Tuesday, November 9, 2010

WIN/LOSE: Patenting genes, HFCS in sodassss

I've returned from my sabbatical to bring you a new feature I'd like to call WIN/LOSE. It's pretty straightforward, but please pay attention: One news item will be good news (i.e. a "win") while the other will be bad news (i.e. a "los--"... hmm. The verb doesn't work in that context, does it?)

So, do you want the good news or the bad news first?

LOSE: High Fructose Corn Syrup in soda... Liars, liars, pants on fires

Remember how HFCS is supposed to be virtually identical to regular cane sugar? Well, it's possible that the HFCS in soda pop is actually sweeter than advertised, making it not identical to regular sugar.

A recent study suggests that the HFCS added to soda actually has upwards of 30% more fructose than previously thought. The NPR report acknowledges that the study is controversial, and people on both sides are not totally convinced yet. They even quote Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina (author of The World is Fat) admitting, "We have no real indication that the science of just a small amount [of] more fructose matters."

But then, blamo! Here's Marion Nestle on the study:

The metabolic problems that result from sugar intake are mostly due to the fructose content.  Less is better for health.  More is better for the soft drink industry, however.  Fructose is sweeter than either glucose or sucrose, and sweet is what sells sodas.
At most, HFCS is supposed to be 55% fructose, as compared to the 50% in table sugar.  Most foods and drinks are supposed to be  using HFCS that is 42% fructose.  A percentage of 55 is not much different biologically than 50, which is why the assumption has been that there is no biologically meaningful difference between HFCS and table sugar.   This study, if confirmed, means that this supposition may need some rethinking.
In fact, analysis of the study has produced a number of possible issues in the methodology, which you can read about at Nestle's blog, if you care. But the study does raise some interesting questions, and needs to be replicated more responsibly.

If it is found that soda companies are commonly using HFCS that is 60% fructose and calling it table sugar, there are some major legal issues to address, as well as the public health concern. Among them, violations of federal law against food adulteration, false and misleading food labeling, and false and misleading advertising.

What I always find the most interesting in these situations, is the industry's response. In this case, Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association says via press release,
"Consumers should know that fructose is safe... Fructose is commonly found in many fruits and vegetables, as well as honey, maple syrup, processed sugars, and high fructose corn syrup or corn sugar."
Uh, ok. We know.... Wait, corn sugar? Yes. The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the FDA for the right to change the name of HFCS to "corn sugar."

This has nothing to do with all the bad press HFCS has gotten in the last few years, right?

WIN: US Justice Department says you can't patent a "naturally occurring" human gene

This isn't exactly breaking news, but I thought I'd spread the word. Marion Nestle talked about this on her blog last week and points to the New York Times articles that highlighted a newly released friend-of-the-court brief outlining the issue.

The practice of isolating and patenting human genes is fairly common, but became a contentious issue when Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation patented two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Owning the patent to these two genes has enabled Myriad to charge $3,000 for a test that detects genetic variations associated with a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The patents prevent other companies from developing similar tests which would drive down the price.

To compare, the Times reports that it costs at least $10,000 to get a personal genome sequence, but that the cost is expected to fall to around $1,000 in a few years. Myriad's outrageous price to test for just two genes simply seems greedy and unethical.

So exploiting the very real health fears of women is what capitalism is all about, right? Kevin E. Noonan, a patent lawyer in Chicago who represents biotech companies like Myriad, put down his sippy cup long enough to complain to the Times:
“It’s dumb,” Mr. Noonan said of the government’s brief. “It shows a singular ignorance of the technology and the law at the same time.”
Attorney Noonan also opined that
the government’s stance would endanger innovation because the same philosophy against patenting products isolated from nature might be extended to protein-based drugs and antibiotics.
Forgive me, but it's these bullshit ideas about "capitalism" that created the stupid system we've got today. Innovation and discovery existed looooooooooonngg before the United States was around letting everyone patent every g.d. picture their preschooler drew in class. If the only goal of innovation is to make a buck, then yes, this Justice Department ruling is the pits. Who's going to want to discover anything if they can't get all the credit, prestige and cash?

