Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    This thread is locked because Perpetual Student and IndyDave have tried to turn it into an, "attack mike the wiz" thread. (which you now won't see because I have deleted their posts. Both were warned to not create any more attacks and stick to the topic and both have proven they can't act like adults.) Their pointless ad-hominem posts have been deleted. Perpetual Student (Driewerf?) has been banned. When the thread re-opens it will be about the topic SOLELY. Fred has chosen me as moderator, and I will do that job in tune with his rules, and he has stated to me that thus far he is pleased with how I have done that job. If you have an issue, take it up with him. Otherwise indyDave, learn when to simply obey, because treating me like I am not a moderator isn't going to mean I am not one and isn't going to mean you are an exception to the rules and can do whatever you want simply because you are combative/belligerent . Everyone else can accept it, but it would seem you and Perpetual Student can't. Gee let me see, is it only a coincidence that you two posters can't handle me as moderator because of your consistent breaking of the rules? I guess that's what it must be, pure coincidence.
  3. mike the wiz

    Morality Under God Or Atheism

    The category is too broad. I think if you look again I was saying that all "apes", as in particular types of primate, are ultimately the same thing. But, "appliances" would be a broader category. What I was saying was, ultimately all apes are the same. Chimps, orangutans, gorillas, they ultimately are the same things as each other, but not a human. You can't compare a human to anything else. Heck that's just a truism. Sure, if you want to argue, "that's because we're advanced" that's at least understandable, but to deny it? Pointless.
  4. Perpetual_student

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    That doesn't matter in this discussion. The premisse of a different past was made in the OP, the burden of proof lies thus in providing evidence for this different past.
  5. Today
  6. Then sorry it comes as news to you, but science uses the premise of a same nature and laws on earth in the past. Not sure what you use, since you didn't really say.
  7. KillurBluff

    My I.D Syllogism

    Blitzking is correct on this "Adaptation", as you must know Perpetual_student.. (As i have mentioned before) It's the EXACT same as to WHY we do not have babies born with callouses upon their newborn hands from being birthed from parents whom were woodworkers/carpenters/laborers etc... As the 'Information' is ALREADY encoded into the D.N.A. to 'Build' callouses on the skin in areas most needed as we age....
  8. Blitzking

    My I.D Syllogism

    ANYONE who gives Finches Beaks as an example of "Evolution" isnt talking about Microbe to Microbiologist evolution.. They are talking about ADAPTATION and then using the duplicitous word "evolution" instead as a bait and switch parlor trick.. The ability to ADAPT or VARY is ALREADY built into the DNA genome of each and every created kind.. "There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches." Examples of WHAT specifically..? If you have any examples of scientific evidence to support the crazy hypothesis that a microbe slowly evolved into all flora and fauna.(TOE) Here is the post I started over a year ago with no one providing any so far!! I'm glad you have decided to engage me on the subject, I hope you will continue to do so.. Regards JT
  9. Perpetual_student

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    No, I didn't make such a premise. The premise of a different past was made in the OP, that's a positive claim, the burden of proof lies with the OP.
  10. Do you have some basis for asserting that God did not say to Adam what His word says He did say? If not you have the baseless assertion. There is a lot of reason. One reason is that we know when man and other creatures were created. You may not like that reason, but that is neither here nor there. Then there is the reason that nature was not the same as now. So you cannot limit how things worked then to how they work now. That is a big reason, since science uses the present for models of the past! Then there is the reason that we know a lot of creatures used to live that do not live today. It is reasonable to assume trilobites or other worms or little creatures as well as ancient fungi and etc etc etc may have been vastly more efficient at disposal of some remains. Now let's ask you. Have you any reason to assume this present nature existed in Noah's day? (in scientific imaginary faith based years let's say about 70 million years ago) Claiming nature and forces and laws that exist now on earth were the same is an unproven premise. So do not use it. Ever. You want to specify that nature was the same you need more than a belief and a statement! Scripture (and even to some extent, history) specifies several key differences. We could not use science to 'prove' them any more than science is able to disprove them. In the same way, we could not use science to prove or disprove that there was a same state past on earth.
  11. Perpetual_student

