Connect with us

Health

Here’s Why The Culinary Institute Of America Wants Restaurants To Serve Less Meat

Published

on

Consumers have become increasingly more health conscious and ingredient-savvy in recent years. No longer satisfied with simply “apple” or “bread,” we want to know how and where that apple was produced and what chemicals and preservatives were put into that bread; we want to know whether our food was sprayed with pesticides and how nutritious it is for us.

advertisement - learn more

But this shift in consumer attitudes represents more than just a health movement. Food has become a question of ethics for many people, too. It isn’t as though an increasing number of people has decided they dislike the taste of meat. Rather, they cannot condone supporting an industry which relies on the torture and confinement of animals in order to sustain itself. Factory farming is a modern day horror, and the more we learn about it, the harder it becomes to ignore.

There are also environmental issues to consider. Meat has a far greater water footprint than grains, vegetables, or beans, as it takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce just 1 pound of meat, according to PETA. And animals raised for meat consume vast amounts of food — food that we ourselves could be eating, and then some — for which enormous swaths of land must be farmed. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people — more than the entire human population on Earth.

And while the vegetarian movement continues to gain momentum as education and awareness about these moral and ecological implications increases, the healthier dining guest isn’t solely seeking more plant-based menu options because they don’t eat meat. As we are slowly discovering, plant-based food tastes incredible, and leaves enormous room for creativity.

Menus of Change

Not wanting to be behind in the times, the Culinary Institute of America and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are on a mission to redefine what a complete meal looks like in restaurants by shifting the focus away from meat proteins and onto plant-based ones instead. They are encouraging the restaurant industry to do a “protein flip” and offer less animal meat in meals.

“It came about in response to a clear need among foodservice leaders for an integrated, comprehensive, evidence-based set of guidelines for addressing the most pressing health and environmental concerns through business strategies that will keep their culinary operations thriving for decades to come,” said Sophie Egan, director of programs and culinary nutrition for the Strategic Initiatives Group at The Culinary Institute of America.

advertisement - learn more

The Program  

The CIA and Harvard’s “Menus of Change: The Business of Healthy, Sustainable, Delicious Food Choices” aims to promote health and sustainability in the foodservice industry. Three of the program’s initiatives, listed below, involve using plant-proteins. From their website:

  •  Leverage globally inspired, plant-based culinary strategies. Scientific research suggests that the most effective way to help diners make healthy, sustainable food choices is to shift our collective diets to mostly plant-based foods. Growing plants for food generally has less of a negative impact on the environment than raising livestock, as livestock have to eat lots of plants to produce a smaller amount of food. In fact, no other single decision in the professional kitchen—or in the boardrooms of foodservice companies—can compare in terms of the benefits of advancing global environmental sustainability. From the well- researched Mediterranean diet to the cuisines of Asia and Latin America, traditional food cultures offer a myriad of flavor strategies to support innovation around healthy, delicious, even craveable cooking that rebalances ratios between foods from animal and plant sources.

The CIA recommends nuts and legumes as alternative sources of protein.

  • Move nuts and legumes to the center of the plate. Nuts and legumes are full of flavor, contain plant protein, and are associated with increased satiety. Nuts contain beneficial fats, while legume crops contain fiber and slowly metabolized carbohydrates. Legumes also are renowned for helping to replace nitrogen in the soil and produce impressive quantities of protein per acre. Nuts (including nut butters, flours, and milks) and legumes (including soy foods and legume flours) are an excellent replacement for animal protein. They also are a marketable way to serve and leverage smaller amounts of meat and animal proteins.
  • Serve less red meat, less often. Red meat— beef, pork, and lamb—can be enjoyed occasionally and in small amounts. Current guidance from nutrition research recommends consuming a maximum of two 3-ounce servings per week. Chefs and menu developers can rethink how meat is used by featuring it in smaller, supporting roles to healthier plant-based choices, and experimenting with meat as a condiment. From at least some environmental perspectives (e.g., GHGE, feed efficiency ratio), pork is the better choice among red meats (though not distinguishable from a nutritional perspective). Saturated fat is one health concern associated with red-meat consumption, but it’s not the only issue. Chefs should strive to limit bacon and other processed and cured meats, which are associated with even higher incidence of chronic disease than unprocessed red meats. Many diners choose to splurge on red meat when they eat out, and there will always be an appropriate place for meat-centered dishes. But chefs can help to shift eating patterns by building a sense of theater and value in menu concepts that don’t rely so heavily on a starring role for animal protein. For example, they might offer delicious meat/vegetable and meat/legume blends, or smaller tasting portions of red meat as part of vegetable-rich, small-plate formats.

