This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today radio program originally aired on May 5, 2021. To listen to the program, please click HERE.
Sam Rohrer: Well, hello and welcome to Stand in the Gap today. I’m Sam Rohrer and I’m going to be joined today by Dr. Gary Dull, and in just a moment by Dr. Marilyn Singleton. She’s a board certified anesthesiologist and immediate past president Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Now on this program, we present the news of the day from a biblical and constitutional perspective. We intentionally address issues that we feel are of greatest cultural importance or leading headline news. And with truth as our goal, we frequently choose issues left unaddressed by others. And my goal for all of our Stand in the Gap radio and TV programs and all of our co-hosts is to choose leading issues affecting us all, but then look beneath the surface to identify, as much as we can, the root problem, the cause, and then to always present a truth-based and biblical solution.
And that’s because we believe that the word of God holds the answers for all issues of life. So if it does, and we believe that then let’s keep going there. And that’s what we try to do. The title of today’s program is this: Redefining Bioethics, the Implications of Medicine Without Morality. Now, in these days of COVID panic policies, operating under their suspension of national, and in many respects, state law… Everything that’s taking place, ladies and gentlemen, you’ve got to remember is operating under suspended law because of the national emergency declaration by the president. It’s allowing all kinds of things to happen. And one of those is the abortive, I’m using that word strategically, the abortive jettisoning of established restraining law when it comes to medical approvals and qualified biological research. And it’s shocking the world. Law and restraints carefully put into place years gone by to protect the health and safety of the public generally, and to ensure boundaries in human research and experimentation, and the open discussion of morality in medicine generally, which is referred to as ethics, all of that today has just been thrown out. It’s absent from any discussion.
When’s the last time you heard anything about ethics or the morality in the policies being put in place? They’re gone, all because we’re saying we have an emergency and we’ve got to put into effect untested this and untested that, totally unanchored from pre-existing law. There’s a reason for what is happening. For instance, these kinds of questions are coming up, or they should. Is it really a problem if we permit the experimentation of growing babies in a Petri dish? Now that’s not a COVID question, but it’s coming up in this umbrella where we’re under suspended law. Should we be concerned if slices of animal DNA, for instance, are inserted into human DNA, so perhaps the human can see like an eagle or run like a gazelle? Should experimentation be done on human subjects without full consent?
Is there any reason to consider, another question, that the Nazi experimentations on millions of human subjects and then the law put into place after the Nuremberg trials, that it should be observed today, or can we discount that now? Well, these are real issues, real importance, and the essence of what should be a robust, modern debate, but it’s not happening. And in the midst of this developing brave new world where people are setting aside knowledge and truth and law and moral restraint, secret and unlawful strategic experimentations and research are becoming known, and should alarm us all.
So today I want to introduce this issue, provide some background, some examples of where we are, consider some implications of living in a moral-less world of medicine and research. And then we’re going to conclude with some foundational, biblical and scientific reasons why there must be biblical morality standards that define and limit what is referred to as bioethics. And with that, let me welcome in right now, Dr. Singleton. Thank you for being with us, Marilyn.
Marilyn Singlet…: Oh, I am so happy to be here. Thank you for having me.
Sam Rohrer: Marilyn, I have a longer introduction here just because of the nature of this, but you recently wrote an article you entitled Of Mice and Men, where you cited an example of some recent experimentation. And you said this, “Freshly obtained aborted fetal tissue is being used to create humanized mice.” And we’re going to talk about that in the next segment, ladies and gentlemen, so hold on. You want to hear this. However, I would like to establish first the definition and the need for clear and culturally agreed to bioethics. Let me just define it right now and then get your thoughts on it.
The definition of bioethics, ladies and gentlemen, is this. It’s the ethics of medical and biological research, the ethics in medical and biological research. But the definition of ethics is this. It’s a set of moral principles, specifically ones relating to or affirming a specific group or field. So in effect, bioethics is a set of moral principles relating to or affirming the area of medical and biological research. Okay, get that? Now we’re going to build off of that. Marilyn, why is it important, as a medical person, that there is a defined set of moral principles to limit or guide medicine and biological research?
