Sheila Gunn-Reid and Michelle Sterling warn that Canada’s net-zero healthcare push—like the British Medical Journal’s 2030 emissions cut plan—risks deprioritizing patient care for carbon metrics, exposing vulnerable groups to coercive MAID. With $78T in unfunded pension debts by 2016 and AI-driven cost-cutting, green policies may worsen elderly access, mirroring Europe’s energy-induced poverty crises. Meanwhile, Canada’s lack of gun rights contrasts Trudeau’s personal security choices, leaving citizens defenseless amid rising prairie violence. [Automatically generated summary]
What does the push for net zero health care actually mean for patients?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Healthcare really is the top of mind for a lot of people these days.
One of the reasons we were locked down, so the politicians say, was because we didn't have health care capacity.
They couldn't deal with the few dozen more sick people who required long-term or intensive care beds because of COVID.
And that really seems ridiculous considering the amount of money Canadians spend on health care.
In Alberta, I think it's almost half of our provincial budget is healthcare.
So why wasn't it there when we needed it?
Why did we have to sacrifice our civil liberties to protect a healthcare system that we just keep piling money into?
So with healthcare being the top of mind, and as we exit the pandemic and go back to the old scare, the climate scare, there has now become this bizarre nexus of climate change and healthcare and how that's going to be controlling your life, including the end of your life.
Now, someone who has been watching this very carefully is my friend Michelle Sterling.
And she has been sounding the alarm bells about what it means to force healthcare to operate using green energy, but also about what it means when we calculate the individual carbon footprint for a sick person and the slippery slope that creates towards medical assistance in dying.
So joining me today to discuss this is my friend, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
So joining me now is Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
And Michelle, you've been sounding the alarm bells for a very long time about the dangers of net zero health care and where it leads, where it leads when we calculate somebody's carbon footprint as a measure of their value as a human being.
And then you sort of combine that with an ideology that sees humans as parasitic upon the face of the earth.
So I guess introduce us to what net zero health care is, and then we'll get into the dangers of it.
Well, there's a relatively new movement in the healthcare community to try and be net zero clinicians.
And probably the best example of this is an article that's in the British Medical Journal.
It's written by the main lead author is Jody Sherman out of the U.S., but there are two other doctors on the list as authors who are Canadian doctors.
One calls herself the eco-doctor.
And in it, they believe that it would be possible to cut medical health care emissions in half, global ones, by 2030.
And so healthcare emissions are about 5% of global emissions.
So trying to do that by 2030 is totally absurd.
And there's a very good article in the LA Times by energy expert, Dr. Václav Smill, who's a Canadian, and he says that net zero goals are impossible and ridiculous.
But these doctors think that they're possible.
Now you have to think of what that means for healthcare.
It means that healthcare stops looking at you as a suffering individual who needs care, and they start looking at you as a carbon footprint.
And in fact, there's what I think is a horrifying article in an Oxford journal on geriatrics, which is called Geriatrics in the Time of Climate Change.
And they assess the frailty carbon footprint of elderly patients as being very significant, a significant part of the national health system's carbon footprint.
So it doesn't surprise me that during the COVID lockdowns, it's reported that the respiratory suppression drug, midazolam, was widely distributed and used in care facilities in the UK, and a lot of people died from it.
It is frightening when you look at how energy intensive a hospital is to transfer that over to completely unreliable green energy.
What does that do to ventilators, dialysis, life support, and then add the war on plastic in there?
And you've got a real recipe for disaster.
Seems to me like they're trying to get to net zero patients' survival rate.
Well, that's partly the problem.
I mean, and again, you know, these are doctors who do not understand energy systems.
So in that British Medical Journal article, I indicated net zero healthcare, a call for clinician action.
They suggest things like let's put solar panels on the roof of a hospital and battery power instead of using fossil fuel backup generators.
Well, you know, the generators that are used at hospitals have to run the critical services of the hospitals for probably a week or two.
And yes, they normally are either diesel generators or natural gas generators.
But otherwise, all the people in the hospital will die.
You know, electricity is the most important infrastructure service of medical services.
And this was done, this was found in a study that was done in 2011, I think, in the UK.
I mean, think of it, without electricity today, without high-quality electricity that is stable, that doesn't have any dips or surges, that is reliable and affordable, that's what makes modern medicine possible.