However, innovation is also driven by the desire to further the progress of humanity... you know, curing diseases and all that jazz. Which is sure to continue indefinitely, because we're naturally curious and we also kinda like it here. It's nice. Sunsets are pretty. Wine is good. Cheese is tasty.

So, please stop worrying about biotech companies and their shareholders. They will be fine. Or they will go bankrupt and other, more worthwhile enterprises will arise in their wake.

Friday, May 14, 2010

Just Kidding! Also, Not JK-ing About Facebook

Awww... you actually thought I was going to follow through with this?!

That's sweet.

I do have a follow-up post to People in their 20s and The Sex nearly finished, so that will arrive shortly. Clearly, you are on the edge of your seat, so I will try to be prompt in my delivery.

Additionally, I came across a Lifehacker post from a couple days ago that highlighted a NY Times' diagram concerning Facebook's privacy options. There has been a LOT of discussion about FB's ridiculous new privacy policies and weird profile design and a lot of confusion about both. This nifty diagram attempts to make sense of all the privacy options and maps them out. If you love infographics, you will thank me (or the Times. Or whoever.)

I STRONGLY suggest checking out the new privacy options and adjusting them accordingly. Some crazy stuff has been going on over at Facebook and everyone should be aware of who can see your information and who you may be unwittingly sending your info to. I've been tempted to just delete the whole blasted thing, but I'm not that extreme. However, if this is an appealing option, I'd suggest reading Lifehacker's manual for How to Quit Facebook Without Actually Quitting Facebook.

Monday, May 3, 2010

Things I Used to Wear: HOMECOMING EDITION


Holy hair trends! Cleaning out old bathroom drawers can be dangerous. Especially when they are filled with MILLIONS OF OLD HAIR CLIPS.

Gross.

This picture represents the bulk of the bounty I recovered from a small drawer and a cabinet. What's not pictured are the many bottles of nasty smelling lotions, the used shower puffs, the sparkly shower gels or three bottles of solution to clean piercings. All from Claire's. Anyway.

Notice the bag in the back on the right. It is a bag of plastic curlers. My mom used some of those curlers to curl my hair for Easter festivities when I was 2 (see photo below). They were also used to curl my hair for Easter festivities for the next TEN YEARS. Or thereabouts.

Perms aren't for me.
On the far left are some giant clip thingys. What were those called? Claws? Anyway, I have no idea why there would be so many in my bathroom. Everyone in my family has very fine hair, so those claws would have been outrageously huge on the backs of our teenage heads holding our little bit of hair, half slipping out. Now that's just impractical.

At the bottom of the picture, you can find some teeny tiny sparkly claws. I have to say that I don't remember wearing these, but I could have blacked it out. Were they a Spice Girls fashion trend? A high school dance hair accessory? It's unclear. I suspect that my sister used these items more than me, but I'd hate to falsely accuse her of something so horrific as wearing tiny clips when she was 12. That was sarcasm.

One thing I'm sure of is this: neither my sister nor I wore 1/4 of this crap. For real. I would not lie to you about this. Our hair decorating days were in elementary school, and most of this accumulated after. Those giant clips were just impractical and we were WAY more into scrunchies anyway. The most popular (and therefore, hideous) of those scrunchies were disposed of long ago, because elastic bands can only withstand so many scalding water washings. I think it's for the best.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

People in their 20s and The Sex

Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flikr user peachy92
Ah, yes. The Sex. Capital T, capital S. Let's discuss it for a minute.

Yesterday the LA Times published an article about Us and Sex. Us, meaning people in their 20s, and Sex. Let's just say the news isn't all good.


Saturday, May 1, 2010

30 Posts in 30 Days

Last week I attended an Etsy Virtual Lab about jump-starting creativity. Artist Noah Scalin talked about his project, Skull A Day, in which he created one skull every day for a year and posted them on his blog. Giving himself a deadline and an audience, Scalin was forced to buckle down and get working! Which is exactly what I plan on doing.

SO HERE WE GO: 30 Posts in 30 Days. We'll see what happens.













Look, I even made a banner for the event! There's no backing out now people.

