Podcasts about Abbott

Are you living in the season God has you in?Today, Natalie Abbott and Vera Schmitz talk about Ecclesiastes 3:1 and the temptation to live in the past or for the future instead of receiving the present season from the Lord. Together, they reflect on nostalgia, discontentment, future hopes, and the deeper longing we all have for eternity with Jesus.This Month's Memory Verse:"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens."

On the afternoon of August 11, 2019, customers at a popular pub in Widnes watched as landlord Christian Thornton confronted a man he had recently barred from the premises. For Chris, it was part of the job. As the long-serving landlord of the Hammer and Pincers, he had spent years looking after customers, serving pints, organising charity events, and helping make his pub a cornerstone of the local community. But what began as a routine confrontation would end in a shocking act of violence that devastated his family and sent shockwaves through Cheshire and beyond.Known affectionately as "Tigger", Chris was a devoted husband to Pam, a father of three young children, and one of the most recognisable faces in Widnes. Friends described him as kind, funny and always willing to help others. Whether he was supporting local musicians, raising money for charity, serving a cold beer to regulars or cheering on his children's sporting achievements, Chris was a man who put people first. His murder left not only a grieving family, but an entire town struggling to come to terms with the loss of a man who meant so much to so many.In this episode of British Murders with Stuart Blues, we examine the murder of Christian Thornton, the events that led to his fatal confrontation with Lee Abbott, and the investigation that followed. We explore the background tensions between the two men, the warnings and threats made in the days before the attack, the police investigation, Abbott's arrest, trial and conviction for murder, and the remarkable community response that saw hundreds rally around Chris's family. We also look at the wider concerns surrounding knife crime, pub safety, and violence in Britain's towns and cities. This is the story of a respected pub landlord, a senseless act of violence, and a community determined that Christian "Tigger" Thornton would never be forgotten.Exclusive content:Patreon - Ad Free, Early Access, Exclusive EpisodesFollow the show:British Murders with Stuart BluesDisclaimer:The case discussed in this podcast episode is real and represents the worst day in many people's lives. I aim to cover such stories with a victim-focused approach, using information from publicly available sources. While I strive for accuracy, some details may vary depending on the sources used. Due to the nature of the content, listener discretion is advised. Thank you for your understanding and support. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's In The News - a look at the top diabetes stories and headlines happening now!   Announcing Community Commericals! Learn how to get your message on the show here. Learn more about studies and research at Thrivable here Please visit our Sponsors & Partners - they help make the show possible! Omnipod - Simplify Life All about Dexcom  All about VIVI Cap to protect your insulin from extreme temperatures The best way to keep up with Stacey and the show is by signing up for our weekly newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter here Here's where to find us: Facebook (Group) Facebook (Page) Instagram Check out Stacey's books! Learn more about everything at our home page www.diabetes-connections.com  Episode transcript: fall Detroit and Seattle.   Okay.. our top story this week: XX The FDA approved Tzield for use in stage 3 T1D – that's what we used to just call type 1. It's the stage where the body can no longer produce enough insulin on its own to manage blood sugars you need to start insulin. This approval is for kids ages 8-17 within 8 weeks of a stage 3 T1D diagnosis. It comes after the PROTECT trial and it's the first approval of a disease-modifying therapy for stage 3 T1D. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/breakthrough-t1d-celebrates-approval-of-tzield-for-use-in-stage-3-type-1-diabetes-in-the-us-302799532.html XX Encouraging results from a small study of islet cell transplantation in people with type 1 where now all 12 participants in the trial are currently living without external insulin after receiving transplanted insulin-producing islet cells.   The study, led by researchers at the University of Chicago, tested an experimental immune therapy called tegoprubart Te-GO-Proo-Bart. The drug is designed to prevent the body from rejecting transplanted cells while avoiding some of the side effects associated with standard anti-rejection medications. You've probably heard about this as the Eledon study – many of the participants have been very active on social media. It was presented at ADA. transplants.https://www.breakthrought1d.org/news-and-updates/tegoprubart-islet-transplant-all-participants-off-external-insulin/ XX New data suggest that acmopatide (ack-MOW-puh-tyd) (CT-868), an experimental once-daily dual GLP-1/GIP receptor agonist, may help people with type 1 diabetes improve blood sugar control, lose weight, and reduce insulin use. Across all doses, participants lost up to 7% of their body weight and reduced insulin use by as much as 15%. The study lasted just 16 weeks, so researchers say longer-term data will be needed to determine whether the benefits can be maintained and whether lower insulin requirements can be achieved without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. XX A new combination therapy that pairs an amylin analog with semaglutide improved both blood sugar levels and weight loss in several groups of people with type 2 diabetes. The once-weekly injectable, known as CagriSema (KAG-ruh-SEM-uh), was evaluated in three Phase 3 REIMAGINE studies. In people early in the course of type 2 diabetes, researchers reported A1C reductions of up to 1.8 percentage points and significant weight loss compared to placebo after 40 weeks of treatment. Investigators also noted improvements in several cardiometabolic risk factors, including blood pressure. https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ada/121658 XX Stelo for kids is now FDA cleared.. the over the counter Glucose Biosensor System is now approved for children as young as 2 years old who do not use insulin. The FDA identified pediatric prediabetes as a growing public health concern motivating the expanded indication, noting OTC CGMs can help younger users and their caregivers build glycemic awareness, track patterns in response to me https://www.hcplive.com/view/fda-clears-first-otc-glucose-monitor-for-children XX Insulet presented new data from its STRIVE and EVOLUTION 3 studies showing improved glucose control with its next-generation Omnipod 6. That's , the company's upcoming hybrid closed-loop system for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The main difference between the Omnipod 6 and Insulet's current Omnipod 5 patch pumps is that the new system has a lower glucose target of 100 mg/dL and better Bluetooth connectivity Insulet also shared progress on a fully closed-loop system designed specifically for type 2 diabetes. It  does not require carb-counting or insulin bolusing ahead of meals. Physicians also don't need to program the starting settings.   XX Abbott shared new research highlighting challenges in identifying and managing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). The studies coincide with the company's development of Libre Duo, a dual glucose-ketone sensor that continuously tracks both measurements. Abbott reported that DKA can be difficult to recognize when patients first arrive at the hospital, based on data from more than 100,000 people. The company has submitted the dual sensor to the FDA and recently received CE Mark approval in Europe. More news from ADA including info from Dexcom, Sequel, Sensonics and the world loses a tireless T1D advocate.. that's all to come right after this. --   Back to the news.. XX   Dexcom announced its acquisition of Nutrisense, a company that combines continuous glucose monitoring with nutrition coaching and behavioral support. At ADA, the company also presented results from the CONNECT study showing significant A1C reductions and improved glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin. The findings add to growing evidence supporting CGM use beyond intensive insulin therapy. We did an episode with CEO Jake Leach at ADA about these announcements as well as updates on G8, their hospital product and much more. XX Sequel Med Tech reported positive clinical results evaluating its twiist automated insulin delivery system in people with type 2 diabetes. The study showed improvements in A1C and time in range over 13 weeks XX Senseonics presented new real-world data supporting the performance of its Eversense 365 implantable CGM. The analysis included more than 12,000 sensors and demonstrated sustained accuracy and effectiveness in both open-loop and automated insulin delivery settings. Researchers also evaluated Eversense use with Sequel Med Tech's twiist system. The findings support broader use of long-term implantable CGM technology.   -- MiniMed used ADA 2026 to spotlight two recently cleared diabetes management systems. The MiniMed Flex pump offers a smaller, smartphone-controlled insulin pump option, while MiniMed Go combines the InPen smart insulin pen with Abbott's Instinct sensor. The products received FDA clearance earlier this year. XX Tandem Diabetes Care highlighted data supporting the use of its Control-IQ automated insulin delivery technology during pregnancy. Results from the CIRCUIT trial showed users spent approximately three additional hours per day in the recommended pregnancy glucose range compared with standard therapy. The findings helped support recent regulatory approvals for pregnancy use in both Europe and the United States. Tandem also expanded indications for adults with type 2 diabetes. XX Beta Bionics presented real-world data from the first three years of iLet Bionic Pancreas use. The company reported a 25% improvement in time in range among users, along with positive feedback from clinicians about simplified diabetes management. The iLet system requires only a user's weight to begin therapy and eliminates carbohydrate counting. Beta Bionics also highlighted growing access to near-real-time outcomes through its public data dashboard. XX MannKind presented new findings supporting its Afrezza inhaled insulin at ADA 2026. A post-hoc analysis of the INHALE-1 study found that pediatric users reported greater treatment satisfaction compared with those using rapid-acting injected insulin. The results come shortly after FDA approval expanded Afrezza's indication to include children. We did a bonus episode with one of the lead investigators of the study that lead to that approval. XX Adaptyx presented early clinical data supporting a wearable sensor that continuously measures cortisol levels. The device successfully tracked cortisol changes during both controlled testing and overnight monitoring in first-in-human studies. Company leaders say cortisol plays a major role in conditions including diabetes, hypertension, and depression. The technology uses synthetic DNA-based molecular switches to generate real-time readings.   XX Biolinq shared new clinical findings for its Shine continuous glucose monitoring system. The needle-free device combines glucose monitoring with activity and sleep tracking .The system received FDA clearance in 2025. They're also looking at measuring lactate through the sensor. XX Long-time T1D advocate Kent Schnakenberg died last week. Schnakenberg was known in his community for using his love of bicycling to raise awareness of Type 1 diabetes. He also advocated for improving the lives of those living with the disease. Inspired by his niece, Michelle, who was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was 13 years old, since 2014 he has traveled around the country cycling thousands of miles, speaking to hundreds and hundreds of kids and raising Money. According to Schnakenberg's family, he suffered a head trauma incident in his home on Wednesday. I spoke to Kent years ago – I believe the first year of the podcast. A sad loss but wonderful to see so many tributes and memories posted on social media in the last few days. https://diabetes-connections.com/john-costik-co-creator-of-nightscout-team-schnak/ https://www.wibw.com/2026/06/12/team-schnak-founder-kent-schnakenberg-passes-away/ XX And finally. Alexander Zverev (ts-ver-uhv) won the French Open, his first Grand Slam title. He lives with type 1, he paused a couple of time to check his blood sugar. He was diagnosed at age 4 and partners with Medtronic. "Becoming a professional tennis player was always my dream," Zverev shared in an article posted by Medtronic. "Early on, I was told that competing at the highest level with diabetes was impossible — but my family and I refused to accept that. That's why I'm partnering with Medtronic Diabetes: I want every person with diabetes to feel empowered to live the life they want." He also has a foundation committed to children with type 1 diabetes. Among other things, the life-saving insulin and other essential drugs are provided – also in developing countries." https://www.mensjournal.com/news/alexander-zverev-diabetes-wins-french-open-2026-medical-condition

In his latest interview with Chris Steyn, Grant Abbott the General Secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) shares evidence collected over years for the criminal complaint lodged against Vice-Chancellor Professor Sakhela Buhlungu who was recently placed on precautionary suspension by the Council and now faces charges of gross misconduct. Allegations in the union's criminal complaint include the appointment and promotion of individuals outside lawful recruitment processes, the circumvention of governance structures, the approval of substantial financial settlements of millions of rands and remuneration adjustments without proper justification. It also sets out how the Vice Chancellor selectively used disciplinary processes to protect his allies and targeted whistleblowers. Meanwhile, some of those who benefitted from the Vice-Chancellor's “schemes” are now the accused in corruption and fraud cases. “The problem is that you can't position yourself as a corruption buster and then in the process of doing that create more corruption...”

This message is about finding peace, security, and hope in a relationship with God as our Shepherd. Using Psalm 23, the pastor explains that believers can confidently say “I will not lack, I will not fear, and I will dwell” because God provides for their needs, walks with them through life's darkest valleys, and ultimately leads them to an eternal home with Him. The sermon emphasizes that fear and hardship are real parts of life, but God's presence is greater than any difficulty. Just as a shepherd guides, protects, and cares for sheep, God lovingly leads His people, reminding them that they belong to Him ("You are mine"). The central message is that our confidence comes not from our own strength or circumstances, but from trusting the Good Shepherd who never abandons His people and promises His goodness, mercy, and eternal presence.

Comedy: Alan Young Show 12/4/45 ABC, Abbott and Costello Show 4/5/45 NBC.

