there's also virus-like particle. same principle.the genes and you could do the hog, neurobased or n 1, stick it into the appropriate vectors as we did before, you put it into cull it. and because you have so many elements of the virus, lucky for us which happens sometimes is that these proteins assume what's called a virus-like particle. so it's an empty virus. it doesn't have any genetic material. but it has the proteins arranged the way they are arranged in the virus itself. that's called a vy virus-like particle. then you have synthetic pep tide. that's pretty simple. you could have pep tides, ame yo acid make pep tides, pep tides make protein. they're building blocks. we now have very good capability of synthesizing these pep tides to make them exactly how we want them,, for example the pep tide component of the hemoglutein. those are five representative new platforms. you'll hear more about that from the others who follow me. a very brief word on dose optimization schedules. what we call adjuvant. very simply what it is is a co

we don't know what would happen if we had to keep launching sulfite particles into the air potentially for ever. it's that to switch this guy back then so you end up with a situation early in the book one of the things we should be modest and how we look at this and should be very careful because all things we think to be true sing dvorkin theory don't work in practice but on this we've only got one eckert of -- earth and it seems a big risk. >> guest: is the risk bigger to take for these things and watch the earth heaved up and cataclysmic things like ice shelves melted. i wish we would have had these ideas that keep the earth cooled while we think of a race to keep carvin out of the year and ultimately here is my belief, that, and we haven't talked about that, that these geoengineering solutions are very cheap, so far less than the cost of al gore's last ad campaign they could build either of the solutions we just described and stay, likely stabilize the earth. it's a dandy and i'm not saying it would be permanent solution. what i think this is not discussed much is we've gotten out

you create this shield made of the particles. and china says that was a close one. fire up some more coal plants. overtime you in the padding and situation to which humans have to do more and more manipulation of the planetary climate in order to handle what has been known to do carbonates o-ring buildup of an almond of very, very long life until death. so if you have that scenario happen, you do end up in a situation. i want to read something from the beginning of your book. one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of an intended consequence. so a lot of the scientist, what they would say to you, is that there just isn't that sort of work in theory but it is very dangerous to do this. we have had sort of to some degree a natural expert. we know when there is morbid, hotter, it would cool down a bit. with the volcanic ash with talk about, that went away after a couple of years but we don't know what would happen if we just had to keep belching particles into the atmosphere, sort of for a very undetermined or potentially forever. i think the matrix ha

and you create sort of this shield made of the sulfide particles. and they say that was a close one. fire up more coal plants. and over time what you end up having the situation in which humans have to do more and more and more manipulation of the climate in order to handle what is as we know to be of carbon and accelerating buildup of an element with a very, very long half-life until death. and so if you have that scenario happened you do in that in this situation -- i want to read something from the beginning of the book is the vision of "freakonomics" which is one of the most powerful laws of the universe is of unintended consequences. and so a lot of these scientists, what they would say to you and the response here is there isn't just that sort of working pherae but it's very dangerous to do this. and we've had sort of to some degree natural experiment eckert dioxide. we know the more the year it gets hotter less of it would cool down a little bit. with the volcanic ash we talked about, that actually went away after a couple of years. we don't

there's also virus by particle. same principle.you take the jeans and you could do the hemagglutinin or the and one, stake in to the appropriate factors as we did before, put it into culture and because you have so many elements of the virus, lucky for us what happens sometimes is these proteins assume what is called the virus like particle. is an empty virus. doesn't have any genetic material but it has the proteins are arranged the way they are arranged in the virus itself. that is called a virus like particle. then you have synthetic peptides. you could have the peptide. you have amino acids making peptide's which make proteins. they are building blocks. we now have very good capability of synthesizing these peptides to make them exactly how we want them. the peptide component of the hemagglutinin. those are five representative new platforms and i mentioned you will hear more about that from the others who follow me. a very brief word on dose optimization schedules mainly at the men's. i know virtually everyone here -- it is a c