Even though I'm only marginally employed right now and therefore have an obscene amount of free time, these posts will not be the hard-hitting and lengthy exposes that you've grown accustomed to. Ha! You'll be fine.

Friday, April 9, 2010

BIG THINGS

I left Boston. I'm in Chicago. Back in Portland on Tuesday... where I will hopefully pull together the various pieces of myself and reassemble my life.

Until then, I leave you with this little gem of inspiration.
The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. That is being taught how to think.
-David Foster Wallace
Kenyon Commencement Speech, 2005

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Masticate on THAT, hump day

Man oh man. It has been quite the week! Oh wait, it's only Tuesday. That would make tomorrow "hump day", which is a name (or euphemism?) that I despise. It makes me think of a bell curve, which doesn't really make any sense if your time-line is Sunday through Saturday. I suppose if we were tracking general displeasure throughout the work week it might peak on Wednesday, making it the day of the hump in data. The bell curve is about probability though, right? So that makes any reasoning completely nonsensical.

Also, I think we should discourage the use of the word "hump" as much as possible in everyday conversation. It's weird and awkward.

You know what else is weird and awkward? The modern history of diets. Particularly the Fletcherizing movement of 1903, encouraging people to chew their food 32 times. The founder, Horace Fletcher, ingeniously reasoned through rhyme that, "Nature will castigate those who don't masticate." (Masticate means chew. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

In more urgent and important news, President Obama needs to cut down on the desserts according to his doctor. From Obama's other health downfall @LA Times:
The famously self-disciplined president who seemingly can't miss a morning workout has a secret craving: pie.

Skipping dessert won't be easy. The Thanksgiving menu at the White House included six kinds of pie.
SIX (6) KINDS OF PIE? As in, 5 + 1 = 6? WHO WOULDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SIX KINDS OF PIE?! I would be disappointed if Obama wasn't eating loads of gourmet pies, cobblers, tarts, et al. More disappointed than health care.

And also, who doesn't love pie? Even the most disciplined eater cannot resist a flaky, buttery crust with a warm, fruity filling. I don't think there is a more American vice. Well, maybe hydrogenated oil. Or Pop Tarts. (Actually, my ex did not like pie. We were clearly incompatible on a very deep level.)

Lastly, Chloe's Show and Tell time.

I took this picture last week. The date stamp ruined it. I have a lot to learn.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Monthly Post to let you know I am still Alive

It's official! I'm still Alive (capital A). And my newest hobby is consuming large quantities of off-brand Cheez-its. LARGE QUANTITIES. The grocery store had a sale today: 2 boxes for $5. What is a girl to do...

This evening, I am proud to present several brief items, in no particular order.

1.) Part-time Carnivore
My dear friend Simone alerted me to a new campaign called Part-time Carnivore. Launched just a few days ago, Part-time Carnivore reasons that eating less meat has a big effect on climate change and on world hunger, because current meat producing methods are irresponsible and unsustainable.

Part-time Carnivore encourages people to eat less meat by pledging to follow one of several options, such as Meat-Free Mondays or Meating-Out (only eating meat away from home).

I haven't signed up for anything specific, because (I'm lazy and) I already have a casual system is place where I allow myself to include meat in 1 or 2 meals a week. I've been reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, which has unsettled me a lot and made me confront a lot of uncomfortable truths about our modern food system. I would highly recommend this book if you like being uncomfortable and grossed out and very, very angry. Or also if you care about eating meat produced by morally bankrupt corporations.

You know, at some point, you have to make a decision.

2.) Making some sense of supplements
David McCandless is an extremely talented author, writer and designer who likes to put data, ideas and information into really cool visualizations.

One of his latest projects is called Snake Oil? Scientific Evidence for Health Supplements. This interactive graphic organizes a variety of supplements by the amount of research conducted and the strength of the evidence supporting health claims. Um, awesome! Check it out.


3.) Sexual Assault on Campus
I suppose I try to stay away from issues in this realm, because although I am a feminist and I care about the well-being of my fellow woman, it's not really the focus of this blog. However, since I write this thing and no one pays me and like 3 of you read it, I've decided I can do WHATEVER I want.

