Fathers believed strongly in the separation of church and state and that America should have policies based on freedom and equality and not on religious dogma.

These are barbarians at the gate and they go by the name Bachmann.

They must be stopped.

Is it “honorable” to use assisted suicide to die? - "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Virginia Convention. It was given on March 23, 1775, at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia, and is credited with having swung the balance in convincing the Virginia House of Burgesses to pass a resolution delivering the Virginia troops to the Revolutionary War. Among the delegates to the convention were future US Presidents Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Reportedly, those in attendance, upon hearing the speech, shouted, "give me liberty or give me death!"

The quote “Give me Liberty, or give me Death” has become forever woven into the fabric of American culture.  It pronounces that there is valor and honor in fighting for the concept of liberty, the “American Dream”.  Throughout history the notion of “dying in battle” has been portrayed as glorious and heroic.  Death is not to be feared but honored.

Even today we have hundreds of thousands of American troops fighting wars and battles throughout the world, with Americans dying or being maimed each day.  We rightfully view their dedication to us as honorable.

So it makes one wonder why we have such issue as an American public discussing death, and the choices that are being made every day as to who lives and who dies.

Death panels?  Actually, in a way, yes.  Our current system is set up so that medical treatment is available to some but not all and that decisions as to who lives and who dies are being made daily by both the government and corporations.

So what do we agree upon about death?  Most agree that if a person decides not to continue with treatments (will not take pills) which would prolong their life, but not “cure them”, that such person has the right to die with dignity and refuse treatment.

Funny how when we change one simple word, “not”, so as to allow people to die with dignity, with the aid of modern medicine, we create a firestorm of debate as to “dying with dignity” versus “assisted suicide.”  Somehow we decide that valor, honor and heroism is saved only for those who die in battle.

HBO in “How to Die In Oregon”, winner of the Grand Jury Prize (Documentary) 2011 Sundance Film Festival, adds a human face to the question of dying with dignity.


Have you ever watched someone die from a terminal illness? 

Terminal illness is a medical term popularized in the 20th century to describe a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a relatively short period of time.   A patient who has such an illness may be referred to as a terminal patient, terminally ill or simply terminal. Often, a patient is considered to be terminally ill when the life expectancy is estimated to be six months or less, under the assumption that the disease will run its normal course.

Some terminally ill patients stop all debilitating treatments to reduce unwanted side effects. Others continue aggressive treatment in the hope of an unexpected success. Still others reject conventional medical treatment and pursue unproven treatments such as radical dietary modifications. Patients' choices about different treatments may change over time.

According to Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration: Walking the Ever-Finer Line American Journal Hospice & Palliative Care, pp. 8-13, March/April 1995:

People who feel they are near the end of their life often intentionally refuse food and/or water. Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life: "At least for some persons, starvation does correlate with reported euphoria."

 

So we allow people to starve themselves to death but we object to other more humane ways to end life?  So why do we view it as "heroic" for someone to suffer pain impossible to imagine until they ultimately die as opposed to assisted suicide for a terminal illness with no hope of survival?  Is it just the historical mythology of gladiators fighting to the death?  What is “heroic” or “honorable” about fighting pain and misery so intolerable that no rational person would endure it?

 Those who are opposed to the “right to die with dignity” say that it is “weak”, “that the dying person lacks “dignity”, that ending life (when terminally ill) is somehow different than dying with “courage” and “valor” and excruciating pain .    We Americans like our heroes to suffer?  Right?

Death is an inevitable part of life. 
 

If we give mothers drugs to bring us into “life”, then why are we so opposed to allowing adults with terminal illness the right to use the same to bring us to the “after-life”.  We are all headed there.   None of us are immune from death.  Or is it that various religious ideologies are being imposed upon us?  But that is why we have separation of Church and State so that no single religion should impose its doctrines on all of us.  It should remain a personal choice.

Peter Richardson’s documentary How to  Die in Oregon follows the lives, the decisions and the experiences of people with terminal  illnesses who consider whether to achieve a peaceful death using life-ending  medication under the guidelines of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.

Why would you or should you watch what undoubtedly will be painful to watch?  Because that person suffering could be you, me, your mom or dad, or sister or brother, husband, wife or partner.   We all hate the thought of watching the people we love suffer.  We all want to know the answer to the question of “what is best for my mom (etc.).”
 

And that is the ultimate question, “what is right for the person dying?”  We all want our mom or dad to die with dignity.  Watching a loved one die is never easy.  But what is a “dignified” way to die?  And who gets to decide?

In 1994, Oregon became the first state in the U.S. to legalize physician aid-in-dying.  At the time, only two countries (Switzerland and the Netherlands) permitted the practice, but more than 500 Oregonians have since ended their life using the law. How To Die In Oregon is a powerful, compassionate exploration of Oregon’s historic and controversial Death with Dignity Act, which legalizes physician aid-in-dying for some terminally ill patients. The film tells the stories of people who died under the act, and follows the crusade of one woman who honors her husband by fighting for similar choices in the state of Washington.

Peter D. Richardson, the Director and Producer of this film took fours years to follow the lives of persons struggling with terminal illness as well as their families, friends and Doctors.

Using personal interviews with volunteers, advocates, and terminally ill patients throughout Oregon and Washington, Richardson paints a picture of these struggles but does so in a way that it affirms life as opposed to focusing on death.

Perhaps the most compelling story emerges with Cody Curtis, her family and her oncologist. Through Cody and those around her, director Peter Richardson created an emotional and life-affirming film which will help people everywhere better understand what it means to regain control of one's own end of life care when faced with a terminal illness and to die with dignity.

You can read first hand Cody's own account of her story HERE.

Cody was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in December of 2007, at the age of just fifty-two. Cholangiocarcinoma is a cancer of the bile duct. Your bile duct runs through your liver.

According to Cody in her own words:

"The outcome is clear in my case. If you’re willing to look at what’s likely to happen, it’s fairly awful. People with this kind of cancer die of massive organ failure and it’s not pretty. And I already did that to my family last year, bouncing in and out of the hospital. My husband took six months of family leave from his job as a consultant. Our son was just back from the Peace Corps and was with me in the hospital every day. Our daughter flew home a number of times. "

"The hardest part about the Death with Dignity stuff is deciding when to take the drugs. It’s a totally loaded subject because for people who are religious it’s a mortal sin. I have friends who are religious and I don’t want to offend them. But it’s an important choice to have, instead of the model where we throw so much money at "treating” people who are dying. I’m extremely grateful to my doctors for leveling with me about the course of this disease, so my family and I have a choice about how and when to die."

So it begs the question again?  Who should decide what is best for you when you are terminally ill?  Why should we consider it to be somehow more "heroic" to suffer until we die a death which is inevitable?  And why are we so easy to send our young men and women into battle to die, yet object to some one's decision to have death with dignity? 

Isn't that the ultimate form of Liberty?   Death is not to be feared but honored.

HBO's documentary "How To Die In Oregon" premiered May 26 on HBO.  It may be watched at HBO On Demand (under documentary) or at these times.