Juno News - January 18, 2022


Canada’s response to COVID-19 has failed – is there an alternative？


Episode Stats

Length

25 minutes

Words per Minute

177.07498

Word Count

4,567

Sentence Count

199

Hate Speech Sentences

1


Summary


Transcript

00:00:00.000 The Canadian response to COVID-19 has been confused, contradictory, heavy-handed and
00:00:05.200 ultimately ineffective at stopping this pandemic. But is there an alternative? Today I will talk
00:00:10.860 about a group of doctors who say yes there is. I'm Candice Malcolm and this is The Candice Malcolm
00:00:14.880 Show. Hi everyone, thank you so much for tuning in. Now here at The Candice Malcolm Show and here
00:00:23.380 at True North, we're often very critical of the government and politicians and health bureaucrats
00:00:28.320 and so-called health experts and the advice that they give to us. Often hectoring, often
00:00:33.360 very contradictory, constantly changing, confusing and ultimately delivered with sort of a disdain
00:00:39.660 towards regular people and our ability to make our own health decisions. Okay, so what's
00:00:44.760 the alternative? We don't often talk about other things that we can do to protect ourselves,
00:00:49.160 other ways that we can get out of this pandemic and get back to normal. Well today I want to
00:00:54.400 do just that and talk about some alternative measures that we can take as people, as Canadians,
00:00:58.960 as a society towards getting out of this pandemic. So I am very excited today to talk to Deanna McLeod.
00:01:06.500 Deanna is one of the founders of a group called the Canadian COVID Care Alliance. It's a group of over
00:01:11.660 500 Canadian healthcare professionals that publish and aggregate medical information about COVID-19,
00:01:17.620 COVID treatments and vaccinations for educational purposes. Deanna is the chair of the Strategic
00:01:23.320 Advisory Committee for the COVID Care Alliance, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, and she also runs an
00:01:28.580 evidence-based medical publishing firm that specializes in oncology publishing. Her firm's
00:01:33.980 work has been published in some of the leading medical journals around the world, including The
00:01:37.440 Lancet and the Journal of Clinical Oncology. So Deanna, thank you so much for joining us today.
00:01:43.840 Thanks for having me, Candice.
00:01:45.720 Okay, so first, why don't you just tell us about the Canadian COVID Care Alliance? What is this
00:01:50.780 organization? And what kind of work do you do?
00:01:54.080 So the Canadian COVID Care Alliance is a group of about 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists and
00:01:59.760 healthcare practitioners. And we've come together to take a look at the evidence surrounding COVID-19.
00:02:07.820 I'm sure that all of you were aware that, I mean, we were all thrown into this pandemic in early March,
00:02:13.580 and there was a lot of chaos and excitement and surprise as we were all locked down and thrown into
00:02:20.420 the midst of this pandemic. And so a group of us got together and really wanted to take some time
00:02:25.420 and look at some of the evidence and the science. It's a fast-paced field. Things are changing all the
00:02:30.320 time as we learn more about this virus and its treatments. And so we wanted to be positioned as an
00:02:35.460 independent voice that would provide balanced evidence-based information to Canadians in order
00:02:41.820 to maintain informed consent. Candice, I think you just mentioned something about that, which is the
00:02:47.160 right and dignity to make choices, medical choices for yourself and to direct those choices according to
00:02:52.060 your preferences with all of the information at hand, as well as trying to do hospitalizations, managing
00:02:59.600 that situation. And, you know, as you also mentioned, try and get us out of this pandemic as quickly as possible.
00:03:05.460 Well, it's interesting, the idea of informed consent, because one of the news stories that
00:03:10.240 we've been hearing about is Trudeau and the CBC kind of pushing this idea of eventually having
00:03:15.360 forced vaccines. So the exact opposite of people consenting to a medical treatment or even having
00:03:22.560 any kind of choice, this idea that we might be heading towards forced vaccines is truly terrifying.
00:03:28.800 Although, you know, a year ago, the idea of vaccine mandates was truly terrifying as well.
00:03:34.100 So there are doctors out there, there are healthcare professionals and scientists who don't agree with
00:03:42.080 the current direction that, say, the Trudeau government is taking us with regards to vaccine
00:03:47.400 mandates or mandatory vaccines. What are some of the alternatives that Canadians can be doing
00:03:51.980 to protect ourselves, to stay safe, to stay healthy during this pandemic?
00:03:57.560 Well, I think one of the points that you mentioned is, you know, as it relates to informed consent,