It’s important to note that the CIA is not saying restaurants need to remove meat from their menus, but rather that it should function as more of a condiment than the main focus of most dishes.

They also admit that because many restaurant-goers view both dining out and eating red meat as a treat, they want red meat to be the focus of their meal, in order to get their money’s worth and make the most of the special occasion. But Menus of Change asks restaurants to start shifting this paradigm, luring diners away from the traditional large hunks of meat and towards dishes that offer a blend of either meat/vegetable or meat/legume.

This isn’t about demonizing meat, particularly if it has been ethically and sustainably produced, and it’s not about convincing consumers to choose healthy foods even when they want to treat themselves. It’s about changing how we define a meal: “Menus of Change discourages foodservice leaders from hitting diners over the head with messages about a food’s health benefits. Instead, we always lead with flavor. In fact, that is one of the 24 Principles of Healthy, Sustainable Menus: ‘Lead with menu messaging around flavor.’ Because if it doesn’t taste delicious, the rest won’t matter. Research shows that taste trumps just about everything. So the healthier, more sustainable options can’t merely taste pretty good; they have to be so delicious they’re craveable. They’ve got to make diners want to come back to your restaurant time and again,” said Egan.

Giving Restaurants Alternative Protein Recommendations

In addition to these guidelines, Menus of Change has released Protein Plays, an 8-page toolkit that outlines less-meat focused protein solutions and an infographic called The Protein Flip.

“The Protein Flip showcases some of the ways that chefs around the country are offering creative plant-forward dishes, from cauliflower steak at restaurants like Chalk Point Kitchen (of chef Rebecca Weitzman, a CIA graduate) to a broccoli dog and other center-of-the-plate celebrations of vegetables at Dirt Candy (of chef Amanda Cohen). For plant-based proteins specifically, one of the many ways we are seeing chefs use them to achieve fantastic flavor is with blended burgers, like  juicy patties made from combinations such as peanut, mushroom, and farro, or lentil, barley, and black bean, just to name a few,” said Egan.

Source: 

http://www.foodabletv.com/blog/2016/7/10/why-the-culinary-institute-of-america-wants-restaurants-to-serve-more-plant-based-proteins

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Scientists Find A Strong Link Between Infamous Chemical That’s Still “Present In Everyone” & Autism

Published

on

“Children today are sicker than they were a generation ago. From childhood cancers to autism, birth defects and asthma, a wide range of childhood diseases and disorders are on the rise. Our assessment of the latest science leaves little room for doubt; pesticides are one key driver of this sobering trend.” — October 2012 report by Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)(source)

Perhaps the most important thing to mention when it comes to autism is that there is no biological marker for it. It can’t be identified, and those who receive an autism, or ASD diagnosis are simply diagnosed with it based on behaviour and social tendencies. It’s a large spectrum, with some being completely and clearly neurologically impaired, and others on the other end whom which you wouldn’t be able to tell have an ASD diagnosis and everything else in between. This is always important to acknowledge that, when it comes to autism, one person on one end of the spectrum could be damaged in a specific biological way, due to environmental factors discussed in this article, and another may not be damaged at all, in any way. In fact, some of them might even be more ‘enhanced,’ for lack of a better term.  Having received multiple labels myself as a child, I have come to learn that these labels are simply, for the most part, made up terms for big pharma to make trillions of dollars of off, it’s a big problem and one that has yet to be addressed adequately. Your child is not different, they are most likely damaged, something that may be hard for many to swallow, but we can’t keep ignoring all of the evidence that’s continually emerging by labelling those with autism as unique, which is ignoring the real cause of what’s really going on here, pure brain damage….

According to a senior researcher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dr. Stephanie Seneff, at the rate, we’re going, “by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” (source) She’s been outspoken about the consistent and strong correlation between the rising use of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (with its active ingredient glyphosate) on crops and the rising rates of autism. Her research also reveals that the side effects of autism mimic glyphosate toxicity and deficiencies.

A few years ago, I wrote about a study coming out of the University of California, Davis, which determined that pregnant women who live in close proximity to land and farms where chemical pesticides are/were applied experienced a seventy-five percent risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder, or some other developmental disorder. You can read more about that and access the study here.

Now, a new study has been published that implicates DDT as a possible trigger for autism. Having been an avid autism researcher for more than a decade now, it’s clear to me that there are several environmental triggers that can and do lead to an autism diagnosis, and multiple pesticides, including ones we used in the past, like DDT, are clear culprits. Others include prescription drugs during fetal development, vaccines, wifi radiation and more.