Send us Fan MailYesenia Avellaneda is an engineering leader whose career sits at the intersection of innovation, operations, and impact. Currently a Senior Project Engineer within Global Operations at Abbott, she has built a reputation for turning complex ideas into scalable, high-performing manufacturing systems. From leading New Product Introduction (NPI) efforts to executing international production transfers and launching entirely new facilities, Yesenia thrives where strategy meets execution. Her work has had measurable impact. She has led capital projects exceeding $5 million, driven production efficiency improvements, and implemented Lean manufacturing and Six Sigma methodologies to enhance quality and throughput. In one role, she helped boost line productivity by 200%, all while overseeing teams of 60+ personnel and ensuring compliance with rigorous FDA and regulatory standards . Her ability to align cross-functional teams—from product development to operations—has made her a key driver of successful product launches and operational excellence. Yesenia's academic foundation reflects her human-centered approach to engineering. She earned her bachelor's degree in Human Physiology from the University of Oregon and later completed a master's in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Portland. This unique combination allows her to bridge the gap between clinical needs and engineering solutions—an essential skill in the medical device industry. Beyond her technical and leadership accomplishments, Yesenia is deeply committed to giving back. As Regional Vice President for SHPE Region 6 and a longtime advocate for underrepresented communities in STEM, she actively works to create inclusive pathways for future engineers. She's also an experienced speaker, sharing insights on leadership, career growth, and navigating STEM as a first-generation professional. In this conversation, Yesenia brings a rare perspective—one that combines hands-on engineering, large-scale operational leadership, and a mission-driven approach to making a broader impact in both industry and community. LINKS: Yesenia Avellaneda LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yesenia-avellaneda/ https://shpe.org/ Aaron Moncur, host  Subscribe to the show to get notified so you don't miss new episodes every Friday.The Being An Engineer podcast is brought to you by Pipeline Design & Engineering. Pipeline partners with medical & other device engineering teams who need turnkey equipment like cycle test machines, custom test fixtures, automation equipment, assembly jigs, inspection stations and more. You can find us at www.teampipeline.usWatch the show on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@TeamPipelineus 

Choice Classic Radio presents Suspense, featuring today's episode titled “The Escape of Lacey Abbott.” Please consider supporting our show by becoming a patron at http://choiceclassicradio.com We hope you enjoy the show!

Teaching Shakespeare's Theatre of the World (Cambridge University Press, 2025) engages with one of Shakespeare's greatest thought-experiments: How does one navigate the 'theatre of the world'? It invites students to examine how Shakespeare challenges this metaphor's vertical hierarchies in response to shifting understandings of cosmological order. Teachers will find rich contextual frameworks for exploring how Shakespeare envisions 'worlds' as emerging from dynamic variables, raising urgent questions about how identity and justice are environmentally constructed. Focal plays include A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Each discussion features student centered 'Explorations'. These play-specific classroom activities can also be adapted across Shakespeare's corpus and tailored for both secondary and university-level students. These exercises encourage non-linear critical and creative thinking, inviting students to contemplate big ideas and generate new perspectives about the shared points of contact between Shakespeare's world and their own. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

On this Salcedo Storm Podcast:Brandon Waltens, is a Senior Editor at Texas Scorecard. He is the host of the essential Daily Headlines at Texas Scorecard.

The Texas Republican Party faces today a seeming no-brainer choice: Will it stand with the man at the top of the GOP ticket this fall, Governor Greg Abbott, and 1.9 million voters in its base in opposing sharia-supremacism?  Or, will it legitimize among its convention delegates operatives of the Muslim Brotherhood and its pitbull front, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) – which Mr. Abbott has properly designated as terrorist organizations. One of them, Dr. Tarek Hussein, actually founded CAIR's Texas chapter and authored a paper about how to infiltrate political parties. The obvious purpose of doing so is to advance the Brotherhood's stated “mission” of “destroying Western civilization from within with the help of unbelievers.” Banning sharia is a winning issue for Republican and other patriots – unless the Texas GOP submits to it, alienating them and further empowering and emboldening the jihadists.  This is Frank Gaffney.

Teaching Shakespeare's Theatre of the World (Cambridge University Press, 2025) engages with one of Shakespeare's greatest thought-experiments: How does one navigate the 'theatre of the world'? It invites students to examine how Shakespeare challenges this metaphor's vertical hierarchies in response to shifting understandings of cosmological order. Teachers will find rich contextual frameworks for exploring how Shakespeare envisions 'worlds' as emerging from dynamic variables, raising urgent questions about how identity and justice are environmentally constructed. Focal plays include A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Each discussion features student centered 'Explorations'. These play-specific classroom activities can also be adapted across Shakespeare's corpus and tailored for both secondary and university-level students. These exercises encourage non-linear critical and creative thinking, inviting students to contemplate big ideas and generate new perspectives about the shared points of contact between Shakespeare's world and their own. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

On Episode 33 of Season 6 of the Old Radio Comedy Podcast,we bring you the May 11, 1944 episode from the Abbott and Costello Show, “Job at a Department Store” with guest Claire Trevor. As always, each episode has been remastered and optimized for you. Enjoy! Be sure to check out our YouTube channel, An Evening of OldTime Radio:https://www.youtube.com/@aneveningofoldtimeradio

Teaching Shakespeare's Theatre of the World (Cambridge University Press, 2025) engages with one of Shakespeare's greatest thought-experiments: How does one navigate the 'theatre of the world'? It invites students to examine how Shakespeare challenges this metaphor's vertical hierarchies in response to shifting understandings of cosmological order. Teachers will find rich contextual frameworks for exploring how Shakespeare envisions 'worlds' as emerging from dynamic variables, raising urgent questions about how identity and justice are environmentally constructed. Focal plays include A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Each discussion features student centered 'Explorations'. These play-specific classroom activities can also be adapted across Shakespeare's corpus and tailored for both secondary and university-level students. These exercises encourage non-linear critical and creative thinking, inviting students to contemplate big ideas and generate new perspectives about the shared points of contact between Shakespeare's world and their own. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

Teaching Shakespeare's Theatre of the World (Cambridge University Press, 2025) engages with one of Shakespeare's greatest thought-experiments: How does one navigate the 'theatre of the world'? It invites students to examine how Shakespeare challenges this metaphor's vertical hierarchies in response to shifting understandings of cosmological order. Teachers will find rich contextual frameworks for exploring how Shakespeare envisions 'worlds' as emerging from dynamic variables, raising urgent questions about how identity and justice are environmentally constructed. Focal plays include A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Each discussion features student centered 'Explorations'. These play-specific classroom activities can also be adapted across Shakespeare's corpus and tailored for both secondary and university-level students. These exercises encourage non-linear critical and creative thinking, inviting students to contemplate big ideas and generate new perspectives about the shared points of contact between Shakespeare's world and their own. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

Teaching Shakespeare's Theatre of the World (Cambridge University Press, 2025) engages with one of Shakespeare's greatest thought-experiments: How does one navigate the 'theatre of the world'? It invites students to examine how Shakespeare challenges this metaphor's vertical hierarchies in response to shifting understandings of cosmological order. Teachers will find rich contextual frameworks for exploring how Shakespeare envisions 'worlds' as emerging from dynamic variables, raising urgent questions about how identity and justice are environmentally constructed. Focal plays include A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, Hamlet, Henry V, The Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Each discussion features student centered 'Explorations'. These play-specific classroom activities can also be adapted across Shakespeare's corpus and tailored for both secondary and university-level students. These exercises encourage non-linear critical and creative thinking, inviting students to contemplate big ideas and generate new perspectives about the shared points of contact between Shakespeare's world and their own.

Sunset for the days of Texas as the wild west of AI? A closer look at the Gov. Greg Abbott's new plan for greater oversight of the rapidly expanding landscape of data centers statewide.Day one of the World Cup — do the numbers add up? A closer look at projections about the economic impact here […] The post Gov. Abbott calls for new oversight on Texas data centers appeared first on KUT & KUTX Studios -- Podcasts.

Sponsored By:→ Neuro | Go to ⁠https://getneuro.com⁠ and use code ONEDAY at checkout for 15% OFF your entire order.Every single grocery store aisle has been disrupted by better-for-you brands. Every one — except the aisle where the fastest-growing demographic in America shops for nutrition.Jon Bier sits down with Jess Haghani — founder and CEO of Lucille Health — for a conversation about what happens when you spot a gap so obvious it feels impossible that no one has filled it yet. Jess watched her grandmother, Lucille, come home from heart surgery and get handed the same ultra-processed nutrition shakes that haven't meaningfully changed since the 1970s. Products people hide in their basements. Products they're embarrassed to let their grandkids see. A $6 billion category with zero dignity, zero innovation, and no real competition.So she left KKR, went to Harvard Business School, and built the brand she knew had to exist.This episode is a little different. Jess hasn't built a nine-figure business yet. But Jon believes she will and this conversation is why.In this episode:• Why less than 1% of food and beverage innovation is happening for older adults, despite them being the fastest-growing consumer demographic in the world — and why that gap is finally closing• The real story behind Lucille: how watching her 92-year-old grandmother hide a nutrition shake in her basement became the founding moment of a brand built around dignity• What it looks like to take on Abbott and Nestlé with no money, no formulation experience, and no playbook and why that might actually be the advantageFind Jess & Lucille:• Jess on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jesshaghani/• Lucille Health: https://www.lucillehealth.com• Lucille on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lucillehealth/Timestamps:0:00 - Intro1:21 - Jon's personal experience with his dad's hospital nutrition2:04 - Why do hospitals still serve such poor nutrition products?7:43 - The corruption of big incumbents like Abbott and Nestle9:59 - How big is the older adult nutrition market?11:01 - Why has this category never been disrupted?11:38 - The shame and stigma around products like Ensure and Boost15:25 - Jess's background: London, real estate, KKR, HBS17:02 - The story of Lucille, Jess's 92-year-old grandmother19:51 - Assembling the team and figuring it out step by step25:00 - Should founders pay themselves a salary?31:04 - The broader vision: beyond beverages, full category disruption37:23 - The 70+ demographic has the highest retention rate43:18 - Jon's confidence in Lucille Health's future

In this episode of The Lead, host Christopher C. Cheung, MD, MPH, FHRS, is joined by Edward P. Gerstenfeld, MD, MS, FHRS, and Paul C. Zei, MD, PhD, FHRS, to discuss the journal article, A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Global Study Comparing Pulsed Field Ablation versus Anti-Arrhythmic Drug Therapy as a First Line Treatment for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (AVANT GUARD). Together, they review the study design and findings, examining pulsed field ablation and anti-arrhythmic drug therapy as first-line treatment approaches for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Learning Objectives Review the design and key findings of the AVANT GUARD study comparing pulsed field ablation with anti-arrhythmic drug therapy as first-line treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation. Discuss the potential role of pulsed field ablation as an initial treatment strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Examine the comparative considerations of ablation-based and pharmacologic approaches in the management of persistent atrial fibrillation.   Podcast Contributors: Host: Christopher C Cheung, MD, MPH, FHRS       Guests: Edward P. Gerstenfeld, MD, MS, FHRS and Paul C Zei, MD, PhD, FHRS   Disclosures: Christopher C Cheung, MD, MPH, FHRS Honoraria/Speaking/Consulting Fee: Medtronic, Inc., Biotronik, Biosense Webster, Inc., Abbott Edward P. Gerstenfeld, MD, MS, FHRS Honoraria/Speaking/Consulting Fee: Medtronic, Inc., Biosense Webster, Inc., Abbott, Boston Scientific, Varian Medical Systems Other Non-Financial Relationships: Adagio Medical, Boston Scientific, Abbott Medical Research: Abbott Medical Officer, Trustee, Director, Committee Chair, or Other Fiduciary Role: American College of Cardiology Paul C Zei, MD, PhD, FHRS Honoraria/Speaking/Consulting Fee/Speaker's Bureau: Varian Medical Systems, Biosense Webster, Inc., Abbott, Boston Scientific, APT Medical Research: Biosense Webster, Inc.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies Transcatheter treatment of tricuspid regurgitation Carcinoid heart disease Milestones: MADIT-II Trial Host: Wilfried Mullens Guests: Stephan Baldus, Heidi Connolly and Konstantinos Koskinas Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2560 Want to watch that extended interview on transcatheter treatment of tricuspid regurgitation, go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2560?resource=interview   Disclaimer  ESC TV Today is supported by Novartis and Novo Nordisk through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. All declarations of interest are listed at the end of the episode. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. ESC TV Today uses a range of tools and resources (including AI) to support content production. All content is reviewed and approved by the editorial team. Statements and opinions expressed by guest speakers are their own.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Heidi Connolly, Nicolle Kraenkel and Wilfried Mullens have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede, Viatris. Stephan Baldus has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grant from Abbott, lecture fees from Abbott and Edwards. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Terumo. David Duncker has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: lecture honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientifics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Microport, Pfizer, Sanofi, Zoll. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Felix Mahfoud has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK), Deutsche Herzstiftung, Ablative Solutions, ReCor Medical. Consulting fees, payment honoraria lectures, presentations, speaker, support travel costs: Ablative Solutions, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Inari, Recor Medical, Medtronic, Philips, Merck. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Wilfried Mullens Guest: Stephan Baldus Want to watch that extended interview, go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2560?resource=interview Want to watch that entire episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2560   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Novartis and Novo Nordisk through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partners. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. All declarations of interest are listed at the end of the episode. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. ESC TV Today uses a range of tools and resources (including AI) to support content production. All content is reviewed and approved by the editorial team. Statements and opinions expressed by guest speakers are their own.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Nicolle Kraenkel and Wilfried Mullens have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede, Viatris. Stephan Baldus has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grant from Abbott, lecture fees from Abbott and Edwards. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Terumo. David Duncker has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: lecture honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientifics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Microport, Pfizer, Sanofi, Zoll. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Felix Mahfoud has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK), Deutsche Herzstiftung, Ablative Solutions, ReCor Medical. Consulting fees, payment honoraria lectures, presentations, speaker, support travel costs: Ablative Solutions, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Inari, Recor Medical, Medtronic, Philips, Merck. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Have you Been To? Been to? Bin Two? Been To? Have you Bin Two Bin Two? Abbott & Costello continue ad infinitum   We ask, where has Mike Boyne Bin Two. Where is he now? And just how long has he wanted to be a slug balancer?   Yes, Friend Of The Pod and Industry Legend Mike Boyne rejoins us in TM&TM Towers to share thoughts on the trade, running and indie, staffing, wine selection, and showing off his huge guns.   So pour a brandy, grab a fruit rollup, and let's talk about the industry.