    My I.D Syllogism

    Todd Wood said (and is quoted in your post) "for example". There are many more example than only d-Darwin's finches. The finches are just an easy, well known example out of many.
  12. LizaMiller

    Puzzles and Problems

    haha indeed
  13. Perpetual_student

    A New Look at the Fossil Record

    Correct. Baseless assertion. "If", but this post doesn't give any reason to expect or accept such a thing. So either there comes evidence for such rapid decay, or the condition mentioned doesn't apply. But it doesn't mean we were alive either. And if it wasn't, then the argument of this post falls flat. Nope, that conclusion does not derive from until now unproven) premisse. It does matter why (or rather "how"). This posts rests on an unproven premisse that the nature of the past was somehow "different" (unspecified) and derives a conclusion (trilobites, dinosaurs and humans lived together) that does not logically follows. And looking at the Quran, there was a winged horse. Which still is.
  14. what really happened here? i mean why has our economy upended itself? everybody had to stay home? i'm quite certain that some manufacturers could remain in operation, and some have. what happened to americas legendary innovation? one of the primary problems i think is americans hasn't realized we've entered the age of the internet. oh sure, we have social sites like facebook and twitter, but we have failed in the "personal website" area. a person with a vehicle could easily start a "grocery delivery" service to lockins. comcast has already provided a backbone for something like that by providing dirt cheap good internet service. a person could start a service that provides instruction on how to create organize and maintain a website. and it still may come about, who knows.
  15. Yesterday
  16. From Dr. Risch's primary source article. https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586 Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe....(indy- and Trump DID exactly that!) The FDA has recently issued guidance (15) to physicians and the general public advising that the combination HCQ+AZ should not generally be used except by critically ill hospital inpatients or in the context of registered clinical trials. The NIH panel for Covid-19 treatment guidelines say essentially the same (16), and a similar statement has been released by the major cardiology societies (17). Numerous reviews of HCQ efficacy and adverse events have been and continue to be published. To my knowledge, all of these reviews have omitted the two critical aspects of reasoning about these drugs: use of HCQ combined with AZ or with doxycycline, and use in the outpatient setting. For example, the Veterans' Administration Medical Centers study (18) examined treated hospitalized patients and was fatally flawed (19). (Indy-same goes for Lancet!) The same point about outpatient use of the combined medications has been raised by a panel of distinguished French physicians (20) in petitioning their national government to allow outpatient use of HCQ+AZ. It appears that the FDA, NIH and cardiology society positions have been based upon theoretical calculations about potential adverse events and from measured physiologic changes rather than from current real-world mortality experience with these medications and that their positions should be revised. In reviewing all available evidence, I will show that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline are generally safe for short-term use in the early treatment of most symptomatic high-risk outpatients where not contraindicated, and that they are effective in preventing hospitalization for the overwhelming majority of such patients. If these combined medications become standard-of-care, they are likely to save an enormous number of lives that would otherwise be lost to this endemic disease.... evidence for utility or lack thereof or toxicity in hospitalized patients cannot be extrapolated to apply to outpatient use,... The third piece of evidence involves the cohort of 1450 patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of Monsey, NY. Dr. Zelenko has released a two-page report (28) describing his clinical reasoning and procedures, dosing conditions and regimen, and patient results through April 28. Symptomatic patients presenting to Dr. Zelenko were treated with five days of HCQ+AZ+zinc sulfate if they were considered high-risk, as evidenced by one or more of: age 60 years or older; high-risk comorbidities; body-mass index>30; mild shortness of breath at presentation. Patients were considered to have Covid-19 based on clinical grounds and started treatment as soon as possible following symptom onset, rather than delaying for test results before starting treatment. Of the 1450 patients, 1045 were classified as low-risk and sent home to recuperate without active medications. No deaths or hospitalizations occurred among them. Of the remaining 405 treated with the combined