DDT was a commonly used pesticide designed to combat malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, it was banned in 1972 because it was linked to multiple health ailments, and clearly very dangerous, very similar to the ones that are falling under intense scrutiny today. It was banned years decades after its use, and is still found in some soils today, as well as many waterways. It takes more than a dozen years to break down.

advertisement - learn more

The results of the study were published in the  American Journal of Psychiatry, and the research was was drawn from mothers who were confirmed to have DDT in their body, just as many today do when it comes to other commonly sprayed chemicals, like glyphosate, which is highly detectable in most peoples urine across North America as well as Europe.

According to the lead author, Alan Brown,

DDT is still persisting in the environment and is detectable in almost everyone I would not say women should be conerned but itis important to be informed that at least this one chemical exposure is related to increased risk.”

“DDT is still persisting in the environment and is detectable in almost everyone,” lead author Dr. Alan Brown told IFLScience. “I would not say women should be concerned but it is important to be informed that at least this one chemical exposure is related to increased risk.”

It’s crazy because this chemical was sprayed on crops worldwide for decades, and seemed to have been replaced with chemicals that are just as harmful.

“What’s appalling is that we have known about these dangers for decades yet have done little about it. Nearly 20 years ago, scientists at the National Research Council called for swift action to protect young and growing bodies from pesticides. Yet today, U.S. children continue to be exposed to pesticides that are known to be harmful in places they live, learn and play.”

 Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) (source)

It’s becoming quite clear that what we call ‘autism’ is linked with environmental factors, and goes far beyond genetics, but our health authorities don’t want to admit that. Because if environmental factors are causing autism, and it’s not genetics, then we have a big problem on our hands, especially for multiple corporations basically control the government, and what science is deemed credible…

This is why we haven’t seen a ban on these pesticides despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense to use them.

A study published a few years ago in the journal PLOS Computational Biology from researchers at the University of Chicago revealed that autism and intellectual disability (ID) (autism has nothing to do with intellectual disability) rates are linked with exposure to harmful environmental factors during congenital development, critical stages of fetal development.

According to that study,

Autism appears to be strongly correlated with the rate of congentical malformations of the genitals in males acrossthe country. This gives an indicator of the environmental load and the effect is surprisingly strong…TRhe strongest predictors for autism were associated with the environment.

You can access that study and read more about that here.

There Are Multiple Factors

“The change in how agriculture is produced has brought, frankly, a change in the profile of diseases. We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects, and illnesses seldom seen before. . . . The tobacco companies denied the link between smoking and cancer, and took decades to recognize the truth. The biotech and agrochemical corporations are the same as the tobacco industry; they lie and favor business over the health of the population.” – Dr. Medardo Avila Vazquez, a pediatrician specializing in environmental health (source)(source)(source) (Related CE Article on the GMO/Cancer link in Argentina here

There are too many cancer-causing, autism causing, and brain damaging products to list that are all contributing to debilitating health effects that are on the rise exponentially. And yes, vaccines are one of many environmental factors that have contributed to this. To say vaccines aren’t implicated in autism is completely unscientific, yet the mainstream makes you feel stupid for even questioning them. Take aluminum for example, we now know that aluminum from vaccines does not exit the body, but ends up travelling to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain. The brains of deceased autistic people were also recently opened and some of the highest brain aluminum content in history was found.  This is just one of many examples of how vaccines are connected to autism and other damage, which is why the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid more than $4 billion. But that’s another topic in itself. But it’s important to mention.

It’s quite clear that they’re not completley safe.

Let’s not forget about Dr. William Thompson……

Vaccines, like environmental pesticides, prescription drugs during fetal development, and more have all been implicated in ASD, and that is an undeniable scientific fact. You can check out the related articles below for more information.

Daughter of “Autism Speaks” Founder  Shares Shocking Information About Vaccines (disturbing revelations)

Another Groundbreaking Study Links Agricultural Pesticides To Autism

Monsanto, Pesticides, Vaccines, & Autism: If We Continue On This Route, “All Children Will Be Autistic By 2025.”