Jane Dutton speaks to Sanlam Cape Town Marathon CEO and race director of Clark Gardner about the Sanlam Cape Town Marathon becoming Africa’s First Abbott World Marathon Majors Race. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report, go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome back to Diabetes Dialogue: Technology, Therapeutics, & Real-World Perspectives!In this episode, shot live at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions 2026 in New Orleans, Louisiana, cohosts Diana Isaacs, PharmD, and Natalie Bellini, DNP, discuss the latest major trial results like CONNECT, TRIUMPH, and TRANSCEND.To begin the episode, Isaacs and Bellini, discuss major highlights from ADA Scientific Sessions, focusing first on the landmark CONNECT trial evaluating continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in people with type 2 diabetes who are not treated with insulin. They reflect on the evolution of CGM technology, from its early use primarily in type 1 diabetes to its expanding role in type 2 diabetes management, and explain why this trial represents an important step forward for patients who have historically had limited access to CGM.The hosts review the randomized controlled trial findings, emphasizing the significant improvements in glycemic outcomes, including a 1.6% reduction in A1c from baseline and an approximately 0.9% greater reduction compared with standard care. They also highlight the increase in time in range, with participants using CGM achieving roughly five additional hours per day in target glucose range. The magnitude of these findings is discussed as a practice-changing development, with the potential to influence future clinical guidelines and strengthen recommendations for CGM use among individuals with type 2 diabetes who are not using insulin.The discussion also explores the broader implications of the CONNECT trial for healthcare access and insurance coverage. The hosts note that randomized controlled trial evidence has historically played a key role in shaping standards of care and payer decisions, and they suggest that these results may help support wider adoption of CGM by demonstrating meaningful improvements in glucose control and patient outcomes.The conversation then shifts to emerging pharmacologic advances, with a focus on retatrutide, a novel triple agonist targeting GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon pathways. The hosts discuss new data showing substantial metabolic benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, including up to 17% weight reduction and nearly 2% A1c lowering. They highlight how these findings represent a major advancement in diabetes and obesity treatment, particularly as clinicians continue to see increasingly powerful effects from next-generation incretin-based therapies.Isaacs and Bellini explore how these therapies may reshape treatment strategies by allowing clinicians to tailor medication choices based on individual patient needs and goals. They discuss the importance of considering both glucose lowering and weight reduction effects, recognizing that some patients may benefit from significant weight loss while others may require a more balanced approach focused primarily on glycemic improvement.The hosts also address important unanswered questions surrounding the use of highly effective weight-loss medications, including appropriate treatment targets, the limitations of BMI as a measure, and the importance of preserving muscle mass and overall function. They emphasize the need to consider body composition, physical activity, resistance training, and patient characteristics—particularly in older adults or those at risk for frailty—when developing long-term treatment plans.The episode concludes with a reflection on the rapidly evolving landscape of diabetes care. The hosts highlight how advances in CGM technology and novel metabolic therapies are creating new opportunities to improve outcomes, personalize treatment approaches, and redefine the future management of people living with diabetes.Editors' Note: Isaacs reports disclosures with Dexcom, Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Insulet, and others. Bellini reports disclosures with Abbott Diabetes Care, MannKind, Povention Bio, and others.

We're taking the summer off and rebroadcasting some of our favorite episodes in the archives over the next few months. First up is our 2017 conversation with Pentagram partner Abbott Miller! We'll be back with new episodes in September! — Abbott Miller is a designer, writer, and a partner at Pentagram where he leads a team designing identities, exhibitions, and books. Before Pentagram, Abbott ran a studio, Design Writing Research, with Ellen Lupton and wrote for publications like Eye, Print, and I.D. A monograph of his design and writing, called Design and Content, was published in 2014. In this conversation, Abbott and I talk about where his interest in critical theory came from and how he's worked to incorporate it into his design work, using writing to find new ways into design, and how his various interests have come together in his current work designing exhibitions at Pentagram. Links from this episode can be found at: https://scratchingthesurface.fm/post/161266191870/30-abbott-miller — We're continuing to publish new content on our Substack. Paid subscribers get bonus interviews every month. Sign up and support the show here: surfacepodcast.substack.com

Welcome back to Diabetes Dialogue: Technology, Therapeutics, & Real-World Perspectives! In this special episode, shot live at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions 2026 in Ner Orleans, Louisiana, cohosts Diana Isaacs, PharmD, and Natalie Bellini, DNP, are joined by Amit Gupta, MBBS, DNB, diabetologist, executive director of the Global Metabolic Health Alliance, and chair of the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) Education Committee, to discuss the state of diabetes care and treatment in India compared to the US.To begin the episode, Gupta introduces the mission of the IDF, highlighting its role as a worldwide federation of scientific societies and patient organizations focused on improving diabetes education, policy, advocacy, and access to care. The conversation explores how diabetes management differs across regions, emphasizing that while the underlying disease mechanisms and available therapies may be similar, access to medications, technologies, healthcare infrastructure, and education varies significantly between countries.Gupta discusses the impact of semaglutide becoming available as a generic therapy in India following patent expiration, describing how reduced costs have improved access to a medication previously limited by affordability barriers. The group considers how increased availability of GLP-1 receptor agonists may transform diabetes and obesity management, while also emphasizing that pharmacologic therapies alone cannot address the global metabolic health crisis. Gupta notes the importance of maintaining focus on long-term lifestyle changes, including nutrition, physical activity, and sustainable weight management, as essential components of comprehensive care.The discussion then shifts to diabetes education and the need for more individualized, patient-centered approaches. Gupta highlights that education must be adapted to regional and cultural contexts, explaining that the challenges faced by a person with diabetes in the United States, Africa, India, or other parts of the world may differ substantially, even though diabetes distress and the burden of daily decision-making are shared experiences. He emphasizes that access to technology, such as continuous glucose monitoring, does not eliminate the need for education and support.Isaacs, Bellini, and Gupta also address the growing challenge of misinformation online and the role of healthcare professionals in helping patients navigate unreliable sources of health information. Gupta explains that clinicians must approach misinformation constructively by providing evidence-based guidance rather than simply dismissing patients' beliefs, reinforcing the importance of translating scientific evidence into practical recommendations that patients can incorporate into their daily lives.The group further examines disparities in the availability of diabetes educators worldwide. Gupta notes that while some regions have established professional pathways for diabetes care and education specialists, many areas lack standardized training, recognition, or policy support to sustain these roles. He stresses that building effective diabetes education systems requires collaboration with policymakers to demonstrate the long-term benefits of structured education programs.The episode concludes with Gupta discussing his work developing a global consensus framework on lifestyle as the foundation of metabolic health. The conversation reinforces that advances in medications and technology must be paired with equitable access, effective education, and sustainable lifestyle interventions to reduce the global burden of diabetes and improve outcomes for people living with metabolic conditions.Editors' Note: Isaacs reports disclosures with Dexcom, Abbott, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Medtronic, Insulet, and others. Bellini reports disclosures with Abbott Diabetes Care, MannKind, Povention Bio, and others. Gupta reports disclosures with Lilly, Abbott Diabetes, and the International Diabetes Federation.

Daniel Norcross and Jeremy Coney bring you Oval and Out - your bitesize look as Surrey return to four-day cricket at the Kia Oval. After a rain affected second day left Surrey needing something special to force a result, some regard resistence from Potgieter and Abbott looks to have all but secured a draw for the visitors.

Gov. Greg Abbott issued a statewide disaster declaration late last week after the New World screwworm was found in two calves in South Texas, according to The Dallas Morning News. Two cases have been identified in newborn calves in Zavala County, about 5.6 miles apart. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said a strike team was on site and that restrictions were in place to prevent the movement of cattle. “We have, in the past, prevented as well as eradicated this pest, and we can do it again,” Abbott said. The New World screwworm is a parasitic fly that lays eggs... Article Link

El episodio 119 llegó con framework, números y oportunidades que no te podés perder.Arrancamos con lo más accionable del episodio: los 7 principios de Y Combinator para construir una empresa en la era AI. No es AI como herramienta, es AI como sistema operativo de toda la organización. Loops cerrados en cada proceso, empresas legibles para los modelos, fábricas de software donde los humanos definen los specs y la AI construye el código, y equipos lo más flat posible donde cada persona tiene una responsabilidad directa y no hay lugar para esconderse. Si estás construyendo algo hoy, este es el episodio.Después el número que más sorprendió de la semana: Uber gastó 500 millones de dólares en tokens en tres meses y su CFO admitió públicamente que no vio ningún resultado. La contracara fascinante es que los propios modelos de AI no saben cuánto les cuesta producir cada token. Están vendiendo algo a un precio que ellos mismos no entienden todavía. Y mientras tanto, la mayoría de las empresas está descubriendo que un modelo open source más chico instalado en sus propios servidores les da el 90% del resultado al 2% del costo.También hablamos de la nueva métrica que define esta era: el EBITDA ya tiene una T nueva. Ya no es solo Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization. Ahora es Before Tokens también. Si tu empresa no está midiendo cuánto gasta en tokens, no está midiendo bien.En el frente de IPOs, Anthropic hizo su filing privado, OpenAI apunta a septiembre y SpaceX está cada vez más cerca. Tres movimientos que van a redefinir el mercado en los próximos meses.Cerramos con dos temas más personales. Primero, el debate entre Oura, Whoop y Fitbit — cuál sirve, para quién y por qué el nuevo monitor de glucosa Lingo de Abbott a 30 dólares puede ser uno de los dispositivos más importantes para entender tus hábitos. Segundo, cómo filtrar el spam de family offices y brokers de secundarios que llega por LinkedIn todos los días sin perder tiempo.

Comedy on a Saturday First, a look at the events of the day.Then, The Lucky Strike Program starring Jack Benny, originally broadcast  June 6, 1954, 72 years ago, Jack Goes To Dallas.  The last show of the season. Jack is off to Dallas and the gang goes down to the airport to see him off.Followed by The Harold Peary Show, originally broadcast June 6, 1951, 75 years ago, Peabody's Sister Takes Over the Radio Station.  Stanley Peabody is leaving the radio station. His sister takes over, even though Harold thinks he should get the job. Then, The Great Gildersleeve starring Harold Peary, originally broadcast June 6, 1943, 83 years ago, The Wedding Shower.   A surprise shower for Leila. Leroy gets fired from Peavey's drug store...for punching a customer!Followed by Abbott and Costello, originally broadcast June 6, 1946, 80 years ago, Bud and Lou Need Some Dough. Lou loses his place in the script during the opening routine. Lou "needs some dough" to pay the rent. The boys are locked in their room until they can find $60, possibly by "kneading some dough."Finally, Lum and Abner, originally broadcast June 6, 1935, 91 years ago, Squire to Start Rival Theater.   Squire Skimp has threatened to open his own movie theatre since Lum and Abner won't take him in as a partner.Thanks to Debbie B. for supporting our podcast by using the Buy Me a Coffee function at http://classicradio.streamCheck out Professor Bees Digestive Aid at profbees.com and use my promo code WYATT to save 10% when you order! If you like what we do here, visit our friend Jay at http://radio.macinmind.com for great old-time radio shows 24 hours a day

Capitalizing on the success of Buck Privates, Universal Pictures wastes no time enlisting Abbott & Costello into the Navy!  The second of FOUR films starring the comedy duo in 1941 alone!  Co-starring Dick Powell and Claire Dodd.