Anyway, I follow a few women's health type blogs, one of them being Women's Health News. Today Rachel noted a recent NPR story, Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape. I appreciated this article for it's non-hysterical discussion of sexual predators on college campuses, which profiled a typical predator and emphasized the role of alcohol in attacks.

I'm not going to get into the issues at the moment, so suffice it to say, NPR brings up some interesting points. Hit it up.

4.) Target Women on Current TV


On a strong recommendation from Wellesley friend, I checked out Target Women hosted by Sarah Haskins. A mix of cheese, camp and sarcasm (or something?) Target Women is sometimes awkward, but entertaining always. I particularly enjoyed this episode on security systems, and now I am encouraging you to partake in the insanity. Bon appetit!

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Staus Quo: Football vs. Women, Howard Zinn

Ah yes, the status quo. It's nearly impossible to escape. The Super Bowl defines it, while Howard Zinn defied it.

Football vs. Women

Jaclyn Friedman wrote an interesting piece at The Nation referencing the Focus on the Family's upcoming ad to be aired during the Super Bowl, that I talked about a week ago.

Friedman discusses the objectification and general poor portrayal of women during the big game in "The Second Sex at the Super Bowl," which in and of itself, is nothing new. The Focus on the Family's ad, however, brings the debate to a new level:
Enter the Focus on the Family ad, thirty seconds of squeaky-clean "family values" that make the astonishing claim that women shouldn't have abortions because they might be gestating a future male sports star. There's a lot wrong with this argument, not the least of which is the statistical reality that it's significantly more likely that women who choose to carry their fetuses to term will give birth to rapists or murderers than to Heisman Trophy winners. But what makes it such a perfect fit for the Super Bowl is its blatant cynicism about the role of women when it comes to the big game. It's not enough that we be always available, conventionally beautiful sex-objects. Now we have a CBS-sanctioned ad telling us that if we get knocked up as a result of all that (relentlessly heterosexual) sex, we have only two choices: have the baby, or become an enemy of Football Nation.
This is the point I tried to make in my post, although Friedman puts it much more eloquently. (which is probably why they pay her the big bucks at The Nation. Ha.) "Enemy of Football Nation," eh? Doesn't sounds like the Tebows' and Focus on the Family are going to give women much of a choice.

Furthermore, Friedman argues that CBS and the media should be more responsible about their portrayals of women, considering the huge viewership:
There are few events in the American calendar that bring together more people than the Super Bowl--nearly as many people will watch next Sunday as voted in the 2008 presidential election. If it really is the love of football, friends and family that brings us all together, then it's time to stop helplessly accepting an event that treats half the population like expendable fodder for the other half's entertainment.
Not a bad idea.

(via Feministing)

Howard Zinn

I don't typically find myself feeling sentimental about the passing of celebrities, but for Howard Zinn I need to make an exception. Zinn died last week, at the age of 87. He was an outspoken activist who made his living as a historian. His tenacity and courage of conviction have always been an inspiration to me.

I first read A People's History of the United States for a high school class, which seemed ridiculous at the time, but now I recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it was. About a year ago I read Failure to Quit on a whim when I came across it at the library. I loved hearing from the Zinn the Activist and would highly recommend it. (You can read my review at Goodreads here.)

Revere at Effect Measure, a public health blog, published two Zinn-themed posts last week that are worth a read: Howard Zinn, 1922-2010 and Advice from Howard Zinn.

Lastly, here is one of my favorite quotes from Failure to Quit. When times are tough, it always makes me feel optimistic about the future.
History has always belonged to the people who controlled whatever present there was. They control history. So it’s not a matter of taking it back. Very often people will say, Let us restore America to what it once was. To what? Slavery? Let us restore the good old days? The good old days lie ahead.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Things I Used to Wear: S.T.A.R.S.

Look you guys, I need to get something off my chest: I used to volunteer as a abstinence-only "teen mentor" for middle-schoolers.

Seriously: in the Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex program, or S.T.A.R.S. for short. This is the shirt I wore every week to brainwash the young and impressionable minds of 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls.