00:04:02.860 it's making sure that you have all the risks, you know, the full gamut of risks and benefits of a
00:04:07.860 treatment, as well as all the alternatives. And so, you know, you can visit the CCCA website to try
00:04:14.360 to get more information on the risks and benefits of vaccines and whether mandates are warranted or even
00:04:21.780 forced vaccination is warranted. We've done a video recently that's actually quite compelling
00:04:26.960 called More Harm Than Good that actually takes a look at a lot of the, specifically the Phase 3
00:04:32.180 Pfizer vaccine trial, the six-month data, which is the most up-to-date data. Remember that the vaccines
00:04:38.320 were approved based on two-month data. And what it does is it basically dissects a lot of the details
00:04:43.540 of that trial and helps people understand the true risks and benefits of vaccination. And I think that
00:04:49.460 that would be a really amazing opportunity to get informed. And another part of informed consent is
00:04:54.800 also knowing all of your treatment options. And I think that's something that's probably not been
00:04:59.580 very well focused on through this pandemic. And a lot of the messaging that we've received has been
00:05:04.880 very vaccine focused. So I think one of the first things that I would probably want to bring your
00:05:10.480 attention to is the fact that natural immunity is actually a thing. I know a lot of, you know,
00:05:16.400 it is not something that can be promoted and patented and tracked and potentially benefited from,
00:05:24.300 but it's something that we all have. And our immune systems are quite powerful and they have two arms to
00:05:29.980 them. There's an innate branch of the immune system, which you can almost think of as, you know,
00:05:34.820 the police force. That's the one that, you know, if you do identify an invader, it comes along and,
00:05:39.700 you know, boots them out of the house, so to speak. And then you have things like your adaptive immune
00:05:45.320 system, which is like an alarm, which identifies the intruder and helps rally the troops to remove
00:05:51.360 that. And so one of the things that we really haven't focused on a lot, although we have focused
00:05:56.300 on a lot of, you know, vaccine-induced immunity, which is focused on antibody production, which is the
00:06:01.560 alarm system. We haven't spent a lot of time focusing on how to build robust innate immunity,
00:06:07.220 which could easily counter that. So that's the ability to rally the troops and remove the invader
00:06:13.460 should they occur. So on that note, how do you focus on responsibly improving your innate immune
00:06:21.040 system? Well, that relates to things like being in good health, getting good sleep, having
00:06:25.620 nutraceuticals, making sure to take vitamin D, vitamin C, you know, doing proper hygiene,
00:06:32.880 you know, basic things like that. Maintaining your health is huge in maintaining innate immunity.
00:06:39.000 And then whenever, if you were to come in contact with, you know, for instance, the COVID-19,
00:06:45.420 there are a lot of early treatment protocols that are available. One of the things that we've missed
00:06:50.320 in our messaging related to the pandemic is the fact that the pathophysiology of COVID-19 is
00:06:55.300 multi-phasic, meaning it has multiple phases to it. And so it is really important and you can,
00:07:02.280 there are very known and proven treatments that you can use at each of the different phases. And we go
00:07:06.880 into that a lot on our website. You can look for early multi-drug protocols on the CCCA website
00:07:13.360 for more information. And some of those are ivermectin and fluvoxamine. And there's been a lot
00:07:21.560 of pushback with respect to ivermectin, specifically in fluvoxamine. These are generic repurposed drugs.
00:07:28.520 And there's been a lot of talk about them not having sufficient safety data or data to support
00:07:33.840 their use for treatment for COVID-19. However, on that note, the, you know, if you want to be able
00:07:43.020 to prove something works, then you do a phase-free randomized control trial, but it is very common
00:07:46.940 practice for doctors to take repurposed drugs and to use them off-label in ways that they feel would
00:07:53.160 suit their patients. And there are proven drugs that have been used to both reduce viral load,
00:07:58.140 as well as manage inflammation, which are a couple of the key components of COVID-19.
00:08:03.620 So. It's so interesting. I just, as soon as you mentioned ivermectin, I thought of Joe Rogan and
00:08:10.300 how he used it and then how there was this really, so Joe Rogan had COVID, he said that he used like a
00:08:16.700 whole bunch of different sort of drugs to try to help with COVID once he had gotten it. And one of
00:08:23.440 the examples that he said was ivermectin. And it was like, as soon as he said that there was this