Law and Chaos wishes a big mazal tov to Kristi Noem on her new, very real job as assistant principal of the Yeehaw American Hegemony Club. And to Lindsey Halligan on catching a Florida Bar investigation.   We'll discuss our recent post on Pam Bondi's very timely announcement that she intends to take over state bar complaints against DOJ employees. It comes at a moment when district court judges are telegraphing very clearly that they are going to start holding DHS and DOJ in criminal contempt for rampant disregard of court orders. Specifically, Judge Michael Farbiarz of the District of New Jersey says he'll require sworn affidavits from officials at the US Attorneys Office and ICE for every habeas release case that comes before him. This will likely serve as a model for other judges whose dockets are buckling under the weight of habeas cases from all the immigrants ICE is illegally detaining.   Elections expert Joe Dye is back to discuss Tuesday's primary elections in Texas, Arkansas, and North Carolina.   And for subscribers, we'll discuss the shadow docket order in which the six conservative justices leapt in to save New York Rep. Nicole Malliotakis's seat.   Lindsey Halligan Is Under Investigation by the Florida Bar https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/05/us/politics/lindsey-halligan-investigation-florida-bar.html   Bondi Says She's The Bar Now https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/bondi-says-shes-the-bar-now   Judge Farbiarz Order re Contempt https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.590517/gov.uscourts.njd.590517.30.0.pdf   Malliotakis v. Williams [2026 Supreme Court New York redistricting decision] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a914_1p24.pdf   Abbott v. LULAC [2025 Supreme Court stay of Texas map] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a608_7khn.pdf   Rucho v. Common Cause [2019 Supreme Court gerrymandering opinion] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6090361490276671133   Steve Vladek, Bonus 214: Emergency Relief from State Courts [One First] https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-214-emergency-relief-from-state   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Allie examines the Texas Senate race between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico and tackles the tough question: How should Christians vote when both candidates have serious flaws? She breaks down Paxton's moral failings and past scandals alongside Talarico's radically progressive positions—including his claims that “God is non-binary,” strong support for abortion, gender transitions for minors, prison abolition, and open-border policies—while evaluating their records on life, family, borders, and justice through a biblical lens. Additionally, Allie interviews her brother, Justin Simmons, who is the US Attorney for the Western District of Texas. Justin details his mission to crack down on drug smuggling, human trafficking and fraud, while urging others to improve their communities rather than choosing a life of self-gratification. Gov. Abbott declares CAIR a terrorist organization: https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-designates-muslim-brotherhood-cair-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations Ken Paxton's Impeachment: https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_Ken_Paxton,_2023 Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠ Share the Arrows is sponsored by: A'del Natural Cosmetics: AdelNaturalCosmetics.com Range Leather: RangeLeather.com/ALLIE We Heart Nutrition: WeHeartNutrition.com Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Time Codes 0:00 Introduction 1:11 Can James Talarico win in Texas? 39:14 Interview with the US Attorney for West Texas 1:09:57 Closing Remarks – Today's Sponsors: We Heart Nutrition | Check out We Heart Nutrition at ⁠⁠⁠WeHeartNutrition.com⁠⁠⁠ and use the code ALLIE for 20% off. A'del | Visit AdelNaturalCosmetics.com and enter promo code ALLIE for 25% off your first-time purchase. Good Ranchers | To support a company that honors America's past, present, and future, visit ⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠ today. When you start your plan, you'll get to pick a free meat that will be included in every order for life, and you'll get $25 off your first order using my exclusive code, ALLIE. Legacybox | Visit Legacybox.com/ALLIE to take advantage of Legacybox's Spring Cleaning sale and preserve your family's story. Alliance Defending Freedom | Every dollar you give to ADF by March 31 will be doubled by a special matching grant, only while matching funds last. Go to JOINADF.com/ALLIE or text ALLIE to 83848 to have your gift matched to protect brave Americans. Episodes You May Like: Ep 1315 | James Talarico Is More Demonic Than You Think https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1315-james-talarico-is-more-demonic-than-you-think/id1359249098?i=1000754075488 Ep 1305 | Is Trump Targeting Talarico? Colbert's Lie Exposed https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1305-is-trump-targeting-talarico-colberts-lie-exposed/id1359249098?i=1000750390293 Ep 1221 | Rebutting 'Progressive Christian' James Talarico's Bad Theology https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-1221-rebutting-progressive-christian-james-talaricos/id1359249098?i=1000718715520 --- ► Buy Allie's book, "You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": https://alliebethstuckey.com/book ► Subscribe to the podcast: iTunes: https://apple.co/2UVssnP Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2FwkXxj ► Connect with Allie on Social Media: https://twitter.com/conservmillen https://www.instagram.com/alliebstuckey/ https://facebook.com/allieBlazeTV/ ► Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Wade Abbott - On The Front Porch 1 [00:00:00] Wade Abbott - On The Front Porch 1 [00:10:45] Wade Abbott - On The Front Porch 2 [00:19:59] Wade Abbott - On The Front Porch 3 [00:29:20] Wade Abbott - On The Front Porch 4See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's in the News! The top diabetes stories and headlines happening now. Top stories this week include: Afrezza inhaled Insulin is Approved for Kids, CGM + Ketone Monitor gets European approval, Food Coloring & Diabetes Study, Device Recalls include Omnipod and Dexcom, Beta Bionics shares more about their patch pump, ADA conference info and more! This podcast is not intended as medical advice. If you have those kinds of questions, please contact your health care provider. Announcing Community Commericals! Learn how to get your message on the show here. Learn more about studies and research at Thrivable here Please visit our Sponsors & Partners - they help make the show possible! Omnipod - Simplify Life All about Dexcom  All about VIVI Cap to protect your insulin from extreme temperatures The best way to keep up with Stacey and the show is by signing up for our weekly newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter here Here's where to find us: Facebook (Group) Facebook (Page) Instagram Check out Stacey's books! Learn more about everything at our home page www.diabetes-connections.com  Episode transcripts: Welcome! I'm your host Stacey Simms and this is an In The News episode.. where we bring you the top diabetes stories and headlines happening now. A reminder that you can find the sources and links and a transcript and more info for every story mentioned here in the show notes. ADA starts this week – safe travels to those of you heading to New Orleans. We'll be covering remotely so please follow on social – make sure to Like the FB page or join the group. We've got a wrap up episode planned for this podcast as well as some indepth interviews with the newsmakers from the conference. I will see some of you next week in Chicago. We have a couple of seats left for our Club 1921 dinner on June 10th in Northbrook – this is a FREE dinner for HCPs and patient leaders – all about screening for T1D. More info on the website under the events tab. Okay.. our top story this week: XX Afrezza inhaled insulin is now approved for kids and teens. The FDA okayed MannKind's afrezza for children 6 and older with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. MannKind says its proprietary Technosphere drug delivery platform enables the rapid absorption of insulin into systemic circulation. This follows FDA approval earlier this year for an update that revises recommendations for the starting mealtime dosage when patients switch from subcutaneous mealtime insulin regimens. MannKind also completed enrollment in February for a study evaluating the initiation of Afrezza therapy shortly after type 1 diabetes diagnosis in pediatric patients.   The company said it made Afrezza available for eligible patients for $35 or less per month. Desmond Schatz, professor of pediatrics at the University of Florida College of Medicine, said: "Mealtime insulin can be especially challenging for children because eating and snacking patterns, activity levels, and daily settings like school and sports often vary. With its rapid onset and dosing at the start of a meal, Afrezza may help clinicians better match insulin therapy to how children and families live day to day, while offering a needle-free mealtime option." Lots more to come on this – we're working on a bonus episode with one of the pediatric endos who worked on the clinical trials that led to this approval – hopefully have that out later this week. https://www.massdevice.com/mannkind-fda-approval-inhaled-insulin-children/ XX FDA has agreed to consider a new drug for the treatment of adults with type 1 and chronic kidney disease. Finerenone (fy-near-uh-known) is currently approved in the US for adults with CKD associated with type 2 diabetes and for adults with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or greater. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is present in over one-third of adults with diabetes, and because it's such a serious condition, interventions are needed to reduce its incidence and help people live a long and prosperous life. https://www.docwirenews.com/post/fda-grants-priority-review-to-finerenone-snda-for-type-1-diabetes-associated-ckd XX Abbot gets European approval for the world's first dual glucose‑ketone sensing technology for people with diabetes. They're calling this Libre Duo and Libre Duo 10 Day, and it's designed to continuously measure glucose and ketone levels every minute. Abbott plans to begin launching Libre Duo systems in select European countries later this year. Libre Duo delivers up to 15 days of wear and will be offered to adults ages 18 and older. Libre Duo 10 Day offers up to 10 days of wear and is intended for people ages 2 and older. Abbott is also working with leading pump companies to allow automated insulin delivery (AID) systems to connect with the sensors. https://abbott.mediaroom.com/2026-05-27-Abbott-secures-CE-Mark-for-worlds-first-dual-glucose-ketone-sensing-technology-for-people-with-diabetes   XX Huge recall for Omnipod. Insulin says a manufacturing issue through ongoing product monitoring that could result in insulin under-delivery  with specific lots of its Omnipod 5, Dash and Eros pods. Insulet said the scope of this action reaches approximately 7 million pods. This issue is separate from the March recall that affected certain Omnipod 5 lots. According to the Acton, Massachusetts-based company, some of its affected pods may have a small tear in the tubing (cannula) just above the skin. This tear lands between the pod and the point where the cannula enters the body. If this occurs, insulin may leak outside of the device instead of being fully delivered into the body as intended. This may lead to under-delivery of the therapeutic.   Individuals using an affected pod may notice wetness on the skin or pod adhesive or detect the smell of insulin. However, some cases may prove difficult to detect and go unnoticed. Of the approximately 7 million pods included in the action, approximately 60% have been consumed or are expired. The pods affected by the correction represent approximately 8.5% of the 2025 global Omnipod pod prodcution. Insulet says it has sufficient supply to replace affected pods. It expects no disruption to product availability. The company said it has notified the FDA and all other relevant regulatory authorities of its action.   The full list of affected pod lots can be found here. https://www.massdevice.com/insulet-another-omnipod-5-recall-dash-eros/ XX Dexcom is warning that certain scrapped glucose sensors have been stolen and resold. Dexcom said it has not received any reports of severe adverse events associated with the stolen product. One lot of scrapped devices carries a risk of infection for sensors that are not properly sterilized, and another lot had an elevated internal testing failure rate, meaning users would have an increased risk of having no sensor readings available. Dexcom said the affected sensors were stolen during the destruction process and then sold by third parties. The company routinely scraps sensors that do not meet its standards. The sensors are sent to a third-party vendor for destruction and recycling.   Dexcom said it traced sales of the stolen devices to Pharmsource, which is not an authorized Dexcom distributor but supplies some independent pharmacies and U.S. durable medical equipment distributors. Because of this, pharmacies that purchase products from Pharmsource should review their inventory, Dexcom said.   People with sensors from the affected lots should not use those sensors and can call customer support to request replacements. Dexcom has set up a website to help users check if their devices are affected. https://www.medtechdive.com/news/dexcom-warns-of-scrapped-glucose-sensors-being-resold/821139/ XX XX   Beta Bionics plans to debut its first insulin patch pump by the end of the second quarter of 2027, subject to Food and Drug Administration clearance. The device, called Mint, would be compatible with Beta Bionics' interoperable automated glycemic controller, a software that allows for the pump to automatically adjust insulin delivery based on readings from a glucose sensor. Beta Bionics first unveiled the prototype for Mint last year at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions. The device is expected to have a similar size and wear time, at three days, to Insulet's patch pumps on the market. It would have a 200-unit insulin reservoir.   Mint differs by containing a mix of reusable and disposable components. Beta Bionics plans to make the device exclusively available in the pharmacy channel, building on its existing agreements for its current iLet insulin pump. Beta Bionics is one of several diabetes tech companies developing patch pumps to compete with market leader Insulet. Tandem Diabetes Care and Medtronic spinoff MiniMed have also announced planned patch pumps. Tandem said it plans to file a 510(k) submission this quarter for a tubeless version of its small, durable pump, and Medtronic plans to submit its patch pump to the FDA this fall.   https://www.medtechdive.com/news/beta-bionics-to-launch-its-first-insulin-patch-pump-to-compete-with-insulet/821091/ XX CVS puts Zepbound back on it's coverage list – with it's Caremark PBM. They also added Foundayo, Lilly's obesity pill. CVS had dropped Lilly's Zepound last summer but kept competitor Wegovy. It'll be back at Caremark October first. All three of the nation's largest pharmacy ⁠benefit managers ​now cover Lilly's full obesity medicine portfolio. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/cvs-brings-back-coverage-lillys-obesity-drug-zepbound-2026-05-28/   More to come, including a new benefit from metformin for women, something new from Tidepool, big news for T1D in Austalia and more.. XX A new study suggests that higher long-term exposure to food colouring additives — including both synthetic and natural colourings commonly found in processed foods and beverages — may be associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Researchers analyzed data from more than 108,000 adults in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort between 2009 and 2023, following participants for a median of just over eight years. During that time, 1,131 participants developed type 2 diabetes. The study found that people with the highest intake of total food colouring additives had a 38% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared with non- or low-consumers.   Several specific additives were linked to increased risk, including caramel colouring additives such as total caramel (E150 family), plain caramel (E150a), sulphite ammonia caramel (E150d), and beta-carotene (E160a). Additional associations were observed for curcumin (E100), anthocyanins (E163), paprika extract (E160c), lutein (E161b), and cochineal-derived colourings (E120). "Our findings revealed positive associations between widely consumed food colouring additives and type 2 diabetes incidence," the authors wrote, adding that further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms behind the findings and whether food colouring regulations should be reevaluated. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/use-common-food-colours-tied-high-type-2-diabetes-risk-2026a1000hes XX Big news for Australia – their Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approves Tzield. Tzield is now approved in Australia to delay the onset of stage 3 (or clinical) T1D in people aged eight years and older with stage 2 T1D – the early, pre-symptomatic stage of the condition, where changes in blood glucose levels have begun but insulin therapy is not yet required. Breakthrough T1D Australia Chief Executive Officer, Sydney Yovic, said the approval represented a transformational moment for Australians affected by T1D. https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2026/05/landmark-approval-of-tzield-in-australia-ushers-in-a-new-era-of-delay-for-type-1-diabetes/155036/ XX https://www.theatlantic.com/health/2026/05/diabetes-pregnancy/687324/ XX A common diabetes drug may hold great potential to help with aging, even if scientists aren't exactly sure why. According to a study, the drug metformin doesn't just help patients to effectively manage their type 2 diabetes. it may also give older women a better chance of living to 90. Scientists in the US and Germany used data from a long-term US study of postmenopausal women.   Records for a total of 438 people were selected – half of whom took metformin to treat diabetes, and half of whom took a different diabetes drug, sulfonylurea.   While there are some caveats and asterisks to the study, those in the metformin group were calculated to have a 30 percent lower risk of dying before the age of 90 than those in the sulfonylurea group. The study used age 90 as the marker for 'exceptional' longevity. However, scientists aren't yet sure that the drug extends lifespan, especially in humans – which is part of the reason for this study. RCTs could follow further down the line to dig deeper into these results, the researchers suggest. In the meantime, as the global population continues to skew older, studies continue to find ways to keep us healthier for longer and reduce damage to the body as we age. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-common-diabetes-drug-is-linked-with-exceptional-longevity-in-women XX The American Diabetes Association® (ADA) will host the 2026 Scientific Sessions from June 5-8 in New Orleans. The ADA's Scientific Sessions is the world's largest diabetes meeting, convening an expected audience of over 12,000 leading physicians, scientists, researchers, and healthcare professionals from around the globe. The premier diabetes meeting, which is also offered virtually, will feature the latest scientific findings in diabetes and obesity, where leading experts and peers will share findings in research for prevention, care, and cures at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. Key themes will include: Advancing obesity and metabolic health: Prevention, early detection, and disease modification: Improving cardiometabolic outcomes: Transforming care through innovation and access: New research will highlight how technology, artificial intelligence, and implementation strategies are reshaping diabetes care—reducing treatment burden, expanding access, and enabling more person-centered care. Advancing beta cell replacement and cure strategies: Fostering innovation: On Saturday, June 6, from 4:30-6:00 p.m., the Innovation Challenge, which debuted in 2023, invites emerging companies to pitch novel ideas to improve the lives of people living with diabetes. A panel of judges, with input from a live audience, determines which contestants will earn a private audience with potential funders. XX Tidepool, the nonprofit leader advancing innovation in diabetes technology, announced that Tidepool+ Direct Connect is now available through the Epic Showroom. Built on SMART on FHIR, Direct Connect brings interactive diabetes device data directly into Epic workflows, helping clinicians use patient data during routine care. "Tidepool has always focused on making diabetes data more accessible and actionable," said Brandon Arbiter, CEO. "We're excited to empower clinicians using Epic with insightful, intuitive patient data that fits directly into their encounter workflow so they can use it to improve care in the moment it matters."   Tidepool+ Direct Connect supports scalable deployment across Epic-enabled health systems. This architecture enables faster, more intuitive rollouts, enhancing Tidepool's existing EHR integration capabilities.   Direct Connect is part of Tidepool's ongoing work to improve how clinicians can use timely and relevant diabetes device data during patient visits to help drive better health outcomes.   The feature is now available in the Connection Hub of the Epic Showroom.   https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260527780274/en/Tidepool-Launches-in-Epic-Showroom-to-Bring-Diabetes-Device-Data-into-the-Point-of-Care XX