I'm so embarrassed. I was going to confess this yesterday in my Blog for Choice post because it seemed relevant. But then, on the other hand, it didn't seem relevant.

In my defense, I was young and foolish. I needed to pad my college applications with something more versatile and substantial than athletics. S.T.A.R.S. was perfect in this capacity. To the casual viewer, this activity demonstrated that I was compassionate and interested in current affairs; a leader among men. However, to anyone else I probably seemed like a spineless d-bag, easily persuaded into selling her soul by empty rhetoric and the possibility of interacting with conservative Christian boys.

You know, the funny thing is that sometimes being a spineless d-bag has it's advantages. In the 3rd week of my second year doing S.T.A.R.S. (no, I didn't get enough the first time around), both of my co-mentors were going to be out of town for some super-fab spring break trip I wasn't invited to. There were a number of fellow mentors who could fill in for the one session, but I decided to impose on a guy I'd been interested in for the past few months. Why not? The fact was I needed someone to help me run the session, and this was innocent enough. Plus, he had a car.

So, what happened? Did we hook up wearing our S.T.A.R.S. shirts? Um, no. This is not that story. The boy in question, let's call him Val Kilmer, agreed to assist me for the one session. We were alone in his car. We got lunch. We talked about music and mutual friends. It was one of those very strange situations that when you're in them, you have no idea what's going on. Afterwards, you think that maybe it could have been almost a date, but it was definitely not a date because either you or the other person was being weird. And you only realize that it could have been sort of a date a few days later, and by then it is much, much to late to do anything about the fact that you blew it. (Those last couple sentences sound like they could have been part of a monologue in the movie "He's Just Not That Into You." Which, bt-dubs, is the worst movie in existence. Or at least top 10.)

Obviously, I was the one who blew it, for reasons that would be foreign to me except for I don't think they even exist. Being a teenager and trying to get a little action is hard enough, and it is nearly impossible when the irony of your self-righteous, abstinent douchebaggery is staring you in the face. Ay, ay, ay. (Looking back, the writing was on the wall. A popular strip club in my hometown shared the name of the program, so I was often teased about working for Stars Cabaret when I wore this t-shirt to school. In my dreams, people.)

When I found the picture of this shirt tonight, that was the first memory that popped into my head. Ridiculous, huh? For the record, the second memory was of a fellow teen mentor roleplaying the part of a 12-year-old during training. For some reason she was also playing the part as if she were a Chinese-Italian exchange student. "Wat iz dees prega-nancy?" she wondered obnoxiously.

I think this video pretty much sums up the situation.




*********************
Things I Used to Wear is an irregular series featuring strange items from my former wardrobe. Past entries have included a tank top, shoes, a shirt, glittery makeup and another tank top.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Blog for Choice Day 2010 (was 2 days ago)

Friday was NARAL's 5th annual Blog for Choice Day. I had every intention of dedicating a post on HWW to the event, which is held on January 22 to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (37th this year!).

Obviously, I am a slacker and no such post exists. In my defense, I had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week, so you should all feel very sorry for me. I cried at work. Who cries at work?! I'm 25 years old, for Chrissake. A huge chunk of my pride is gone forever. Which will be followed by another huge chunk of my pride the next time it happens. And the next time, and so on. Lovely.

Anyway, the theme of this year's Blog for Choice Day was "Trust Women," which is an homage to the late Dr. Tiller who typically wore a button carrying the sentiment.

Before I get into a discussion of "Trusting Women", I wanted to talk about this theme in relation to a upcoming commercial. The commercial in question is Focus on the Family's pro-life/anti-choice ad, which is set to air during the Super Bowl. In a completely inexplicable move, CBS is allowing Focus on the Family to be the Super Bowl's first "issue ad" to ever appear. In the past, Moveon.org, PETA and the United Church of Christ have attempted to buy Super Bowl real estate, but CBS has turned down their requests, according to AlterNet.

Although representatives at CBS refused to talk to the Advocate (weird), spokesman Dana McClintock told the NY Times: “Our standards and practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air.” I'll believe when I see it.