00:08:27.380 really weird media campaign to sort of demonize him and try to discredit this idea of ivermectin
00:08:34.680 saying that it was used for pigs or it was a horse dewormer or something like that. So can you maybe
00:08:40.200 try to address that issue and debunk some of the myths? Like, is ivermectin safe? Is it something
00:08:46.880 that humans can take? Or is it like that, like CNN has told me, something that is only used by
00:08:52.620 veterinarians?
00:08:55.140 Yeah, I think that you did say that it was the media campaign. And that's clear by the fact that
00:08:59.960 they're calling it horse dewormer, rather than actually addressing levels of evidence and data
00:09:04.820 and whether there's sufficient support for that. There's been a lot of controversy. The big, you
00:09:10.200 know, pharmaceutical companies would probably want you to believe that there is no data supporting that
00:09:14.440 because it's a cheap drug and nobody's going to benefit from using ivermectin. And so I could
00:09:20.600 understand why there's a lot of money behind trying to debunk or to kind of attack the benefits of
00:09:29.460 ivermectin. However, from an evidence point of view, there are multiple, multiple phase three
00:09:35.520 randomized trials that and trials that actually show benefit as early drug as prevention, as early
00:09:41.680 treatment, and even in later phases of the disease. And it's quite striking. The data probably isn't to
00:09:49.000 the level of quality that we usually see whenever a pharmaceutical company funds a clinical trial.
00:09:54.100 But this is a safe drug that's been used for years. It, you know, was associated with a Nobel Prize.
00:10:00.480 It's been going on, I think there's 30 years of safety data. I mean, when we talk about safety
00:10:05.520 and drugs, the vaccine has only six months of safety data, and yet we're willing to call that safe.
00:10:11.100 Whereas ivermectin has 30 years of safety data, and we're questioning the safety there. Seems a little
00:10:16.920 bit odd. It's been used widely in many populations. So that's another thing that's really great about it.
00:10:22.240 And in terms of efficacy, these phase three trials have been correlated to meta analyses,
00:10:28.740 and these meta analyses have been published, and they do show benefit for ivermectin. Although even
00:10:34.940 at the public, you know, it seems at almost every level, even at the medical journal level,
00:10:38.820 there seems to be pushback where they're very, very quick to scrutinize those studies,
00:10:43.120 whereas they're not as quick to scrutinize vaccine trials. Needless to say that even if there weren't
00:10:48.380 that level of evidence, if it was shown to be able to reduce viral load, then a physician could,
00:10:53.680 you know, prescribe it off-label and use it for treatment for a patient. So this big push and
00:11:00.540 this barring of doctors from prescribing it and barring people from talking about it in these mass
00:11:05.720 campaigns to discredit its benefits seem like there's some conflict of interest going on that
00:11:11.940 that probably doesn't relate to the fact that a patient is having the option to take something
00:11:17.200 that could be good for them.
00:11:19.280 Well, you know, I won't go into that because I imagine that pharmaceuticals,
00:11:24.720 pharmaceutical companies could still make money from selling drugs as well as what they do. So I
00:11:29.540 don't really know why they would try to demonize a drug that they could potentially sell and make
00:11:35.700 money off of. But one thing that politicians have, especially in Canada, they sort of seem to be in
00:11:41.540 lockstep on this idea that a vaccine is the only way out of the pandemic, that all we have to do is
00:11:47.540 get everyone vaccinated. And that's the only solution. And you don't hear doctors or top health
00:11:54.300 experts or politicians talking about other general health measures we can take. Like I read one study
00:11:59.620 that said that 78% of people hospitalized with COVID, and I think it was 73% of those who had died,
00:12:05.480 were obese or overweight. And that's not something that you ever hear politicians talk about. You
00:12:10.860 never hear them say, do you know what, it's really important that you get your weight down,
00:12:14.500 that you exercise, that you eat healthy, that you make sure that you're not eating a lot of junky
00:12:18.740 food or processed food. Instead, try to have like whole foods and vegetables and those kind of things.
00:12:24.020 You never hear them talking about that element of it. Why is it that, in your opinion, that the
00:12:30.920 vaccine has become this sort of silver bullet that all these politicians have rallied
00:12:35.360 around? I'm not talking about the pharmaceutical companies, because I could see how they would have