Wednesday Headlines: Israel strikes southern Lebanon despite Trump’s announcement Changes to the NDIS will cause ‘material harm’ to disabled Australians Barnaby Joyce joins anti-abortion rally in Sydney Charlie Pickering calls Grace Tame's ABC podcast 'problematic' The ‘franken-can’ named Australia’s worst packaging Deep Dive: Tony Abbott is back in frontline Liberal Party politics, after being appointed the party’s Federal President. But not everyone in the party is convinced it's a good idea. Supporters see Abbott as a powerful communicator who can help reconnect the Liberals with their base, while critics fear his return could overshadow leader Angus Taylor and deepen divisions between the party's conservative and moderate wings. In this episode of The Briefing, Chris Spyrou speaks with AFR political editor Phillip Coorey about why Abbott is back, how much influence a party president really has, and whether his return can help reverse the Liberal Party's decline Further listening from the headlines:“Globalise the Intifada” explained Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @thebriefingpodInstagram: @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @TheBriefingPodcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tony Abbott is one of our most divisive former prime ministers. Lauded in conservative political circles, and mocked outside of them.And now, after he was knifed by his own party as a first-term prime minister, and then lost his political seat, Abbott is back.Today chief political commentator James Massola discusses Abbott's selection as the new president of the Liberal Party and the risk, and reward, he poses to Opposition leader Angus Taylor.Background listening: Tony Abbott's interview on Inside Politics – On running for Senate, AUKUS and cultural ‘self-loathing’. Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The sermon “Discerning the Will of God” explains that understanding God’s will is less about discovering a hidden plan and more about growing in wisdom, trust, and relationship with God. Pastor Donny Abbott teaches that believers can discern God’s guidance through five key sources: God’s Word, wise counsel from other believers, life circumstances, the Holy Spirit, and prayer. Scripture provides clear principles that shape decisions, while trusted mentors and friends offer valuable perspective. Circumstances can sometimes point to God’s direction, but they should never be relied on alone because open and closed doors can be misleading. The Holy Spirit guides, comforts, and convicts believers as they walk closely with God, and prayer helps cultivate trust, wisdom, and dependence on Him. Ultimately, the sermon emphasizes that God is not hiding His will from His people; rather, He desires to lead them through a relationship with Him, and confidence grows when His Word, wise counsel, circumstances, the Holy Spirit, and prayer all begin to align.

Tony Abbott is one of our most divisive former prime ministers. Lauded in conservative political circles, and mocked outside of them.And now, after he was knifed by his own party as a first-term prime minister, and then lost his political seat, Abbott is back.Today chief political commentator James Massola discusses Abbott's selection as the new president of the Liberal Party and the risk, and reward, he poses to Opposition leader Angus Taylor.Background listening: Tony Abbott's interview on Inside Politics – On running for Senate, AUKUS and cultural ‘self-loathing’. Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott didn't exactly disappear from the limelight after he lost his seat in the ‘teal' wave of 2019, but his new role as Liberal president has many asking: why is the party bringing him back now? Chief political correspondent Dan Jervis-Bardy speaks to Nour Haydar about how Abbott's appointment could change the party – and shape conservative politics in Australia