regimen, 6 were ultimately hospitalized and 2 died. No cardiac arrhythmias were noted in these 405 patients.... The fourth relevant study was a controlled non-randomized trial of HCQ+AZ in 636 symptomatic high-risk outpatients in São Paulo, Brazil (29). All consecutive patients were informed about the utility and safety profile of the medications and offered the treatment, and those who declined (n=224) comprised the control group. Patients were monitored daily by telemedicine. The study outcome was need for hospitalization, defined as clinically worsening condition or significant shortness of breath (blood oxygen saturation <90%). Even though the severities of all of the recorded flu-like signs and symptoms and of important comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, asthma, stroke) were substantially greater in the treated patients than the controls, the need for hospitalization was significantly lower, 1.2% in patients starting treatment before day 7 of symptoms, 3.2% for patients starting treatment after day 7, and 5.4% for controls, P-value<.0001. No cardiac arrhythmias were reported in the 412 treated patients.... Examination of the database for adverse events reported from the beginning of the database in 1968 through 2019 and into the beginning of 2020, shows for hydroxychloroquine 1064 adverse event reports including 200 deaths for the total of cardiac causes that could be both specifically and broadly classified as rhythm-related. Of these, 57 events including 10 deaths were attributed to Torsades de Pointes and long QT-interval syndrome combined. This concerns the entirety of HCQ use over more than 50 years of data, likely millions of uses and of longer-term use than the 5 days recommended for Covid-19 treatment. ... These very small numbers of arrhythmias, as well as the null results in this very large empirical study should therefore put to rest the anxieties about population excess mortality of HCQ+AZ outpatient use, either from cardiac arrhythmias, or as mortality from all causes.... No studies of Covid-19 outpatient HCQ+AZ use have shown higher mortality with such use than without, cardiac ORIGINAL arrhythmias included, thus there is no empirical downside to this combined medication use.... But for the great majority, I conclude that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline, preferably with zinc (47) can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better, whether that could be remdesivir or something else.
  17. actually i'm not arguing anything. i'm posting what i know to be facts. and as of now, covid 19 seems to be about 20+ times less severe than the 1918 pandemic in regards to deaths. i have no need nor desire to spin things, situations, or facts. i've explicitly stated that i see the relevance of stormin normans suggestion that the precautions that WERE taken is the reason of the current situation. OTOH, what i see locally doesn't agree with that observation. plus, i've given at least a workable model for keeping auto manufacturers in business and it isn't the only solution available, nor will it apply to every employer, but at least it's a start on how we can keep people working. BTW, i believe i could buy a full face gas mask for less than the stimulus payment i received from the government.
  18. Trump has been right all along despite some here believing in fake news. Dated May 28. http://covexit.com/yale-epidemiology-professor-urges-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-early-therapy-for-covid-19/ “Available evidence of efficacy of HCQ+AZ has been repeatedly described in the media as “anecdotal,” but most certainly is not.” A new article to be published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, calls for hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin to be made widely available and promoted immediately for physicians, to be prescribed for early outpatient treatment. The article, titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis,” is authored by Professor Harvey Risch, MD, from Yale University. Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine. Dr. Risch received his MD degree from the University of California San Diego and PhD from the University of Chicago. He was a faculty member in epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Toronto before coming to Yale. Find his complete bio here. We Cannot Afford the Luxury of Perfect Knowledge Professor Risch recognizes that, in an ideal world, randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trials are preferable, yet, regarding ongoing randomized trials with HCQ+AZ, he notes: “For the earliest trial, between now and September, assuming a flat epidemic curve of 10,000 deaths per week, I estimate that approximately 180,000 more deaths will occur in the US before the trial results are known.” “In this context, we cannot afford the luxury of perfect knowledge and must evaluate, now and on an ongoing basis, the evidence for benefit and risk of these