00:12:38.260 their own financial incentives to try to, you know, push their product. But talking about the
00:12:44.060 politicians and the lawmakers and the health experts, why do you think they have all been
00:12:48.980 so enthusiastic about the idea that we need to have vaccines and vaccines are the only way out of the
00:12:54.340 pandemic? Well, that's a fantastic question. And probably a little bit outside of my area of
00:13:01.600 expertise in the sense of, you know, I would have to enter into the realm of speculation. But
00:13:05.660 there are a couple of curious things about that choice. You know, for instance, I work in the area
00:13:10.580 of oncology, so that's cancer treatment. And one of the things that we pride ourselves in that area
00:13:15.420 is the fact that we have personalized medicine. So we're at the point where we look at individuals'
00:13:21.940 risk factors, their treatment history, their clinical signs and symptoms. And we basically tailor
00:13:27.000 treatments from a number of different treatments, even doing biomarkers and genetic, you know, looking
00:13:32.580 at their mutational records and try and customize treatments to the actual person. And so I do find
00:13:39.800 it very strange that, you know, where there's so much sophistication and so many levels of
00:13:44.900 sophistication in almost every other discipline, that we would turn around and decide that, you know,
00:13:50.060 we need to vaccinate the whole population and that there's just one strategy that's going to,
00:13:55.280 you know, match the myriad of genetic profiles and histories and clinical makeup of all the
00:14:00.400 different people. So I do agree, Candice, that you mentioned things like there are risk factors,
00:14:04.960 obesity, cardiovascular issues. I've even seen research that says that high glucose levels
00:14:10.700 can facilitate entry of the virus in the cells through the ACE2 receptor. So there are a lot of
00:14:18.820 things that we could dig into that would give people tools to better combat that. However,
00:14:24.820 our health professional politicians, our policy makers have decided that this one size fits
00:14:31.140 all approach would be best. And what's curious about that, too, is that the actual study that
00:14:35.820 was used, the phase three trial, really only looked at healthy people. And then we turned
00:14:41.380 around and started vaccinating people who weren't even actually studied in the trial. For instance,
00:14:46.040 high risk individuals, frail, elderly, pregnant women. So it is a very curious choice that you would,
00:14:51.160 you know, study something narrowly in one group of people and then extrapolate that to everybody.
00:14:56.840 It definitely isn't sound evidence to support those policies.
00:15:01.640 And yeah, so it is questionable. And I think the other key part that's a little bit curious about
00:15:10.240 that decision by health makers is to in order to justify max vaccination, which is based on a herd
00:15:16.160 immunity, you actually have the concept of herd immunity is where you you vaccinate everybody in
00:15:23.040 order to, you know, you vaccinate healthy people in order to stop the transmission to people who are at
00:15:29.480 risk. That's usually, you know, that's the concept of herd immunity. And that's what mass vaccination
00:15:35.080 is based off of. However, what's really curious about this is an in the actual phase three trials,
00:15:40.760 they didn't actually measure transmission as an endpoint. So and I think what we're all seeing now
00:15:46.040 in Ontario is the fact that if you're vaccinated, you can still transmit COVID. You know, so it really
00:15:52.920 doesn't make sense that we would be trying to vaccinate with an agent that can't stop transmission
00:15:59.320 because that defeats the whole purpose of vaccination. So I'm not I'm not 100% sure why
00:16:05.080 we're continuing to pursue this. It's definitely something that would require a lot of scientific
00:16:10.280 debate. I mean, I would I would I think it would be fantastic if we could start to be asking these
00:16:14.680 questions and start to be looking at the data and seeing whether it's supporting our policy. Maybe it was a
00:16:19.480 good idea initially, but perhaps now we've seen that it doesn't work. And we should probably,
00:16:24.600 you know, bring in more voices. One of the things that's curious about how this pandemic was managed
00:16:30.120 was that it's particularly experts with expertise in vaccinology and epidemiology and public health
00:16:36.600 that have been managing this thing. And usually you would have emergency management professionals
00:16:41.160 managing a pandemic. And, you know, my thought is perhaps it's time to hand it off now
00:16:46.360 out of the hands of the people who are specializing in vaccines and into the hands of people who are
00:16:51.800 emergency management professionals and who have expertise in a broad area of specialties, for