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

This week on News Weakly, Sami Shah looks at what happens when political parties mistake nostalgia for strategy and spreadsheets for compassion.Tony Abbott returns as Liberal Party president, raising questions about whether the Coalition plans to solve its existential crisis or simply appoint it to a leadership role. Meanwhile, sweeping changes to the NDIS could see hundreds of thousands of Australians lose access to support, generating considerably less outrage than proposed tax changes affecting property investors.Plus, BHP's green ambitions collide with leaked internal documents, KPMG discovers the risks of ignoring whistleblowers, and Donald Trump attempts to resolve the Iran conflict by threatening… Oman.All that, and more.Sami Shah is a multi-award-winning comedian, writer, journalist, and broadcaster.For more: http://thesamishah.comTheme music 'Historic Anticipation' by Paul MottramThis podcast is written, hosted, and produced by Sami Shah. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Staci Miller, founder of Gen UX Consulting, shares her winding path from fashion design and psychology to human factors engineering in MedTech. Staci explains what human factors is—through stories from World War II aviation and modern healthcare—and why the FDA now mandates usability work to reduce catastrophic use errors. She breaks down formative versus summative/validation studies, the role of risk documentation (URRA/UFMEA), and why founders should think about usability as early as they think about risk. Staci also opens up about the challenge of starting a second business after losing her first in 2008, how she built Gen UX from $0, and the leadership lessons behind year-over-year growth.   Guest links: https://www.genuxconsulting.com/ | https://www.linkedin.com/company/gen-ux-consulting/  Charity supported: Feeding America Interested in being a guest on the show or have feedback to share? Email us at theleadingdifference@velentium.com.  PRODUCTION CREDITS Host & Editor: Lindsey Dinneen Producer: Velentium Medical   EPISODE TRANSCRIPT Episode 081 - Staci Miller [00:00:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Hi, I'm Lindsey and I'm talking with MedTech industry leaders on how they change lives for a better world. [00:00:09] Diane Bouis: The inventions and technologies are fascinating and so are the people who work with them. [00:00:15] Frank Jaskulke: There was a period of time where I realized, fundamentally, my job was to go hang out with really smart people that are saving lives and then do work that would help them save more lives. [00:00:28] Diane Bouis: I got into the business to save lives and it is incredibly motivating to work with people who are in that same business, saving or improving lives. [00:00:38] Duane Mancini: What better industry than where I get to wake up every day and just save people's lives. [00:00:42] Lindsey Dinneen: These are extraordinary people doing extraordinary work, and this is The Leading Difference. Hello, and welcome back to another episode of The Leading Difference podcast. I'm your host, Lindsey, and today I'm delighted to welcome as my guest, Staci Miller. Staci is the founder at Gen UX Consulting. Her expertise is in applying user-focused research to develop innovative solutions, and it's essential to the growth of any technology organization. As a detail-oriented and tenacious executive in human factors engineering and UX design, she has a proven record of elevating the end user experience and achieving targeted client outcomes. She has created innovative medtech and big tech solutions through a comprehensive user-centered development process, leveraging artificial intelligence and industry agnostic design tools to optimize products and services. In her current role with Gen UX, she's a key leader facilitating strategic company growth plans and service offerings while managing the capacity and workflow of the UX HF design team. Well, Staci, welcome to the show. I'm so excited to talk with you today. [00:01:49] Staci Miller: Me too. I've been looking forward to it all week, so I'm very excited to be here. And I don't know what the day has in store. I, I know that there was like a, a, a kit that you sent out and I didn't read it on purpose, so everything's gonna be organic. [00:02:03] Lindsey Dinneen: Perfect. Those are my favorite conversations anyway, so I'll take it and run. Some people I know really love to have the questions ahead of time, and others are just like, "Yeah, I don't want to know. I'm just gonna go off the cuff. Here we go." So, brilliant. All right, well, let's start, if you don't mind, by sharing a little bit about yourself, your background, and what led you to medtech. [00:02:24] Staci Miller: That is, those are my favorite questions. So, I have a background in fashion design, psychology. I spent most of my classes in cognitive psych, but it wasn't like a difference of degree, it was just psychology. And then I have a master's degree in human factors and ergonomics. So I went the psychology route and the design route. That's kind of my background. So when I graduated my master's degree, through my master's program, I was able to intern for both years and one was in tech, big tech. I interviewed and landed a, great one year long internship at Samsung, which was actually supposed to be just three months, and I stayed there for a full year. So they kept me through my whole, my whole semester, which is something they don't normally do, which was really fun. I mostly just said, "Hey, can I stay here for the year?" And they're like, "Great, no problem. Sure. We'll figure it out like that seems like a good option. We like you, you like us. Cool. We'll do that." And my second internship was in medical device at a company called Interface and Analysis. My, that was actually my internship. My second one was at Samsung, so I got to really look in like I, I guess you got the curtain. If you think about Wonderland and Oz and the curtain and being able to pull back the curtain between both industries, what did I like better? I ended up liking medical better, mostly because the research was more structured and not necessarily conversations about, "Yeah, so how do you feel about that? Did you like it?" Like to me, that's not really. What I would consider the best opportunity to gain data. Data to me, like there has to be like a clear objective as to what you're doing, the whys behind it, and what do you wanna learn. And I found that in, when I worked with engineers in medtech, they definitely had things that they wanted to learn, whereas in tech, they just had so much money. They were like, "Yeah, let's just see what people think about this." And I'm. Okay. And then when I would be really structured and I was working with people who didn't have backgrounds in research, had very strong, very good backgrounds in design, like legitimately awesome, they were leading the research and they were missing the boat. So the narratives started to be focused on the N of one. This one person said this really interesting thing, so let's base our whole design off of what they said. And I'm like, "Dude, wait a second. Wait a second. All of them said this thing about the design though, and like we have four or five data points about when you ask this question." They're like, "Yeah, but that's not interesting." And I was like, "Okay, keep my mouth shut. I got it. Move on." Like from that moment forward, I, it wasn't like "Staci, don't talk, it was more like this is how we design based on the narratives that we've learned how to, how to research on." And so it wasn't as I would say-- it wasn't considering the actual 360 view of the user. It was considering the really cool thing that happened this one time that was like totally an outlier. And it happened consistently when I was working in big tech. So I was like, uh, medtech, probably more my speed. And then my first job was at Abbott. [00:05:39] Lindsey Dinneen: Nice. [00:05:40] Staci Miller: And I ended up there. Yeah, [00:05:41] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay, great. Well. [00:05:42] Staci Miller: Cool. [00:05:43] Lindsey Dinneen: Lots of questions based on this incredible background. I want to go back a little bit. So fashion design, was this something that you grew up thinking, "Oh, this is what I wanna do and be okay?" Right. All right, so... [00:05:57] Staci Miller: it's all I ever wanted and I did that. So... [00:06:00] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:06:02] Staci Miller: That's a, that's a great question. I think that my interest in fashion peaked around when I was 12 years old and during the time, Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell, and I was so fascinated by how beautiful these women were. And, and fashion was a thing in the nineties. There was like a lot of Dolce and Gabana around, and I loved it. And I couldn't wait to get my new print of Vogue every, every season. I loved Harper's Bizarre, and I would just pull pictures out of these models and what they were wearing. And then I would start you know, freehanding stuff and things like that. And I think a lot of people do that when they're really interested in clothing and things like that. And if you really think about it, fashion is art that people wear. So I was very attracted to that part of it. And it's all I wanted to do. So after high school, I went to FIDM and studied fashion design. And right outta FIDM, I started my first company in fashion design, and I was a clothing manufacturer, and we had 500 open doors in the United States and in Canada, and I was hoping to expand, but unfortunately 2008 hit and they hit it hard and fast and I lost most of my managing capital in the year that I think was my tipping point. So it was the, the year that I finally got a lot of traction and had a lot of repeat business and a lot of new business as well. And a lot of those new businesses just refused orders. Just from the east coast to the west, and it was just tons of money out that wasn't gonna come in. So there was really no way to, make that work after that, like I lost literally all the money I had in my business in like the span of, I would say three, four weeks. It was just mortifyingly scary. But I was young and people who are young are resilient and they move on and they find a new dream. And it took me a minute, like I didn't really know what the french toast I was gonna do. And I was like, well, I was still planning on staying in fashion and long, short, I was offered a job to do and run production for a one, a different company. So make sure that their goods were produced on time. Deal with the, the timing of all the orders, making sure the product line. So it was basically operations for manufacturing. And I was super excited about the job and I moved back to my parents' house at the time because things were just that tight financially for me. My parents were like, "Yeah, just, you know, come back, we'll figure it out." And I remember saying to my mom and dad, I'm like, "If this job falls through, do you mind if I just go back to school and stay here?" And they both started to laugh at me like, "Your job is fine, but if the sure why, why not?" And they, they thought it was crazy. And then I ended up back in school. So, they were like, "Whoa, that was really insane," 'cause that was in the end of 2008, starting 2009. And so the company rescinded their offer and they were really like, so sad about it, but they went to a market to sell their clothes and they got zero orders that year or something like close to that. So it was just, it was just a really intense time in the fashion industry and I was looking for jobs and I wasn't getting anywhere. So I only had an AA, and at the time that really didn't matter, but I went back to school and I'm like, "If I'm going back to school this late in age, I'm getting a master's degree." I had no idea what I was gonna get a master's degree in. I was like. I like clothes and design. We'll figure it out from there like that. And I was like, "Well, maybe I'll be..." this is crazy. But I was thinking about being a lawyer, like a property law lawyer. So, because when you are a designer in clothing, people can just knock you off. And you've seen that happen like pretty much everywhere. And people can just take advantage of your intellectual property and never pay you for it if they change enough of it. And so I was like, "You know, this would be something I'd probably be good at." So I went back to school thinking I was gonna go into that type of law. I took psychology courses and I took philosophy courses. And philosophy courses really do lean you, get you thinking very specifically about law. That's what philosophy was basically geared towards anyways. And you take these psychology courses and they're about people and how people process information, how people behave based on their behavior and things like that. So I thought the combination would be really good. Well, I ended up not liking, I did like philosophy, but philosophy's "let's think about thinking about it." And psychology is-- which is great. It's great, but psychology is like more applicable when you're interacting with others. And I found it super fascinating. And then I got really into like cognitive psychology and I'm like, "What the french toast am I gonna do with this? I can't do anything with cognitive psychology. Like I need to make money. I'm a grownup. This isn't ah, I'm gonna study underwater basket weaving and come out and go work in communications at Fox." Like I had to have an actual plan. So in my college at the time, there were these classes and they were like introductory to what you can do with your degrees. And that's literally where I found human factors. And there weren't very many schools that did it, but I was taking most of my classes at that point in cognitive psychology, which is how people process information, not their feeling based stuff. Like I didn't wanna have conversations with people about their feelings. Get that off of me. Like that's not, that's not my jam. I'm like, "Sorry, you're sad, but I'm not sad and I don't wanna be sad, so I'm gonna keep, keep going." And I'm like, "How am I gonna work this into my, you know, I love design, I wanna keep that in my background, and how am I gonna, what am I gonna do?" And so the study of human factors really is the intersection of design and research, and how people interact with said products based on the design. And you get to research that. And I'm like, "Sold. Good. I'm, I can do this. This is like this, I didn't even know this thing existed." This is crazy good. And I never looked back. [00:11:49] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:11:50] Staci Miller: I got into a master's program the next year. I, and because I was in that specific program in San Jose State, that's why it was so easy for me to work for Samsung because it was in my backyard. And that's why it was easy for me to work for Interface Analysis because Tony was the owner of that company. Tony, he was my professor. So he just was like hiring people and I, I answered his response and I was like, "Hey, I, I'm looking for something." Do you like, he didn't say it was his company. He said, "I have a friend looking" and I'm, you know, like when I know I need to make some money, I'm gonna try to hustle up and make some money. So I'm like, "Hey, I'm open to that." He's like, "Why don't you come by my office and we'll talk?" And I was like, "That's weird." He said It was for some other, I'm like, "Sure, no problem." So I go to his office and he offered me an internship right then and there 'cause it was for me. "I just wanted to see who would respond," 'cause you are the only person that responded. I'm like, "Guess you're gonna hire me then." [00:12:37] Lindsey Dinneen: Amazing. All right. That's great. Thank you so much for that background. And it is so interesting how sometimes our paths are very, very windy to get to where we end up being and we Yeah, exactly. What, what ends up being a really good fit. But, so can you explain a little bit more about human factors, especially, maybe to help folks who have maybe some misconceptions or don't fully understand what it is just in general, but then also relate it specifically to medtech and why it's so important within the medtech industry? [00:13:11] Staci Miller: I can give you a story that probably would do both. So human factors was, was actually founded pretty recently in our timeline of psychology and understanding people. In World War II, there were a whole bunch of fighter pilots ejecting themselves from planes that caused, even in World War II, millions of dollars to produce and nobody could figure out what the problem was. They checked the planes. The planes were operating correctly. They did psychology, like psychological backgrounds on the people who are fighter pilots. I mean, they have to, to get into the military and to fly those planes, you have to be pretty good under pressure. They interviewed them, they were fine. They didn't have any breakdown of stress, and it wasn't happening on a small scale. This was happening on quite a large scale. So they, again, they went, they're like, "Okay, okay." Well, the military went back and " Well, it has to be the plane." So they looked through the plane, wasn't the plane, talk to the people, wasn't the people. So then the psychologist started to ask questions. They're like, "Well, if you're saying that it's not the person's emotional state and you're saying it's not the plane, well then what happened? Something had to happen. Something changed. What changed?" It turned out that the engineers had moved the throttle button with the ejection button in the planes. [00:14:31] Lindsey Dinneen: Oh. [00:14:31] Staci Miller: So the pilots were originally trained to hit the throttle button on the certain side that the throttle button was in the cockpit. So instead of hitting the throttle, because that was their original training, they hit the ejection button. So they ejected themselves out of the planes, which is why human factors was born. Those little changes that people don't understand about human beings. So when we learn something for the first time, because like even if you think about being a kid or being a baby, or learning a really tough lesson, right? You remember that lesson. And so what happens is that's your default setting. "This is the lesson I've learned. This is how I react." Now for that lesson, it doesn't matter if it's like an emotional exchange or if it's a physical one. So because they were taught where the, the pilots were taught specifically where the throttle was in the first place when they were under attack and they were in a high cognitive loaded space, they went back to their original training. [00:15:30] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm-hmm. [00:15:32] Staci Miller: And then the engineers were like, "Well, we told them. We told them." So, so, because they didn't wanna take the blame, right? Nobody wanted to take the blame ruining millions of dollars of planes. So this same type of thing happens in the medical industry. I mean, you can see it pretty easily, right? So you're trained on System X. There's an update, a 510K release to it. The system works differently. Errors are made, people are hurt. [00:15:57] Lindsey Dinneen: Mm-hmm. [00:15:58] Staci Miller: That's how it translates to medical. So aviation was a really big part of human factors and it still is to this day. Like NASA used to hire quite a few of my classmates. And I know that Boeing and a lot of those other, even BMW hire people that do what I do for a living and test the responses during drive time. And if you think about it, if you look at a Tesla versus a BMW, those are very different driving experiences. Like I had to relearn how to drive a Tesla, right? And like it has a one pedal situation. So now when I get into regular cars, I'm like, "Wait, what? What am I doing? What? What kind of car is this? Like how do I drive this thing again?" I know that sounds silly, but it, it's true 'cause you kind of just get used to the thing that you have. And that's exactly why human factors is prevalent in medical device or in aviation or in, you know, like any kind of like navigation systems. The reason the FDA mandated it is because a lot of products were coming to market and there was a very large influx of critical catastrophic errors in hospitals. People were suffering consequences of bad interfaces or lack of instructions on products. I know that there were a lot of intravenous medications given that weren't supposed to be IV medications in like in certain-- yes, you're supposed to inject it, but not. Intravenously and those charged caused people to perish. So that's when the FDA stepped in and said, "Okay, we were asking you as a favor to do these usability studies, but now officially they're part of your risk requirements and they're part of your requirements to get to market." And I think that happened about the time I graduated grad school, around that time. So about 15, 16 years ago. [00:17:50] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay. Yeah. Well that's a fascinating story, and I'm sorry that that is the impetus for the results that we have today, but also how incredible that that is something that's being prioritized and mandated now. And I'm wondering too, when a startup company is developing their technology, how soon should they be thinking about human factors, usability, UX/UI. [00:18:17] Staci Miller: As fast as they're thinking about risk. if you're already thinking about risk at phase zero, that's when you should be thinking about usability and UI and interactions based on user processes, because that's when this kind of conversation really needs to start with regulatory, with your team, with the engineers. So even if you don't have a human factors engineer on staff, like you can find a company that can give you like some fractional support, just, you know, to talk to and to understand what their, what, what their responsibilities are, and what their requirements are to get to market. I have found that a lot of founders don't think that it's a requirement. And I, and I'm really not sure why, but that's been happening a lot lately. [00:18:59] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. So because it's a requirement, because you should be thinking about it from the get go, what are some things that you've seen work really well in terms of, putting together this kind of this testing and whatnot versus things that might seem like they could work. Like perhaps somebody feels that they could maybe do some of this testing themselves. You know, just, just things that maybe people who aren't really familiar with all the regulations would perhaps do, and that could cause problems down the road. [00:19:32] Staci Miller: So there's a, these are all really great questions and let's, let's unpack the idea of research, right? So some people think that research is finding out if somebody is happy about a product and would use it, like product market fit, right? Some people do marketing for that, and I can, that's the type of research that is not technically human factors, but it is something that Gen UX can do, right? So it's just research. I, I call it like insert white meat or insert protein. We can do the research, right? So when it comes down to it, there's, I would say that research is split into two buckets, which is UX/UI, which is very popular and people understand that, which is a formative in the FDA guidance and then validation slash summative. So the validation studies are very clean cut. So I'll explain those first. And they are to validate that the user can use the system in its environments safely. So the alpha for that is the user is successful at using this product and the uses, uses and use environments correctly and safely. And this is all based on your risk documentation from your