medications.” The author describes various studies. He also compares the case fatality rates typically observed without treatment to those with HCQ+AZ treatment. For example, he notes that there was 12-13% mortality of hospitalized patients receiving placebos in the remdesivir trials both by Wang et al and in the ACT trials sponsored by NIH. Professor Risch also discusses the issue of adverse events, which brings him to conclude that: “the FDA, NIH and cardiology society warnings about cardiac arrhythmia adverse events, while appropriate for theoretical and physiological considerations about use of these medications, are not borne out in mortality in real-world usage of them.” “It would therefore be incumbent upon all three organizations to reevaluate their positions as soon as possible,” writes Professor Risch. It is Our Obligation Not to Stand By The analysis by Professor Risch brings him to the following concluding remarks. “Some people will have contraindications and will need other agents for treatment or to remain in isolation. But for the great majority, I conclude that HCQ+AZ and HCQ+doxycycline, preferably with zinc can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better, whether that could be remdesivir or something else.” “It is our obligation not to stand by, just “carefully watching,” as the old and infirm and inner city of us are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment.” “We have a solution, imperfect, to attempt to deal with the disease. We have to let physicians employing good clinical judgement use it and informed patients choose it.” “There is a small chance that it may not work. But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it …” “… but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations.”
  19. Whoever fired Bright had good reason to! https://aapsonline.org/fda-bureaucrat-brags-he-blocked-physician-prescribing-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-early-covid-19/ FDA Bureaucrat Brags On Blocking Physicians Prescribing Hydroxychloroqine in Early COVID-19 By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. How could a cheap, effective drug, FDA-approved and in use worldwide since 1955, suddenly be restricted for outpatient use by American physicians? On March 28, 2020, as physicians worldwide were seeing striking success using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, the FDA erected bureaucratic barriers. Rick Bright, Ph.D., is an FDA bureaucrat, vaccine researcher, and was appointed by President Obama on November 15, 2016 to head BARDA (Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority, a sub-agency of the FDA). In an unprecedented move, Bright expanded his power and claimed credit for being the person imposing his will on all of us. In an appalling admission, Bright said: “Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit.” Meanwhile, he promoted both remdesivir, a never-approved experimental antiviral in development by Gilead Sciences, and a vaccine for COVID-19. Early effective use of the older, safe, and available hydroxychloroquine, whose patents had expired decades ago, would decrease demand for these new products. Rick Bright’s dictatorial decree restricts the use of chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) from the National Strategic Stockpile in COVID-19 to hospitalized patients only. States are using Bright’s fiat to impose broad restrictions limiting the drugs’ availability for physicians to use for outpatients to help them recover without hospitalization. In other countries, early use in outpatients is changing the life-and-death equation by reducing severity and spread of illness, greatly reducing the need for hospitalization and ventilators and markedly reducing deaths. By his own admission, Rick Bright, who is not a physician, knowingly and unilaterally countermanded Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, Admiral Giroir in charge of Public Health Service and the President of the United States, who had directed BARDA to establish a Nationwide Expanded Access Investigational New Drug (“IND”) protocol for chloroquine, which would provide significantly greater outpatient access for the drug than would an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Unlike an EUA, a Nationwide Expanded Access IND protocol would make the drug available for the treatment of COVID-19 outside a hospital setting at physicians’ medical discretion based on patients’ needs. How does one non-physician bureaucrat have such power with impunity? How can one person brag about blocking physicians’ attempt to reduce hospitalization and deaths during a national emergency? It is a falsehood to say that the administration promoted HCQ as a “panacea” or that this medicine “clearly lacks scientific merit.” Both statements are contradicted by video recordings of Presidential briefings, by NIH/CDC studies going back 15 years, and by U.S. and worldwide clinical outcomes studies in COVID-19. It is unprecedented to restrict physicians from prescribing FDA-approved drugs for a newly discovered use—“off-label.” This is contrary to FDA regulations in place since World War II. Basic science studies published in 2005 from our own CDC and NIH showed clearly that CQ and HCQ work early in SARS-CoV to block viral entry and multiplication, and suggested that they would not work as well in late-stage disease when the viral load had become huge. When SARS-CoV-1 waned and disappeared by late 2003, the drugs were not submitted for FDA-approval for this coronavirus. In 2019, when Chinese doctors recognized the deadly impact of SARS-CoV-2, they began trying known and available anti-viral medicines, especially CQ and HCQ, based on 15-year-old studies. They shared information with South Korea, India, Turkey, Iran, and several other countries, who also began quickly and successfully using CQ and HCQ, alone or with azithromycin. Later, Brazil, Israel, Costa Rica, Australia, and others followed, with good results . Based on these initial clinical reports, President Trump said, at an early press briefing, that CQ and HCQ “offered hope.” More studies have replicated these findings. HCQ given within the first week of symptoms, especially with zinc, can prevent the virus from entering your body’s cells and taking over, much like people use locks and alarms to stop burglaries. Waiting until you are in the ICU is like installing home locks and alarm system after burglars have invaded, vandalized your home, and stolen all your valuables. The drugs cannot reliably undo the damage from the exaggerated immune response, or cytokine storm, triggered by COVID-19. Examples from the world data on May 18, 2020, which is updated daily, show how Third-World countries are faring far better than the U.S., where entrenched bureaucrats, governors, and medical and pharmacy boards are interfering with physicians’ medical decisions. Instead of orchestrating a war on HCQ, the media should be asking key questions, such as: How does ONE person, by his own admission, block directives from his superiors to expand availability of HCQ for outpatients and nursing home patients in the U.S.?What is the cost in lives and economic damage resulting from one person’s decision to restrict physicians’ independent medical decision-making?How many nursing home deaths could have been prevented if physicians had been allowed early access to HCQ?Why are U.S. doctors and nurses prevented from using HCQ prophylactically when workers in China, South Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Israel, Australia, Turkey, France, and other countries can be protected?Why does the U.S. with its a much more sophisticated medical infrastructure have a much higher mortality rate than poor countries? Bright’s disastrous bureaucratic decision may well be remembered as one of the worst preventable medical tragedies in our time. Never again should one government employee be allowed unrestrained power without oversight, and allowed to make a sweeping order interfering with the prescribing authority of front-line physicians trying to save lives.
  20. Thankfully this site has a very effective search function. Plus as for me, if you had not mentioned IN THIS THREAD the new topic regarding risks of lockdown I would have never known. If it were posted here I would have. But I'm not going do back and forth on it.
  21. If there was a workable alternative available, don't you think Ford would have done that instead of shutting down? Do you think they'd have that on hand, or might it take time and money to procure and distribute them? I think at this point pretty much everyone is aware of the steps we can take individually to reduce the spread. Enough to staff a whole line? Keep in mind that we're talking about a number of specialized roles here, not 800 completely interchangeable people. Leaving aside that the type of UV that is effective at killing viruses is pretty bad for humans and some types of material, we're back to the cost and time required to implemenet the plan, only now we're talking about an uncertain process and much more complicated equipment. A higher level of risk doesn't guarantee that the risk will be realized. You may be able to drive without your seatbelt on without any problems for a very long time, but we don't wear seatbelts because we will definitely die without them or because we definitely won't die with them, it's about improving the odds. Nobody said this was on par with the single worst pandemic in human history, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. Because someone who has contacted you dying from an aspirin overdose or penicillin allergy doesn't imply a risk to you, unless the contact was them pouring a bunch of aspirin in your mouth. The risks of those things are adequately addressed by education about proper use, safety measures for people who don't or can't understand that proper use, and testing for allergies or particular vulnerability. I would imagine less than the number caused by cancer itself, which is pretty much the point. Are you implying that young people don't/shouldn't worry about cancer? How is that comparison in any way relevant? Sure, this virus isn't as dangerous to those employees as the entire rest of the world combined, but the sources and means to mitigate those risks are enormously varied, as opposed to a single and very addressable risk of someone in the building they have to be in having a communicable disease. What you're arguing seems like standing around in a lightning storm with a metal pole, and telling people who question you that statistically speaking it's more likely you'll die from cancer than a lightning strike. It may actually be true, but the point is that there's an obvious and immediate way to reduce one of those risks, not that it is the only risk you should ever worry about. Not as much as they should, but the idea the government doesn't do anything at all to prevent cancer deaths is absurdly wrong.
  22. If the fossil record only represents a tiny tiny portion and sample of what was alive in the early world, then it is not a record of life on earth! It would only be a record of a tiny tiny part of what lived. God told Adam he would return to dust. If we had our bodies decomposed so fast in the past that we could not leave fossil remains, we would not be in that early record. That does not mean we were not alive. If the nature of the past was different, and man and most animals decomposed extremely fast, then most life on earth would not be in that fossil record. Only the very few creatures that could, for whatever reasons in that different nature in the past would be fossilized. This means man and most creatures were alive and well at the same time the trilobites or dinosaurs lived, but that most of us could not leave remains. It doesn't matter why. One could guess that there may have been a large number of bacteria/worms/fungi/little creatures/creatures/insects/etc that specialized in various corpse disposal. Even today there are such natural recyclers around, one example being the snotworm. (they specialize in disposing of dead whale remains) Looking at Scripture we do notice that life was very different, trees grew in weeks, and people lived nearly 1000 years etc. This indicates to me that nature was different then. From dust we were created, and to dust we used to return, probably too fast to leave remains.
  23. actually i was talking about all accidents, auto, home, and industrial. this comes to approximately 200,000 per year. if you want to include cancer, which most of the cases has an environmental cause, we have about 600,000 per year. you most certainly DO NOT see the government going after big business to clean up its act in regards to cancer deaths. OTOH, i most certainly see the point in taking precautions in regards to COVID 19. i will continue to wear my mask and gloves even though my mask makes it hard for me to breath. i suspect it's hard for others to breath as well. one walmart employee continually pulled her mask down from her nose to breath easier.
  24. agreed. one thread that has a variety of discussion will have a broader readership than a thread of a single discussion. if you don't like a particular discussion you can always skip that part. evolution has more to do with the thread title than either covid 19 or trump/ biden. please don't be offended by the poll like nature of my post
  25. Hey ! ! ! Last time I suggested a new topic, someone told me to "MYOB." Do you know who that might have been? How many subjects have we discussed under this single topic heading that have absolutely nothing to do with the OP? Here's one .... hydroxychloroquine. Trump's response to COVID-19 is another. I bet I can go back and find at least 10 good, extended topics we've had in the nearly 70 pages of this one. I just don't understand why a single topic that runs 70 pages is better than 7 topics of 10 pages each. Or even 14 topics of 5 pages each Speaking for myself only .... when I browse the net and happen on a new forum I will look to see what's being discussed. When there are a half dozen conversations on different topics going on, I'm a lot more likely to stick around ..... and maybe even join ...... than if everything is bundled into a single 70 page discussion. Comments ? ? ?
  26. It's a fair and reasonable point. I suggest Fred's topic at: https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6940-25-ways-the-shutdown-kills-conspiracy-list/
  27. On Fox tonight...Brad Hunstable was interviewed about his 12 year old son who killed himself because of despair and isolation due to the lockdown. IF suicides and overdose deaths go up (say) 30%, not to mention alcoholism deaths, or certain muders from domestic abuse...it would probably rival if not exceed the virus itself. If people want a FAIR non-political picture, they should try to model THAT.
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

Our Terms