The 30-second, $2.8 million ad will feature the notoriously obnoxious--I mean, religious--University of Florida QB Tim Tebow, and his mommy, Pam. According to Wikipedia, Tebow's mother became seriously ill during her pregnancy and the medications used to save her life threatened the Tebow fetus. Doctor's recommended she terminate the pregnancy, anticipating a still-birth which could put Mama Tebow at serious risk. Obviously, the abortion did not occur, and the little Tebow grew up to be (against all the homeschooling odds) an NCAA football megastar.

The Tebow's will presumably relate this story during Focus on the Family's commercial.

So, ladies listen up! Please consider the odds of your fetus growing up to become a professional athlete (supposedly 1 in 22,000) before you terminate a pregnancy. I think that's what Focus on the Family is getting at. We'll see on February 7.

Now back to "Trust Women." Jos at Feministing writes:
Since Roe v. Wade became law 37 years ago abortion access has been under constant attack both from antis in the streets and legislation like the Hyde Amendment. Regardless of intent many of these actions send a clear message that women can't be trusted. Abortion, a medical procedure that is only needed by members of a marginalized population, has been singled out from all other procedures as something the state will not support financially and that often requires crossing medically unnecessary hurdles like waiting periods, parental consent, and harassment by antis. The implication is both that abortion should be controversial and taboo and that women can't be trusted to decide if they should have the procedure, even with the help of doctors and counselors.

"Trust Women" is a reminder that access to abortion shouldn't be limited because of politics or religious ideology. And it's a reminder that no one but the woman seeking an abortion is qualified to decide if it's the right decision. "Trust Women" means recognizing that each individual woman can make her own decisions about what is best for her.
Jos is pretty smart, and these things make sense to me. The logistical and financial hoops that women have to jump through in order to get an abortion are often excessive, and are put in place by people who out of touch with the reality of the situation.

"Trust Women" reminds us that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a simple one that a woman takes lightly. Young, middle-aged, single, married, whatever-- an unwanted pregnancy is a scary situation, and I think it's ignorant to assume that women carelessly choose to abort.

On the other hand, (yes, there is another hand) it takes two to tango, right? While I firmly believe that a woman should have the final decision in whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not, should her opinion be the only one that matters? What about the father? Does he have no voice?

Sure, you're probably rolling your eyes right now. If you came to this blog on purpose (ha!), you probably know me and we're probably similar people: women, liberal, open-minded. But there's more to it than that. Honestly, I used to think that the man's opinion was irrelevant. Whoever he was, it didn't matter! It's not his body, it shouldn't be his choice.

But what sort of man-hating bullshit is that? Of course the father should get a say! There should always be a discussion. That's all I'm saying. If you can be an adult and have sex and get pregnant, then you can be an adult and talk about the consequences.

If nothing else, look at it like this: why should women carry the entire burden of deciding to have an abortion? It's not fair. Share the experience, share the emotional toll.

And that's all she wrote on Blog for Choice Day (two days late).

Friday, January 1, 2010

Happy New Year!

2010! Whoa! Can you believe it? Time flies when you're living your life.

Speaking of which... I've taken an unintentional hiatus from Healthy, Wealthy & Wise, and I'm sad about this. Life has been overwhelming the last couple months, but I plan on getting back into the blog soon. Promise.

While I have your attention, I wanted to relate a short anecdote, which has given me great cause for concern recently. A couple days ago, a coworker found out that he has some major health problems, and is undergoing a serious medical procedure next week. He's in his 6o's and strives to be active and healthy, leading a weekly "health and wellness" group for our clients. So how did Mr. Healthy get sick? He stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes a number of years ago, doesn't touch red meat and sprinkles seaweed on nearly everything (which has arguable benefits). He's been unable to get much exercise in the last year due to a prolonged rehab from illness, but in a previous lifetime, he was very active.

It blows my mind that my coworker is going through this right now (and only partially because I'm selfish and his absence virtually doubles my work load). He works so hard to advocate healthy choices, and seems to practice what he preaches. I think that heredity plays a significant role in these situations, but to some extent, is this also a cautionary tale? (See picture.) Will the decisions we make now affect us more significantly down the road? Food for thought.

Take care of yourself, please. And Happy New Year!