they have to worry about how particles will interact with each other.as it happens, if i took his pen and i threw it at the wall, no molecules in the pen are going to rearrange themselves in anticipation of hitting the wall. but if i stepped off of this podium and grabbed one of you and try to throw you against the wall, there would be a lot of molecules rearrange. you would respond strategically. that's what game theory is about. game theory is about working out the strategic responses of people, anticipating what they will do and choosing your best moves given what you think others will do. my game theory makes a few very simple assumptions about people. sometimes people have problems with these assumptions. i want to be clear about what they do and don't mean. game theory assumes people are rational. by rational, all that is meant is that people try to do what they believe is in their best interest. now, let's be careful here. rationality does not mean having perfect foresight. doesn't even necessarily mean having good foresight. rationality does not

people are putting proteins into national particles. doesn't necessarily have to have that but the way it has conformed. if you think about almost a polymer delivery system, the ways people are looking to present the antigens in that way. there are other ways of thinking about it. >> yes? go ahead. >> if you talk to the companies that are manufacturing -- the biggest problem going forward is the economic model that reimbursement is really low and markets are uncertain and there is a high utilization, cargoes what you are thinking you might address? >> you point out a problem, sustainability of these efforts going forward, being able to have these new companies and products. part of that is how can we have more people take influenza vaccines on a year-to-year basis and that is an effort not only with companies but the government and how we can encourage that. we have an opportunity with the 2009 pandemic to educate and bring out the outstanding qualities of more people being vaccinated. part of what we have done is to help manufacturers

. >> what he's doing is he's picking up particles. what the dragon will do if he bites you.ll track you for days. the bite isn't what's going to kill you. do you like this animal like i do. this is the biggest one i've ever seen. >> larry: let's get in the alligator. two little alligators. wait a minute, i said little. >> is it a little one? holy mackerel, larry, wow, wee. larry, have you ever seen an alligator that close? >> larry: no, i've never seen that many teeth. >> this is the alligator. watch this. he has two eyeliding. if they can show us on the camera, he's got two eyelids. watch this. see that. he can see you under water. when you're down there, you think he's not watching you, he can. he also hunts as our good conservationist steve irwin told us, he knows a lot about the crocodile. those are sensors, they pick up vibration. if something's in the water swimming up to two miles away, larry, they can feel it like sonar in the water. he lives up to 100 years old and can go for one year out eating. >> larry: are these babies? >> this a baby alligator right here? >> uh

institute and a 50-year-old institution that has 20 country members and services half of world's particle physicists. it includes top climate scientists, legends in the field such as william gray who's considered by many the world's foremost authority on the prediction of hurricanes and reed bryson who has been called the father of scientific climatology and who was the world's most cited climatologist. at some point possibly quite soon if climate science doesn't demonstrate a breakthrough capable of impressing scientists, this whole big lie may come crashing down. so thank you. [applause] >> thank you, lawrence. we're going to have questions. i hope this has whetted your appetite to read this book. it's very readable. it's got a lot of stuff in it. i mean, i know most of the people here you have seen them as cooler heads lecturers including one who's here today, fred singer. but i learned quite a lot that i didn't know as well so i'd encourage you to read the book. a couple of housekeeping details. i forgot to thank my colleague julie walsh for arranging this briefing today and if you ha

. >> what he's doing is he's picking up particles. that's how he hunts.omodo dragon when he bites you the bite's not going to kill you. he will track you for days. this is the biggest one i've ever seen. >> larry: let's get in the alligator. not a big alligator. a little alligator. two little alligators. different from the croc. wait a minute, i said little. hold it. >> holy mackerel, larry. wow-wee. larry, we can't hurry this one. larry, have you ever seen an alligator that close? >> larry: no. i've never seen that many teeth. >> this is the alligator. if they can show us on the camera at home he's got two eyelids. watch this. he's got two eyelids. see, when you're down there and you think he can't see you, he can. steve irwin talks a lot about the the crocodile. he has sensors. they pick up vibrations. if something's in the water swimming up to two miles away, larry, they can feel it like sonar in the water. this animal lives to 100 years old, can go one year without eating. >> larry: are these babies? >> this a baby alligator right here? >> uh-huh. >>