Scientists Link Autism To These Toxic Chemicals During Fetal Development

This Is What Happens To The Brain When Glyphosate & Aluminum Accumulate In It

Scientists Discover Huge Amounts of Aluminum In The Brains of Deceased Autistic People

Study Shows Where ‘Almost’ 100 Percent of Aluminum From Vaccines Could Go Inside A Baby’s Body

MIT Professor Explains The Vaccine-Autism Connection

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Should Never Be Forced To Vaccinate Their Children

“Peer Reviewed” Science Losing Credibility As Large Amounts of Research Shown To Be False

10 False Claims Made By The Pro-Vaccine Community

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Health

Natural Measles Immunity — Better Protection & More Long-Term Benefits Than Vaccines

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Natural immunity compared to the immunity provided by vaccines is extremely different. Public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50+ years of mass measles vaccination have stopped nothing.

  • Reflect On:

    Why do pharmaceutical companies continue to make false claims about vaccines, using mass marketing? Why are they allowed to? And why does everyone believe them?

Stories about vaccines in the popular press tend to be unabashedly one-sided, generally portraying vaccination as a universal (and essential) “good” with virtually no downside. This unscientific bias is particularly apparent in news reports about measles, which often are little more than hysterical diatribes against the unvaccinated.

Although public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50-plus years of mass measles vaccination and high levels of vaccine coverage have not managed to stop wild and vaccine-strain measles virus from circulating. Routine measles vaccination also has had some worrisome consequences. Perhaps the most significant of these is the shifting of measles risks to age groups formerly protected by natural immunity. Specifically, modern-day occurrences of measles have come to display a “bimodal” pattern in which “the two most affected populations are infants aged less than 1 year and adults older than 20 years”—the very population groups in whom measles complications can be the most clinically severe. As one group of researchers has stated, “The common knowledge indicating that measles [as well as mumps and rubella] are considered as benign diseases dates back to the pre-vaccine area and is not valid anymore.”

A little history

Before the introduction of measles vaccines in the 1960s, nearly all children contracted measles before adolescence, and parents and physicians accepted measles as a “more or less inevitablepart of childhood.” In industrialized countries, measles morbidity and mortality already were low and declining, and many experts questioned whether a vaccine was even needed or would be used.

Measles outbreaks in the pre-vaccine era also exhibited “variable lethality”; in specific populations living in close quarters (such as military recruits and residents of crowded refugee camps), measles mortality could be high, but even so, “mortality rates differed more than 10-fold across camps/districts, even though conditions were similar.” For decades both prior to and following the introduction of measles vaccination, those working in public health understood that poor nutrition and compromised health status were key contributors to measles-related mortality, with measles deaths occurring primarily “in individuals below established height and weight norms.” A study of measles mortality in war-torn Bangladesh in the 1970s found that most of the children who died were born either in the two years preceding or during a major famine.

Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a ‘susceptibility gap’…

advertisement - learn more

Measles vaccination and infants

Before the initiation of mass vaccination programs for measles, mothers who had measles as children protected their infants through the transfer of maternal antibodies. However, naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity are qualitatively different. Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a “susceptibility gap” between early infancy and the first ostensibly protective measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 to 15 months of age.

A Luxembourg-based study published in 2000 confirmed the susceptibility gap in an interesting way. The researchers compared serum samples from European adolescents who had been vaccinated around 18 months of age to serum samples from Nigerian mothers who had not been vaccinated but had experienced natural measles infection at a young age. They then looked at the capacity of the antibodies detected in the serum to “neutralize” various wild-type measles virus strains. The researchers found that the sera from mothers with natural measles immunity substantially outperformed the sera from the vaccinated teens: only two of 20 strains of virus “resisted neutralization” in the Nigerian mothers’ group, but 10 of 20 viral strains resisted neutralization in the vaccination group. This complex analysis led the authors to posit greater measles vulnerability in infants born to vaccinated mothers.

…many vaccines may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently complicate measles control strategies

The Luxembourg researchers also noted that in the Nigerian setting, where widespread vaccination took hold far later than in Europe, the mothers in question had had “multiple contacts with endemic wild-type viruses” and that these repeat contacts had served an important booster function. One of the authors later conducted a study that examined this booster effect more closely. That study found that re-exposure to wild-type measles resulted in “a significantly prolonged antibody boost in comparison to [boosting through] revaccination.” Taking note of expanding vaccine coverage around the world and reduced circulation of wild-type measles virus, the researchers concluded in a third study that “many vaccinees may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently, complicate measles control strategies.”

Bimodal distribution

With the disappearance of maternally endowed protection, what has happened to measles incidence in infants? A review of 53 European studies (2001–2011) focusing on the burden of measles in those “too young to be immunized” found that as many as 83% of measles cases in some studies and under 1% in other studies were in young infants.