00:16:59.720 instance, treatment, virology, immunology and and see if we can't have a broader conversation and bring
00:17:06.600 back, you know, the strength of scientific discourse and multi-specialty voices into this particular
00:17:12.920 situation. So I'm not sure if that answers your question, but that's those are some of my thoughts.
00:17:18.600 Well, I absolutely want to echo that because it's like the only data point that they look at is
00:17:23.560 COVID and COVID deaths. And, you know, here at True North, we try to report on an array of what's
00:17:27.960 happening in society. Like I'll just give you an example. We had a report that was based on Stats Canada
00:17:34.520 numbers that showed that more Canadians under the age of 60 died of diseases of despair caused by the
00:17:41.400 lockdowns, things like depression, suicide, drug overdoses, there's a huge opioid crisis in this
00:17:46.600 country. And it's like, you know, we're focused on how many people are dying of COVID. And we're
00:17:51.720 ignoring all of the sort of second order consequences, the unseen people who are also being affected,
00:17:57.160 because we were not looking at the economics, we're not looking at the unintended consequences,
00:18:00.600 we're only looking at COVID. And there's there's so much more to the story. So I completely agree.
00:18:05.400 And another point I want to make, you mentioned that your specialty is in oncology. One of the stories that we
00:18:10.680 covered over at True North is this. In 2020-2011, 11,581 Canadians died after being put on health
00:18:20.600 care waiting lists. So, you know, we have people who are not getting the proper checkups that are
00:18:26.200 required, the proper cancer screening that is required. And they're also dying. And this is
00:18:29.960 something that we're not really hearing about and talking about in our public policy discourse. So
00:18:35.240 specifically, this this number 11,581 people died, is this something that concerns you? I think the
00:18:43.080 question and answer is pretty obvious, but but what can be done? And what do you what do you think about
00:18:47.400 this?
00:18:48.160 So just to confirm, I can't confirm the 11,000 number that you cited. But I do know that I see
00:18:55.240 regular reports right across many specialties in cancer that say that, that the lockdowns of causes
00:19:02.840 delayed in in screening for sure. So what what that means is that cancers that were should be or
00:19:09.720 usually are detected earlier are now more advanced. And what that means for cancer is that if you have
00:19:14.200 more advanced disease, your prognosis or your chance of survival or doing well or living long
00:19:19.240 goes down dramatically. And that's especially so with very aggressive cancers, for instance, lung cancer
00:19:25.400 and pancreatic cancer. I've had conversations with medical oncologists here in Canada that have seen,
00:19:30.520 you know, changes in their practices. I think the other thing that I've noticed, too, just in terms
00:19:35.880 of cancer management, is that, you know, the healthcare practitioners are are wearied. You know,
00:19:43.640 whenever we finally do open up, then all of a sudden, there's this huge, you know, delusion of cancer
00:19:48.680 patients who come rushing in, you know, we exhaust our our healthcare practitioners, you know, then we lock
00:19:54.520 down again, and then everybody can't come in. And, you know, this type of, you know, opening and closing is
00:19:59.400 just not good for a good medical care. You know, I think the other thing, too, is that, you know,
00:20:06.040 then you have more advanced disease, you've got more complicated, more burdensome treatment protocols,
00:20:11.880 which require more healthcare resources. So it's really not a sustainable approach. And just to go back
00:20:21.800 to our initial point where we were talking about, you know, looking at the whole picture,
00:20:26.280 it seems like there's an inordinate focus on cases. You know, we were just analyzing the Ontario data
00:20:33.000 recently, and we noticed that, you know, cases that the deaths have stayed and remained low.
00:20:39.240 So there was a, you know, as the cases increased, deaths increased in the first wave and in the
00:20:43.800 second wave. But by the third wave, there was what we called an uncoupling of the cases from deaths.
00:20:48.680 And so the death rates have been actually low, since about, I would say about March of this year.
00:20:55.560 And we don't even see them going up, we didn't see them raise at all for wave three. And we're,
00:21:00.040 we're not expecting to see them raise for wave four, with Omicron, just because it's so mild.
00:21:05.720 So, you know, by all definitions, a pandemic traditionally, was defined as something that
00:21:11.640 caused worldwide sickness and death. And I think we're at the point where the death component is now