if i skipped over my entire routine i would imagine all the little particles in my mouth causing decayt be able to think. >> larry: john, how many people have this? >> it's estimated 2.2 million americans are affected by it each year. but as i was telling howie earlier, i think the numbers are higher because there are studies out there that show that people take up to ten, sometimes 15 years to actually come out of the actually come out of the ocd closet and get help. so the shame and the stigma is so high that people are so terrified, even today, to talk about this thing. >> more men than women or women than men? >> it's not gender specific, but it's more apt that women could come to treatment before men would. >> how about racial effect? >> i don't think so. >> is it genetic? >> good question. it's considered a neuro biological illness. so it's a combination of the genetics, you're hard-wired for this disorder, but it's also about your environment and how traumatic events, life situations can actually spike it and/or make it worse. so it's a nature and a nurture. >> was it hard, hele

particle sets forth a new strategy compelling government officials to do the right thing, to use the knowledge about what works instead of relying on failing policies and wasted resources. our strategy to overcome this onerous burden of proving the government intended the injury relies on a later article from 1989 which in firs intent on the government authorities if they are shown tofers intent on the government authorities if they are shown to choose the injury is -- deliberate injustice in this course of action in the face of other alternatives. moreover ironically, these alternatives tend to be less expensive too. the article presents this theory in the context of juvenile justice and disproportionate rate of confinement, have been asked to discuss its application in the context of persistent disparity in education. ironically, you know the determination about how many prisons cells to construct is reliant on a determination of third grade reading levels. in the education context our strategy would look like this. instead of looking backward as litigators' do we say look forward.

particles are followed for a reason. -- and tries to wave them through. >> the issue you brought up iould be more happy -- i would be more than happy to address that in a private meeting curry i would not want to talk about them in here. make no doubt about it. i am not trying to minimize the fact regarding the danger here. i do not like what happened. none of us wanted to see this happen here. i am confident in our level of security, are men and women that are protecting the president in close proximity to him, all of these situations would put him in. we traveled all over the country and it is very difficult protecting the president in a democracy. it is far from that that person is allowed to get out their agenda, get out their message, and have access to the people. we deal with these types of situations every day. if we had our way we would put him in a bubble but we cannot do that. we make sure we're able to give that person out there and allow them to get out their message and agenda. i will tell you that we do it every day. we have to let people have access to him, but we do h

he's greeting members of the afghan particle parliament. he's going to be greeted by members of congress this week, has at least a couple of appearances before committees on either side. what are they going to want to know from him? guest: well, i think you'll see a lot of grand standing, i think. this is what congress does to a certain extent. he will come, and they will all make their own personal cases n. many cases, members of congress will be more interested in making policy statements, establishing their position firmly rather than hearing from him. but i think when you get to the serious question, you're going hear people ask him, what are the likely prospects of success? what exactly are you going to do to make sure that we get from point a to point b? on the republican side, i think you're going to have some skeptical republicans, particularly in the senate, who are likely to ask him how the mission was pared down. i mean, he came in with the president's previous mission for afghanistan laid out in his march 27 speech, and general

anxiety as we can see from the testimony before the committee there is not consensus on screening particles but there does seem to be consensus any screening and treatment discussion as an individual one between the provider and patient so i hope today's hearing can provide concrete information on the evidence based decision making process. i'm also interested to hear from the cancer community and medical providers on their next steps for outreach and patient education on the limitations of the mammography screening. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> thank you. i believe that concludes the opening statements by the members of the subcommittee. so, we will now turn to our witnesses, and if our first panel would come forward i would appreciate that. thank you. we have two witnesses both from the u.s. preventive services task force to read to my left is dr. mant calonge, i hope i'm pronounced in that correctly, president of the task force, and next to him it is dr. diana petitti, petitti? petitti. who is the vice chair of the u.s. preventive service task force. now i will menti

we have established particles that were not followed. what we find is that of the protocols are followed we won't run into this type of situation. clearly this protocol was not followed. eight mistake was made an error in judgment and that allowed the two individuals who should not have been allowed entry into the white house. >> can you tell us whether or not other individuals may have gained entry into the white house in a similar manner this evening? >> that was a concern on my part as well and i can tell you that our investigation indicates no other individuals were allowed entry that evening that shouldn't have been allowed to come in. >> one question, because these individuals were not on the list, they did not get vetted or anything like that. do you think that this monitoring provided any risks to those individuals who attended the dinner? >> like everyone i am extremely disappointed that these people were able to enter the white house. however i would say these people went through every layer of security every other individual w