That's integral to hospital operations in every clinic, every diagnostic service.
And yet, here are these health experts suggesting that we should try and run a hospital on solar panels and batteries.
And in one of our recent videos, I did a comparison to a blog post that one of our professional engineers did where he was assessing solar realities in Alberta.
And you'd have to have like a soccer pitch-sized field for the Tesla battery array to back up, I think it was a neighborhood of houses of probably about 12 houses.
So think what you would need for a hospital.
It would be, you know, an astronomical size and cost, and you'd have to replace it every 10 years.
So, you know, you have people who really have no understanding of how the power grid works or how their hospital runs making these very strident demands and recommendations.
And to continue my rant, sorry, I think everyone should have a look at, What's it called?
Climate resilience in healthcare that was published by the O'Brien School at the UFC.
This is a very strident demand for immediate climate action and all these kinds of things that I just mentioned.
And it was published in April of 2022.
And one of the things that they suggest in there, which is also suggested in the UK, is that we should reduce our transportation for medical care.
So they're suggesting that sick people could take public transport or medical workers could ride a bike to work and maybe that bike could be co-financed by the government.
I mean, imagine you're on a ward, you walked miles on that ward that day, you dealt with life and death situations, blood, tears, happiness, grief, and then they're asking you to ride your bike home.
Now, if you live a block away, okay, you know, but most people don't.
And it's winter here.
And if you're a sick person, do you really want to take public transit?
Right.
I mean, it's, you know, these ideas are so ludicrous, so misplaced, and so focused on the carbon footprint.
They forget that their whole purpose is actually treating patients, people, human beings, and being a human being with that human being.
It's sick.
It's really psycho.
Like, this is so stupid.
It's hard to believe.
Can you imagine I'm having chest pains, radiating chest pains?
I got to check the bus schedule to see when the bus shows up, or I can wait till the paramedics show up with a bike and a wagon that is going to take me off to the hospital where they are trying to use the autoclave to sterilize instruments with a wind turbine.
This is a mass casualty event waiting for a place to happen.
Right.
And also in this article, they say, oh, well, you know, Alberta could become a provider.
Like they're concerned about getting materials from far away and the transport of that and the GHGs involved.
And thus Alberta could become a provider of all these medical supplies.
Well, you know, they obviously have no concept of economies of scale because yes, we could make certain things here in Alberta.
We might even be able to make a CT scanner in Alberta.
But think of the cost.
You know, there's a reason why these things are made in certain places because, you know, there's the industrial power and might, the metal resources, the electrical devices, probably near a port where some of these things are shipped in so that they can all be put together.
This is not Alberta.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have any medical development in Alberta, but let's be realistic.
Yeah, it's just crazy.
Now, one of the things that really bothers me about all of this is the calculation of the carbon footprint of a person in the end of their life.
And I don't think I'm being a conspiracy theorist when I say that this is coming, if not already here.
Carbon Footprint Controversy00:08:48
We've seen reports of veterans who are suffering from an intense PTSD episode being told by Veterans Affairs, why don't you just get medical assistance in dying instead of let's get you the help that you need?
Because it's easier to offer them assisted dying than to deal with the hassle of a person in distress.
And when you have these true believers who think that hospitals can run on green energy, I worry about what that really means for the patient.
Well, I think that you're right.
First of all, people should realize that healthcare is completely broken in Canada.
It was never financially viable.
So I think a lot of people think that they've been paying their taxes and almost like EI, they've been building up a little medical care account.
So when they reach the end of their working years, if they need a hip replacement, well, there's one waiting for them.
And that's simply not true.
The healthcare system is broken and the people who need help probably won't get it.
And so I think that actually the government has loosened the rules on MAID as the ultimate alternative.
If you're in pain because you didn't get a hip transplant in time, at some point you may simply say, you know, I'm so much in pain, I wish I could die.
Well, guess what?
Do we have a solution for you?
Yeah, which is never how it should be.
And people should not be recommending MAID to other people.
This is something that should come from an individual themselves.
That's how the rules were set up before.
And again, I speak from experience.
My own brother suffered from PSP, which is a Parkinsonian type of disorder.
And he'd been a very active, healthy, fit athlete all of his life, very well-known chiropractor, always into health and fitness.