00:21:17.240 missing. I think that if we decided to open up our approaches to COVID treatment and include
00:21:23.320 multi-drug therapies, that we could probably treat those who would still be at risk. And that would
00:21:28.920 free the rest of us to return to normal life. And I think that this big focus on cases and,
00:21:35.000 you know, with this assumption that, you know, that it causes transmission and that we can actually
00:21:39.720 stop transmission by, you know, shutting down the economy or, you know, locking everybody down or
00:21:45.400 vaccinating them. You know, I just don't think that those are tenable positions anymore. You know,
00:21:50.200 we we've shut down how many times now, and the COVID-19 is still with us, you know, at best, you
00:21:56.680 can slow the slow the spread for a while. But it's not a long term strategy. And to your point, Candace,
00:22:03.720 you know, emergency management professionals, what they would do is they would look at the whole picture
00:22:08.440 of society, they would consider the economic costs, they would sec, you know, the secondary health costs,
00:22:13.880 you mentioned opioid crisis, mental health, they would look at COVID-19, and they would look at
00:22:18.760 that holistically. However, I don't really think that we can expect that people who are public
00:22:23.720 health officials with no expertise in emergency management and risk and, you know, harm risk
00:22:30.360 reduction management could be able to make those decisions. You know, personally, I think that it's not
00:22:36.120 only time to broaden our approach to managing COVID from, you know, including treatment to acknowledging
00:22:42.840 natural immunity, but that we should probably invite the professionals in, and, and see if
00:22:48.280 we can't navigate our way out. Because I do believe that this particular position is untenable.
00:22:54.520 Well, you're just just saying so many things that are common sense and sound so good. To me, I wish
00:22:59.400 that more public health experts and people out there working with governments and speaking to the
00:23:03.720 media would listen and take cues from what you and your organization are saying, Deanna. Thank you.
00:23:08.440 Thank you so much for joining us at True North, the Candace Malcolm Show. Can you just finish off by
00:23:13.800 telling our audience where they can find your work, the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, and maybe a preview of
00:23:20.120 anything you have coming up from the COVID Care Alliance?
00:23:24.360 Yeah, so you can find our work at the Canadian COVID Care Alliance.org. It's a website, our website is a rich
00:23:34.360 resource of all sorts of, it provides a rich resources in terms of COVID-19 treatment and management. We've
00:23:42.760 got two things that are about building your immunity, we mentioned that on the show, we've got stuff on
00:23:47.160 early treatment, multi-drug therapy protocols that you can look up and reference. We have upcoming work
00:23:54.440 on natural immunity, how to build your natural, how to build your immunity, and the role that natural
00:24:00.600 immunity plays. We've just published a video called More Harm Than Good that dissects the six-month phaser
00:24:07.480 vaccine trials. That's an excellent resource for informed, you know, if you want to inform yourself as
00:24:12.760 to whether vaccines are good for you, as it outlines the risks and benefits of that particular intervention.
00:24:19.720 And then we also have one called Dispelling the Myth of the Unvaccinated, which we're working on
00:24:23.880 presently and hope to launch. And that looks at the Ontario COVID event data. So cases, hospitalizations,
00:24:33.560 ICU admissions, and it challenges the narrative that the unvaccinated are the ones that are spreading the
00:24:38.920 disease. And it really goes down and looks at all that data and as well as clinical trial data. And
00:24:44.760 it really shows that that that's actually not the case. And one of the interesting points I'm sure
00:24:50.920 everybody might be aware of at this point is that the rate of infection in fully vaccinated people is
00:24:56.760 now higher than all other groups, you know, with the arrival of Omicron. So it really gives us pause to,
00:25:05.160 again, think about whether our current approach, our current policies, our current mandates, or even,
00:25:11.160 you know, whether we want to stand up against forced vaccination. Those are probably really
00:25:15.800 great resources to look at and to consider in case you want to advocate for better policy locally.
00:25:24.280 Okay, well, thank you so much. I encourage everyone to go and check that out. Deanna,
00:25:27.800 thank you so much for joining the show.
00:25:29.800 Thanks very much, Candice. Thanks for having me.
00:25:31.560 All right. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'm Candice Malcolm, and this is The Candice Malcolm Show.