At the same time, the predictions of an increased percentage of measles cases in older teens and adults have also come true. Reporting on a higher “death-to-case ratio” in the over-15 group in 1975 (not many years after widespread adoption of measles vaccination in the U.S.), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researcher wrote that the higher ratio could be “indicative of a greater risk of complications from measles, exposing the unprotected adult to the potential of substantial morbidity.”

In recent measles outbreaks in Europe and the U.S., large proportions of cases are in individuals aged 15 or older:

  • In the U.S., 57 of the 85 measles cases (67%) reported in 2016 were at least 15 years of age. U.S. researchers also have conservatively estimated that at least 9% of measles cases occur in vaccinated individuals.
  • Among several thousand laboratory-confirmed cases of measles and an additional thousand “probable” or “possible” cases in Italy in 2017, 74% were in individuals at least 15 years of age, and 42% of those were hospitalized.
  • Examining a smaller number of laboratory-confirmed measles cases in Sicily (N=223), researchers found that half of the cases were in adults age 19 or older, and clinical complications were more common in adults compared to children (45% versus 26%). Likewise, about 44% of measles cases in France from 2008 to 2011 (N=305) were in adults (with an average age in their mid-20s), and the adults were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized as infected children.

Time to reevaluate

Pre-vaccination, most residents of industrialized countries accepted measles as a normal and even trivial childhood experience. Many people, including clinicians, also understood the interaction between measles and nutrition, and, in particular, the links between vitamin A deficiency and measles: “Measles in a child is more likely to exacerbate any existing nutritional deficiency, and children who are already deficient in vitamin A are at much greater risk of dying from measles.” Instead of inching the age of initial measles vaccination down to ever-younger ages, as is increasingly being proposed, there could be greater value in supporting children’s nutrition and building overall health—through practical interventions that “improve[e]…existing dietaries through the inclusion of relatively inexpensive foods that are locally available and well within the reach of the poor.”

Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks.

There are many other tradeoffs of measles vaccination that remain largely unexplored, including the important role of fever-inducing infectious childhood diseases in reducing subsequent cancer risks. Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks. These tradeoffs—along with the dangerous loss of infant access to protective maternal antibodies and the higher rates of measles illness and complications in older teens and adults—suggest that measles vaccination deserves renewed scrutiny.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Awareness

10 Things That Happen To Your Body When You Walk Everyday

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    There are multiple health benefits to be gained by taking a simple walk every day. These benefits are measurable, and if you don't already have an active lifestyle it can be a great way to assist you with your health.

  • Reflect On:

    Reflect on how the human race has become extremely sedentary, and how disease rates continue to climb as a result of the modern human lifestyle.

The human experience has become extremely sedentary, the average human lifestyle in the western world has been linked to multiple diseases and is one of the main causes of why disease rates continue to climb, among many other factors that surround all aspects of human life, like big food, for example. With technology in place and jobs that require tremendous amounts of sitting, there is no doubt that it’s having a detrimental effect on our lives.

That being said, the world is clearly becoming way more health conscious. It’s like we needed this experience of unhealthy food, the corporate take-over of everything, and our motionless lifestyle to knock us out of it. We are seeing a health revolution take place, where more and more people are becoming health conscious, and are always being encouraged to be more active.

Ultimately, we can’t really blame the human experience for our lack of movement, it’s something that all of us have the time to incorporate into our lives in one way or another, and if you’re someone who doesn’t enjoy being too active, a simple walk every day can have tremendous amounts of benefits. As pointed out in the video below, by Bright Side.

If You Want To Increase The Benefits Even More, Walk Barefoot

It’s called grounding, or ‘earthing’ and it involves placing your feet directly on the ground, without shoes or socks as a barrier. Why? Because there is an intense negative charge carried by the Earth, it’s electron-rich, which serves as a good supply of antioxidants and free radical destroying electrons.

A study published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health titled “Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth’s Surface Electrons” postulates that earthing could represent a potential treatment for a variety of chronic degenerative diseases.

That’s right, many positive health benefits occur as a result of walking barefoot, and these are measurable.

advertisement - learn more

The picture below represents improved facial circulation (right image) after 20 minutes of grounding, as documented by a Speckle Contrast Laser Imager (dark blue=lowest circulation; dark red=highest circulation). Image Source: Scientific Research Publishing

If you want to read more publications and access the in-depth science with regards to grounding, you can refer to the article linked above the picture.

10 Things That Happen To Your Body When You Walk Barefoot On Earth 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!