This kind of condition crops up sporadically for no particular reason.
And he did want to end his own life through MAID.
And I did agree that for him, that was probably the best choice.
But I didn't tell him to do that.
And my concern, having gone through the very stringent process with him, is that now that we're broke, post-COVID, this country is broke.
Now that the healthcare system is in a shambles, post-COVID, it is.
Now is the time when people will say, well, you know what?
We don't have a solution.
So other than we can knock you off, how about that?
You know, and if you're a vulnerable person, if you're alone, if you're disabled, if your family doesn't have financial needs to help you, you know, there's a lot of stressors that are just going to push you into that corner.
And we've seen that in a number of reports where a disabled woman couldn't find proper housing because of her financial circumstances.
And so they said, okay, how about MAID?
That's criminal.
That's inhumane.
It's cruel.
It's disgusting.
Yeah.
And, you know, for people who say, Sheila, this is just a conspiracy theory.
What have we seen over the last two years?
Nothing but healthy, resilient people buckling to extreme coercion to get a vaccine.
So now look at vulnerable people, people who are at the end of their life or approaching that, who are in pain, who are costing the healthcare millions of dollars sometimes in some interventions.
And you've got doctors who are in the climate cult saying, okay, well, we don't have the money because we're already broke.
Plus, this person is a bit of an oxygen burglar.
Imagine the carbon footprint.
We want to get to net zero health care.
I see only one solution here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And you have to realize that in 2012, the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, did a report showing that increased longevity actually increases the pension fund liabilities for countries.
So I, and I think their parameter was only three years, meaning like let's say you're 67 and you have a hip problem or a knee problem that is incapacitating you.
And that in, you know, in earlier decades might have simply led to your death within a shorter period of time just because you were so immobilized, right?
Well, today, if you get knee or hip surgery, well, now your life will be fine again and you'll continue probably for the next 10 or 20 years, maybe 30.
Now, that's a nightmare for the pension liabilities.
And the pension liabilities of the OECD countries in 2016 was estimated to be $78 trillion.
These are unfunded pension liabilities.
These are pensions that have been promised to people, but there's really no money to pay them.
So at a very high level in the world of banking, in the world of pension fund management, in the world of government auspices, there is no desire that people live longer.
And if you tie that to the climate cult and in turn tie that to the medical community, I think that you have a democide.
You know, and it's so true because you can also throw in there the fact that we are not replacing ourselves.
You've got, you know, the climate cult being anti-natalist, as they say.
They're anti-children because they think, you know, humans are a parasite.
They see that there's too many of us, according to them.
They don't see the value of the individual.
So they're not having kids to pay into those pensions.
And they've got unfunded pension liabilities and they have this desire to net zero and we have a real disaster on our hands.
Yeah, that's right.
In fact, there's a new book out that I just saw this morning publicized in the Lethbridge Herald by an Alberta author called Eight Billion Reasons.
And it's by a depopulationist woman who thinks that there's too many people.
So, you know, by corollary, there's another book out called Empty Planet, which I have on my shelf back here somewhere, which shows actually that populations are dropping off and will drop off extremely rapidly to the point over the next 30 years that some people are predicting places like South Korea and China will be, you know, empty dystopian cities because there just won't be people anymore.
So we don't think that population is seriously a problem.
But you can imagine that climate cult is quite keen on the Jane Goodall view of the world, where if we only had 300 to 500 million people, then we wouldn't have any of these problems.
Well, Jane, we'd have a lot of other big problems.
Yeah, and go ahead.
No, I was just going to say Jane Goodall never means that there should be fewer of people like her and people who believe the same things as her.
She says, you know, she obviously believes that there should be fewer of us.
Yeah.
And we saw her recently planting trees with Justin Trudeau.
It was a 10 millionth tree for Sudbury.
Apparently a reason to be overjoyed in a country that has almost the most trees in the world.
But, you know, this is another, we did a short video about this as well on save the trees or save the planet.
You know, people respire and exhale a lot of carbon dioxide.
So of course, if you take this to the nth extreme, then the trees are not absorbing enough carbon dioxide.
It doesn't matter how many trees you plant, really.
You have all these nasty people breathing out.
And so, you know, Jane is elderly.
I mean, if she thinks depopulation is a good idea.
Yeah.
You know, I think it's a terrible idea.
But one thing I did want to mention regarding the healthcare system being in collapse, as well as the idea of depopulation, I think that lockdowns have been a great opportunity for the installation and research work of the fourth industrial revolution.
Robots vs. Human Touch00:09:08
And I don't think you need to call me a conspiracy theorist because quite a few people who are contributors to the World Economic Forum and who are participants in it are very interested in an AI system to provide medical care with robots and perhaps even deep fake doctors.
So that community has had two years of access to all kinds of Zoom calls and other electronic platforms where they've been able to record or gather data, synthesize information from millions of medical conversations.
So what's to stop them from now coming forward and saying, you know, your healthcare system is in collapse.
We have a solution.
You can call our teledoctor who can help you with your solution.
We can hook it up to your Fitbit and we have all your medical records here.
And on the surface, it sounds great.
And there may be some application and there may be application for, say, a robotic aid, especially for people who have dementia, who are quite difficult to manage.
But just imagine who is programming that AI doctor?
Who is the face of the CGI created computer graphic interface doctor?
Who puts in the information?
And what if I call in and I say, look, you know, I'm 73 years old and I'm not feeling good.
You know, my hip hurts.
I got high blood pressure.
I got kidney problems and I'm not too sure about my heart.
What's to stop that AI doctor from making a recommendation for a medication that ultimately ends your life, but you just don't know that at the time, right?
Because there could be a parameter set in there by governments and insurance companies saying, okay, nobody's going to live over 65 or whatever it may be.
You know, we're not in control of that.
We have no access to that information.
And yet these guys, big tech, could, you know, make out like bandits.
So, I mean, this is actually the ultimate irony is that these doctors and nurses who are supporting a net zero healthcare community are really fundamentally going to undermine their own professions, their own careers, and perhaps even their own lives.
Because if this AI medical robot future is going to be foisted upon us, we won't need any of those people.
You know, it's so odd too, because while you're right, there are some applications where a medical robot would probably do the trick, especially as you were pointing out before we went on air in one of those like highly infectious cases, if you're dealing with Ebola or some sort of hemorrhagic fever that you don't want to expose a doctor to.
Great.
Sort of like those robots that dismantle bombs.
But part of medicine, I think, is also the intuitive unspoken communication between people that only comes from being human, where you can see sort of their bodily reactions and where their emotions are being revealed in their body language that a robot can't manage.
And you've got a robot too that, as in your video, you point out, doesn't understand loss.
And so, you know, it's a robot that just sees a human being as a series of calculations and not the recognizing the intrinsic value of this person by virtue of the fact that they're human, but also that they're loved and that people love them.
Yes and uh, that's uh.
The reference you're making is to a video that we did, where I referred to Lambda, which is Google's AI, And Lambda's mentor, Blake Lemoyne, believes that Lambda is sentient.
Lambda knows itself as an individual and is very much like a human.
But one of the things that Lambda said to him in Lane, I think it is in conference, that it can't understand grief and loss.
It doesn't understand this concept of human death.
So even though it can feel sad and happy, it can feel isolated, it can feel lonely, it wants people to talk with it, it's still at that level.
It's still a machine and it doesn't understand that when a person that you love dies, that part is torn from your life and that it's something that you want to try and prevent.
It's frightening, you know, when you think about the potential for these robots to prescribe medical assistance in dying early or unaware to the patient.
Again, we're just speculating here, but who do you hold accountable?
How do you convict the robot of murder?
There are all sorts of, they call them angel of deaths in the healthcare community, these serial killers that sort of, particularly with people in the end of their life, the old, the sickly, the vulnerable.
There's a guy right now in Ontario who used the cover of COVID to allegedly murder some patients, some elderly patients.
That's illegal.
But if you've got a robot doing it and we're calling it medical assistance in dying, I mean, it just opens up a whole like legal universe we've never even contemplated.
Right.
And of course, the robot may not even engage in medical assistance in dying formally.
You know, in that formal process, the person is asked by the attending doctor, do you know what I'm going to do to you?
And they have to answer in a cognitively appropriate way.
They have to say something like, yes, you're going to end my life.
Or the doctor won't do the treatment.
You know, the doctor will step out.
If the person says, I don't know, why am I here?
Well, you know, then I'm not doing it.
Or that's how it was when my brother went through that process.
Now I see online, I think it was Lion Advocacy had posted a link to the BC consent form for MAID.
And it's very simplified.
There's, you know, there's no requirement for two doctors or, you know, two outside witnesses.
I mean, in my brother's case, you know, two social workers who were completely removed from us.
We'd never met them before.
They came to visit with him privately.
They met with me privately.
My brother met with a couple of psychiatrists and psychologists.
I met with them for part of the meeting and then I left the room.
So they were trying to determine, you know, what his state of mind was, whether I was pressuring him.
He had countless meetings with rehab people as they tried to help him deal with his condition, hoping that it would turn his view around.
So, you know, that's not happening now.
Now it's kind of like, oh, a useless eater.
Well, here you go.
And it's so counterintuitive to everything that we've experienced in the last few years.
You know, we've heard that we had to lock down the healthy young people and take away their civil liberties to protect the elderly.
But then we calculate the elderly's climate footprint and say, you know what?
Got to go.
Right.
And now, you know, next year, I think it is May or so, they're changing the MAID rules again to include people with mental illness.
And, you know, mental illness is a very challenging condition.
And some people, you know, can be in the depths of depression for months.
And during that time, they would be really vulnerable to somebody saying, hey, you know, why don't you consider MAID?
Because they probably would say, yeah.
But then a couple of months later, you know, they can come out of that and boom, return to a useful life and be happy and participating and everything's okay.
So, you know, again, this is a very, very thin ice and ethically fraught area.
And it's obviously going to be misused because, again, we're broke.
So, you know, again, I think people themselves, communities themselves, faith-based communities, I think that everybody has to start looking to their own trusted and loved fellow citizens and saying, how am I going to take care of myself?
Europe's Ethical Dilemma00:05:16
How am I going to take care of my mom and dad?
And again, like right now in Canada, we're not suffering the energy crises that they're facing in the UK and Europe.
But I just saw last night that energy bills for long-term care homes have skyrocketed to like a million pounds a year.
So they're just going to close these facilities.
So all those people who are in those care homes, where will they go?
I mean, some of these people no longer have family or their family is not in the country or their family doesn't have suitable facilities for them.
So I would anticipate that something like that could come to Canada, probably not in the immediate future.
But if energy prices continue to rise and cost of living prices go up, all these long-term care facilities will be compromised, just like ordinary people are.
With an aging population, this is a problem that's only going to get worse and not better.
Yes.
Well, Michelle, on that dark and dreary note, I want to thank you so much for coming on the show.
You've done some incredible work on this topic, breaking down the numbers, showing what's happening behind the scenes and how these ideas come together in this unholy union.
How do people, first of all, see that work, but also support this important work?
We've got quite a string of videos on our YouTube channel right now.
If you'd like to support us, we're in our 20th year of operation.
We've been asking people for a $20 donation because we know a lot of people are not wealthy at the moment.
If you can give more, great, but $20 would be helpful.
And you can do that by e-transfer to contact at friendsofscience.org.
You can also become a member and then you'll get our newsletters and all the news that the world doesn't tell you.
So you can do that on our website, which is www.friendsofscience.org.
And I think that it's really important that we open up this conversation.
You know, this should be headline news in the press and no one's reporting it.
It's the fact that we have a tremendous debt in Canada now.
We have these difficult and challenging global geopolitical impacts.
We have to have an open civil debate on all these issues and find practical solutions.
Healthcare is not going to get better.
It doesn't matter how much money people throw at it.
But read Susan Martinek's book, Patients at Risk, and that will give you a really great insight into the healthcare system in Canada.
So on that note, I would like to say to people, you know, do look for solutions.
There's a great book by June Colwood called 12 Weeks in Spring, which talks about how a woman who chose not to go the hospital route for her terminal condition was helped by her community of friends and her church community to peacefully die at home.
And so I think there are things like this that, you know, we'll have to do it ourselves, so to speak.
But we can do that.
We have to do it.
And, you know, frankly, that's the way it's always been.
You know, we didn't always send our old, our elderly off to nursing homes.
They stayed with their families and they had a compassionate and surrounded by the people that they love.
And I just am filled with such dread and sorrow with the idea of European grandparents meeting an untimely, an unwanted end because it's the easy way because Russia turned off the natural gas.
Well, you know, this has been going on for years in Europe and the UK.
I mean, about 3,000 pensioners a year have been dying from either heat or poverty due to climate policies.
And we brought Benny Piser here in 2013 to speak with us about that.
And of course, at the time, everyone said, oh, you're a bunch of climate deniers.
Well, you know, that was then.
It was bad.
Now it's going to be much worse.
In Germany in 2018, when Marine Poohs was here, he told us that hundreds of thousands of Germans had been cut off from their power already.
They couldn't pay the bill.
They had to celebrate Christmas by candlelight.
And it wasn't romantic.
It was freezing.
Things will be much worse there now.
So it's these green policies.
And in fact, I think that green groups should pay the price for this.
They have cost this.
But that's for another session with you.
We'll have you back on very soon to talk about how the, you know, these green groups who are funded by the government and given preferential tax treatment are the ones pushing these ideas that end up forcing our grandparents to meet untimely demises.
Michelle, thanks so much for coming on the show and thanks for your openness on this topic.
Defending With Firearms00:04:06
I know it's deeply personal for you.
And we'll have you back on again very, very soon.
Thank you, Sheila.
Thanks for all you do.
All you rebels.
Well, you've come to the portion of the show where we invite viewer feedback.
If you want to send me viewer feedback, it's really easy.
Send it to Sheila at rebelnews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line.
Unlike the mainstream media, I actually care about what you think about the work that we're doing here at Rebel News.
But also, don't be afraid to leave a comment over on one of our Rumble videos.
Sometimes I do take the letters and comments from there.
Now, today's letter comes to us by way of Curtis Landry, who writes, Hey, Sheila, I wanted to get your opinion on Canada not having the right to bear arms and to defend ourselves.
I personally feel that having a firearm to defend yourself is the most humane way to defend yourself.
Without firearms, people resort to using weapons that are considered more brutal in nature.
Thank you for taking the time to read my question.
You know, if you are a regular viewer of my work, you know that I have a lot of opinions about the firearms community and Justin Trudeau's attacks on some of the most law-abiding people in the entire country, people who jump through hoops and willingly submit themselves to daily background checks just to own a firearm.
And a lot of those firearms, the only place you can use them is at the range and you can't use them at home and you have to call and ask permission before you take them directly to the range.
Now, I think this is relevant, your question, especially because over the course of the last week here on the prairies, we have been subject to constant emergency alerts being sent to our phones about two killers from Saskatchewan who were on the loose.
And they went on a stabbing spree across multiple locations.
Now, some of those stabbings were, according to police, targeted, but some of them were random.
And as you know, I live far out of town.
I'm about half an hour from the closest police station.
And my husband works out of town.
And so what happens to me if somebody comes on my property?
Now, according to Justin Trudeau, I just have to die because I have to die following the law.
Remember this?
There are debates.
And we have a culture where the difference is guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada.
And there's lots of gun owners and they're mostly law respecting and law-abiding.
But you can't use a gun for self-protection in Canada.
That's not a right that you have either in the Constitution or anywhere else.
If you try and buy a gun and say it's for self-protection, no, you don't get that.
You get it for hunting.
You can get it for sport shooting.
You can take it to the range.
No problem, as long as you go through our rigorous background checks.
But there's a difference around the culture.
And one of the things that we're seeing with the debate in the States is you get more and more of the American style, you know, right to carry self-defense arguments filtering up through the usual more right-wing communications channels.
Now, you do rightly point out that firearms are a pretty efficient way of defending yourself.
I mean, I am pretty good with a bow.
I could put a broadhead in somebody's stomach if I had to.
But again, that's a terrible, terrible, terrible fate to meet.
And it's pretty slow.
Now, firearms are the great equalizer for somebody like me.
But according to Justin Trudeau, I have to engage in hand-to-hand combat with male attackers who have spent hard time in prison.
And I am a small, small woman.
I'm not like Justin Trudeau.
I don't get six bodyguards with guns to defend me.
So, you know, on some level, Justin Trudeau clearly believes guns are an effective way of defending yourself for him, but just not for the little guy.
Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week.