URRA or your UFMEA. Some people use ADFMEA, which is based on design, and I suggest that they don't use that because that focuses more on the system than it does on the user. And the FDA has really cracked down on that. So if you are a founder and you think you can get just one system, ADFMEA, you are probably already starting off on the wrong foot. Make sure you have your own usability. Because human factors work really focuses on two things in the medical industry. One, it focuses on helping develop the device while breaking down risks. So if you have mitigations and your system's designed a certain way to avoid a risk, that's very important, and that's really also usability testing. And I can explain this in two ways. I've worked at Meta, I've worked at Samsung, I've worked at a lot of different big tech companies, and I've worked at a lot of medtech companies. So I think that people think that human factors is different than user research, and they're right. Human factors is much harder than user research. And you really actually need a background in research methods and an understanding of how the application of research works. Formatives can be used for two reasons. One, to support the need of the product in use and to check how people are actually using the system in real life. So sometimes people are really good at thinking-- so engineers are amazing at building systems, right? I can't do what they can do. I'm not gonna pretend like I can. What I can do is help them build it for their end user, because a lot of the times engineers think very differently than the average human being. They're much more educated. Schooling for engineering is extremely difficult. A lot of it's mathematical computations, understanding actual physical properties of things in their environments and how that they work, right? So those are the things that engineers think about all day long. That's fine. I think about the user all day long. So you can create a system that an engineer thinks that is fine, but then the user is " I don't really know how to use this. What are you talking about?" Right? And so that's what user research informatives avoid. They avoid, they break down risk and they are able to help form the product. So those, those user research studies, like before, let's say phase zero to phase four in a market cycle, if phase five is market release, are for those things. And then as you get later in the cycle, you wanna do more rigid research, that's really breaking down the risk and really focusing on the user interactions within the system and med device. And making sure that they're assessing the risk based on your user, but they're very specific to the user interactions that are critical tasks and higher. Or things that lead up to the critical test and come away. So like you have to be able to do the steps before, do the thing that's really hard to do, that could hurt somebody and then make sure coming away from them you don't cause any harm either. That's the best way to look at these types of tests. And we do the exact same thing in validation for systems. So, in software you test to see if the software can do the thing that it's supposed to do. When you check that box, the software does the thing and it did it, and we're good to go. You do the same thing with mechanical engineering. The system has this, this range of motion here and this range of motion here, and it doesn't deviate from plus X to plus Y and therefore the system does what it's supposed to say. So you're verifying and validating that the system does what the system is planned to do. It's really no different in users, it's just that you're dealing with human beings and it's not, it doesn't work the same way, right? Because like people are variables no matter what. And that was really long worded. So there's like tons of different research to do, but if you don't do your summative and you don't do your risk documentation, you're not getting to, you're not gonna get to market approval. Just, there's no way. [00:24:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, that is incredibly helpful insight. And you know, so I wanna go back to, you had this company before, right? So you had already built a business and it was thriving, and then unfortunately life intervened a little bit. When you went to start Gen UX, did you have moments... [00:24:57] Staci Miller: Of PTSD? [00:24:58] Lindsey Dinneen: Of, yeah. [00:25:01] Staci Miller: Yes. [00:25:01] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:25:02] Staci Miller: Yeah. I had major PTSD. Like I, so the concept of Gen UX was a play on words like, so I'm a Gen Xer, no biggie, but like I think that every Gen Xers, millennials, I feel like both of our generations very much identify with our generation. And I thought it would be kind of a fun play on words to identify to people that are also Gen Xers that, yeah, we do UX work and we're Gen UX, as a Generation X, like it was very important, right? So I kind of came up with that idea, thought it was cute. But at the time I was working for Meta, and Meta had been doing quite a bit of layoffs at the time. Nothing wrong with that, that happens with every company. But I have survived in Medtronic and Abbott and all these other companies. I had survived so many rounds of layoffs. I'm like, "One day my number is gonna be, it's just, it's just gonna happen." So, we started at Meta internally, really like they, they were very open and honest with people. They're like, "This is when this is gonna happen. We are gonna lay off more people. This is when this round is gonna happen. We're gonna lay off more people, and then this is the final round and this is when we're gonna lay off these people." So each of our groups of things like, so it was like engineers, lawyers, researchers. Like we, we had timelines that we knew if, if it was gonna happen, this is when it was gonna happen, this would be the day. [00:26:17] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:26:17] Staci Miller: So I started to really think about what that meant, and I'm like, "Okay, well I'm not gonna start looking for jobs right away because I want my severance package." I definitely wanted that 'cause I, and then I wanted a break if I could have it. So I was like, okay. I, in between working at I was working at EDA as a contractor and that was super fun. Like I had my own time kind of, and I enjoyed the work and I got put on other projects whenever they needed me. And it was like, but I was constantly on a project, so I'm like, "I, maybe I'll go into doing IC work by myself" and I'm like, "No, I can't make enough. If I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna build something." And then I'm like, well, I started to talk to my friends every single one of my friends, including Interface Analysis' owner, Tony Andre was like, "Start your own business, Staci. Start your own consulting firm, just do it. Don't even look back. Just do it. People will end up coming to you because you know how to do this." He's like, he's it's, "You know, the first years they are what they are and everybody knows what that looks like. It's, it's rough. You have, it's like a mental game. You're like, I am gonna do this. And you just have to be consistent and can continue down your path. And more and more people will show up." And that's been true every year. But that's how GenX was started. And yes, there was this whole trepidation about, "Am I gonna make it? Am I gonna make it through this?" And I was like, "You know what, Stac, you're starting in a recession in your, in your industry. If you can get it done, if you can get two years in and be successful, you're fine." I'm in year three. [00:27:50] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah! [00:27:51] Staci Miller: Yeah, I mean, year three, woohoo. And we're increasing 50% year over year in year three, and I started it with $0. So, and I'm not, I'm not saying like a hundred to 50, like $50 to a hundred, we're, we're talking a couple hundred thousand dollars here, a couple hundred thousand there. But it's modest and I do expect that growth, and I do expect that to continue. And the other thing I think about is becoming very malleable in, in your spaces, like what's working for you and what doesn't work for you. But I feel like that's kind of off topic from what you asked. But yeah, I had PTSD gave myself at least two years and I'm like, "I can do anything for two years. If it doesn't work out, you know, like I have everything that I have and I can go back into corporate if I need to." And I really, I really was tripping, like just to be nineties about it, I was tripping. Like I was really like, "You know, I don't know." And my husband was like. He was my biggest cheerleader. He was like, "You've gotta do this. He's you're gonna, you're gonna be able to do this. You have something that I don't have. You're really great at networking people like you." I'm like, "Do they really like what?" And he's, " No, people like being around you. You make friends easy and people really do enjoy being around you and they like know that you're smart and you're gonna be able to do this." So, that's how this all started. And yes, I was really freaked out when I first started, but every day when I had bad days, I'm like, "Everything always works itself out." [00:29:14] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. [00:29:14] Staci Miller: "Have you ever not been in a situation where everything works itself out?" "No. No." So I'm like, "Well, if I, if it doesn't, I'll get a new dream, but I don't-- once you hit this, this year, like year three and you know you're still growing, you don't have to get a new dream, you just keep going and you're like, this dream is happening. I'm gonna keep it going." [00:29:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. What was it like building a team? Did you start off as a one-woman show, or did you have support at the beginning? How did that work? [00:29:43] Staci Miller: So at first, actually my designer's father was working with me and he called me out of the blue and he's " Hey. I have this client, she doesn't have any human factors person working with her, but I know that she needs it and do you wanna talk to her? I know you're not working at Meta," because I put on my, oh. LinkedIn profile Open to Work. So he called me like within two days, like seriously, like people started to call me and that was when I was already like, "I'm gonna do my own thing. I'm just gonna do my own thing." So the universe just brought me a gift, right? And I met this first client and I started to work with her, and at first everything was super cool. The first year it was great, and I really liked working with her, but she also needed a couple of other things. She needed an IFU and she needed design quality assurance. I'm like, "Check, check. I can get both those things done." So I called my friend Maria, "Hey, do you wanna work with me? She's " Hey. Yeah, totally." Because we had already worked together and we knew each other pretty well. So it wasn't like it was difficult to make that connection. And, and she knows my personality. I know her personality, and I know we both work extremely hard and we have that in common. So I wasn't, never, would I be worried about Maria. And then I found I wasn't, I didn't even have a designer yet on staff. And I found someone who used to do instructions for use for a different company I worked for. I called him like, "Hey, can you do this?" He's " Yeah, yeah." So I got all that done for this other client. I'm like, "I can do this. I can do this. I can, I can find people." I know so many intelligent people who love what they do and have a fire for it every day. And then the evolution started to happen. And then I asked someone to work with me to do sales, and then they said, "Yes." And then we started to pitch people that I was friends with and knew, and sometimes they said yes, and sometimes they said no. I think the first year, I think I pitched over like $4 million in business and I got 20,000. No, I got, I got 80,000, something like that. Something, something small and I'm like, "Why am I pitching so much? This is like taking so much time outta my day," that I found someone to work with me. His name was Adam and I still actually work with Adam and he, but he's a big picture guy and he started to work with me a little bit and help me like navigate through some things. Even to this day, we talk and he's not fully, fully, fully on onboarded, but if, if some. Of the clients that he lands do come on board, he will be back on board and he will be working with me again. And then I had a salesperson this last year and I realized just I needed more of a hunter-gatherer. So like we're just going in a different direction, right? So I had that, and then last year my goal was to bring my designer Maddie on full-time. And I was able to do that too. So everything that I've kind of just said, "I'm gonna do this this year, I've been able to do this year." And I'm not taking this lightly. Like I have a board of directors, which are people who are, have different perspectives on finance because that's my weakest link, I would say. A professor at UCLA, his name's Sean Pat, also a good friend of mine. He's on my board. And my brother-in-law and my nephew, who is new in his life and on his journey, is on my board as well, and I kind of wanted him on my board so he can see what it looks like to be an entrepreneur and see what growth looks like year over year because he is already working for companies. He's, he's like 25, I think, and he's already being groomed to be in upper management. He's got upper management written all over him as like the, as like people would say in like cute little circles. And then my my brother-in-law, he is one of the CFOs at Mayo Clinic, so these are people who have some in medical, some in finance, some in finance, in medical, just helping me like grow. I throw things past them and they help, you know, make decisions for the year. And they tell me like, they give me feedback and, and work through things that I'm doing and what they think is right, what they don't think is right. And sometimes I listen, sometimes I don't. You know, like... [00:33:28] Lindsey Dinneen: Well, yeah. [00:33:29] Staci Miller: Just really depends like where I'm at and what I wanna do and where we wanna grow. [00:33:34] Lindsey Dinneen: Yeah. Excellent. Okay. So I'm curious, especially within medtech specifically, are there moments that really stand out to you as just affirming, "Oh my goodness, I am in the right place at the right time." [00:33:49] Staci Miller: Things keep happening, so, every time I speak, like I, I spoke at Project Medtech, people bombarded me. They're like, "We wanna work with you. We wanna work with you. We should talk, we should talk." Anytime I go to a symposium I walk away with two or three leads. People coming up to me, "Oh, do you do this thing? We should really talk. We should really talk." So, just being in the situation like that kind of tells me that I'm in the right direction. And the other thing is we're growing year over year. If you take a 10,000 foot view of where I was year one versus year three now, very, very different. Extremely different. And like I said, I do have, I do have other consultants that work with me. I don't want you to think it's just like a two person shop. It's not, there's other consultants that work with me but they're as needed. They're not full employees, which I think is really helpful in a situation like this. If you're a founder starting up from scratch and you're not, you don't have, I'm not trying to get angel investors. I'm not trying to get people to push money into my company. I am building it literally from zero to whatever it is that I make. And so that, that's a, what I would call like a slow burn of, you have to build your foundation, you have to manage to the capital that you do have, and then you, then you go to the next level and you do the same thing and then you do the same thing. And there's a lot of consistency with the business now, and I see a lot of people targeting me for that consistency. And as, as we are growing, like people are engaging with us on a different level, which is exciting to see. That's always exciting. [00:35:20] Lindsey Dinneen: Yes. [00:35:20] Staci Miller: That's kind of how I know. Yeah. [00:35:23] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. Awesome. Okay, so pivoting the conversation a little bit just for fun. [00:35:28] Staci Miller: Cool. [00:35:30] Lindsey Dinneen: Imagine that you were to be offered a million dollars to teach a masterclass on anything you want. Could be within your industry, but it doesn't have to be. What would you choose to teach? [00:35:40] Staci Miller: That's a great question. I love, I think it's very important when you do what you do for a living to have something that isn't that for yourself. So I, there's very specific ways as to how I unwind at the end of the day. One of those things is cooking. I would totally do a masterclass in being a home chef. Like I'm, I'm not even a chef like that. I've never gone to culinary school, but I absolutely, I make my own breads. I make chutney sometimes when, when I want some. I would do a masterclass on-- I'm not Gordon Ramsey. I'm not Thomas Keller. Here's what it looks like to be a home cook. And here's the, the five things that you actually need. And this is what you should learn how to make first. Like I remember the first time I was trying to make pasta or something, I boiled the water to death. There was no water left in the pond. Like I didn't even know what I was doing. I, maybe I walked away from it, I don't know, but I destroyed the pot. My mom's " What were you doing?" I was like, "Making pasta." And she's " What, what, what happened? You ruined the pot." I'm like, "I'm not, I just did it wrong." So I would probably do a masterclass in how to just take that first step learning how to make your own food, right? And talk about food 'cause I like food. There you go. That's what I would do. [00:36:52] Lindsey Dinneen: Love it. I love food and I love talking about it. So, that sounds like a great class. [00:36:58] Staci Miller: I would do, I would totally do it. [00:36:59] Lindsey Dinneen: Okay, and then how do you wish to be remembered after you leave this world? [00:37:07] Staci Miller: This might be dating me, but Roy Orbison who wrote the song, "Pretty Woman" that was also in the movie, "Pretty Woman" wrote that he "just wanted to be remembered." And I thought that was really interesting. And I think that everybody knows that song knows that it's the guy like, I don't know if you know like the artist, but I think even to this day, that song, generationally, people know that song. I don't know how I wanna be remembered, but this is how I wanna impact the world. So it's kind of like that, but kind of not. I believe that knowledge transfer is the most powerful thing that we have amongst generations. And I want the next generation to be better than me, which is probably, in my opinion, I'm kind of kind of strict about this, probably a tall order, 'cause I'm like very picky. But, I have mentored and, and taught people my craft, and I want them to be better than me so they can mentor people and be better at this craft. So if I leave one mark on this world, it's that I have taught somebody what I know how to do and I expect them to do it better than me. And I don't mentor just anybody. So if I'm mentoring you is, and I'm putting all this energy into you, you better, you better bring it. And the people that I have worked with and have mentored are doing extremely well in their careers, and that's, that's kind of a thing that I like about, like what we do and how I do it. So I don't know if I would be specifically remembered for that, but I do know that it would move our industry forward and that makes me happy. [00:38:39] Lindsey Dinneen: I love that. That's a beautiful legacy. All right, and then final question. What is one I know, what is one thing that makes you smile every time you see or think about it? [00:38:52] Staci Miller: When I see what I'm building or, or how I'm building it in the future and I really go deep within my, my consciousness about this is what I'm gonna do next. This is how I'm gonna do it. This is what makes me feel really alive. I get so excited. I get like goosebumps. I start smiling. I, I'm a big-- I don't know if you do this, Lindsey, but I do this-- I kind of dance around a little bit. Like I dance when I'm making food, I dance and most people dunno that about me. But I, but my closest friends I remember I was working with this one guy and he looks at me, he's " Do you ever stop dancing?" I'm like, "Nope. Nope, Nope. Gotta dance." So all that stuff like starts to happen. And I just get really excited about the things that I'm trying to build, what I'm trying to master in my own world, what I'm trying to create. And that's what gives me like so much excitement. And then a number two would be my cats, because they're ridiculous and I love them and they give me so much love and they make me smile all the time too. [00:39:52] Lindsey Dinneen: Oh yes, those are great answers. I love that so much. It is exciting to see. Dreams come true. I can totally understand that answer of getting the, the excitement, the tingles, and then yeah, I, yeah, I, I obviously relate to dancing around all the time, and especially like celebratory dances. They're, my celebratory dances are the goofiest, most ridiculous things you've ever seen, but I'm happy! So. [00:40:20] Staci Miller: As long as you're happy, that's all that really matters, right? Like that vibe that you're putting out there and the happiness and the giddiness, like the things that I'm building in my mind, like they haven't happened yet, but I'm dancing like they have, you know, because I hope that they do. Like there you go. And I think that's important. I love it. [00:40:35] Lindsey Dinneen: True embodiment of the vision. I love it. Well, well, Staci, this has been a great conversation. Thank you so much for your insights and your stories, and we are so honored to be making a donation on your behalf today to Feeding America, which works to end hunger in the United States by partnering with food banks, food pantries, and local food programs to bring food to people facing hunger, and also they advocate for policies that create long term solutions to hunger. So thank you so much for choosing that charity to support. And gosh, I just wish you the most continued success as you work to change lives for a better world. [00:41:15] Staci Miller: Thank you, thank you. It was so much fun being with you today. I appreciate this and it was so much fun to talk about. And yeah, I can't wait to see you in the next couple weeks too. So we'll see each other soon. [00:41:26] Lindsey Dinneen: Yay! Sounds good. Well, thanks again and have the best rest of your day. [00:41:32] Dan Purvis: The Leading Difference is brought to you by Velentium Medical. Velentium Medical is a full service CDMO, serving medtech clients worldwide to securely design, manufacture, and test class two and class three medical devices. Velentium Medical's four units include research and development-- pairing electronic and mechanical design, embedded firmware, mobile app development, and cloud systems with the human factor studies and systems engineering necessary to streamline medical device regulatory approval; contract manufacturing-- building medical products at the prototype, clinical, and commercial levels in the US, as well as in low cost regions in 1345 certified and FDA registered Class VII clean rooms; cybersecurity-- generating the 12 cybersecurity design artifacts required for FDA submission; and automated test systems, assuring that every device produced is exactly the same as the device that was approved. Visit VelentiumMedical.com to explore how we can work together to change lives for a better world.