Marilyn Singlet…: Certainly these principles started way back when, in the age of Hippocrates, who many people consider the father of medicine, when he didn’t say it exactly this way, but we use this idea of first do no harm as an overarching principle of anything we do in medicine. And today, scientists have so much power, so much knowledge, this ‘do no harm’ is more important than ever, because it is so easy to do harm to patients all under the guise of well, we’re helping a lot more. And this whole idea of helping the many, and it doesn’t matter what you do to the few, has sort of creeped in to our culture as sort of one of these utopian agendas where it’s okay if a few people suffer as long as more people stand to gain from something. But that is not how we are trained in medicine, you are trained to take care of the individual patient and do what you can for that individual and not harm that individual. And [crosstalk 00:06:48] to do that.
Gary Dull: With that being said, Marilyn, let me just jump in here because we’re very close to the end of this segment. So in your opinion, have we witnessed the major redefining of the set of moral principles in bioethics in America and in the world in the last 10 to 15 years? If so, what are you seeing that really is quite disturbing in this year?
Marilyn Singlet…: What we see so much is the advancement of scientific research, and immediately the scientists know that they have crossed a line and come up with justifications, that really aren’t justifiable. Because we have to remember, you should always find a way to do something that is the least harmful to patients and we’ve crossed over that line.
Sam Rohrer: Marilyn, you and I talked yesterday. You used a phrase, I’ll use it right now. You said, “We’re actually in a time when science has moved ahead of moral principles.” That’s part what you’re saying. And ladies and gentlemen, the impacts are enormous. Stay with us. We’ll be back. Our theme today is redefining bioethics, the implications of medicine without morality. Our special guest, Dr. Marilyn Singleton.
Sam Rohrer: Well, welcome back to Stand in the Gap today. And again, we’re dealing with a subject that we have not dealt with on this program before, but I thought it was one of most significance that we ought to bring it up. And I’m going to say, we are not going to deal with this comprehensively because we just cannot do it within the space of an hour. But I have entitled this Redefining Bioethics, the Implications of Medicine Without Morality. And my special guest is Dr. Marilyn Singleton. She’s an anesthesiologist, board certified immediate past president of Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. And she also has law training at UC Berkeley Law School focusing on constitutional and administrative law. So within the area of bioethics, we defined it as that set of moral restraint or moral guidelines that undergirds a particular area, in this case, bio, meaning medical and biological research.
Now, the advancement of medicine and technology has really brought with it great gains, hasn’t it, when it comes to human health? The combating of disease, the treatment of physical ailments of many types. The increased knowledge though of how the human body works has really had a significant impact. For instance, the ability to bring to bear technology, to analyze blood or body functions, or do things like MRI imaging or x-ray picturing or laser and robotic surgery to organ transplants, as an example. They’ve all resulted in really wonderful gains. And I think these gains can be said to be blessings from God and the result of the applied gifts of intellect that God gave mankind combined with the pursuit of truth, which are all given by God and encouraged by him of us.
However, the understanding that moral constraints are both necessary for practical reasons and demanded by God for moral reasons in every area of life, from engineering to medicine, to politics and law to all of life and living, was once commonly accepted in generations past. It produced a professional restraint, put it that way, backed up by civil laws and supported by moral truth. I’m going to say as preached from the pulpits. But this set of principles, I think for all practical purposes, has pretty much been thrown out the window. I don’t see it much being applied to today. I think that’s the issue.
So Marilyn, I want to go back to you for right now and ask you to give some further examples in this segment. I’m going to talk about bioresearch restrained, done the proper way. Can you give some practical examples of medicine and biological research, and I’ve referenced a few, build on them and go wherever, that involves cutting-edge technology or common practices? For instance, that are used, which represent morally legitimate and bioethically consistent practices. So tell us what medicine has been like or things that are being done that are not any kind of a violation of bioethics.
Marilyn Singlet…: Well, some of the things, and since we will be talking about animal to human, human to animal combinations, let me just bring up just way back when, in the late 1960s, for burn patients, we used pig skin to put over the open burns, that that worked better than just regular dressings. And somebody could say, “Oh my goodness, it’s from a pig,” but this was not going to get involved in the patient’s DNA, RNA or anything like this. This was something that was going to be discarded anyway, and it turned out by happenstance that it helped the burn victim.
And then as you mentioned, we have other kinds of transplants. And interestingly, when face transplants were developed, this is pretty brand new and there is a big ethical choice to be made, because one could argue that the side effects from having to take the agents that people do when they have a transplant so they won’t reject the transplant, they say, “Well, do you really need a new face?” Well, for the person whose face has been destroyed in war or ripped off in an accident and basically has no life because they’ve never left their house, they can’t even look at their family members et cetera, that it was decided that yes, it was worth the side effects of the anti-rejection agents. And so there’s a solid discussion that went on.
Now that we’ve gone in this area of embryonic transplants basically, that sometimes I wonder, have people really stopped to think about where they have gone? And the answer always comes back is, “This will help people in the future.” But is that a proper answer? And in my view, no, that we can find other ways other than starting to tinker with DNA and combine DNA in ways that really seem quite unnatural.
Gary Dull: Almost seems to me, based upon what you just said there, Marilyn, that many times in the medical sciences shortcuts are taken that should be avoided as it relates to some of this research. And it’s just interesting what you said. You know, as Sam mentioned a moment ago, you’re not only a medical expert, but you also have a legal background from UC Berkeley Law School, where you focused on constitutional and administrative law. So from your perspective, why do you think it’s necessary for there to be a common view of morality and ethics among law, medicine and research, and particularly what happens if they do not agree? Or what happens if new definitions are set forth among some of this research in law with medicine and research? What are your thoughts on that?
Marilyn Singlet…: One of the biggest things that has bothered, not only myself, but many of my colleagues, that’s come out of this current era is the idea that we have stopped medical discussion, medical/legal discussion. Again saying, “Well, we have a pandemic so anything goes.” That’s just not morally right, and technically not really legally right. And we have to sit down, have discussions between legal theorists, people who are actually practicing medicine, not just people who sit in the ivory tower and think about it. And go back and say, “Okay, look at what the…” Here’s something I can tell you, an example of the intersection of law and medicine. Back in the 1920s, a very revered Supreme Court justice made an appalling decision that is yet to be overturned. And this was about forced sterilizations.
A woman who was not mentally ill was forced to be sterilized, and she sued the institution. And ultimately, the institution won. And the judge said something shocking, “Three generations of imbeciles is more than enough.” So he made the decision about giving birth. And the woman wasn’t even an imbecile. And this continued on until 1981 was the last forced sterilization that we know of. In the South, there was something called a Mississippi appendectomy, which in other words, was actually tying someone’s tubes and just telling them they were having an appendectomy. So this sort of stuff has gone on at less high scientific level, but it has gone on and has shown us that men are not angels. And that’s why we need a moral code and we have to stick to it once we have it.
Sam Rohrer: And Marilyn, I had forgotten all about that example. I have heard that now, and you reminded us of that. But it does go, and I think you used the right word, the intersection of law and medicine. Because law, as I said in my setup, has to be underneath to guard the rights of the people. We would say the God-given rights of people. And if that is not reflective in the law, then it allows research to go basically anywhere. When I was doing some research on this, you can’t Google anything about bioethics without finding something in the process, for instance, that takes you back to the Nuremberg trials with the Nazis’ experimentation. That was an example of redefined law and research, wasn’t it?
Marilyn Singlet…: Absolutely. And fortunately, because of the Nazi experiments, we have the Nuremberg Code, and the first principle is voluntary consent of human subjects is, as they say, absolutely essential. And many things that we come into, just what I mentioned with the sterilization, and there’s many other things, there’s many other examples. There’s an example of the United States government dropping a bacterium over seven or eight major cities just to test it and see how virulent it was. The people didn’t know. And in fact, some people got sick. And it took a long time and it… This happened in the ’60s, and by the ’90s there was a congressional hearing about it and the United States admitted that they did it. I mean, there’s really several examples of this. And of course, everyone has heard of the Tuskegee experiment.
Sam Rohrer: Save that. We’re going to touch on that in the next segment, a little bit, Marilyn. Ladies and gentlemen, we were talking here just in this segment about restrained bioethics. In other words, when morality is in place, certain things, really good things can happen, but it doesn’t take much that it gets off track. Now when we come back in the next segment, we’re going to talk a little bit about what Marilyn referred to as the mice and the men, and we’ll talk about the Tuskegee experiment and I’ll share some other things that are taking place in the next segment. We’ll be right back.
Welcome back to Stand in the Gap today. And we’re going to continue on our theme, which is this, redefining of bioethics, which has been taking place. I’m terming it the implications of medicine without morality. Again, our special guest is Dr. Marilyn Singleton, immediate past president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Last segment we talked a little bit about examples of restraint. We’ll put it that way. Morally restrained medical and biological research and things that have happened, of which there have been many, many good things, but we also concluded with highlighting an example of extraordinarily unrestrained, moral restraint, whether you go to Hitler’s experimentations or more. There’s a lot more, and we’ll touch on some of them in the segment.
Because history is replete with examples of redefined morality, which when that happens, there is of necessity a throwing off of God-imposed restraints that God puts on humankind, and the demonic experimentation, for instance, of the Nazi regime. And they were bent on creating a super breed of mankind that they defined in their evil minds. It still stands in the history books, but it seems to be fleeting in terms of the memory of modern day people. And certainly by application, the things that were put in place after the Nuremberg trials effectively right now are being discarded. They’re not being followed.
So for those who throw off God, the author of truth and the definer of morality, there is nothing left when that happens, but an all-out race to the bottom. That’s the only thing that can happen. These godless elite, these who think they are more worthy than others also place no value in others who they deem less worthy, because they’ve taken God out of the picture, and they proceed on many occasions to kill, to torture and to maim those who they deem to be less worthy. And all the atheist ideologies, Marxist, globalist, communist ideologies, they all stand as prime examples that should instruct us today. So think about that in light of our discussion, what we see happening around us today.
So Marilyn, let me get back to you for some further discussion here, because in the first segment I did cite your recent article, and it’s what first caught my attention and made me reach out to you. You’ve been on our program before, but that was interesting because you said there, freshly obtained aborted fetal tissue is being used to create, as you said, humanized mice. Wow. So if you don’t mind, share with us a bit more about what you were referring to when you made that statement, and why it is an example of bioethics unrestrained.
Marilyn Singlet…: What a humanized mouse is, just to explain, and this has gone on for several years, the first time they did it was take some human liver cells and transplant them onto a mouse liver. And these were stem cells. And then the mouse liver completely turned into cells that look like a human liver so they could use those cells to do human experimentation on. And now they’re doing the same thing with lung tissue. And this is what’s taking these fresh aborted fetal tissue. And this is the tissue that’s being purchased actually by the US government, and to grow lung cells. And now of course it’s justified because they will say we’re learning more about COVID and how it affects the lung by having this mouse lung literally turn into a human lung.
Gary Dull: Totally amazing. I’ll tell you. It really is. And Dr. Singleton, there is a disturbing increase in the accounts of adverse effects stemming from the COVID mRNA rejections that are creating miscarriages and certainly grave concerns about sterility and other things taking place out there as a result. But is it not true that there are other examples of unrestrained bioethics that have targeted women in particular, and entire races of people in the area of eugenics? And can you please share with our listeners an example of this and tie it together with what we may or may not be seeing taking place around us today?
Marilyn Singlet…: Well, as I mentioned, we had the forced sterilizations, and this stemmed out of the concept of eugenics, that what could be wrong? We just want to make our people are better. And this actually had tons of very intelligent people buy into this concept that you just removed the so-called undesirables, the drunkards, the degenerates, and remove them from society, and that we would have a better society. When we say it now, it sounds, I don’t know, kind of immoral. Yet on the other hand, we’re still doing that, but it’s just couched in other terms. It’s couched in terms of we’re going to give the healthcare to the people who can benefit the most from it. And if somebody is really bad off, they don’t need the resources. All we have done is changed the terminology, but the concept of only improving those who were the best by someone else’s definition and letting the dregs just fall to the wayside. And clearly this is immoral, excuse me, and changing the terminology doesn’t suddenly make it right.
Sam Rohrer: No it doesn’t. And that takes me back Marilyn, all the way to, again, back to the days of Germany, where we’re going to eliminate the deaf. We’re going to eliminate the disabled. We’re going to eliminate those who have other problems. As a former legislator, it was the kind of thing that follows into policies being talked about when I was in office and still now, and that is with the disabled and the baby who may have a deformity so we’re going to abort that baby. I mean, it’s the same mentality that says we can sit here and we can determine the value of someone else’s life based on whatever it is. And in most cases, it sounds really good, except if you consider the implications of it, which then becomes extraordinarily dangerous.
Now, one other area here, I just want to get your comment on. You mentioned it earlier, and I did in my setup as well. Just google, for instance, the phrase animals and humans, and you’ll find all kinds of things. Because out there happening, and has been happening a long time, are experimentations where you’re interconnecting, taking out a splice, a slice of DNA, from an animal and putting it into a human being. You’ll just find all kinds of things out there. And there are examples, and I’m looking at some of them right now. Japan, this was 2019. Japan approved experiments that would allow for animal-human hybrids to be born alive for the first time. Law, once prohibiting, are now coming in permitting experimentations. There are animal-human hybrids.
There are experimentations, I’m looking, with creating animal embryos that contain human cells and they transplant into animals. The UK has now permitted… They once prohibited it. They now permit experimentations, and here’s just one. Human-monkey, chimeras they’re called, embryos. That’s happening in China. It’s happening in the UK. Human-pig, whole host of other things. This is happening a lot, and that’s what I’m saying the doors have been opened. Marilyn, when you look at that kind of a thing, and I’m going to put in here and ask for your comment… Because to some degree, the interconnecting of DNA with animal and human, I want you to give your comments, but then there’s also the integration of technology and humans, which is exactly what the mRNA injection, it’s called the COVID injections, it’s technology, a human gene splicing stuck into the human body to make it do something that it otherwise wouldn’t naturally do it. They’re all hoping that it may be good. Some are. But so you have technology and you have the actual connecting of human and animal DNA. Speak to me about your thoughts on that.
Marilyn Singlet…: Well, first of all, listening to it coming out of your mouth is so different from me just sitting there, reading about it, that somehow it shows how stunning this is that someone would actually take human stem cells and put them to monkey embryos, and be happy about it and show that these combined. And you wonder, what on earth are they thinking? And again, saying, “Oh, this allows for research.” Well, perhaps we can find out the answers to disease processes in other ways, because this gets you into the idea. And what you mentioned with introducing the messenger RNA for the injections for COVID is what I call robo-babies, where can we have these synthetic embryos, which they’ve already managed to do, and they call it a blastoid because they aren’t real human embryos, but they started off with human cells.
Sam Rohrer: And Marilyn, we’re going to have to stop. Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us. We’ve laid a bunch of things out here, but I want to come back now and bring some solution to this. How do you establish the biblical and scientific truth standards to keep your bioethics safe?
Sam Rohrer: In this strange day that we find ourselves in, 2021… And aren’t these strange days? They really are. Truth, and we’ve talked so much about it here, truth has been thrown down when it comes to law and justice. It’s been thrown down when it comes to medicine and research and bioethics, that set of moral restraints or constraints that apply to, in this case medicine and biological research. That’s bioethics. But lawlessness, as a result of jettisoning truth, aborting truth, let’s up that way, we see it in education, in the media. It’s everywhere. The result is when that happens you end up with an unrestrained and lawless attitude of people generally, led by then people in positions of leadership, the law makers, who have purposely rejected God as creator, God as therefore judge, and they have to, of necessity, then reject the Bible. And it all hooks together, the source of unchanging truth.
And the result of that, we know through history and what the Bible says, that when that happens, these people with this attitude, they themselves become unrestrained and not subject to any law except to the law they create in their own minds. That’s exactly what the scripture says. It’s exactly what we’re seeing. The real dilemma occurs when the pulpits, the church, those in positions of designated moral leadership also look to other places or to themselves for moral restraint and the defining of ethics. All right, that’s the dilemma that I’m putting out there right now. So let’s try and resolve this a little bit in this last segment.
Gary, since the foundation of bioethics, or ethics of any type as we’ve talked about here, starts with morality, I want you to go and give us just a little bit of apologetic, a little bit of defense of scripture, or the basis from a biblical perspective. And I’m going to ask you in this way. We’ve laid two active examples here on the program today. One of integrating technology with medicine and research, could be the mRNA, any of that type of thing that’s happening. We’ve talked about that and so forth. And the other is actually using the computer to snip out portions of DNA or RNA and inserting them from a human into an animal or from an animal into a human. We’ve had that discussion.
So that being the case, could you identify just a couple, because could be many, but identify a couple of biblical principles that must be considered in these areas if we are to maintain a biblically and morally consistent defined set of bioethics. On simple terms, what’s wrong with mixing human and animal DNA, as an example? Or what’s wrong with injecting technology into a human body, forcing it to do things that God did not intend for it to do?
Gary Dull: Well, Sam, that’s a great question. And I could answer it by saying everything’s wrong with it from the biblical and moral perspective. You said something there in introducing this particular segment that really lays the foundation for everything that we’re dealing with today. And that is the fact that many in positions of leadership have purposely rejected God as creator and judge, and they’ve rejected the Bible as the source of life and truth. And that has happened. And that’s why we are where we are today. Mankind, Sam, is trying to play God. Mankind today, unsaved mankind today, in science and medicine and law and so many other areas, even in religion, mankind is trying to replace God and put God out of the picture. You know, I remember years ago when they first started talking about the test tube babies. I’m thinking, “Oh, that could never happen.” But look how we’ve gone down the road since then. And I would say down the hill since then, probably.
There is something that we need to take into consideration. Two thoughts. Number one, we need to remember that God is the creator of life. The Bible teaches us that all throughout the pages of scripture. In Psalm 139 in verse 14, it says this, “I will praise thee for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works and that my soul knoweth right well.” God made us the way that he wanted us to be. And as we follow that through and look back into the book of Genesis, for instance, it is God who created animals separate from the human race. Genesis chapter one, verses 20 through 25 reminds us that he created the animals after their kind. And then he also created mankind in his own image, that is, in God’s own image. And that was a very good act that he did. According to Genesis chapter one, verses 26 through 28, the two are not to be combined.
Science is not to be messing with God’s creation. Science should let God be God. And what’s taking place today, Sam, is that science is stepping out of bounds and God won’t tolerate it. And I want to say two things briefly to those who are listening right now in light of what we’ve said today. And let me preface that by saying, don’t be gullible. Don’t just accept everything that comes along. Number one, we need to be aware of what’s going on in the world of science and medicine today. Don’t be ignorant, ladies and gentlemen, in that area.
And then secondly, we must do all that we can not to tolerate or participate with any scientific or medical experimental ways or procedures that will violate biblical truth. When you go to the doctor and he’s talking to you about some type of surgery or some type of a vaccine or some type of an injection, find out all about it. Are they trying to change your DNA? If so, they’re trying to change you based upon the way God’s made you. And that’s pretty serious business, Sam.
Sam Rohrer: It really is. And Marilyn, unfortunately we don’t have much time, but I’ve got to… Just very simply, within a minute here if you can, what truths or standards must be observed, in these two examples, from a focused medical and scientific perspective to keep us in the safe zone? Let’s put it that way.
Marilyn Singlet…: Let’s not change the natural order of things. Just because science can do something, it doesn’t mean it should do something. And this does not mean stopping scientific research or going back to the dark ages of medicine. We have advanced for many years without tinkering with God’s creation. And it does not mean, I say again, that we are going to go backwards. We can go forward, but we can go forward in a moral way.
Sam Rohrer: Marilyn, well-stated. Gary, thank you for that. And ladies and gentlemen, again, as I said, we’ve just laid out the foundation of this important area, but this is the practical application. A biblical worldview, if you have it, which we know most of the country does not, but if you have it and you believe the word of God, everything we consider must be taken from that perspective. So if someone stands up and says, “Oh, well you don’t believe science, therefore you are not a very good person,” well, no. No, that doesn’t mean it. If they say, “I don’t believe God first,” then it says something about them. This is all about order.
Here are a few thoughts I’ll conclude with, as I was thinking about this. This whole approach of bioethics starts with a person’s worldview. Either it starts with God or it doesn’t. If it starts with God, God is a God of order. He created distinctions and we have to keep them in place. Here are the distinctions. There’s a difference between God and creation. There’s a difference between animal and human. There’s a difference between male and female. There’s a difference between good and evil. And each of these distinctions is not only moral and spiritually significant, but they also entail a definite restriction on human activity and intervention.
And every consideration involving any crossing of these lines cannot be safely made by human thought alone. It can only be accurately answered by God and his word, which is why we say seek the truth, embrace the truth, and then live the truth. Stand in the gap. Well, thanks for being with us today. Marilyn, thank you so much for being with us. Appreciate all the work that you do. And ladies and gentlemen, join us tomorrow. We’ll be back here. David New and I and Gary will be right back here. Thanks for being with us today.