RepairSC1 Review and Ads Breakdown: A Research-First Look

What Is RepairSC1?

RepairSC1 is a topical oil, applied directly to skin spots, moles, or lesions, formulated from what the company calls a "proprietary full-spectrum HMP extract." The defining characteristic it claims over competing hemp-based skincare products is completeness: where most CBD or hemp products isolate one or two cannabinoid compounds, RepairSC1 allegedly contains all 165 phytocannabinoids present in the hemp plant, combined through a proprietary extraction process the company says no one else has replicated. The product is manufactured in Florida and sold direct-to-consumer, priced at $79 per bottle with a 90-day money-back guarantee.

The stated target user is any adult with suspicious skin spots, moles, lesions, or growths, with particular emphasis on people who have already received a skin cancer diagnosis or who have been told by a dermatologist that a spot needs monitoring or surgical removal. The VSL also addresses people with sun-damaged skin from decades of unprotected exposure, and frames the product as a preventive tool even for those currently without visible growths. The company positions RepairSC1 not within the cosmetic skincare category but explicitly in the oncology-adjacent space, a positioning that carries significant regulatory and ethical weight.

Physicians Grade sits at the intersection of the booming hemp/CBD market and the fear-driven health supplement sector. Both are large, growing, and historically under-regulated, a combination that creates strong commercial incentives for aggressive claims. Understanding RepairSC1 means understanding both the genuine scientific interest in cannabinoids for oncology applications and the marketing traditions of the direct-response health supplement industry, where extraordinary claims are routine and verification is the exception rather than the rule.

The Problem It Targets

Skin cancer is, by a significant margin, the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. The American Cancer Society does estimate approximately 100,000 new melanoma diagnoses annually, and the broader category of non-melanoma skin cancers, principally basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, accounts for roughly 5.4 million cases per year. The VSL cites these figures accurately, and the underlying epidemiology is real: cumulative UV exposure, fair skin phenotypes, family history, and immune suppression are all established risk factors, and the claim that 1 in 5 Americans will develop some form of skin cancer in their lifetime is consistent with data published by the Skin Cancer Foundation.

What makes this a commercially potent problem is not just its prevalence but its emotional profile. Skin cancer diagnosis, or even the suspicion of it, generates a distinctive combination of anxiety and helplessness, anxiety because the condition is genuinely serious and visually confronting, helplessness because the standard response (see a dermatologist, have the spot biopsied, potentially undergo surgery) is expensive, time-consuming, and involves surrendering agency to a specialist. The VSL identifies this emotional profile with precision, explicitly naming the fear of the dermatologist's office, the cost of surgical procedures, and the distress of waiting for biopsy results as pain points it can resolve.

The VSL also adds a layer of epistemic fear, the claim that doctors routinely miss dangerous spots, that "ghost cells" circulate invisibly through the body after treatment, and that even people who feel fine may have "raging growing skin issues." This expands the addressable audience from those with diagnosed or visibly concerning spots to essentially every adult human being, since all of us have some skin asymmetry, some aging spot, some mole we've wondered about. The category entry point is as broad as human skin itself.

It is worth noting that the VSL's framing of the problem, while rooted in real data, shades into statistical manipulation at several points. The survival-rate comparison, "under 30% to up to 99%" based on early versus late detection, conflates different cancer stages and types in a way that maximizes alarm. The claim that "some aggressive forms can spread to your organs within just six weeks" applies specifically to rare, high-grade malignancies, not the basal cell carcinomas that constitute the vast majority of skin cancer diagnoses. These rhetorical moves are characteristic of what copywriters call agitation in the Problem-Agitate-Solution (PAS) framework, deliberate amplification of the emotional stakes before the solution is presented.

How RepairSC1 Works

The mechanism the VSL proposes runs as follows: the hemp plant contains 165 distinct phytocannabinoids, most of which have never been isolated or studied individually. Competing hemp products extract only one or two of these compounds (typically CBD or a CBD/THC blend). RepairSC1, by contrast, uses the entire plant in a proprietary full-spectrum formulation that retains all 165 compounds simultaneously. This complete phytocannabinoid profile, the VSL argues, produces an effect that no single-compound product can match, specifically, it induces apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancerous cells while leaving adjacent healthy tissue completely unharmed. Additionally, the extract is claimed to have anti-angiogenic properties, meaning it blocks the formation of new blood vessels that tumors require to grow and metastasize.

The concept of cannabinoids influencing cancer cell behavior is not invented. There is a legitimate and growing body of preclinical research, conducted primarily in cell cultures and animal models, suggesting that certain cannabinoids, including CBD and THC, can inhibit cancer cell proliferation through multiple pathways, including apoptosis induction and anti-angiogenesis. A 2019 review published in Oncotarget summarized preclinical findings across multiple cancer types. The National Cancer Institute's own database acknowledges that cannabinoids have demonstrated anti-tumor activity in laboratory settings. These are real findings, and the VSL is not fabricating the underlying scientific territory.

However, there is a substantial and consequential gap between what preclinical research demonstrates and what the VSL claims. Apoptosis induced in isolated cell cultures under controlled laboratory conditions is fundamentally different from clinical efficacy in human patients with active skin cancer. The VSL presents the University of Miami lab results, "100% kill rate of cancer cells within 48 hours", as though they translate directly into a product that cures skin cancer when applied topically at home. This is a significant logical leap, and it is the kind of leap that the FDA specifically prohibits health product marketers from making without full clinical trial evidence. The repeated substitution of "C word" for "cancer" is not a quirk of modesty, it is a legally motivated evasion of FDA regulations that prohibit unapproved disease treatment claims.

The "ghost cell" mechanism is presented as though it is an established oncological concept. While circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are a real subject of cancer research, the VSL's framing, that RepairSC1 can "kill ghost cells anywhere they exist in your body" after topical application, has no credible mechanism to support it. A topical oil applied to a skin surface would have extraordinarily limited systemic bioavailability, and no published evidence supports the claim that topical hemp extract eliminates circulating tumor cells throughout the body.

Curious how other VSLs in this niche structure their pitch? Keep reading, the section below breaks down the psychology behind every claim above.

Key Ingredients / Components

RepairSC1's formulation is built around a single core compound, full-spectrum hemp extract, rather than a multi-ingredient stack. The VSL is notably vague about what else, if anything, the formulation contains beyond the hemp oil itself. What is emphasized is the completeness of the hemp extract's phytocannabinoid profile.

• Full-spectrum hemp extract (all 165 phytocannabinoids), The VSL's foundational claim is that RepairSC1 contains the entire phytocannabinoid complement of the hemp plant, not just CBD or a CBD/THC isolate. Full-spectrum hemp extracts do exist commercially and do contain a broader range of cannabinoids than isolates; the specific number of 165 distinct cannabinoids is within the range cited in botanical literature, though characterizing and standardizing all 165 in a single formulation is technically challenging. No independent third-party Certificate of Analysis (COA) is referenced in the VSL to verify the claimed phytocannabinoid completeness.

• CBD (cannabidiol), The most studied non-psychoactive cannabinoid in the hemp plant. CBD has demonstrated anti-inflammatory, anxiolytic, and neuroprotective effects in clinical research. Some in-vitro studies, including work published in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, suggest CBD can induce apoptosis in certain cancer cell lines. Its efficacy as a standalone topical cancer treatment in humans has not been established in peer-reviewed clinical trials.

• THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), The primary psychoactive compound in cannabis. Hemp-derived products are legally required to contain less than 0.3% THC under the 2018 US Farm Bill. Preclinical research, including studies referenced by the National Cancer Institute, has shown THC can inhibit tumor growth in animal models. At the trace concentrations present in legally compliant hemp extract, systemic anti-tumor effects are unlikely.

• Minor and novel phytocannabinoids (CBG, CBN, CBC, and others), The remaining cannabinoids in the full-spectrum profile are largely unstudied in clinical contexts. Cannabigerol (CBG) and cannabinol (CBN) have shown some preclinical anti-proliferative activity, but none have been evaluated in human clinical trials for skin cancer treatment. The VSL's argument that combining all 165 produces a synergistic effect (sometimes called the "entourage effect" in cannabinoid science) is theoretically plausible but remains unproven at the level of controlled human research.

Hooks and Ad Angles

The VSL's opening hook, "Stop! Are you worried about ugly suspicious spots, bumps, molds, or lesions on your skin right now?", operates as a textbook pattern interrupt, a device that disrupts the viewer's passive scrolling state by issuing a direct command and immediately invoking a visceral, personally relevant fear. The word "Stop" alone triggers an involuntary attentional shift; the inventory of skin pathologies that follows ensures the hook lands for the widest possible audience, since virtually every adult has something on their skin they've wondered about. This is Eugene Schwartz's market sophistication stage awareness at work: the audience already knows skin cancer is dangerous and has likely already searched it, so the hook doesn't waste time educating, it identifies and amplifies an existing fear to create immediate engagement.

What makes the hook particularly well-engineered is that it doubles as a qualification frame: by asking specifically about "suspicious" spots rather than general skincare concerns, it signals to the viewer that this message is not for the mass market but for people with a specific, already-activated worry. That exclusivity paradoxically broadens reach, nearly every viewer will self-qualify, while creating the cognitive sense of receiving a private, targeted message. The follow-up promise of "extreme importance to you" within the next few minutes compounds the open loop, making disengagement psychologically costly.

Secondary hooks observed in the VSL:

• "It's so safe you could drink it", safety reframe that neutralizes the primary objection to an unknown treatment
• "Big Pharma will freak out and try to bury it", conspiracy framing that creates urgency and in-group identity
• "Once it's dead, it's dead. It doesn't come back", definitiveness claim that contrasts with the recurrence anxiety associated with conventional treatment
• "The FDA won't even let me say the C word", regulatory evasion presented as evidence of suppression rather than legal compliance
• "The doctor wasn't interested, he can charge up to $10,000 per procedure", economic villain narrative that reframes medical authority as motivated self-interest

Ad headline variations a media buyer could test on Meta or YouTube:

• "Dermatologist Said the Cancer Was Gone, Here's the Oil He Used Before Surgery"
• "University of Miami Study: This Hemp Extract Killed 100% of Skin Cancer Cells in 48 Hours"
• "Big Pharma Hates This $79 Oil. Here's Why Dermatologists Don't Want You to Know About It"
• "The Spot on His Forehead Was Gone. His Doctor Couldn't Explain It. He Could."
• "If You Have a Spot on Your Skin That Worries You, Watch This Before Your Next Dermatologist Visit"

Psychological Triggers and Persuasion Tactics

The persuasive architecture of this VSL is not a simple sequence of fear-then-solution. It is a layered, compounding structure that stacks authority, loss aversion, in-group identity, and social proof in a deliberate order, each element designed to dissolve a specific layer of skepticism before the next layer of resistance can form. The overall pattern follows what Robert Cialdini would recognize as a pre-suasion sequence: the viewer's trust is conditioned through institutional name-dropping and sympathetic storytelling long before a product is even named, so that by the time RepairSC1 is introduced, the psychological contract has already been partially signed.

The VSL is also notable for its deployment of what Eugene Schwartz called a new mechanism frame, the argument that all previous solutions failed not because the category was flawed but because no one had yet discovered the specific, proprietary mechanism that makes this product work. By attributing prior failures to the incompleteness of other hemp products ("only one or two cannabinoids"), the VSL retroactively validates the category while elevating RepairSC1 above it. This is a sophisticated move that simultaneously expands credibility and creates a defensible moat.

• Fear appeal / loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, prospect theory): The VSL opens and repeatedly returns to graphic worst-case scenarios, cancer spreading to organs in six weeks, biopsy results that "are not good," having "a big chunk of skin" removed from the face. Loss-framed messaging consistently outperforms gain-framed messaging in health contexts, and the VSL maximizes this asymmetry by dwelling on the downside of inaction far longer than it dwells on the benefits of purchase.

• False enemy / tribal identity (Seth Godin, Tribes): Big Pharma, dermatologists, and the FDA are consistently positioned as a unified enemy suppressing a life-saving truth for profit. This recruits the viewer into an in-group of "people who know the truth" and makes purchasing the product an act of defiance and self-determination rather than a consumer transaction.

• Authority transfer via institutional halo (Cialdini, authority principle): The University of Miami, American Cancer Society, Harvard, Yale, NIH, Mayo Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic are all named. None of them are claimed to endorse the product directly, the language is carefully constructed to imply association without making a verifiable endorsement claim. The cognitive effect is a credibility halo: the viewer's brain registers "Harvard... Mayo Clinic... NIH" and associates that credibility with the product.

• Open loop / curiosity gap (George Loewenstein, information gap theory): The repeated invocation of "the C word" that cannot be named, the promise of "mind-blowing" information still to come, and the framing of each new section as containing something "you've never heard before" all function as open loops that make stopping the video cognitively uncomfortable. Information gaps create a mild but persistent drive to close them.

• Social proof stacking (Cialdini, social proof): Eight distinct testimonials are presented, ranging from a child with a tumor to a company founder's personal spot. Each testimonial is specific enough (named individuals, body locations, day-by-day timelines) to read as credible, and together they create the impression of a large, diverse user base with consistent results.

• Scarcity and urgency framing (Cialdini, scarcity principle): Claims of imminent sell-out, "a frenzy" of demand, and a near-100% chance of seeing "sold out" on return visits are classic artificial scarcity tactics. The VSL also invokes threatened suppression, the suggestion that legal threats from the "$8 billion skin cancer treatment industry" may force the product off the market, as a second scarcity vector.

• Risk reversal via guarantee (Richard Thaler, mental accounting): The 90-day money-back guarantee is presented as making the purchase "100% risk-free." In mental accounting terms, the guarantee reduces the perceived cost of the transaction from $79 to near zero by reclassifying it as a reversible trial rather than a permanent expenditure.

Want to see how these tactics compare across 50+ VSLs? That's exactly what Intel Services is built to show you.

Scientific and Authority Signals

The VSL's most powerful authority signal is its repeated, specific invocation of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. The transcript references a seven-year research collaboration, a published paper in the Cancer Research Journal (the journal of the American Association for Cancer Research), and a presentation at the AACR's annual meeting in 2025. A specific paper title is even quoted: "RepairSC1 Hemp Extract Exhibits Potential Inhibition of Squamous Cell Carcinoma." This level of specificity, named institution, named journal, named conference, named paper title, is more than most health supplement VSLs offer, and it is designed to signal that this is not a vague appeal to "studies show" but a verifiable scientific record.

However, verifying these claims independently is critical before accepting them at face value. The AACR does publish a journal called Cancer Research and does hold an annual meeting. Preclinical research on cannabinoids and cancer has genuinely been conducted and published in peer-reviewed venues. Whether the specific RepairSC1 paper exists in the AACR journal as described, and whether the lab results cited ("100% kill rate of cancer cells within 48 hours") appear in that paper as quoted, is something a buyer should verify directly on PubMed before interpreting these citations as confirmed. The VSL's use of "C word" evasions throughout the presentation creates a structural information gap: it is difficult to search for a paper about a product when the key medical terms are redacted throughout the pitch. That difficulty is not accidental.

The additional authority signals, Yale, Harvard, NIH, Mayo Clinic, Stanford, Cleveland Clinic, are invoked in a single breath as institutions that "have studied Full Spectrum Hemp and been astounded." This is a borrowed authority move: real institutions that have conducted real cannabinoid research are listed in a way that implies they have specifically validated RepairSC1, when the actual claim is only that they have studied the broader compound class. The logical leap is subtle but consequential. Similarly, Dr. Anna Guzman's credentials as a "licensed physician" are asserted but not verified by any independent credential displayed on screen.

The testimonials presented, Patricia A., L. Hopkins, Brent Landon, Ryan Kohler, and others, are specific and detailed, which is a marker of genuine testimonials rather than fabricated ones. They also include medically significant claims ("declared gone" by a doctor; cancer shrunk 43% and 32%). These claims, if accurate, would be extraordinary and would warrant peer-reviewed documentation. Their presence in a VSL rather than a published case series should give the analytically-minded reader pause, not because they are necessarily fabricated, but because anecdotal reports, however compelling, occupy a different evidentiary category than controlled research.

The Offer, Pricing, and Risk Reversal

RepairSC1 is offered at $79 per bottle, anchored against an estimated retail value of $247 and the much larger cost of dermatological surgery ($7,500-$10,000 per procedure). The anchor against surgical cost is the more rhetorically powerful of the two: it does not compare RepairSC1 to other hemp oil products or supplements, it compares it to a medical procedure, which is a category that justifies virtually any price point below five figures. This is not benchmarking to a real category average for the product class; it is a deliberate comparison to the maximum-cost alternative, designed to make $79 feel trivial by association. The $247 anchor functions as a more conventional high/low price framing, suggesting a substantial discount without specifying a discount percentage.

The 90-day money-back guarantee is a standard risk-reversal mechanism in direct-response marketing. Its presence signals that the company has sufficient confidence (or sufficient margin) to absorb a return rate without destroying profitability. For the buyer, it is meaningful: a genuine 90-day refund policy does reduce financial exposure, and its existence can reasonably be taken as a signal that the company intends to stand behind the product. Whether the refund process is frictionless in practice is something only post-purchase experience can verify, but the guarantee's existence is a positive structural feature of the offer.

The urgency framing, claims that stock will sell out within hours, that a "frenzy" is imminent, that legal threats may force the product off the market, is almost certainly artificial. The VSL is a repeating video ad, not a live event with a shrinking inventory counter. These are standard theatrical scarcity devices in the direct-response playbook, and an informed buyer should weight them accordingly: they are designed to overcome the natural human tendency to delay decisions, not to reflect real supply constraints.

Who This Is For (and Who It Isn't)

The ideal buyer for RepairSC1, based on the VSL's targeting signals, is roughly this: an adult between 50 and 70 years of age with one or more suspicious skin spots they have been meaning to have checked; moderate to high distrust of mainstream medicine and pharmaceutical companies; some familiarity with the general health narrative around CBD and hemp; a history of sun exposure; and a strong preference for avoiding surgery or invasive procedures. This person is also likely responding from a place of genuine fear, the fear of a diagnosis, the fear of cost, the fear of the dermatologist's office, and is actively searching for a way to take control of their own health situation. The $79 price point and 90-day guarantee are calibrated precisely for this buyer: high enough to signal quality, low enough to be impulsive, and guaranteed enough to feel safe.

For buyers in this profile who have actual suspicious skin lesions, the most important thing to say plainly is this: RepairSC1 may have genuine properties that support skin health, and preclinical cannabinoid research is a legitimate and active scientific area. But no topical hemp product has been FDA-approved for the treatment of skin cancer, and the VSL's claim that RepairSC1 can replace dermatological evaluation and treatment is not supported by the published clinical evidence available to the public. Using this product as a substitute for medical evaluation of a genuinely suspicious lesion carries real health risk, the same risk the VSL attributes to ignoring spots entirely.

The VSL is probably not the right fit for people who require peer-reviewed clinical trial evidence before adopting a new health product; for people who have already received a formal skin cancer diagnosis and are under active medical care; or for people who are drawn to the pitch primarily by the "ghost cell" or systemic anti-cancer claims, which are the most speculative and least supported assertions in the entire presentation. The product may have genuine merit as a hemp-based topical that supports skin health, that claim is far more defensible, but the VSL has built a cathedral around a foundation that the available evidence does not yet support.

If you're evaluating this product alongside others in the natural skincare and hemp space, the next section, the FAQ, addresses the most common due-diligence questions directly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is RepairSC1 a scam, or does it really work?
A: RepairSC1 is a real product with a real company (Physicians Grade, Florida) behind it, and some of its claimed research associations appear to reference genuine scientific territory around cannabinoids and cancer biology. Whether it performs as dramatically as the VSL claims, eliminating active skin cancer lesions with a 100% kill rate, is not verified by publicly available, independently peer-reviewed clinical trial data. Buyers should evaluate it as a promising hemp-based topical, not as a proven cancer cure.

Q: Are there any side effects of using RepairSC1?
A: The VSL claims "zero side effects" and describes the product as "100% safe" and non-toxic, noting it is safe enough to ingest. Full-spectrum hemp extracts applied topically are generally considered low-risk for most users, with occasional skin irritation possible. No formal safety data specific to RepairSC1 is published in the VSL. Anyone with known hemp or cannabis sensitivities, or who is applying the product near mucous membranes or sensitive areas, should exercise appropriate caution.

Q: Did the University of Miami really study RepairSC1?
A: The VSL claims a seven-year research collaboration with the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and a published paper in the Cancer Research journal. A specific paper title is cited. Buyers are encouraged to search PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) and the AACR's published proceedings for the cited paper title to verify its existence and read the actual findings before purchasing, rather than relying solely on the VSL's interpretation of those findings.

Q: Can hemp extract actually kill skin cancer cells?
A: Preclinical research, including cell culture and animal studies, does show that certain cannabinoids can induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells under laboratory conditions. This is legitimate science. The gap between "kills cancer cells in a Petri dish" and "cures skin cancer when applied topically at home" is substantial, and no hemp-derived product has completed the FDA clinical trial process required to make a verified cancer treatment claim.

Q: How do you use RepairSC1 on skin lesions or moles?
A: According to the VSL, RepairSC1 is applied directly to the suspicious spot topically, twice daily. The formulator's personal testimonial describes applying it for three days; other testimonials reference 10 to 30 days of use before visible results. The product is also positioned as a pre- and post-sun moisturizer for broader daily use.

Q: Is RepairSC1 safe to use alongside conventional medical treatment?
A: The VSL includes a brief disclaimer stating that "any concerning skin changes should always be evaluated by a qualified healthcare professional" and that "this natural approach works beautifully alongside proper medical care." Buyers currently under active dermatological care should inform their physician before adding any new topical treatment to the area being monitored or treated.

Q: How much does RepairSC1 cost, and is there a money-back guarantee?
A: The VSL offers RepairSC1 at $79 per bottle, described as a discounted launch price anchored against a $247 estimated retail value. A 90-day money-back guarantee is offered: buyers unsatisfied with results can request a full refund within that window. Standard advice applies, retain your order confirmation and document the refund request process.

Q: Does RepairSC1 contain THC? Is it legal?
A: RepairSC1 is marketed as a hemp-derived product compliant with the 2018 US Farm Bill, which legalized hemp containing less than 0.3% THC. The VSL explicitly states it is "100% legal." At legally compliant THC concentrations, the product should not produce psychoactive effects. Buyers in states with specific hemp regulations should verify local compliance.

Final Take

RepairSC1's VSL is one of the more technically sophisticated health pitches in the direct-response hemp space, and that sophistication cuts in two directions simultaneously. On one hand, the underlying scientific territory is real, cannabinoid oncology research is an active and genuinely interesting field, the University of Miami does conduct translational research, and full-spectrum hemp extracts do contain a broader phytocannabinoid profile than isolated CBD products. On the other hand, the VSL systematically bridges the gap between "shows preclinical promise" and "cures your cancer" without disclosing that gap, and it does so using a psychological architecture, false enemies, regulatory evasion, borrowed institutional authority, artificial scarcity, that is designed to compress the buyer's deliberation time rather than expand their understanding.

The VSL's most telling structural choice is the repeated invocation of the "C word" substitution. This device serves a dual function: it performs legal caution (the FDA prohibits unapproved disease treatment claims) while simultaneously communicating the cancer cure claim to every viewer who understands the substitution, which is, of course, every viewer. It is a way of making an illegal claim while maintaining plausible deniability, and it is a technique with a long history in the direct-response health supplement industry. A buyer who recognizes this device is receiving important information about how the company approaches the boundary between marketing and evidence.

The genuinely strong elements of the pitch, the specific study citations, the named testimonials with medical details, the 90-day guarantee, the real science of cannabinoid apoptosis, suggest a product that may have real utility as a supportive topical treatment for skin health. The weakest elements, the ghost-cell systemic claims, the implied endorsements from Harvard and Mayo Clinic, the artificial scarcity, the suppression narrative, are textbook high-pressure tactics that should be weighed carefully by any buyer considering RepairSC1 as a replacement for professional medical evaluation rather than a complement to it. Those two framings lead to very different outcomes, and the VSL, by design, pushes hard toward the former.

This breakdown is part of Intel Services, our ongoing library of VSL and ad-copy analyses. If you're researching similar products in the hemp health, skin cancer, or natural treatment space, keep reading, the patterns repeat in instructive ways.

Disclaimer: This article is for research and educational purposes only. It is not medical, legal, or financial advice, and it is not affiliated with the product or its makers. Always consult a qualified professional before making health or financial decisions.