This episode covers: Cardiology This Week: A concise summary of recent studies The heart in high altitude Mitral annular disjunction Mythbusters: Weekend mortality Host: Rick Grobbee Guests: JP Carpenter, Kristina Haugaa, Silvia Ulrich Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2563 Want to watch that extended interview on mitral annular disjonction, go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2563?resource=interview   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partner. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. All declarations of interest are listed at the end of the episode. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. ESC TV Today uses a range of tools and resources (including AI) to support content production. All content is reviewed and approved by the editorial team. Statements and opinions expressed by guest speakers are their own.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Rick Grobbee, Kristina Haugaa, Nicolle Kraenkel and Silvia Ulrich have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede, Viatris. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Terumo. David Duncker has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: lecture honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientifics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Microport, Pfizer, Sanofi, Zoll. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Felix Mahfoud has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK), Deutsche Herzstiftung, Ablative Solutions, ReCor Medical. Consulting fees, payment honoraria lectures, presentations, speaker, support travel costs: Ablative Solutions, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Inari, Recor Medical, Medtronic, Philips, Merck. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

Host: Rick Grobbee Guest: Kristina Haugaa Want to watch that extended interview on https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2563?resource=interview Go to: Want to watch that episode? Go to: https://esc365.escardio.org/event/2563   Disclaimer ESC TV Today is supported by Novartis through an independent funding. The programme has not been influenced in any way by its funding partner. This programme is intended for health care professionals only and is to be used for educational purposes. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) does not aim to promote medicinal products nor devices. Any views or opinions expressed are the presenters' own and do not reflect the views of the ESC. All declarations of interest are listed at the end of the episode. The ESC is not liable for any translated content of this video. The English language always prevails. ESC TV Today uses a range of tools and resources (including AI) to support content production. All content is reviewed and approved by the editorial team. Statements and opinions expressed by guest speakers are their own.   Declarations of interests Stephan Achenbach, Yasmina Bououdina, Rick Grobbee, Kristina Haugaa and Nicolle Kraenkel have declared to have no potential conflicts of interest to report. Carlos Aguiar has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: personal fees for consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbott, AbbVie, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BiAL, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Tecnimede, Viatris. John-Paul Carpenter has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: stockholder MyCardium AI. Davide Capodanno has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott Vascular, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Terumo. David Duncker has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: lecture honoraria from Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientifics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Microport, Pfizer, Sanofi, Zoll. Konstantinos Koskinas has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: honoraria from MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi. Felix Mahfoud has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: research grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK), Deutsche Herzstiftung, Ablative Solutions, ReCor Medical. Consulting fees, payment honoraria lectures, presentations, speaker, support travel costs: Ablative Solutions, Astra-Zeneca, Novartis, Inari, Recor Medical, Medtronic, Philips, Merck. Steffen Petersen has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: consultancy for Circle Cardiovascular Imaging Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Emma Svennberg has declared to have potential conflicts of interest to report: Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers, Squibb-Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.

What diabetes technology is actually helping people right now—and how do you figure out what fits best into your life?In this 100th episode of the TCOYD Podcast, Dr. E and Dr. P are joined by diabetes nurse practitioner and educator Rachael Sood, founder of The Diabetes Collective, to talk through the latest updates in diabetes technology and what they're seeing in real-world diabetes care.The conversation focuses on how much diabetes technology has changed over the past few years, from hybrid closed loop systems and CGMs to new developments in sensing and automation. Rather than focusing on one “best” device, the discussion centers around finding the right fit for each person's lifestyle, preferences, and goals.Dr. E, Dr. P, and Rachael also talk about where technology may be headed next, including dual glucose and ketone sensors, more compatibility between pumps and CGMs, and the possibility of systems that require less hands-on work from people living with diabetes. The takeaway is encouraging: there are more tools and options than ever before, and diabetes technology continues to move toward making daily management simpler, safer, and more flexible.Key Topics• Choosing the right insulin pump and CGM• Tubed vs. tubeless pump systems• How lifestyle and personal preference shape technology choices• The latest updates in automated insulin delivery systems• Dexcom G7 10-day vs. 15-day sensors• Abbott's dual glucose and ketone sensor technology• Medtronic's newest technology developments• Real-world conversations patients have about wearing devices• Continuous ketone monitoring and DKA prevention• The future of fully closed loop systems• Why compatibility between pumps and CGMs matters• Technology options for people with type 2 diabetes• Where diabetes technology may be headed next✨ Subscribe for practical diabetes management tips, technology updates, and treatment breakthroughs that help people with diabetes live healthier, more flexible lives.More diabetes resources:Website: tcoyd.orgBlog: tcoyd.org/blogPodcast: tcoydthepodcast.transistor.fmInstagram:   / tcoydFacebook:   / tcoydStay connected! Sign up for our monthly newsletter here!Support TCOYD's educational programs: tcoyd.org/donate ★ Support this podcast ★

Comedy on a TuesdayFirst,  a look at this day in History.Then, The Fred Allen Show, originally broadcast  May 26, 1946, 80 years ago, King for a Day.  Fred and guest Jack Benny are heard on Fred's new quiz show, "King For A Day."  Followed by The Jimmy Durante Show, originally broadcast May 26, 1948, 78 years ago. Jimmy and guest Victor Moore take another of their musical political trips around the country. Then, The Abbott and Costello Show, originally broadcast May 26, 1948, 78 years ago, Costello joins the Foreign Legion.  Another traffic ticket follows a routine about Costello's Aunt May. Costello has been invited to join, "The Legion." The boys pay a visit to, "Honest Hassan, Used Camel Dealer." Followed by The Great Gildersleeve starring Willard Waterman, originally broadcast  May 26, 1954, 72 years ago, Visit from Aunt Hattie.  . Leroy's lack of discipline prompts a crackdown by Gildersleeve and a visit from Aunt Hattie!Finally, Claudia, originally broadcast May 26, 1948, 78 years ago, Late for the Train.   Trying to get a taxi in New York City. Kathryn Bard and Paul Crabtree star.  Thanks to Bill B for supporting our podcast by using the Buy Me a Coffee function at http://classicradio.streamCheck out Professor Bees Digestive Aid at profbees.com and use my promo code WYATT to save 10% when you order! Find the Family Fallout Shelter Booklet Here: https://www.survivorlibrary.com/library/the_family_fallout_shelter_1959.pdfhttps://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2006/11/fallout-shelter-handbook-1962.html

How do you discern the will of God in a world full of noise, uncertainty, and competing voices? Whether facing major life decisions or everyday choices, many people wrestle with wanting clarity while fearing they might miss God’s plan. Rather than treating God’s will like a hidden mystery to decode, we’re invited into a deeper relationship built on trust, wisdom, and spiritual maturity. Discernment grows as we learn to recognize God’s voice through His Word, wise counsel, prayer, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and even the circumstances of life. God’s desire is not simply to hand out detailed instructions for every decision, but to shape people who walk closely with Him. Through prayer and surrender, our hearts become more aligned with His character and priorities. Even when the path forward feels unclear, God is not distant or indifferent—He is patient, present, and faithful to lead each step. True discernment is less about achieving perfect certainty and more about growing in trust as you faithfully follow Him.

Practicing Love When You Mess Up (5.24.26, Maddie Abbott) by River NYC Sermons

Thomas Massie suffers a brutal Kentucky primary loss as conservatives react to his bitter concession speech and controversial comments that sparked backlash online. Scott Jennings, Dave Smith, and others weigh in while Trump shakes up Texas politics with a major endorsement of Ken Paxton.JD Vance dominates a fiery press conference, clashes with reporters, and shuts down new accusations against Trump as CNN and establishment Republicans continue to panic over the 2026 political landscape. We also break down shocking new election predictions in Texas, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.Plus: the San Diego mosque shooting investigation takes another turn after the alleged attackers' manifesto is released, Candace Owens reacts to the Hunter Biden interview buzz, Nick Shirley goes viral in the UK protests, and the internet erupts over the latest culture war stories involving TikTok, homelessness, sports, and gender ideology.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Register now for Bulwark Capital's FREE “Impact of Energy" live webinar May 21st at 3:30pm Pacific. https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.comHead to https://mudwtr.com/CHICKS to get an exclusive deal—up to 43% off your entire order, plus free shipping and a free rechargeable frother when you use code CHICKS. Our listeners get 10% off at StopBox when you use code THECHICKS at checkout. Head to https://StopBoxUSA.com Fresh Pressed Olive Oil gives you a FREE full-size $49 bottle for just $1 shipping—no commitment. Taste the difference at https://ChicksLoveOliveOil.comBecause readiness isn't just for the field—it's for life. Explore simple ways to stay prepared at https://ReadyWise.com and save 10% with Chicks10Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite